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.
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.
There would be strategy involved here. The 2000 player would try to control the game so that the GM would be forced to make the obvious recaptures, and his partner would face more complicated situations. Likewise the "team" would be trying to reverse this. Do we assume that the world champ plays perfectly - i.e. always choosing the best move?
I once played in a blitz event alternating moves with a partner. Team strength is a LOT weaker than the stronger player and may even be weaker than that of the lower rated player. (so your rating would need to be some amount over 2000)
One of those blitz games was against Hikaru Nakamura. It was fairly evenly matched (we won a piece early, kept it for awhile, then lost it and the game). Incredibly frustrating for both Nakamura and I. Of course, me versus Nakamura solo - it's clear who the favourite would be :-)
Last edited by Roger Patterson; Wednesday, 21st April, 2010, 01:49 PM.
1) That the two partnering players realize the strength of their partner.
2) That the world champ doesn't know anything other than the strength of their partner (i.e. he hasn't discussed that player's opening repertoire, style, etc.).
3) That the world champ is allowed to make his moves based on the partnership, i.e. he might choose an inferior move because it would allow his partner to find relatively simple moves.
4) That it is a reasonably slow time control game. Say at least 30 mins each side.
I would say 1700-1900. If someone played like the 1700 version of Topalov, for example, then partnering with the actual Topalov would probably produce a much-improved 2000+ version of Topalov.
I once did a tandem simul with Deen Hergott in Saskatoon. We did alright (something like 85%), but it was much worse than either of us would have done individually. Mostly that was because in position X he would move a piece forward, then on X+1 I would put it back. ;-)
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
3) That the world champ is allowed to make his moves based on the partnership, i.e. he might choose an inferior move because it would allow his partner to find relatively simple moves.
I don't know of any chess tournament where a player (GM or otherwise) isn't allowed to make inferior moves.
I would say 1700-1900. If someone played like the 1700 version of Topalov, for example, then partnering with the actual Topalov would probably produce a much-improved 2000+ version of Topalov.
I don't think I could agree with this. Remember, no communication. The 1700 Topalov isn't going to be able to grasp the more complicated moves of the GM Topalov, and will take some extra time to try and figure them out. Besides the extra time, the 1700 Topalov will sometimes get it wrong and interfere with what the GM Topalov is doing, and I think this would lead to a loss of coordination that would eventually be disasterous.
But this could be tested perhaps? Not with any human, but with an early version of Rybka partnered with the latest version, playing in this format. Play them several matches against another chess engine, then play the early version of Rybka alone against the same chess engine for several matches (everything else being equal) and compare rating performances.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I don't know of any chess tournament where a player (GM or otherwise) isn't allowed to make inferior moves.
...
But this could be tested perhaps? Not with any human, but with an early version of Rybka partnered with the latest version, playing in this format. Play them several matches against another chess engine, then play the early version of Rybka alone against the same chess engine for several matches (everything else being equal) and compare rating performances.
Uh, no. How could one program the stronger Rybka to make inferior moves based on the knowledge that the "other" Rybka may not be able to understand what's going on?
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
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.
It depends. The players have to understand the idea behind what the other player is doing. Assuming the world champ is helping a class B or lower player the 2000 players probably has the advantage. Also, who moves first. The regular player or the WC? Going through the opening on the white side, the player who plays first gets move 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 as white and the other only 4 of the first 9 moves.
Uh, no. How could one program the stronger Rybka to make inferior moves based on the knowledge that the "other" Rybka may not be able to understand what's going on?
Elementary, my dear Watson! You simply program the stronger Rybka to make inferior moves based on the knowledge that the "other" Rybka may not be able to understand what's going on! :D
Ok, sorry for the humour... so what you seem to be saying, then, is that if a GM were paired with a 1700, and the GM were making inferior moves so that the 1700 could understand what's going on, the two of them together would play stronger than the 1700 would all by himself or herself. Is this correct?
Then of course, this couldn't be tested with chess engines. What the chess engine test would do is test whether a weak engine partnering with a much stronger engine would play better than the weak engine alone, without the stronger engine making any inferior moves. I still think that would be an interesting test.
Your test would have to be done with humans, and I would think it would be hard on the GM to try and figure out what move can a 1700 figure out. And if you switched the GM's partner to a 1900, how would the GM then change his or her play... very hard on the GM, I would think.
Even with the GM dumbing down, I dont' think it would work out. Somewhere there's going to be a misunderstanding, I would guess. I like the theory that the two of them together would play weaker than either of them alone.
Now, where was I.... ah, yes, changing Rybka source code....
, but it was much worse than either of us would have done individually. . ;-)
i.e. team performance was lower than the strength of the weakest player (leaving aside which person that was --:-;)
Even dumbing down doesn't work. You imperfectly speak the same language but miscommunication remains (I thought you were talking about seals. What! you thought I was talking about sex? [ask a french speaking person for an explanation]
In that same tandem blit tournament the following happened to me [only the important pieces are on the diagram - I remember the theme but not the exact details We were up a piece but I'm not too sure where all of whites pieces were]
we were black. My plan for this position was to play Qa7 and if RxN then Bc5. But... my partner had the move and he saw something. He joyfully plays 1.....Nh3+ [white plays 2. Kh1].
My turn. Well what to do. Don't want to move the Q and leave the Nh3 hanging. So 2.... Nf2+ [white plays 3. Kg1].
My partner glares at me and Smash! 3...... Nh3+ (so much for no communication between partners). [4. Kh1]
Well what to do. Nf2+ is a triple rep. We were up a piece so I moved the Q somewhere (and dropping the Nh3) expecting the open white K to give us an edge.
Man, was my partner upset. Stupid master who doesn't even know the basic mates.
Last edited by Roger Patterson; Wednesday, 21st April, 2010, 08:49 PM.
From your description, your partner appears to be rather ... . I would think that anyone in his situation would ask something like "Okay, my partner is X00 points stronger than I am, what am I missing?" But maybe that's just me.
Anyway, that is blitz. I was thinking more for a "real" tournament game (more time for nuanced reflection).
Let's say you, Roger, are 2200. Let's say you are going to play a game with a time control that averages 3 mins/move. How well do you think you would play at 1 min/move? 1900? So a possible strategy would be to play all of your moves at an average rate of 1 min/move thereby giving your partner an average of 5 mins/move to play his. Assuming he is an 1800 player who would use the extra time, I don't see how the result would be worse than the 1800 playing alone.
This thread does give me that idea of suggesting to the RA Club a Thursday night event where the two players cannot communicate, the games are pretty slow (say 90 mins/side) and the sum of the two players' ratings cannot be over X (say 4000). I would imagine that two 1950s would beat a 2450 and a 1450, but maybe not.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
I would imagine that two 1950s would beat a 2450 and a 1450, but maybe not.
well the tandem event I was at was at one of the Gilbralter GibTel events and a rule was that the average rating could not be higher than x . Not quite sure in memory what x was but either 2200 or 2300. So there were lots of teams like Nakamura + someone, Sasikiran + someone etc. They all got smoked. Badly. I think the winners were Marc Caselais and J. Dworakowski (sp?) both whose ratings were close the maximum average allowed. [they either came first or came second behind a team with a similar set of ratings]
This thread does give me that idea of suggesting to the RA Club a Thursday night event where the two players cannot communicate, the games are pretty slow (say 90 mins/side) and the sum of the two players' ratings cannot be over X (say 4000). I would imagine that two 1950s would beat a 2450 and a 1450, but maybe not.
Tom, if this event does take place, could you try and get all game scoresheets and provide pgn files of the games, including who is moving on even and odd moves in each game? I know I would be fascinated to see that, and probably others too. It's a very intriguing idea.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
Comment