| |
Main
Date: 30 Mar 2008 01:45:50
From: Offramp
Subject: Karpov-Kasparov (I) 1984-5, game 24; an unusual aspect to a
|
Twenty-four years ago.....
[Event "K-K I. World Chess Ch, Moscow 1984-5"]
[Site "Moscow, Hall of Columns"]
[Date "1984.11.16"]
[Round "24"]
[White "Kasparov, Garry"]
[Black "Karpov, Anatoly"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A33"]
[WhiteElo "2715"]
[BlackElo "2705"]
[PlyCount "33"]
[EventDate "1984.09.09"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 e6 6. g3 Qb6 7. Nb3
d5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bg2 Nxc3 10. bxc3 Be7 11. O-O O-O 12. Be3 Qc7 13.
Nd4 Rd8 14. Qa4 Bd7 15. Nxc6 Bxc6 16. Bxc6 bxc6 17. c4 $136
{1.56-1.38. Karpov now took a time out.} 1/2-1/2
The interesting thing here is the clock times. Kasparov was actually
running short of time: he had 34 minutes to make 23 moves. Karpov had
52 minutes. The position is dead level, in any case.
Any suggestions as to why G
K took so long? Does anyone know which moves too the longest?
|
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2008 12:09:58
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Conceptually best time control
|
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
>BTW, it was senior master D.W.B.,
Who is "senior master D.W.B"?
>who had the association of this kind of time
>control with the hourglass.
With the glass half full at the start, I presume.
>When a position requires deeper thought then
>both players take more time, which translates
>into better chess, where time is spent according
>to the depth of the game. Thus such a time control
>would be especially proper for world championship
>matches.
If one player needs more time thinking while the other
doesn't (because he has figured out a new line in a
commonly-used opening, for example), it might be a
disadvantage for him to use this clock scheme.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| | |
Date: 31 Mar 2008 13:51:52
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Conceptually best time control
|
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
>> who had the association of this kind of time control with the
>> hourglass.
>
> With the glass half full at the start, I presume.
No, half empty!
Seriously, though, to implement the time control where neither player
is allowed to get more than N minutes ahead of his opponent, you'd
need an hour glass that ran for 2N minutes, initially with N minutes'
of sand in each half. But I'd hate to be the guy who had to set up
the clocks for a big tournament!
(Why are they called hour glasses, even though they don't necessarily
run for an hour?)
>> When a position requires deeper thought then both players take more
>> time, which translates into better chess, where time is spent
>> according to the depth of the game. Thus such a time control would
>> be especially proper for world championship matches.
>
> If one player needs more time thinking while the other doesn't
> (because he has figured out a new line in a commonly-used opening,
> for example), it might be a disadvantage for him to use this clock
> scheme.
Sure, but he's at a disadvantage anyway, having just had a novelty
sprung on him.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Carnivorous T-Shirt (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fashion statement but it's full
of teeth!
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2008 12:02:42
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Conceptually best time control
|
Offramp wrote:
>> On 30, 2:15 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
You might want to consider deleting the "Guy Macon wrote" when you
have trimmed your reply in such a way that it does not contain any
words that were actually written by Guy Macon...
>Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
>
>> Then a player loses on time
>> when s/he falls behind on time by N full seconds.
>
>That was the condition in the famous Ed. Lasker-Thomas game.
>http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/laskerthomas.html
>"Lasker gave the date as 1911 and described the encounter as 'a so-
>called "five-minute" game, i.e. a game played with clocks as fast or
>as slowly as the players like, but with the condition that neither
>player must exceed the total time of the other by more than five
>minutes at any stage'."
Interesting! Any idea who invented it or whether anyone earlier
described it? I would like to give it a name that credits the
inventor when I refer to it.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2008 02:35:10
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Conceptually best time control / Re: Karpov-Kasparov (I) 1984-5,
|
On 31, 1:18 am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 31, 8:51 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 30, 2:15 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> > Then a player loses on time
> > when s/he falls behind on time by N full seconds.
>
> That was the condition in the famous Ed. Lasker-Thomas game.http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/laskerthomas.html
> "Lasker gave the date as 1911 and described the encounter as 'a so-
> called "five-minute" game, i.e. a game played with clocks as fast or
> as slowly as the players like, but with the condition that neither
> player must exceed the total time of the other by more than five
> minutes at any stage'."
Thank you, very-very much for this information!
BTW, it was senior master D.W.B., who had
the association of this kind of time
control with the hourglass.
When a position requires deeper thought then
both players take more time, which translates
into better chess, where time is spent according
to the depth of the game. Thus such a time control
would be especially proper for world championship
matches. One could allow then even
N := 2.5h = 8000 seconds.
Best regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2008 01:18:37
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Conceptually best time control / Re: Karpov-Kasparov (I) 1984-5,
|
On 31, 8:51 am, "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On 30, 2:15 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> Then a player loses on time
> when s/he falls behind on time by N full seconds.
That was the condition in the famous Ed. Lasker-Thomas game.
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/laskerthomas.html
"Lasker gave the date as 1911 and described the encounter as 'a so-
called "five-minute" game, i.e. a game played with clocks as fast or
as slowly as the players like, but with the condition that neither
player must exceed the total time of the other by more than five
minutes at any stage'."
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2008 00:51:31
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Conceptually best time control / Re: Karpov-Kasparov (I) 1984-5, game
|
On 30, 2:15 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Offramp wrote:
> For the record:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> NO DELAY, NO INCREMENT: When you start your clock, it starts
> decrementing. (Analog chess clocks act this way).
>
> [...]
>
> DUAL INCREMENT (DI): When you start your clock, the clocks
> of both players instantly increment by N seconds, then your
> clock starts decrementing. When your opponent starts his
> clock (thus stopping yours), the clocks of both players
> instantly increment by N seconds, then your opponent's clock
> starts decrementing. N is half the size of the other schemes.
When I played OTB, and later at chess servers
like ICC etc, I never started my own clock, and
neither my opponent was starting her/his. Why?
I was always stopping my own clock, and starting
my opponent's clock. Have I done something illegal?
Now seriously. Years ago I have proposed
conceptually the best time control, which
can be used either by itself or as a feature
combined with the standard features (total time
and increment). You may call my time control
to be the hourglass control. Namely, fix a number
N of seconds; say 10 seconds for pretty fast
blitz like games, 300 seconds for "active chess"
like games, or N := 1800 seconds or even more
for serious chess. Then a player loses on time
when s/he falls behind on time by N full seconds.
If you don't see the advantages of this
time control, I'll gladly explain.
Regards,
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 30 Mar 2008 09:15:33
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Karpov-Kasparov (I) 1984-5, game 24; an unusual aspect to a dull-looking game
|
Offramp wrote:
>
>Twenty-four years ago.....
>
>[Event "K-K I. World Chess Ch, Moscow 1984-5"]
>[Site "Moscow, Hall of Columns"]
>[Date "1984.11.16"]
>[Round "24"]
>[White "Kasparov, Garry"]
>[Black "Karpov, Anatoly"]
>[Result "1/2-1/2"]
>[ECO "A33"]
>[WhiteElo "2715"]
>[BlackElo "2705"]
>[PlyCount "33"]
>[EventDate "1984.09.09"]
>
>1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 e6 6. g3 Qb6 7. Nb3
>d5 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bg2 Nxc3 10. bxc3 Be7 11. O-O O-O 12. Be3 Qc7 13.
>Nd4 Rd8 14. Qa4 Bd7 15. Nxc6 Bxc6 16. Bxc6 bxc6 17. c4 $136
>{1.56-1.38. Karpov now took a time out.} 1/2-1/2
>
>The interesting thing here is the clock times. Kasparov was actually
>running short of time: he had 34 minutes to make 23 moves. Karpov had
>52 minutes. The position is dead level, in any case.
>Any suggestions as to why G
>K took so long? Does anyone know which moves too the longest?
After moving his rook on move twenty six, Kasparov forgot
to punch his clock. Karpov was not required to remind
Kasparov and despite being short on time, quietly sat there
studying the board without making a move. The arbitrator,
the great Gert Gijssen, was not permitted to remind Kasparov
either, and also sat quietly. It took Kasparov three minutes
before realizing his mistake and pressing his clock, leaving
him with less than a minute for the fourteen remaining moves
before the time control at move forty.
This is known as the Kasparov delay, a chess-losing technique
that Phil Innes AKA Chees One claims to have invented.
For the record:
--------------------------------------------------
Here are descriptions of six ways to handle delays, followed
by what I believe are the proper names for each. I welcome
any discusion/corrections/references concerning whether I
got the naming right.
NO DELAY, NO INCREMENT: When you start your clock, it starts
decrementing. (Analog chess clocks act this way).
DELAY: When you start your clock, it freezes for N seconds
and then starts decrementing.
INCREMENT AT START (IAS): When you start your clock, it
instantly increments by N seconds, then starts decrementing.
INCREMENT AT END (IAA): When you start your clock, it starts
decrementing. When your opponent starts his clock (thus
stopping yours), your clock instantly increments by N
seconds.
INCREMENT AT END WITH LIMIT (IIEL): When you start your
clock, it starts decrementing. When your opponent starts
his clock (thus stopping yours), your clock instantly
increments by N seconds or the amount of time you used,
whichever is smaller.
DUAL INCREMENT (DI): When you start your clock, the clocks
of both players instantly increment by N seconds, then your
clock starts decrementing. When your opponent starts his
clock (thus stopping yours), the clocks of both players
instantly increment by N seconds, then your opponent's clock
starts decrementing. N is half the size of the other schemes.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I believe that the following naming is correct, but I
welcome corrections -- especially with references.
DELAY is properly called Bronstein Delay. It is sometimes
called Andante, US-style or USCF-style,
INCREMENT AT START is properly called Fischer Increment.
It is sometimes called FIDE-style, bonus, or progressive.
INCREMENT AT END is, as far as I can tell, only a
theoretical possibility, not used in actual play. I can't
think of any advantage it has over Fischer Increment.
INCREMENT AT END WITH LIMIT is properly called
Bronstein Increment. It is sometimes called Adagio or
non-cumulative addback.
DUAL INCREMENT is something I just invented on the spot.
If nobody else thought of it first and it caches on,
I claim the name "Macon Increment" <grin >.
Bronstein Delay and Bronstein Increment have a subtle
real-world difference. Imagine two players, each with five
seconds left. One is using Bronstein Delay and the other
Bronstein Increment. The Bronstein Delay player has ten
seconds before he loses on time -- five seconds with his
clock frozen and five seconds as it decrements down to zero.
The Bronstein Increment player has five seconds before he
loses on time. Adding 5 seconds at the very start of the
Bronstein Increment or allowing the Bronstein Increment
player to run out of time then increment back to where he
still has time would make them mathematically equivalent,
but there would still be a big psychological difference.
Does anyone know exactly how Bronstein described his
invention? I rather suspect that he described either
Bronstein Delay or Bronstein Increment and that an
electronic chess clock manufacturer created the other
variation.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
|
