| |
Main
Date: 18 Mar 2008 09:07:43
From:
Subject: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
I came across this tournament rule in some chess book reading, and am
having
some trouble understanding the details and its application.
Can someone elaborate it a bit, in layman's terms? E.g. what is the
purpose of
switching to a digital clock with time delay? How does a player
decide when is
a good time to raise such a claim?
Thanks,
Raymond
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Mar 2008 20:11:09
From:
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 24, 1:10 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have never seen any merit to the doubling cube idea, because
> the problem it solves, players taking too long to resign, doesn't
> seem to exist. If anything, GMs resign too soon from the point
> of view of an audience, because the weaker audience doesn't
> understand how to win from the final position.
The idea of the doubling cube was not a way to get someone to resign
soon, but a way to deal with draws, and monotonous scoring that
happens during a multiple game match. It is also meant to add a way
to show the psychological and emotional states (confidence level) to
people who are watching. It makes manifest a meta-element so there is
something beyond just the players and the board to watch for. It is
something people can relate to who don't follow chess. That is the
reason why I suggested it, not to make someone resign.
> In general, chess' meta-game could be improved by trading
> off time, color, and points. (For example, instead of having
> colors be assigned, giving one side an advantage, you could
> give both sides an equal opportunity to have White, depending
> on how much time/points they are willing to pay for it.)
I have looked at that also. Now, is there a way to make adjustments
in a game to this formula, in order to give specators something to
watch besides the game they can relate to?
> Your idea here of having on-the-fly clock adjustments or using
> clock to break ties seems original and worthy of experimentation.
> My gut reaction to your point scheme is that it would be too
> dangerous to let yourself get behind on points. But it is
> certainly an intriguing idea. Keep them coming!
One of my large lists I have to do with IAGO/IAGO World Tour is get
chess (and other abstract strategy games) on TV and somehow get them
decent ratings. This is part of a larger strategy to recruit people
into the games involved. I have to give thoughts to the spectators
and people who don't know the game. The idea of a variation on a
Bronstein clock is done to have the pacing be more favorable to people
watching live, to keep the action moving. The accelerating the clock
was an alternative to the doubling cube. All this is meant to give
people who don't know chess a hook to keep watching until they can
figure it out. And yes it is dangerous to fall too far behind on
time. But the consequences is playing for draw rights. Now you stall
too long, you could end up running out time and lose that way. Well,
this is like running out of time in chess, right? It is just changes
the time to be more spectator friendly.
The other way to fix the pacing issue is with reality TV style
editing. You chop out the dead spots, and have the moves come in
regular and predictable intervals, while providing enough of a gap so
people understand what is going on who watch.
To show an example of a time edit, you can see how this YouTube video
for Beyond Chess (a chess variant) works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwj-XL9Ql_w
This should also give people here who know chess, and haven't seen
this game before, what people who don't know chess look at when they
see chess going on. This is why I say pacing is important. I believe
the pacing there is pretty good for this video. It runs around 2 1/2
minutes.
- Rich
|
| | |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 09:15:30
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I have never seen any merit to the doubling cube idea, because
>> the problem it solves, players taking too long to resign, doesn't
>> seem to exist.
For once, we're in total agreement. (Well, weak players often take
too long to resign but that's not really a problem.)
> The idea of the doubling cube was not a way to get someone to resign
> soon, but a way to deal with draws
How does it deal with draws? Once the doubling cube has been used a
couple of times, the players are surely much more likely to agree a
draw in any sort of unclear position than to risk losing four or eight
or sixteen points to their opponent.
> and monotonous scoring that happens during a multiple game match.
You think the *scoring system* is monotonous?!? Matches these days
last twelve or fourteen games. Nobody complains that a football
league season might have forty games or more, all scored in the same
old, boring old-three-points-for-a-win-one-for-a-draw scheme. I'm
sure people can cope with a fixed scoring system for fourteen games.
Dude, it's not the scoring system that stops chess making good TV.
It's the fact that it involves two people sitting at a table moving
little pieces of wood for six hours in a way that the general public
understands not one jot and people like us, who devote a substantial
amount of time to the game, understand not very much.
> It is also meant to add a way to show the psychological and
> emotional states (confidence level) to people who are watching. It
> makes manifest a meta-element so there is something beyond just the
> players and the board to watch for. It is something people can
> relate to who don't follow chess.
I still don't buy this idea that we can add meta-elements to chess
that will make it appealing to people who fundamentally don't
understand chess. After all, if you can make chess appealing to the
layman by adding these meta-elements, you should be able to make any
other competitive intellectual activity appealing in exactly the same
way.
So, here's a thought experiment. Do you believe that a competition
where the players attempt to correctly multiply, say, twenty-digit
numbers would be interesting to the public? (I'm guessing `no', or
this experiment has already fallen flat on its face and you should
substitute some other boring-but-difficult activity. I mean
interesting beyond a brief freak-show gloss of `Wow, that guy can
multiply two twenty-digit numbers in only ten minutes!') Now, if
doubling cubes, fancy time controls, bidding for initial advantage and
all those other things that people have suggested are going to make
chess popular with people who don't understand chess, they should also
make long-multiplication competitions popular with people who aren't
interested in arithmetic. So, do you think that the public would be
interested in a long-multiplication match where the competitors can
use a doubling cube and bid for how much time they get? I don't think
so.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Lead Flower (TM): it's like a flower
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ that weighs a ton!
|
| |
Date: 24 Mar 2008 17:33:21
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 23, 9:25 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> You would have to factor in ratings.
> If a game between two 1500-rated players
> is adjudicated as a win using a line that
> only a 2500-rated chess computer can find,
> that wouldn't be fair. But if you factor
> in ratings, what of the player who is
> playing his first rated game?
It is not necessary to try and predict the
actual result of continuing a game between
two duffers; all that is required would be to
implement an adjudication process which
is fair to both sides; in that sense, a
computer is perfect for the job.
But David Richerby already gave two
alternatives which allow for a fixed starting
time for the next round, so if we don't want
adjudications, we don't really need them.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 24 Mar 2008 17:27:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 23, 8:07 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Well, you want there to be a fixed time when the next round starts,
> > > right? The only options are sudden-death time controls or
> > > adjournments.
>
> > Wrong. There is another possibility which
> > still yields a "fixed time" for the start of the
> > next round; it's called adjudication.
> Nonsense. Adjudication is the worst possible solution.
Whiff! You missed the point, fella.
I was merely correcting a clumsy error by David
Richerby, who flatly stated that there were only
two options which allow for a fixed starting time
for the next round (see above).
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not recommend adjudications, though I
will point out how their use is no longer plagued
by problems like personal bias, since computers
can handle the job /objectively/.
> Computer evaluations are simplistic
Sounds a lot like human evaluations...
>, useful evaluation might take hours or
> days
Um, no. In reality, computers can surpass
the quality of human evaluations in about a
five seconds or so. Still, nobody's perfect.
> and deciding the result of a game on the basis of a computer
> program's valuation of .1 of a pawn plus or minus is moronic.
I agree that your jibberish is moronic. In my
experience, some top programs can normally
draw where the position score is several times
that number. Obviously, the rules would have
to be laid down /in advance/, and agreed to by
the participants. I vote for Rybka, with a win/
draw cutoff of 0.7, and analysis time of five
minutes. (Remember, while there will be rare
cases in which the adjudication is erroneous,
this is at least better than allowing human bias
to completely muck up the works.)
> Fortunately, there is zero chance of such a suggestion being taken
> seriously.
No kidding. Your idiocy lacked a source
for the 0.1 figure, for starters, which you
seem to have simply pulled out of your own
hindquarters. One could do much, much
better by simply asking the programmer to
suggest a number offhand. Duh!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 23 Mar 2008 15:22:29
From:
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 23, 9:25 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> help bot wrote:
>
> >David Richerby wrote:
>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > [...] given the determination of organizers to
> >> > use sudden-death, it was the best anyone could
> >> > come up with.
>
> >> Well, you want there to be a fixed time when the next
> >> round starts, right? The only options are sudden-death
> >> time controls or adjournments.
>
> >Wrong. There is another possibility which
> >still yields a "fixed time" for the start of the
> >next round; it's called adjudication.
>
> >-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Back in the old days, there were serious
> >problems with adjudication, including bias
> >on the part of the adjudicator which might
> >have him granting, say, Jose Capablanca a
> >draw where he has given Joe Patzer a loss.
> >But today, we have the answer to personal
> >bias: computers. It also just so happens
> >that the /strongest/ chess players in the
> >world are reasonably inexpensive programs,
> >and many tournament directors already
> >have a notebook computer handy, for their
> >pairings program. In addition, there are
> >sites on the internet which give easy
> >access to some basic endgame table-
> >bases (although of limited use for now).
>
> You would have to factor in ratings.
> If a game between two 1500-rated players
> is adjudicated as a win using a line that
> only a 2500-rated chess computer can find,
> that wouldn't be fair. But if you factor
> in ratings, what of the player who is
> playing his first rated game?
>
> I wonder if some variation on the backgammon
> doubling method of forcing a losing player
> to resign might work...
I have toyed around with the concept, looking at a lot of different
approaches to the issue, and saw some ways it can work. It always run
into issues, and lack of acceptance. I hear people use a doubling
cube for chess in some European countries as a way to wager.
I believe the issue here is mostly handling draws, and also having a
way to pressure one's opponent to fold. I believe using an offshoot
of a a Bronstein clock could be an answer here. Instead of just a
time delay, before you have your clock eaten into, you do it
differently. Each time a delay period (say a minute or 30 seconds)
passes, your opponent scores a point. If game is drawn, whomever has
the most points, wins the points for the draw. You can put pressure
on your opponent by reducing the amount of time each player has
between moves. You an also have it so that, if a player is going to
drag too long between moves, they can do a time out, to get extra
time. The end game can be reduced, by this time pressure method, to
10 seconds a move, causing the player worse off collapse. Of course,
you can also offer this version of preventing stalling. If a certain
number of these time periods passes without a move, a player can lose
the game.
Is this a heretical idea? Yes it is. Might it be worth considering?
I hope so. Part of it came out of the need to figure how you could do
time control for live chess that would make it more suitable for
spectators to watch.
Another way to do this, would be players periodically during the match
could reduce the amount of time left in the game. You look at how
much the person who has less time on their clock is left, and whomever
has control of the decision to reduce time, can reduce the time left
on the clocks by half what the player with less time on their clock
has. Think you have the game wrapped up? Well halve the time each
player has. That player then manages to get to decide if they want to
reduce time later. You could also set this time reduction up so that
players end up having to decide whether to quit or not. Maybe you
double the points the match is worth, like the doubling cube.
- Rich
|
| | |
Date: 24 Mar 2008 10:10:46
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:77a1c525-2217-4573-9921-c9530ebad908@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On 23, 9:25 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>> help bot wrote:
>>
>> >David Richerby wrote:
>>
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > [...] given the determination of organizers to
>> >> > use sudden-death, it was the best anyone could
>> >> > come up with.
>>
>> >> Well, you want there to be a fixed time when the next
>> >> round starts, right? The only options are sudden-death
>> >> time controls or adjournments.
>>
>> >Wrong. There is another possibility which
>> >still yields a "fixed time" for the start of the
>> >next round; it's called adjudication.
>>
>> >-------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > Back in the old days, there were serious
>> >problems with adjudication, including bias
>> >on the part of the adjudicator which might
>> >have him granting, say, Jose Capablanca a
>> >draw where he has given Joe Patzer a loss.
>> >But today, we have the answer to personal
>> >bias: computers. It also just so happens
>> >that the /strongest/ chess players in the
>> >world are reasonably inexpensive programs,
>> >and many tournament directors already
>> >have a notebook computer handy, for their
>> >pairings program. In addition, there are
>> >sites on the internet which give easy
>> >access to some basic endgame table-
>> >bases (although of limited use for now).
>>
>> You would have to factor in ratings.
>> If a game between two 1500-rated players
>> is adjudicated as a win using a line that
>> only a 2500-rated chess computer can find,
>> that wouldn't be fair. But if you factor
>> in ratings, what of the player who is
>> playing his first rated game?
>>
>> I wonder if some variation on the backgammon
>> doubling method of forcing a losing player
>> to resign might work...
>
> I have toyed around with the concept, looking at a lot of different
> approaches to the issue, and saw some ways it can work. It always run
> into issues, and lack of acceptance. I hear people use a doubling
> cube for chess in some European countries as a way to wager.
>
> I believe the issue here is mostly handling draws, and also having a
> way to pressure one's opponent to fold. I believe using an offshoot
> of a a Bronstein clock could be an answer here. Instead of just a
> time delay, before you have your clock eaten into, you do it
> differently. Each time a delay period (say a minute or 30 seconds)
> passes, your opponent scores a point. If game is drawn, whomever has
> the most points, wins the points for the draw. You can put pressure
> on your opponent by reducing the amount of time each player has
> between moves. You an also have it so that, if a player is going to
> drag too long between moves, they can do a time out, to get extra
> time. The end game can be reduced, by this time pressure method, to
> 10 seconds a move, causing the player worse off collapse. Of course,
> you can also offer this version of preventing stalling. If a certain
> number of these time periods passes without a move, a player can lose
> the game.
>
> Is this a heretical idea? Yes it is. Might it be worth considering?
> I hope so. Part of it came out of the need to figure how you could do
> time control for live chess that would make it more suitable for
> spectators to watch.
>
> Another way to do this, would be players periodically during the match
> could reduce the amount of time left in the game. You look at how
> much the person who has less time on their clock is left, and whomever
> has control of the decision to reduce time, can reduce the time left
> on the clocks by half what the player with less time on their clock
> has. Think you have the game wrapped up? Well halve the time each
> player has. That player then manages to get to decide if they want to
> reduce time later. You could also set this time reduction up so that
> players end up having to decide whether to quit or not. Maybe you
> double the points the match is worth, like the doubling cube.
I have never seen any merit to the doubling cube idea, because
the problem it solves, players taking too long to resign, doesn't
seem to exist. If anything, GMs resign too soon from the point
of view of an audience, because the weaker audience doesn't
understand how to win from the final position.
In general, chess' meta-game could be improved by trading
off time, color, and points. (For example, instead of having
colors be assigned, giving one side an advantage, you could
give both sides an equal opportunity to have White, depending
on how much time/points they are willing to pay for it.)
Your idea here of having on-the-fly clock adjustments or using
clock to break ties seems original and worthy of experimentation.
My gut reaction to your point scheme is that it would be too
dangerous to let yourself get behind on points. But it is
certainly an intriguing idea. Keep them coming!
> - Rich
|
| | |
Date: 24 Mar 2008 10:47:37
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>> I wonder if some variation on the backgammon doubling method of
>> forcing a losing player to resign might work...
>
> I have toyed around with the concept, looking at a lot of different
> approaches to the issue, and saw some ways it can work. It always
> run into issues, and lack of acceptance. I hear people use a
> doubling cube for chess in some European countries as a way to
> wager.
>
> I believe the issue here is mostly handling draws, and also having a
> way to pressure one's opponent to fold. I believe using an offshoot
> of a a Bronstein clock could be an answer here. Instead of just a
> time delay, before you have your clock eaten into, you do it
> differently. [...]
Essentially, what you seem to be saying is that faster games, with the
possibility of the players manipulating each other's clocks and
effectively asking each other to resign, will make chess more popular
as a spectator sport.
I disagree strongly. There are numerous rapidplay and blitz events
but these have not made chess into a spectator sport. Faster games do
not make chess any more popular with non-players and they reduce the
quality of the games and, therefore, reduce their interest to chess
players. A double loss! The game is no more appealing to people who
weren't interested before and is less appealing to those who were
interested.
You're also proposing to give the players more to think about
(strategies based on clock manipulation as well as moving the pieces)
in less time. That would seem to doubly reduce the quality of the
chess played and I don't, personally, see that allowing the players to
say `I bet five minutes on the clock that you're going to lose' will
make the game (which is, after all, an incomprehensible ritual of
shifting little pieces of wood around a table) any more interesting to
Joe Public.
All of these proposals to make chess `more exciting' fail to take into
account the fundamental problem. The supposed audience for chess
doesn't understand what chess is and why one move is any better than
any other. It doesn't matter how quickly or slowly the game
progresses.
Suppose there is a competition to read out novels in German. This
obviously isn't going to be popular in countries where German isn't
widely spoken. Changing the rules of the competition to reading out
short stories in German won't help. Messing around with time controls
and draw frequencies in chess is exactly the same thing.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Solar-Powered Sushi (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a raw fish but it doesn't work in
the dark!
|
| |
Date: 23 Mar 2008 13:25:53
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
help bot wrote:
>
>David Richerby wrote:
>
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > [...] given the determination of organizers to
>> > use sudden-death, it was the best anyone could
>> > come up with.
>>
>> Well, you want there to be a fixed time when the next
>> round starts, right? The only options are sudden-death
>> time controls or adjournments.
>
>Wrong. There is another possibility which
>still yields a "fixed time" for the start of the
>next round; it's called adjudication.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Back in the old days, there were serious
>problems with adjudication, including bias
>on the part of the adjudicator which might
>have him granting, say, Jose Capablanca a
>draw where he has given Joe Patzer a loss.
>But today, we have the answer to personal
>bias: computers. It also just so happens
>that the /strongest/ chess players in the
>world are reasonably inexpensive programs,
>and many tournament directors already
>have a notebook computer handy, for their
>pairings program. In addition, there are
>sites on the internet which give easy
>access to some basic endgame table-
>bases (although of limited use for now).
You would have to factor in ratings.
If a game between two 1500-rated players
is adjudicated as a win using a line that
only a 2500-rated chess computer can find,
that wouldn't be fair. But if you factor
in ratings, what of the player who is
playing his first rated game?
I wonder if some variation on the backgammon
doubling method of forcing a losing player
to resign might work...
|
| | |
Date: 23 Mar 2008 14:43:21
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> I wonder if some variation on the backgammon doubling method of
> forcing a losing player to resign might work...
Doubling only works in matches. In a tournament, the correct
procedure would be for each player to double every move so that
whoever wins gets the highest possible score.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Broken Mentholated Painting (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a Renaissance masterpiece but
it's invigorating and it doesn't work!
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2008 11:30:46
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>> I wonder if some variation on the backgammon doubling method of
>> forcing a losing player to resign might work...
>
> Doubling only works in matches. In a tournament, the correct
> procedure would be for each player to double every move so that
> whoever wins gets the highest possible score.
>
>
> Dave.
>
Not if you change the basic scoring to [-1, 0, +1] and you double BOTH
the positive gain for a win and the negative score for a loss.
Note that without the doubling, [-1,0,1] is the same as [0, 0.5, 1.0].
I suspect the actual effect would be to increase the number of draws.
After a few doubles, it becomes too expensive to take a risk and play
for the win.
Imagine how backgammon would change if you allowed players to agree to a
draw.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2008 19:02:27
From: David Richerby
Subject: Doubling cube for chess? (was Re: Insufficient Losing Chance)
|
Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>>> I wonder if some variation on the backgammon doubling method of
>>> forcing a losing player to resign might work...
>>
>> Doubling only works in matches. In a tournament, the correct
>> procedure would be for each player to double every move so that
>> whoever wins gets the highest possible score.
>
> Not if you change the basic scoring to [-1, 0, +1] and you double
> BOTH the positive gain for a win and the negative score for a loss.
That still doesn't quite work. In the last round, two middle-of-the-
field players may as well double to infinity because they've nothing
to lose and whoever wins the game will win the tournament. Perhaps
one could invent some sort of Crawford's rule analogue to deal with
this? (Crawford's rule says that a player cannot double in the first
game where his opponent needs just one point to win the match, though
he can redouble if his opponent is foolish enough to double. This is
to prevent the person who's trailing in a match using the `nothing to
lose' argument and doubling as soon as his opponent needs a single
point to take the match.)
Even without this sort of repeated doubling, suppose player A believes
he's in a won position and doubles. B, his stronger opponent redoubles
immediately because he can see that A is actually lost. Even assuming
that A takes the hint, the game is still worth four points and more
because of A's incompetence than B's skill.
> I suspect the actual effect would be to increase the number of
> draws. After a few doubles, it becomes too expensive to take a risk
> and play for the win.
For really good players, yes. But it's hard to imagine really good
players doubling and redoubling -- games of chess don't tend to have
the to-ing and fro-ing that backgammon does.
> Imagine how backgammon would change if you allowed players to agree
> to a draw.
I've played a bit of backgammon but mostly against the computer. I
can't see any circumstances under which one might agree a draw -- if
the game looks level, you'd just wait and not double, since it'll
surely unbalance itself after a while. Since the men can only move
forwards in Backgammon, progress of a sort must be made all the time
so I don't see a situation comparable to the sort of honest draw in
chess where neither player can make progress by any means other than a
gross blunder from the opponent. I've not played backgammon except
socially and against the computer -- am I missing something?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Beefy Spoon (TM): it's like a piece
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of cutlery that's made from a cow!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Mar 2008 23:52:47
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Doubling cube for chess? (was Re: Insufficient Losing Chance)
|
David Richerby wrote:
>
> I've played a bit of backgammon but mostly against the computer. I
> can't see any circumstances under which one might agree a draw -- if
> the game looks level, you'd just wait and not double, since it'll
> surely unbalance itself after a while. Since the men can only move
> forwards in Backgammon, progress of a sort must be made all the time
> so I don't see a situation comparable to the sort of honest draw in
> chess where neither player can make progress by any means other than a
> gross blunder from the opponent. I've not played backgammon except
> socially and against the computer -- am I missing something?
>
Yes. To address your last point first - OF COURSE backgammon checkers
can move backwards! But, the real point is - you often find yourself in
a position where the entire game will hinge on the next roll. This is
not unlike an "unclear" chess position where neither player can see
enough to be sure who is winning. Another analogy might be a "race" in
poker where the odds are about 50-50 with a large amount of money on the
line.
In chess, players may accept a draw rather than continue in an unclear
position. Note that this is DIFFERENT than agreeing to a draw in a
clearly drawn position, and even different than agreeing to a draw in a
LEVEL position.
In poker, players may "run it twice" (if allowed), or even "chop". In
both cases, the point is to reduce variance when the odds are even but
the result will be a win or a loss (and very rarely a draw).
In backgammon, I've *often* been in positions where the cube has
(legitimately) gone back and forth and the position on the board is now
dead even....except that one player or the other will win based on the
next roll of the dice. In that position, I'd much rather agree to a draw.
In sumy - these are all cases where the EV is 0.5, the stakes are
(now) very high, and the result CANNOT be 0.5 but instead must be either
0.0 or 1.0. Both players may well rather accept the (well earned) 0.5
than gamble.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2008 10:30:27
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Doubling cube for chess? (was Re: Insufficient Losing Chance)
|
Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> I've played a bit of backgammon but mostly against the computer. I
>> can't see any circumstances under which one might agree a draw --
>> if the game looks level, you'd just wait and not double, since
>> it'll surely unbalance itself after a while. Since the men can
>> only move forwards in Backgammon, progress of a sort must be made
>> all the time so I don't see a situation comparable to the sort of
>> honest draw in chess where neither player can make progress by any
>> means other than a gross blunder from the opponent. I've not
>> played backgammon except socially and against the computer -- am I
>> missing something?
>
> Yes. To address your last point first - OF COURSE backgammon
> checkers can move backwards!
Well, they can be sent backwards. I can't elect to move one of my men
backwards; I can merely leave it somewhere where my opponent can
choose to hit it and send it back to the bar.
> In backgammon, I've *often* been in positions where the cube has
> (legitimately) gone back and forth and the position on the board is
> now dead even....except that one player or the other will win based
> on the next roll of the dice. In that position, I'd much rather
> agree to a draw.
Fair enough -- I hadn't realised that was such a common occurrence.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Fluorescent Sushi (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ raw fish but it'll hurt your eyes!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Mar 2008 11:37:33
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Doubling cube for chess?
|
David Richerby wrote:
>
>Kenneth Sloan wrote:
>
>> David Richerby wrote:
>>
>>> I've played a bit of backgammon but mostly against the computer. I
>>> can't see any circumstances under which one might agree a draw --
>>> if the game looks level, you'd just wait and not double, since
>>> it'll surely unbalance itself after a while. Since the men can
>>> only move forwards in Backgammon, progress of a sort must be made
>>> all the time so I don't see a situation comparable to the sort of
>>> honest draw in chess where neither player can make progress by any
>>> means other than a gross blunder from the opponent. I've not
>>> played backgammon except socially and against the computer -- am I
>>> missing something?
>>
>> Yes. To address your last point first - OF COURSE backgammon
>> checkers can move backwards!
>
>Well, they can be sent backwards. I can't elect to move one of my men
>backwards; I can merely leave it somewhere where my opponent can
>choose to hit it and send it back to the bar.
There are positions where the opponent's only move hits one of
your men, and entering such a position is electing to move one
of your men backwards.
This is an important part of playing a back game; when playing
against inexperienced players, they often don't know that such
a thing as a back game exists, and thus don't know to avoid
hitting your men, but against an experienced player you need
to give him no choice in order to have your man sent back
where it can become part of your prime.
http://www.bkgm.com/gloss/lookup.cgi?back+game
http://www.bkgm.com/gloss/lookup.cgi?holding+game
I have been mentally playing around with ways of adapting a
doubling cube to Chess, and the only way I can see to make
it work is to bet on the outcome of each individual game.
I prefer to play for a Faberge egg whenever possible...
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 08:58:53
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Doubling cube for chess?
|
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Well, they can be sent backwards. I can't elect to move one of my
>> men backwards; I can merely leave it somewhere where my opponent
>> can choose to hit it and send it back to the bar.
>
> There are positions where the opponent's only move hits one of your
> men, and entering such a position is electing to move one of your
> men backwards.
>
> This is an important part of playing a back game; when playing
> against inexperienced players, they often don't know that such a
> thing as a back game exists, and thus don't know to avoid hitting
> your men, but against an experienced player you need to give him no
> choice in order to have your man sent back where it can become part
> of your prime.
I'm confused. If I'm playing a back game, I have a couple of made
points in your home board and I'm trying to build a prime ahead of
them so that, when you're bearing off, you'll leave a blot that I hope
to be able to hit so I can catch up while you're blocked by my prime.
As such, the space ahead of my prime has very few of my men in it.
How, then, can I force you to hit a blot in that largely empty space?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Broken Adult Tool (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a hammer that you won't want the
children to see but it doesn't work!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Mar 2008 10:12:57
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Doubling cube for chess?
|
David Richerby wrote:
>
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>> David Richerby wrote:
>>> Well, they can be sent backwards. I can't elect to move one of my
>>> men backwards; I can merely leave it somewhere where my opponent
>>> can choose to hit it and send it back to the bar.
>>
>> There are positions where the opponent's only move hits one of your
>> men, and entering such a position is electing to move one of your
>> men backwards.
>>
>> This is an important part of playing a back game; when playing
>> against inexperienced players, they often don't know that such a
>> thing as a back game exists, and thus don't know to avoid hitting
>> your men, but against an experienced player you need to give him no
>> choice in order to have your man sent back where it can become part
>> of your prime.
>
>I'm confused. If I'm playing a back game, I have a couple of made
>points in your home board and I'm trying to build a prime ahead of
>them so that, when you're bearing off, you'll leave a blot that I hope
>to be able to hit so I can catch up while you're blocked by my prime.
>As such, the space ahead of my prime has very few of my men in it.
>How, then, can I force you to hit a blot in that largely empty space?
After you have made the prime and his men are all bunched up against
it or against the back of his home board, sometimes you end up
having to leave a hole in the prime. Rolling a 6-5, for example.
the question is whether to jump two men over his piled-up men
or just one, leaving a blot. The thinking is that by leaving the
blot, you might re-enter while hitting a blot among his men bunched
up against the back of his home board, thus putting one more man
behind the nearly-prime* and possibly making it easier to repair the
hole. It all depends on the situation, of course. I have played
against inexperienced players that kept hitting every blot they
could until I had a prime in his home board and him with no men
that had made it past the prime.
* which is NOT the same as a nearly-IM... :)
|
| |
Date: 23 Mar 2008 05:07:44
From:
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
help bot wrote:
> On 22, 7:27 pm, David Richerby <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > [...] given the determination of organizers to use sudden-death, it
> > > was the best anyone could come up with.
> >
> > Well, you want there to be a fixed time when the next round starts,
> > right? The only options are sudden-death time controls or
> > adjournments.
>
>
> Wrong. There is another possibility which
> still yields a "fixed time" for the start of the
> next round; it's called adjudication.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Back in the old days, there were serious
> problems with adjudication, including bias
> on the part of the adjudicator which might
> have him granting, say, Jose Capablanca a
> draw where he has given Joe Patzer a loss.
> But today, we have the answer to personal
> bias: computers. It also just so happens
> that the /strongest/ chess players in the
> world are reasonably inexpensive programs,
> and many tournament directors already
> have a notebook computer handy, for their
> pairings program. In addition, there are
> sites on the internet which give easy
> access to some basic endgame table-
> bases (although of limited use for now).
>
>
> -- help bot
Nonsense. Adjudication is the worst possible solution. Computer
evaluations are simplistic, useful evaluation might take hours or
days, and deciding the result of a game on the basis of a computer
program's valuation of .1 of a pawn plus or minus is moronic.
Fortunately, there is zero chance of such a suggestion being taken
seriously.
|
| |
Date: 23 Mar 2008 05:01:00
From:
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
David Richerby wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [...] given the determination of organizers to use sudden-death, it
> > was the best anyone could come up with.
>
> Well, you want there to be a fixed time when the next round starts,
> right? The only options are sudden-death time controls or
> adjournments.
>
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby
That's correct. The question is whether the benefits of sudden death
exceed the price paid for it. The answer is far from obvious.
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 16:51:01
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 22, 7:27 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [...] given the determination of organizers to use sudden-death, it
> > was the best anyone could come up with.
>
> Well, you want there to be a fixed time when the next round starts,
> right? The only options are sudden-death time controls or
> adjournments.
Wrong. There is another possibility which
still yields a "fixed time" for the start of the
next round; it's called adjudication.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Back in the old days, there were serious
problems with adjudication, including bias
on the part of the adjudicator which might
have him granting, say, Jose Capablanca a
draw where he has given Joe Patzer a loss.
But today, we have the answer to personal
bias: computers. It also just so happens
that the /strongest/ chess players in the
world are reasonably inexpensive programs,
and many tournament directors already
have a notebook computer handy, for their
pairings program. In addition, there are
sites on the internet which give easy
access to some basic endgame table-
bases (although of limited use for now).
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 14:41:23
From:
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
Most of you seem to be missing the point of the "insufficient losing
chances" rule. Under a "real" time control, it is _possible_ to reach
the next time control and get more time. It may be vanishingly
unlikely, but it's possible. This is not true with sudden-death. The
ILC rule was invented in order to make SD look more like "real" chess.
It's neither fish nor fowl, but given the determination of organizers
to use sudden-death, it was the best anyone could come up with.
It is worth noting that these claims are becoming increasingly rare,
as more players are now using time-delay clocks. (If the game starts
with a time-delay clock, no such claim is permitted. You just have to
play it out.)
|
| | |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 23:27:17
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> [...] given the determination of organizers to use sudden-death, it
> was the best anyone could come up with.
Well, you want there to be a fixed time when the next round starts,
right? The only options are sudden-death time controls or
adjournments.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Erotic Laser (TM): it's like an
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ intense beam of light but it's
genuinely erotic!
|
| |
Date: 21 Mar 2008 16:34:20
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 20, 8:26 pm, zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote:
> So...should the arbiter
Arbiter? Are you joking? There are no
arbiters in five-minute blitz games.
> have stepped in and awarded a win to your
> opponent, on the grounds that you were not trying to lose by "normal"
> means??
No. That requires an (invalid) assumption
that we -- I was certainly not the only victim
of this fellow's Rook-endgame savvy -- must
have been /trying/ to lose, when in fact we
were playing for big money-- a quarter or
even fifty cents per game! Such an
assumption is ludicrous, for we all needed
the quarters for the vending machines; hey,
man does not live by chess alone!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 17:26:48
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 20, 5:12=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 20, 5:26 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This brings back a discussion I had (I believe here) about a 5/0 blitz
> > game which I won on time. =A0I had a minute left and the other fellow
> > timed out. =A0He was very angry that I did not accept a draw in an
> > "obviously" drawn position, claiming that I had to accept due to
> > insufficient losing chances. =A0We each had a rook and a pawn. =A0The
> > pawns were on the same file, and there were no particular advantages
> > otherwise such as well advanced pawn, superior King position, etc.
>
> > The position was certainly a textbook draw. =A0But in a time scramble,
> > how easy is it to play textbook moves? =A0I felt justified in taking the=
> > win given that the possibility of a blunder was quite real.
>
> =A0 Well, in my experience, expectations are
> quite different in five-minute blitz from those
> in serious play. =A0I knew one fellow who saw
> no problem with steering toward such
> positions, with the intention of winning on
> time by shuffling wood quickly; he was
> more "booked up" on Rook endings, and
> won quite a few games (more complex
> than your example) in this manner. =A0No
> one considered him to be a cheater, just
> a jerk. =A0:>D
>
> =A0 In your specific example, a blunder might
> result in one side hanging their pawn-- but
> then you still have a theoretical draw, *if*
> the weaker side knows what's what.
>
> =A0 I've played in some tournaments where
> the newfangled time-delay clocks are
> used, and lots of people still get into
> time pressure and blunder. =A0Others use
> their big time advantage to secure a draw
> where they are losing on the board, but
> their opponent cannot handle his shortage
> of time.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
So...should the arbiter have stepped in and awarded a win to your
opponent, on the grounds that you were not trying to lose by "normal"
means??
Regards,
zdrakec
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 15:12:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 20, 5:26 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> This brings back a discussion I had (I believe here) about a 5/0 blitz
> game which I won on time. I had a minute left and the other fellow
> timed out. He was very angry that I did not accept a draw in an
> "obviously" drawn position, claiming that I had to accept due to
> insufficient losing chances. We each had a rook and a pawn. The
> pawns were on the same file, and there were no particular advantages
> otherwise such as well advanced pawn, superior King position, etc.
>
> The position was certainly a textbook draw. But in a time scramble,
> how easy is it to play textbook moves? I felt justified in taking the
> win given that the possibility of a blunder was quite real.
Well, in my experience, expectations are
quite different in five-minute blitz from those
in serious play. I knew one fellow who saw
no problem with steering toward such
positions, with the intention of winning on
time by shuffling wood quickly; he was
more "booked up" on Rook endings, and
won quite a few games (more complex
than your example) in this manner. No
one considered him to be a cheater, just
a jerk. : >D
In your specific example, a blunder might
result in one side hanging their pawn-- but
then you still have a theoretical draw, *if*
the weaker side knows what's what.
I've played in some tournaments where
the newfangled time-delay clocks are
used, and lots of people still get into
time pressure and blunder. Others use
their big time advantage to secure a draw
where they are losing on the board, but
their opponent cannot handle his shortage
of time.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 14:26:37
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
This brings back a discussion I had (I believe here) about a 5/0 blitz
game which I won on time. I had a minute left and the other fellow
timed out. He was very angry that I did not accept a draw in an
"obviously" drawn position, claiming that I had to accept due to
insufficient losing chances. We each had a rook and a pawn. The
pawns were on the same file, and there were no particular advantages
otherwise such as well advanced pawn, superior King position, etc.
The position was certainly a textbook draw. But in a time scramble,
how easy is it to play textbook moves? I felt justified in taking the
win given that the possibility of a blunder was quite real.
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 11:39:47
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 20, 9:25=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> But it isn't `superior time management'. =A0Black has used most of
> >> his time to get to a position that's a crystal-clear draw. =A0White,
> >> on the other hand, still has twenty minutes left on his clock that
> >> he can't do anything with. =A0Black has managed his time better
> >> than White.
>
> > I must respectfully disagree with this last comment. If the position
> > is even, and White has 20 minutes more than Black, then White has
> > needed less time to play at least as well as Black. Therefore, in my
> > opinion, White has managed his time better.
>
> Perhaps White could have used those twenty minutes to consider his
> moves more deeply and get to a better-than-equal position?
>
> I note that you've ignored my questions about whether the game should
> degenerate into a a king-wiggling competition if both players have the
> same amount of time left in a dead-drawn position.
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Hil=
arious Tool (TM): it's like awww.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/=A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0hammer but it's a bundle of laughs!
Ah, I didn't ignore them, I simply addressed the point you made that I
did not agree with. However, "dead-drawn" (if mating material is
present) means different things to different levels of players. To
have the arbiter look at the clock, conclude that one side or the
other is not trying to win by "normal" means (whatever those are), and
declare the game drawn is, in my opinion, simply incorrect. By doing
so, he basically penalizes the side with more time by depriving him of
the use of that time. It's the player's time to use as he or she sees
fit...
Respectfully,
zdrakec
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 06:20:31
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 19, 5:20=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 19, 4:47=A0pm, zdrakec <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18, 5:10=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On 18, 12:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > I came across this tournament rule in some chess book reading, and a=
m
> > > > having
> > > > some trouble understanding the details and its application.
>
> > > > Can someone elaborate it a bit, in layman's terms? =A0E.g. what is t=
he
> > > > purpose of
> > > > switching to a digital clock with time delay? =A0How does a player
> > > > decide when is
> > > > a good time to raise such a claim?
>
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Raymond
>
> > > =A0 This is best answered by a tournament director, but I'll put in my=
> > > two cents' worth. The rule is intended to prevent a player who does
> > > not have anything close to a win on the board from winning by means of=
> > > the clock. An obvious example, for the sake of clarity:
>
> > > =A0 Nearing the end of a game with a time control of, say, G/2 (i.e. 2=
> > > hours for the game, whatever its length) Player A (White) has 20
> > > minutes left on his clock, Player B (Black) has 1 minute. The position=
> > > on the board is White: Ke2, Be4, Pd3; Black: Kd4, Bc7.
>
> > > =A0 This is a potentially winnable position, since if White can promot=
e
> > > his pawn he will have mating material, but his practical chances of
> > > doing so are nil except against the most inept play. Even if White
> > > were able to advance his pawn, Black could sac his B for it, leaving
> > > insufficient mating material.
> > > =A0 So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
> > > simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.
>
> > It is a rule, incidentally, with which I strongly disagree. In my
> > opinion, White in the case you describe should have the opportunity to
> > reap the rewards of his superior time management. The clock is every
> > bit as much a part of the game as the king...
>
> =A0 In my experience, one's opinion of this rule is directly related to
> one's tendency toward Zeitnot. Quick movers think it's bad, slow
> thinkers like it. Historically, I have exhibited the latter tendency,
> but I don't recall ever being able to claim a draw under this rule in
> a USCF-rated game.
> =A0 On the other hand, I have harvested many points from quick-moving
> but superficial-thinking opponents. So if a guy wants to make the
> clock his main weapon, I'm OK with that, especially when I mate him
> with a minute left on my clock while he has forty.
> =A0 I have helped adjudicate a few claims under this rule, in minor club
> tournaments. The USCF standard, as I recall, was that the position
> should be such that a class C player could hold it against a master.
> Is that still in effect?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I was not speaking of using the clock as a weapon; rather, I was
speaking of enjoying the benefits of making decisions more quickly,
while obtaining (in this example) a position of at least equality. I
have harvested points from superficial-thinking opponents also (and
given up a few when thinking superficially myself,all too often), but
I've seen "superficiality" of both the slow and fast variety :)
Regards,
zdrakec
|
| |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 06:14:36
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 20, 7:35=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> zdrakec =A0<[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 18, 5:10=3DA0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >> Nearing the end of a game with a time control of, say, G/2 (i.e. 2
> >> hours for the game, whatever its length)
>
> Actually, that would be G/120. =A0G/2 is two minutes per side.
>
> >> Player A (White) has 20 minutes left on his clock, Player B (Black)
> >> has 1 minute. The position on the board is White: Ke2, Be4, Pd3;
> >> Black: Kd4, Bc7. [...]
>
> >> So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
> >> simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.
>
> > It is a rule, incidentally, with which I strongly disagree. In my
> > opinion, White in the case you describe should have the opportunity
> > to reap the rewards of his superior time management. The clock is
> > every bit as much a part of the game as the king...
>
> But it isn't `superior time management'. =A0Black has used most of his
> time to get to a position that's a crystal-clear draw. =A0White, on the
> other hand, still has twenty minutes left on his clock that he can't
> do anything with. =A0Black has managed his time better than White.
>
I must respectfully disagree with this last comment. If the position
is even, and White has 20 minutes more than Black, then White has
needed less time to play at least as well as Black. Therefore, in my
opinion, White has managed his time better.
Regards,
zdrakec
|
| | |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 14:25:23
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> But it isn't `superior time management'. Black has used most of
>> his time to get to a position that's a crystal-clear draw. White,
>> on the other hand, still has twenty minutes left on his clock that
>> he can't do anything with. Black has managed his time better
>> than White.
>
> I must respectfully disagree with this last comment. If the position
> is even, and White has 20 minutes more than Black, then White has
> needed less time to play at least as well as Black. Therefore, in my
> opinion, White has managed his time better.
Perhaps White could have used those twenty minutes to consider his
moves more deeply and get to a better-than-equal position?
I note that you've ignored my questions about whether the game should
degenerate into a a king-wiggling competition if both players have the
same amount of time left in a dead-drawn position.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Hilarious Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ hammer but it's a bundle of laughs!
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2008 16:10:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 19, 6:20 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
> > > simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.
>
> > It is a rule, incidentally, with which I strongly disagree. In my
> > opinion, White in the case you describe should have the opportunity to
> > reap the rewards of his superior time management. The clock is every
> > bit as much a part of the game as the king...
That is not really the case, for the clock
was "added on" in an effort to discourage
the rotten apples who refused to move as
as way of avoiding losing. Among so
called gentlemen, it was not really a
necessary part of the game.
However, it does have one other benefit:
the equalization of thinking times between
the two opponents. I think that is a very
significant benefit.
> In my experience, one's opinion of this rule is directly related to
> one's tendency toward Zeitnot. Quick movers think it's bad, slow
> thinkers like it. Historically, I have exhibited the latter tendency,
> but I don't recall ever being able to claim a draw under this rule in
> a USCF-rated game.
Over the course of many years, the USCF
rules have been changed with regard to the
priority of the clock versus the board position.
Not all of these changes reflect the actual
preferences of chess players; they are more
a reactionary response to the chronic
complaints of the weak players who are
victimized.
> On the other hand, I have harvested many points from quick-moving
> but superficial-thinking opponents. So if a guy wants to make the
> clock his main weapon, I'm OK with that, especially when I mate him
> with a minute left on my clock while he has forty.
At certain points in time, the USCF's rules
committee could be credited -- if that is
quite the word -- for making the clock a
lethal weapon. Why blame it on the players?
> I have helped adjudicate a few claims under this rule, in minor club
> tournaments. The USCF standard, as I recall, was that the position
> should be such that a class C player could hold it against a master.
> Is that still in effect?
I've played in some events where a time-
delay clock was used, and nobody to my
knowledge made such claims; this fits
what was described earlier in this thread,
where it was claimed that use of a time-
delay clock made this rule inapplicable.
In my experience, Class C players play
terribly in winning positions against these
masters, and it is very likely that their
skill level will be vastly overestimated
by adjudicators. Offhand, I would guess
that perhaps half of all easily won games
are botched by the Class C players,
when facing such opposition. Against
grandmasters-- well, the GMs must
obviously be drunk to get into such a
position, so let's just refrain from trying
to guess the percentages.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2008 15:20:19
From:
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 19, 4:47=A0pm, zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 18, 5:10=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18, 12:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > I came across this tournament rule in some chess book reading, and am
> > > having
> > > some trouble understanding the details and its application.
>
> > > Can someone elaborate it a bit, in layman's terms? =A0E.g. what is the=
> > > purpose of
> > > switching to a digital clock with time delay? =A0How does a player
> > > decide when is
> > > a good time to raise such a claim?
>
> > > Thanks,
> > > Raymond
>
> > =A0 This is best answered by a tournament director, but I'll put in my
> > two cents' worth. The rule is intended to prevent a player who does
> > not have anything close to a win on the board from winning by means of
> > the clock. An obvious example, for the sake of clarity:
>
> > =A0 Nearing the end of a game with a time control of, say, G/2 (i.e. 2
> > hours for the game, whatever its length) Player A (White) has 20
> > minutes left on his clock, Player B (Black) has 1 minute. The position
> > on the board is White: Ke2, Be4, Pd3; Black: Kd4, Bc7.
>
> > =A0 This is a potentially winnable position, since if White can promote
> > his pawn he will have mating material, but his practical chances of
> > doing so are nil except against the most inept play. Even if White
> > were able to advance his pawn, Black could sac his B for it, leaving
> > insufficient mating material.
> > =A0 So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
> > simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.
>
> It is a rule, incidentally, with which I strongly disagree. In my
> opinion, White in the case you describe should have the opportunity to
> reap the rewards of his superior time management. The clock is every
> bit as much a part of the game as the king...
In my experience, one's opinion of this rule is directly related to
one's tendency toward Zeitnot. Quick movers think it's bad, slow
thinkers like it. Historically, I have exhibited the latter tendency,
but I don't recall ever being able to claim a draw under this rule in
a USCF-rated game.
On the other hand, I have harvested many points from quick-moving
but superficial-thinking opponents. So if a guy wants to make the
clock his main weapon, I'm OK with that, especially when I mate him
with a minute left on my clock while he has forty.
I have helped adjudicate a few claims under this rule, in minor club
tournaments. The USCF standard, as I recall, was that the position
should be such that a class C player could hold it against a master.
Is that still in effect?
|
| |
Date: 19 Mar 2008 13:47:50
From: zdrakec
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 18, 5:10=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 18, 12:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I came across this tournament rule in some chess book reading, and am
> > having
> > some trouble understanding the details and its application.
>
> > Can someone elaborate it a bit, in layman's terms? =A0E.g. what is the
> > purpose of
> > switching to a digital clock with time delay? =A0How does a player
> > decide when is
> > a good time to raise such a claim?
>
> > Thanks,
> > Raymond
>
> =A0 This is best answered by a tournament director, but I'll put in my
> two cents' worth. The rule is intended to prevent a player who does
> not have anything close to a win on the board from winning by means of
> the clock. An obvious example, for the sake of clarity:
>
> =A0 Nearing the end of a game with a time control of, say, G/2 (i.e. 2
> hours for the game, whatever its length) Player A (White) has 20
> minutes left on his clock, Player B (Black) has 1 minute. The position
> on the board is White: Ke2, Be4, Pd3; Black: Kd4, Bc7.
>
> =A0 This is a potentially winnable position, since if White can promote
> his pawn he will have mating material, but his practical chances of
> doing so are nil except against the most inept play. Even if White
> were able to advance his pawn, Black could sac his B for it, leaving
> insufficient mating material.
> =A0 So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
> simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.
It is a rule, incidentally, with which I strongly disagree. In my
opinion, White in the case you describe should have the opportunity to
reap the rewards of his superior time management. The clock is every
bit as much a part of the game as the king...
Regards,
zdrakec
|
| | |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 12:35:55
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
zdrakec <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 18, 5:10=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> Nearing the end of a game with a time control of, say, G/2 (i.e. 2
>> hours for the game, whatever its length)
Actually, that would be G/120. G/2 is two minutes per side.
>> Player A (White) has 20 minutes left on his clock, Player B (Black)
>> has 1 minute. The position on the board is White: Ke2, Be4, Pd3;
>> Black: Kd4, Bc7. [...]
>>
>> So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
>> simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.
>
> It is a rule, incidentally, with which I strongly disagree. In my
> opinion, White in the case you describe should have the opportunity
> to reap the rewards of his superior time management. The clock is
> every bit as much a part of the game as the king...
But it isn't `superior time management'. Black has used most of his
time to get to a position that's a crystal-clear draw. White, on the
other hand, still has twenty minutes left on his clock that he can't
do anything with. Black has managed his time better than White.
If the position on the board was the same but the players both had
only one minute left (so there's no question of one player having
managed his time better than the other), do you believe that the game
should be won on time by the player who's able to wiggle his king
faster? If so, why does the same not apply to cases where no
checkmate is even theoretically possible (e.g., two bare kings)? If
not, doesn't this demonstrate that the clock is actually less a part
of the game than is trying to checkmate the opponent's king?
It seems to me that, without a rule such as the USCF insufficient
winning chances rule or the similar FIDE article 10.2, good time
management is impossible in any game with a time control of `... and
then X minutes for the rest of the game.' In such a game, you could
never know how many moves your opponent will insist on playing in a
dead-drawn endgame so you'd never be able to leave enough time for
that. OK, so the fifty-move and repetition rules help but, even in a
simple ending, a player could drag things out for maybe a hundred
moves before either became available.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Broken Whisky (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ single-malt whisky but it doesn't
work!
|
| | | |
Date: 20 Mar 2008 17:09:58
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
David Richerby wrote:
>If the position on the board was the same but the players both had
>only one minute left (so there's no question of one player having
>managed his time better than the other), do you believe that the game
>should be won on time by the player who's able to wiggle his king
>faster? If so, why does the same not apply to cases where no
>checkmate is even theoretically possible (e.g., two bare kings)? If
>not, doesn't this demonstrate that the clock is actually less a part
>of the game than is trying to checkmate the opponent's king?
>
>It seems to me that, without a rule such as the USCF insufficient
>winning chances rule or the similar FIDE article 10.2, good time
>management is impossible in any game with a time control of `... and
>then X minutes for the rest of the game.' In such a game, you could
>never know how many moves your opponent will insist on playing in a
>dead-drawn endgame so you'd never be able to leave enough time for
>that. OK, so the fifty-move and repetition rules help but, even in a
>simple ending, a player could drag things out for maybe a hundred
>moves before either became available.
While I totally agree with you concerning the need for FIDE article
10.2, I don't think that the example in the first paragraph shows
that "the clock is actually less a part of the game than is trying
to checkmate the opponent's king." Your example is one where
trying to checkmate the opponent's king is no longer a viable
option.
With a modern chess clock that adds time on each move, you
cannot lose on time in a position that allows you to mindlessly
move your king around. In that case FIDE article 10.2 just
makes the inevitable draw happen sooner.
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Mar 2008 18:59:46
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> If the position on the board was the same but the players both had
>> only one minute left (so there's no question of one player having
>> managed his time better than the other), do you believe that the game
>> should be won on time by the player who's able to wiggle his king
>> faster? If so, why does the same not apply to cases where no
>> checkmate is even theoretically possible (e.g., two bare kings)? If
>> not, doesn't this demonstrate that the clock is actually less a part
>> of the game than is trying to checkmate the opponent's king?
>
> While I totally agree with you concerning the need for FIDE article
> 10.2, I don't think that the example in the first paragraph shows
> that "the clock is actually less a part of the game than is trying
> to checkmate the opponent's king." Your example is one where trying
> to checkmate the opponent's king is no longer a viable option.
I assume you mean the example of two bare kings? In that case, as
soon as checkmating stops being an option, the game is immediately
declared drawn, regardless of the situation on the clocks. That, to
me, clearly demonstrates that the clock is subsidiary to checkmate --
as long as you have time on your clock, you still have to try to
checkmate; but as soon as checkmate is no longer possible, nor is a
win on time.
> With a modern chess clock that adds time on each move, you cannot
> lose on time in a position that allows you to mindlessly move your
> king around. In that case FIDE article 10.2 just makes the
> inevitable draw happen sooner.
Actually, FIDE 10.2 doesn't apply if there's an increment in the time
control. It's only applicable where the time control is a fixed time
for the rest of the game. (In particular, if the time control is
forty moves in two hours and then an extra hour every fifteen moves,
10.2 can never be invoked. If it is forty in two hours and then an
extra hour for the rest of the game, it can only be invoked after move
forty.)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Radioactive Peanut (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ roasted nut but it'll make you glow
in the dark!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Mar 2008 02:47:34
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
David Richerby wrote:
>
>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> With a modern chess clock that adds time on each move, you cannot
>> lose on time in a position that allows you to mindlessly move your
>> king around. In that case FIDE article 10.2 just makes the
>> inevitable draw happen sooner.
>
>Actually, FIDE 10.2 doesn't apply if there's an increment in the time
>control. It's only applicable where the time control is a fixed time
>for the rest of the game. (In particular, if the time control is
>forty moves in two hours and then an extra hour every fifteen moves,
>10.2 can never be invoked. If it is forty in two hours and then an
>extra hour for the rest of the game, it can only be invoked after move
>forty.)
You are, of course, entirely correct.
Note to self: next time, smoke crack AFTER posting to r.g.c.m...
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 15:54:22
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 18, 4:10 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On 18, 12:07 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I came across this tournament rule in some chess book reading, and am
> > having
> > some trouble understanding the details and its application.
>
> > Can someone elaborate it a bit, in layman's terms? E.g. what is the
> > purpose of
> > switching to a digital clock with time delay? How does a player
> > decide when is
> > a good time to raise such a claim?
>
> > Thanks,
> > Raymond
>
> This is best answered by a tournament director, but I'll put in my
> two cents' worth. The rule is intended to prevent a player who does
> not have anything close to a win on the board from winning by means of
> the clock. An obvious example, for the sake of clarity:
>
> Nearing the end of a game with a time control of, say, G/2 (i.e. 2
> hours for the game, whatever its length) Player A (White) has 20
> minutes left on his clock, Player B (Black) has 1 minute. The position
> on the board is White: Ke2, Be4, Pd3; Black: Kd4, Bc7.
>
> This is a potentially winnable position, since if White can promote
> his pawn he will have mating material, but his practical chances of
> doing so are nil except against the most inept play. Even if White
> were able to advance his pawn, Black could sac his B for it, leaving
> insufficient mating material.
> So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
> simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.
The player ask the Tournament Director basicly to call the game a
draw. The player asking must have 2 minutes or less on thier clock.
The TD first ask the other play will take a draw. If the other player
says yes game over. 2nd if the player requesting is clearly winning it
is a draw. 3rd the Rule Book list a lot of common draws for this
claim. 4th the player has no business making this claim. Then 1/2 his
remaining time is put on the clock or the TD may put 1/2 his time on a
time delay clock with the delay set.
Please note if the game starts with a properly set time delay clock
this rule can not be used. please note the TD is the one who decides
to put the time delay clock on the game after the claim.
Terry
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 15:10:44
From:
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 18, 12:07=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> I came across this tournament rule in some chess book reading, and am
> having
> some trouble understanding the details and its application.
>
> Can someone elaborate it a bit, in layman's terms? =A0E.g. what is the
> purpose of
> switching to a digital clock with time delay? =A0How does a player
> decide when is
> a good time to raise such a claim?
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
This is best answered by a tournament director, but I'll put in my
two cents' worth. The rule is intended to prevent a player who does
not have anything close to a win on the board from winning by means of
the clock. An obvious example, for the sake of clarity:
Nearing the end of a game with a time control of, say, G/2 (i.e. 2
hours for the game, whatever its length) Player A (White) has 20
minutes left on his clock, Player B (Black) has 1 minute. The position
on the board is White: Ke2, Be4, Pd3; Black: Kd4, Bc7.
This is a potentially winnable position, since if White can promote
his pawn he will have mating material, but his practical chances of
doing so are nil except against the most inept play. Even if White
were able to advance his pawn, Black could sac his B for it, leaving
insufficient mating material.
So, should White then be allowed just to make meaningless moves
simply to use up Black's remaining time? The USCF rule says no.
|
| |
Date: 18 Mar 2008 13:50:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Insufficient Losing Chance
|
On 18, 12:07 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> I came across this tournament rule in some chess book reading, and am
> having
> some trouble understanding the details and its application.
> Can someone elaborate it a bit, in layman's terms?
I suspect this rule was created to combat
players who might try to win from a lousy
position by pounding the clock until the
enemy's flag falls.
Suppose you have a King and Rook,
while I am short of time but have a King
and Queen; further suppose that I am so
lame that I cannot seem to get a handle
on your Rook, so I can just trade my
Queen for it and escape my extreme
time pressure to draw. Should you get
to *win* because of your time advantage
alone?
> E.g. what is the purpose of
> switching to a digital clock with time delay?
I have read here that these newfangled
time-delay clocks solve the problem of
time-pressure blunders, but it's simply
not true. Many players cannot play
accurately at just five seconds per move,
are not /trained/ to play at that pace with
any particular skill.
But I suppose they do reduce the
number of games decided by the clock,
as compared to games decided on the
board; in this respect, a time-delay is a
good thing.
> How does a player decide when is
> a good time to raise such a claim?
A good time would be *before* your
flag has already fallen, and you have
lost on time! You have to decide if you
are going to go for a win, or chicken out
and make such a claim. Several moves
earlier, it is likely you could have
foreseen the coming difficulties, and
began pondering which direction to
take-- are you a man, or are you a
chicken? I say lose on time by going
for the win; then blame the loss on
somebody else. No, wait! What I
meant was you should be brave, but
not stupid: figure the odds and act
accordingly.
-- help bot
|
|
