Partnership game - hypothetical

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Partnership game - hypothetical

    Originally posted by David Ottosen View Post
    This question was posted on another forum I read:

    You have white and are playing against a 2000 player. Every other move the world champ moves for you. No communication though. Your opponent realizes this. You would be favored as long as your rating is above what?

    I honestly cannot decide what the answer would be.
    This concept would be great for a team chess league or tournament: every team of 2 or 3 or 4 would play against one chess engine running on one set of hardware using identical engine settings and books each time. Each team player would be in a different room, making any communication impossible.

    Here's an even better idea for a team event: each team is comprised of 8 players. These 8 are divided into 4 sets of 2 partners. A match between team A and team B starts off as 4 games between each of the 4 sets of 2 players. They alternate moves with no communication for 16 moves.

    When Black has made the 16th move in all games, team A's set of players switch to continue the game to their right (the last set of team A's players move to the first game). Another 16 moves are played in each game. For all games are still going after Black's 32nd move, team A's set of players switch again to the next game to their right. Another 16 moves to move 48, then a final shuffle. The final matchup continues until all games are decided. The result would be that each team of 2 partners plays each other team of 4 partners, unless any game ends on or before the 48th move. Whenever a game ends, all players currently playing that game are removed from further play.

    The interesting part of this would be matching up your sets of partners before the match. You don't want your best set of 2 partners switching to a lost game after move 16 or move 32 or move 48 and getting knocked out of further play.
    Only the rushing is heard...
    Onward flies the bird.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Partnership game - hypothetical

      Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
      Man, was my partner upset. Stupid master who doesn't even know the basic mates.
      I can believe maybe a 1500 player missing this, but surely anyone 1800 or more can see the smothered mate without even having to calculate. First thing I looked at.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Partnership game - hypothetical

        A similar concept was used several times by the BCCF in 2004 for fundraising and exhibition events. The brainchild of Bruce Harper, this involved two partners alternating every second move, i.e., each player played two moves in a row. A team had to have a combined rating below 4000, no communication was allowed between the partners, and in a later event there were time differentials applied based on the difference between the ratings of the two teams. In general the teams in which the two partners were close in rating had the best results – a team of two near-experts did better than a couple of teams involving GM plus D player.

        Reports on the events (“pairs 4000”) can be found in BCCF Bulletins nos. 42, 49, and 57, available on the BCCF website (http://chess.bc.ca/). Number 42 includes several annotated games, whilst number 49 has the three exhibition pairs games played between GMs Cramling, Bellon, Seirawan, and Suttles. All these games are in the BCBASE database, also on the BCCF site.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Partnership game - hypothetical

          ".......In general the teams in which the two partners were close in rating had the best results – a team of two near-experts did better than a couple of teams involving GM plus D player......."

          Sort of confirms my opinion that chess games are decided by bad moves, not good moves?
          Fred Harvey

          Comment


          • #20
            I Once Played A "Hop-Scotch" Simultaneous vs. Three Opponents!

            It was at one of those wonderful Chess Festivals in Davenport, IA, many years ago. It was before Jonathan Berry did the 12 board blindfold simultaneous at one of those Festivals.

            I claimed a draw by repetition of positions (not moves) in an EG. It was a draw anyway, but I like to tweak people. The players were Jonathan Rowson, Malcolm Pein and John Donaldson.

            Maybe I shouldn't have "tweaked" them because one of the players was furious and accused me of being under-handed. I guess some players are so competitive that they don't stop to think what they sound like! Only drawing me does show how weak partners are compared to a single opponent.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Partnership game - hypothetical

              ahem - maybe you should review your assessment of the position.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Partnership game - hypothetical

                Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
                ahem - maybe you should review your assessment of the position.
                Careful, Roger, or he might be calling you a "Smothered Mate Denier" and calling into question your beliefs on evolution. :D

                Most likely he looked at the other position, that Egidijus posted, without the Nf3.
                Only the rushing is heard...
                Onward flies the bird.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Partnership game - hypothetical

                  Originally posted by Roger Patterson View Post
                  ahem - maybe you should review your assessment of the position.
                  Ah, you are right, the N does make a difference!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Partnership game - hypothetical

                    Originally posted by Paul Bonham View Post
                    Careful, Roger, or he might be calling you a "Smothered Mate Denier" and calling into question your beliefs on evolution
                    No, I cheerfully admit I am wrong, see my previous post.

                    Unlike the deniers over on that other, not to be named, thread I am willing to change my mind when the evidence that I am mistaken is presented.

                    Wait - maybe I admitted my mistake in the previous message only to show that I can admit errors. The plot thickens...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X