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.
Susan Polgar has a poll on her blog asking people what they would be willing to pay as an entry fee in a handicap tournament where First Prize was $1,000,000.
She does not specify the handicap, but states that everyone would have a reasonable chance at the top prize. In order for that to be the case, I would suggest a handicap I once used at a Xmas Party tournament at the Bayview Club a few years ago. As far as I recall, the handicap was rating related >>>
For everyone to have a shot at the top prize, this would have to be a handicap tournament. One I have tried before is>>>
"for every 200 rating points you are ahead of your opponent you must remove 1 point in value from your starting line-up. Thus a 2300 player meeting a 1900 player would remove two pawns from his army. Against a 1700 player, he might remove his queens knight, for example.
Thus, everyone would feel they have a chance to beat a GM"
As I recall, an A Class player won first place despite a number of masters being in the line-up.
This scheme would not work if the ratings were not accurate to start with.
I may try this at a Xmas party later this year using our very accurate Rapid ratings. :)
Last edited by Vlad Dobrich; Friday, 15th June, 2012, 09:41 AM.
This scheme would not work if the ratings were not accurate to start with.
I may try this at a Xmas party later this year using our very accurate Rapid ratings. :)
By nature ratings are inaccurate, especially at the low end. Handicap tournaments with big money would encourage sandbagging even more than usual.
Some years back, we tried handicaps in blitz tournaments - every 200 points equalled one minute more/less on the clock (obviously - players never had less than one minute) . Invariably - the crosstables showed the same results - the strong players at the top, and the weak ones at the bottom.
Some years back, we tried handicaps in blitz tournaments - every 200 points equalled one minute more/less on the clock (obviously - players never had less than one minute) . Invariably - the crosstables showed the same results - the strong players at the top, and the weak ones at the bottom.
Wouldn't that imply that the handicap was not sufficient? Ideally the point of a handicap is to introduce enough entropy to cause strong players to fail (occasionally) and weak players to sometimes rise above their anticipated level.
How about a handicap where the stronger rated player has to win in x number of moves? Still artificial but it's better than taking pieces off the board to start the game in my opinion.
Wouldn't that imply that the handicap was not sufficient? Ideally the point of a handicap is to introduce enough entropy to cause strong players to fail (occasionally) and weak players to sometimes rise above their anticipated level.
In normal conditions anybody can sometimes rise above their anticipated level. It seems to me that the main idea behind handicaps would be to produce more interesting matchups, not to allow the impossible where a 1200 players beats a 2600 one. A big enough handicap to allow that on a regular basis would have to be gross. But whereas handicaps are part of the tradition in the game of GO, they have become totally obsolete in chess and have never fit very well with the nature of the game.
In normal conditions anybody can sometimes rise above their anticipated level. It seems to me that the main idea behind handicaps would be to produce more interesting matchups, not to allow the impossible where a 1200 players beats a 2600 one. A big enough handicap to allow that on a regular basis would have to be gross. But whereas handicaps are part of the tradition in the game of GO, they have become totally obsolete in chess and have never fit very well with the nature of the game.
The main idea of a handicap is indeed to allow the weak player to beat a very strong player. In poker or backgammon, the luck of the deal or the roll of the dice allow just that and that is why you have the WOSP (world series of poker) where the top prize is about $10,000,000 - everyone thinks they have a chance but not even the best players consider themselves to be the favorite to finish on top. (Hellmouth being the exception who thinks he should win every time :).
In chess tournaments, a weak player is always eliminated early and so the prizes are not very large since the entry fee for the class players reflect the fact that they cannot expect a big payday at the end.
The one instance in chess where the weak player can hope to beat a GM or master is in a simul and that is why the patzers continues to pay $20 and more for a chance to beat a top player. You would not want to change the rules of simul play in some way where the GM would never lose - no one would pay to play.
When I was learning there was an older man at the club. He used to like to play "progressive" with weaker opponents (which was most of them) but had one regular. Sometimes when his regular opponent didn't show I played him because he would basically teach while we were playing.
With progressive the first game was even. Second game he removed his bishop pawn. Third game either the knight or bishop. I forget which. Then it was the rook. He would remove his rook on a1 but move the pawn to a3 and then he moved something else to start. After that he would remove his queen but got 4 moves in exchange. None of the moves over the 4th. I seem to recall the moves were e4, d4, c4 (or maybe it was f4), one minor piece move and after he made the 4 moves he started so he got a 5th move.
One evening I worked him up to where I was spotting him a queen. It was the last time he ever played me.
I am puzzled by Jean's comment that handicaps do not fit with chess. My understanding is that in the 19th century most games were played with handicaps. Didn't Morphy on his return from Europe refuse to play except with a substantial handicap?
I am puzzled by Jean's comment that handicaps do not fit with chess. My understanding is that in the 19th century most games were played with handicaps. Didn't Morphy on his return from Europe refuse to play except with a substantial handicap?
I am well aware of your examples. But haven't you noticed that this was the 19th century and that now it is 2012 and no longer being done (probably for a reason...) ? How would you like to beat Short at knight odd ? Would you really enjoy it ?
Chess unlike GO, does not easily lend itself to handicaps. Giving away a pawn is not significant since one gets an open line in return. And nowadays giving a whole piece away is simply too much, even against an average amateur. But in GO, giving away one to nine stones is easily done on a 19x19 board. It makes for a longer, more interesting fight where the stronger player have plenty of time to make up for the handicap. There is no game like chess, where one single mistake can cost so much. That is why handicap games have gone out of fashion along with the increased level of the amateur players.
I want to know : what sensible rule do you have in mind to make sure the GM would never lose ?
OK Here's one. In a simul, the grandmaster can declare a draw at any point in the game and proceed to the next table. Although, I guess no simul giver with any class would resort to such a tactic. But I can think of some who would.:(
I agree with those who suggest that a material handicap in chess makes little sense. Certainly a time handicap would be possible, though how much time an Elo point is worth will always be arbitrary. In fact the world chess championship might have come down to something like this with draw odds to the player with less time. But both players should start with all of the pieces (not necessarily on their original squares). :)
I agree with those who suggest that a material handicap in chess makes little sense. Certainly a time handicap would be possible, though how much time an Elo point is worth will always be arbitrary. In fact the world chess championship might have come down to something like this with draw odds to the player with less time. But both players should start with all of the pieces (not necessarily on their original squares). :)
Having organized both chess clubs as well as tournaments, I have always thought it important to attract new players to the game. Most newcomers are seriously intimidated by the use of the chess clock. They at first forget to punch the thing after making their move. Then, when they lose the game on time, they come away thinking the game is for humbugs and not for decent people.
So time handicap is fine for experienced players but no so much so for the novice.
In general, the novice is much more acceptable of being spotted a knight or a rook and then having time to think. We've all seen beginning players for whom a queen spot is not enough. But then when they win their first game they come away hooked on chess. Isn't that what we want?
How would you like to beat Short at knight odd ? Would you really enjoy it ?
Chess unlike GO, does not easily lend itself to handicaps. Giving away a pawn is not significant since one gets an open line in return. And nowadays giving a whole piece away is simply too much, even against an average amateur.
My experience of being a B-A class player in blitz tournaments against masters (from Morenz and Nickoloff to recently Mark Plotkin) I have been a minor piece up and have lost like 10-1. I don't want to play GMs as they crush me out of an opening line, little thinking involved, no struggle. But I agree that starting without a piece is bastardizing the position. A master is way better than me and there's no way of getting around that.
Tweet
Comment