If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
The Naka vs So Death Match 30 is well underway. In a classic match, my money would likely be on So, but at these time controls Naka's my man. Of course, I'd need to see the odds first (:
This is meaningless chess, some sort of pollution that at best should be ignored.
By that logic, there are only 2 forms of chess that should NOT be ignored:
(1) slow time control chess between top 10 computer chess engines and
(2) correspondence chess with days to make a move
Taking Jean's way of thinking to its logical extreme, all other forms of chess are "meaningless" and "some sort of pollution".
We could even go further.... give Stockfish and Komodo centuries to make each move.... and in 7 million years, we will get an answer! (a nod to Bob Gillanders!)
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
By that logic, there are only 2 forms of chess that should NOT be ignored:
(1) slow time control chess between top 10 computer chess engines and
(2) correspondence chess with days to make a move
Taking Jean's way of thinking to its logical extreme, all other forms of chess are "meaningless" and "some sort of pollution".
We could even go further.... give Stockfish and Komodo centuries to make each move.... and in 7 million years, we will get an answer! (a nod to Bob Gillanders!)
Overreaction, as usual.
We still follow the 100m sprint even if we have machines that can go much faster than Usain Bolt.
Classical chess will remain with us for the foreseeable future. It's the best chess we can play, given our physiological limitations.
We still follow the 100m sprint even if we have machines that can go much faster than Usain Bolt.
Classical chess will remain with us for the foreseeable future. It's the best chess we can play, given our physiological limitations.
Yes, and there are people who follow and/or play rapid and blitz and bullet chess also. So the fact that people follow it or play it does not defend it from the Hebert way of thinking.
So do you agree or disagree with Jean's statement that these faster forms of chess are "meaningless" and "some form of pollution"?
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Yes, and there are people who follow and/or play rapid and blitz and bullet chess also. So the fact that people follow it or play it does not defend it from the Hebert way of thinking.
So do you agree or disagree with Jean's statement that these faster forms of chess are "meaningless" and "some form of pollution"?
Blitz and especially bullet are certainly meaningless, except maybe for the occasional good game here and there. To me, blitz is a totally different game. A game that has little to do with chess.
Is it pollution? The term is a little strong. You can ignore blitz/bullet chess if you want.
Blitz and especially bullet are certainly meaningless, except maybe for the occasional good game here and there. To me, blitz is a totally different game. A game that has little to do with chess.
Is it pollution? The term is a little strong. You can ignore blitz/bullet chess if you want.
Ok, so now I'm going to say that by your logic (which I am not claiming to be mine as well), chess at slow time controls (defined as your typical weekend swiss time control of G/90 + 30 sec) and played between humans is meaningless in comparison to chess played at those or even longer time controls played between top 10 chess engines.
Do you understand? Do you realize you can't defend your position by declaring that people still PLAY chess at slow time controls? People playing it doesn't matter, by your own logic. What is defining "meaningless" in these arguments is the relative quality of the chess play.
So what we have is: relative to blitz chess, slow time control chess is more "meaningful". And relative to slow time control chess played by humans, slow time control chess played by top 10 chess engines is more "meaningful". And chess gets more "meaningful" and "less polluted" as you increase either time control length OR strength of the 2 players, or preferably both.
So the most "meaningful" chess of all must be God's analysis of the opening chess position, which will go on until the entire search tree has been exhausted. Maybe even that's why God is so absent among us today... He is so deep in the search tree that it's taking up 95% of His CPU time and he just can't give us His attention as much as He used to. Perhaps His returning to Earth marks the day He arrives at the solution to chess!
My argument is different. If people are playing and following blitz chess, then blitz chess is meaningful... to THEM at the very least.
Neither you nor Jean Hebert has the authority nor the philosophical underpinnings to declare blitz chess as "absolutely" meaningless.
Personally, I detest professional bowling. It's a game that has absolutely no strategy except to try for a strike every time the pins are reset. One day you might bowl 200, another day you might bowl 250, and what your opponent is doing has nothing to do with how you do. However, I would not call professional bowling meaningless, even adding "imo". That's because it does give some people something to do, maybe even keep some people out of trouble, and it interests enough spectators to pay for itself (far better than chess, which is really the hilarious part). Is it getting us any closer to curing cancer or creating safe hydrogen-fueled cars? No, so RELATIVE to those much more important activities (for our future and well being), bowling is meaningless. But if a cancer scientist relaxes by going bowling on the weekend and that makes him or her more productive in the lab, then maybe bowling has some meaning.
On the other hand, maybe some pro bowlers could have been great cancer scientists or safe-hydrogen-fueled-car engineers. Everything is relative.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Fast time control chess favours young players, due to their better reflexes alone. Therefore, in my view slower time controls not only produce higher quality games usually, but also better help chess being played competitively to appeal to more players (and spectators) of all ages (i.e. if a slower TC is used instead). Having said that, blitz chess is a popular way to play casual, fun chess for players of all ages. Playing bullet chess as a way to have fun, on the other hand, strikes me as more youth-oriented. [edit: Once US GM Walter Browne tried to get a speed chess federation going, but it didn't last too many years, I seem to recall.]
Active time controls are a potentially interesting middle ground. They're slow enough that more than a few high quality games have resulted over the years. In Canada, of the events submitted for Quick (Active or faster TC) rating, almost all the ones I've noticed had an Active TC. Still, Quick TC events are much fewer than slower TC events by far, to this day. Organizers may be reluctant to hold very many, if for no other reason than they take time and energy away from organizing slower TC events the rest of the year. Plus, players may be reluctant to play since not only are there relatively few Quick events in Canada (so there may be less point to having a Quick rating), but there seems to be little in the way of prizes offered in most such events, at least that I've noticed. A possible problem for players (or one that they may worry about) is that switching back and forth between various time controls, at least within a short period of time, might have an adverse, unsettling effect as far as having to re-adapt to faster or slower time controls.
[edit: when the idea of lumping blitz events together with Active TC events and having either rated as 'Quick' events by the CFC came up for a vote when I was a Governor, I rather reluctantly went along with the idea, so that at least the few blitz events that might be submitted each year, if any, would be rated - I and perhaps other Governors didn't anticipate the need for sufficently useful seperate CFC blitz ratings for years to come, but otherwise I would have much prefered that. One club president I talked to (after Quick ratings came into being) saw no need to submit a certain speed event, or any at all, to be rated by the CFC. It was different for Active TC events.]
Last edited by Kevin Pacey; Wednesday, 7th January, 2015, 02:53 PM.
Reason: Grammar
Anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer
By that logic, there are only 2 forms of chess that should NOT be ignored:
(1) slow time control chess between top 10 computer chess engines and
(2) correspondence chess with days to make a move
Taking Jean's way of thinking to its logical extreme, all other forms of chess are "meaningless" and "some sort of pollution".
We could even go further.... give Stockfish and Komodo centuries to make each move.... and in 7 million years, we will get an answer! (a nod to Bob Gillanders!)
I find regular chess and correspondence chess don't mix. The cheapoes that work in regular chess mostly don't work in CC.
Regarding your Stockfish and Komodo example, given they both use the same computer equipment, how many plies do you suppose those software programs would have reached in that period of time? Do you suppose each would be the same number of plies or that one may have reached a greater number of plies than the other?
Tweet
Comment