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.
How would you like to beat Short at knight odd ? Would you really enjoy it ?
I would love the chance. Though a knight seems quite insufficient vs. Short. Milan Vukadinov used to blitz us patzers with rook odds, and 3 minutes to 5. That was a balanced game.
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.
Since amateurs frequently make mistakes, it's not hard for a master to make up the difference. The problem is that, in the presence of prepared openings, the masters lack experience innovating out of the opening. There are no handicap opening books, and so what could be a proper contest is delayed by a struggle to disorient the weaker player who is following standard lines.
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?
As an organizer if you really believe in handicap tournaments, go ahead! What's stopping you ? Personally I think it is a dead end. And the people on this board showing support for the idea will be the last to show up when the opportunity comes around.
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. :)
Vlad, do you have a link to the Susan Polgar blog post?
I'm wondering what her motivation for the question was. Is she trying to formulate some way to introduce "luck" into chess in the hope of giving chess the kind of mass entries and huge prizes of poker?
If so, I suggest an alternative to a handicap system:
Vlad, do you have a link to the Susan Polgar blog post?
I'm wondering what her motivation for the question was. Is she trying to formulate some way to introduce "luck" into chess in the hope of giving chess the kind of mass entries and huge prizes of poker?
If so, I suggest an alternative to a handicap system:
There is still a large amount of skill involved, along with a different kind of skill from regular chess.
As I see you are interested in exploring new avenues, I would suggest you simply google 'Susan Polgar chess' to reach her blog.
In the past, I have often been approached by failed chess-players with versions of 'improved' chess. They must have felt that since they couldn't beat the better players at chess, they would create a new version - to level the playing field as it were. As I understand it, you cannot patent a 'version' of chess or other game. However, you can spend several tens of thousands of dollars to produce, box and market your version and it will automatically (in Canada) be copyrighted.
As an organizer if you really believe in handicap tournaments, go ahead! What's stopping you ? Personally I think it is a dead end. And the people on this board showing support for the idea will be the last to show up when the opportunity comes around.
Jean, let me ask you this, do you actually read someone's post before responding? You certainly do not respond to what has actually been said.
Did I say somewhere that I intended to organize handicap tournaments on a
regular agenda? But if I should, it warms my heart to know that I have your permission. :p
"handicap" is no longer a politically correct term to use; it will turn off players. Better to refer to the tournament as being for the "chessically challenged"; even the term "woodpushers competition" would be more politically correct than "handicap".
"handicap" is no longer a politically correct term to use; it will turn off players. Better to refer to the tournament as being for the "chessically challenged"; even the term "woodpushers competition" would be more politically correct than "handicap".
We could work on making a handicap tournament by subjecting the top players:
- play blindfold, including finding the washroom
- their side of the clock doesn't work until hit 10 times
- their pieces are held onto the board by a powerful magnet
- have their hands tied behind their back, or fingers tied together
- have to wear headphones blaring music they hate
- be sleep deprived the night before
- have a heater beneath their chair
- have no chair and have to jump up to see the board
- be fed anti-depressants and other drugs
- randomly throughout the game be hit with a paddle
- have to hear kibitzers and critics behind their back
As I see you are interested in exploring new avenues, I would suggest you simply google 'Susan Polgar chess' to reach her blog.
In the past, I have often been approached by failed chess-players with versions of 'improved' chess. They must have felt that since they couldn't beat the better players at chess, they would create a new version - to level the playing field as it were. As I understand it, you cannot patent a 'version' of chess or other game. However, you can spend several tens of thousands of dollars to produce, box and market your version and it will automatically (in Canada) be copyrighted.
Firstly, I should note that I am NOT seeking to patent or copyright or trademark the idea that I call "Expedition Chess". It's a freebie.
Now, I don't want to get into anything with you Vlad; you are from what I can tell a hard-working chess organizer, and that is something I highly respect. But there is a negative tone to your reply, perhaps you are thinking that my post was motivated by a desire to publicize my idea. No: basically my post was to bring another form of "handicap chess" into the discussion, and as you point out, all these forms of handicap chess are meant to level the playing field. Once you do that, then other effects become apparent, such as the willingness of players to pay higher fees to play, knowing that they have a much better chance of achieving some sort of success (however tainted it might be). I was mostly curious if Susan Polgar was trying to enlist suggestions that would lead to the primary effect (level the playing field) and thus the secondary effect.
I'm not sure what compelled you to make the assertions you did about "failed chess-players" and their motivations for creating versions of "improved chess". We'll call this Definiton 1: A "failed chess player" is anyone who has never held the title of World Chess Champion, if we define "failed" strictly in terms of success against other human opponents.
If we expand those terms to include computer engines, then arguably all the World Champions would fit this definition, and definitely the most recent ones would.
But maybe you meant "failed" to define players who have tried the game of chess, had mediocre success if any at all, and because of this, left the game. Let's call that the more restrictive Definition 2. By the way, history abounds with very successful scientists, mathematicians, artists, engineers who fit the second definition, and so there is no need for anyone to be dismissive / judgmental of any such person.
And so when they come to you with an idea of a new form of chess, you assume it is their effort to give themselves a chance of winning. I'd say that's a bit presumptious of you. There's been recent threads about FischerRandom chess: should we presume that Fischer was a "failed chess-player" who felt a threat from others who knew openings better than he, and so had to mix it up to give himself a better chance? Or was he merely trying to improve chess, where "improve" meant taking the role of memorization mostly out of the game? I'd also suggest he might have been merely proposing a variant of chess to coexist with standard chess, but Kevin Pacey has asserted that that was definitely not the case, and I'm assuming (since I don't think it's important anyway) that Kevin knows of what he speaks.
I do need to correct your assertion about patentability. Perhaps in Canada you may be correct, but in the U.S., one certainly can patent a "version" of chess if it is sufficiently original and different from standard chess. It's very subjective to try and define "sufficiently original and different", and that is part and parcel of the U.S. patent process.
Here are some links that will prove those statements:
Tweet
Comment