Chess on ice

[Ernest Klubis]

Re: Chess on ice

In curling one doesn't look too many moves ahead, but decisions can be as tricky as in chess.

Can you provide an example of a tricky decision in curling. Thank you in advance.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Chess on ice

Can you provide an example of a tricky decision in curling. Thank you in advance.

Without a videotape it's not easy to illustrate, but I can decribe it by saying that there can often be two or more plausible shots to attempt in a curling situation, and the team to play must weigh the pros and cons of each option. For example that could be (as I understand the game from watching TV, but not being experienced at all):

1) Assessing or coping with the degree of difficulty of physically making a particular shot option. Coping can be a tricky matter even if there is only one good shot available.
2) What will be left to the other team as good opportunity(s), whether a shot option is executed successfully or not (and if not, what are the worst or probable things that might happen, even without the other team having to shoot). This can be very tricky if plenty of stones are in play around the 'house'.
3) Whether to take a risk attempting a clearly lower percentage shot for potentially greater reward.
4) Occasionally, whether to relinquish the hammer (privilege of shooting last in an end) and take a single point becomes an issue (especially in early ends keeping the hammer is normally a no-brainer).

[Ernest Klubis]

Re: Chess on ice

Without a videotape it's not easy to illustrate, but I can decribe it by saying that there can often be two or more plausible shots to attempt in a curling situation, and the team to play must weigh the pros and cons of each option. For example that could be (as I understand the game from watching TV, but not being experienced at all):

1) Assessing or coping with the degree of difficulty of physically making a particular shot option. Coping can be a tricky matter even if there is only one good shot available.
2) What will be left to the other team as good opportunity(s), whether a shot option is executed successfully or not (and if not, what are the worst or probable things that might happen, even without the other team having to shoot). This can be very tricky if plenty of stones are in play around the 'house'.
3) Whether to take a risk attempting a clearly lower percentage shot for potentially greater reward.
4) Occasionally, whether to relinquish the hammer (privilege of shooting last in an end) or take a single point becomes an issue (especially in early ends keeping the hammer is normally a no-brainer).

Kevin, what you describe above has VERY close resemblance to shuffleboard or billiards. Where resemblance to chess? Just go over each point and compare to chess and billiards. Especially last point, which you correctly identified as "a no-brainer". Do we have anything like that in chess?
Can you compare a middlegame move thought process to the curler thought process before he releases the stone? Day and night.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Chess on ice

Kevin, what you describe above has VERY close resemblance to shuffleboard or billiards. Where resemblance to chess?

Both also have resemblances to chess. I love chess, I greatly prefer chess, but that doesn't make me want to discount other games or claim that they bear no resemblances or have no parallels with chess. Why do you feel so insecure about our game?

Actually all games have resemblances to chess, as mathematical Game Theory shows.

But he who has a need to put down others shows only his own insecurity thereby.

[Ernest Klubis]

Re: Chess on ice

Actually all games have resemblances to chess, as mathematical Game Theory shows.

Most games (except bridge, checkers etc.) - like curling and shuffleboard have at best half ply calculation and then you compare to the complexity of chess with all myriads of sacrifices and strategies. You reduce chess to the same half ply look ahead. And general perception becomes that chess is simple as half ply calculation, and any Joe can calculate half ply. This not only offensive but also outrageous. Just imagine playing chess and calculating half ply ahead. This NOT chess. It's only knowledge how to move pieces around the board.

In addition, I'm NOT putting other games down. They simply don't belong in the same sentence with chess.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Chess on ice

Both also have resemblances to chess. I love chess, I greatly prefer chess, but that doesn't make me want to discount other games or claim that they bear no resemblances or have no parallels with chess. Why do you feel so insecure about our game?

If one could show that curling where as beneficial for the thinking mind as chess, especially for children, plus it added physical exercise and skill and added teamwork skills, then why would anyone want to limit themselves to chess? Why would a government ministry or a corporation want to spend money on promoting chess when promoting curling would be so much better overall?

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: Chess on ice

In addition, I'm NOT putting other games down. They simply don't belong in the same sentence with chess.

That last sentence is obviously a put down, so you are contradicting yourself in the space of a single paragraph!

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Chess on ice

...curling ...have at best half ply calculation and then you compare to the complexity of chess with all myriads of sacrifices and strategies.

You may be close about the ply level, but there are 2 key differences in comparing chess thinking before each move with curling thinking before each shot (if you ignore the fact that curling "ends" start over every 16 shots, I think):

(1) curling involves physical execution which has a high chance of not being exactly what was intended. With chess, the execution is always what was intended.

(2) a single curling shot can affect, via chain reaction, the placement of more than just the shot rock and one more rock.


Point (1) is where the real difference would seem to lie. A curler has to visualize not just perfectly executed shots, but imperfect shots and how an imperfect shot could affect things. This is where I think curling analysis can approach chess analysis in complexity. A curler might have just 2 or 3 shot possibilities to consider where a chess player might have over 20 to examine. But the curler has to consider, for each 2 or 3 shots, slight variances in results from the ideal and consider how badly things might go for each of those situations. And then they have to consider how difficult the opponent's reply is going to be to each of those 2 or 3 ideal shots, and how various imperfect responses might make things look.

Point (2) indicates that a curler has to be able to visualize (for each shot) possibly 3 or 4 changes in position, and how each might be affected by a slight change in angle or speed of impact.

Based on these 2 points, I could easily believe that curling analysis can equal chess analysis in complexity and the need for visualization.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Chess on ice

All true, except for the last sentence perhaps (I often think the general population is mysified by chess to some extent, especially if they've played a half-decent opponent).

In curling and chess there is more emphasis on strategy as opposed to physical dynamics, say in hockey or baseball. Chess has some hope of competing equally effectively with curling in the eyes of those who might take up either game. For example, chess has the selling point of 'how far can you see ahead'?, which pertains to strategy as well as tactics and calculation. In curling one doesn't look too many moves ahead, but decisions can be as tricky as in chess.

Chess could try to have more team events, to compete with curling that way (it might even be nice if a mixed men/women's team league arose). One thing chess can't compete with is the pleasure of having a hot chocolate drink after being in a cold arena dressed in a sweater, I imagine. Don't ask me why, but I think lots of people enjoy the relief from getting out of a not completely comfortable playing environment.

The PGA golf tour has something called "ShotTracker" which is a laser system on the course itself that tracks tee shots and can produce a graphic of the shot from an aerial view aspect of the entire hole.

This would be something very cool for curling to implement, where for each shot, a graphic could be produced showing a view as if you were up in the rafters above the shooter looking down towards the house, and how the shot travelled down the ice, where it ended up, and how it caused other rocks anywhere in play to be moved. Then you could follow a game of curling just like a game of chess, and then we would have books or web sites with shot-by-shot analysis of curling matches.

[Ernest Klubis]

Re: Chess on ice

That last sentence is obviously a put down, so you are contradicting yourself in the space of a single paragraph!

Thank you, Ed! Obviously you could NOT find any contradiction in the first paragraph.

[Ernest Klubis]

Re: Chess on ice

Based on these 2 points, I could easily believe that curling analysis can equal chess analysis in complexity and the need for visualization.

Paul, you forgot to mention that blanking the end is like sacrificing a queen and rook all in ONE(!) move. Now I clearly see the resemblance. Truly, curling is chess on ice and swimming is chess on water. My apologies to all curling fans for insulting your intelligence.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Chess on ice

Further observations I can volunteer about curling, while NOT claiming necessarily it is as rich in strategy as chess:

Besides difficult one ply decisions (which can be further broken down into fractions of ply, first a skip throwing, then his/her sweepers sweeping judiciously at key moments if necessary - what could be refered to as coping with executing a shot), in curling there is actually more than half-ply ahead thinking.

Several of the opening turns (shots by a team), for example, are spent preparing for later parts of an end, though I grant you an end, of ten ends, has only 16 ply total, and I don't think curlers ever could hope to plan the full 16 ply ahead, especially now that there is a three or four-rock rule in all serious events afaik, which prevents a team from planning to peel off all opposition rocks for the whole end.

[Ernest Klubis]

Re: Chess on ice

Members of Norwegian men curling team were offended by my comments posted here and took upon themselves to proof me wrong. To illustrate their point, and proof without any reasonable doubt that "curling is chess on ice" they fashion chessboard design on their pants. This sparked tremendous interest throughout World chess community in Olympic gold medal finals where Norwegian CHESS team faces Canadian CURLING Team and immortal Kevin Martin.

[Duncan Smith]

Re: Chess on ice

Kevin, I am replying to you because you are making an effort to understand a sport you may (?) not play. To be quite serious, some critics on this site sound like uneducated knuckleheads when they discuss curling. They may not understand this but place their posts on any curling chat site and you'd see the replies light up the board.

Curling strategy by my estimation is probably not "half ply" or "one ply", but I can't be sure because I'm not familiar with this term. What I can say is advanced curling strategy has a lot more depth and theory behind it then people are describing on this site. And unless you are a highly experienced player, most of the higher end planning and strategy would go right over your head. For example, in the B final today there was one end with 5-6 rocks in play very early. The announcer ( an experienced curler ) proclaimed that the "blank was still in play". To a casual observer this would seem crazy. The end result was a blank.

It actually takes at least 5 seasons for most international level juniors to develop expertise in how to call a game and choose effective strategy. Most join the front end of an established team to relearn the game. Because like chess, you develop bad habits against lower level teams that you must undo somewhat to take your game to the next level.

Curling offers four positions, only one or two of which need to fully understand advanced strategy, planning, and ice reading skills. It is better when most of the four players are experienced, but not necessarily mandatory, two will suffice in most cases.

Curling combines many aspects together, including athleticism and strategic theory. Sometimes a game can be a tug of war between players with different qualities, you try to get a read on your opponent and take your best shot at beating them. Since the new rules came into effect ( free guard rules ), the thinkers out there have a better chance to implement an effective strategy.

I can tell you one thing for sure. Many newcomers to the game are surprised how difficult it is initially. And many who start make it a lifetime sport, some of whom are almost addicted to it. For example, I played a guy on Friday who said he used to play 200 games a season, but he had a child now he's had to cut back. There is never a shortage of opportunities to play curling.

And for sure there are guys in the game that 20 years later still don't understand advanced strategy, but they enjoy the game anyways.

[Duncan Smith]

Re: Chess on ice

That team seems to know more about promoting the game then anyone in Canadian chess. Let me know when a chess event has Stephen Harper and Don Sutherland in attendance one day, Wayne Gretzky on another day.

Curling has a huge grassroots following in Canada. It is a lot harder to build and maintain a curling club then to set up chess games. One might ask why chess is so dead in the water right now in Canada.