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.
OK, I dispute your claim. We don't have 8 pieces tablebases to study the situation described above but... we do have 6 pieces tablebases. Just try this:
White to move: king on e3, pawn on f4
Black: king on e6, pawn on f5
Now you can try whatever piece dropping you want for white, but black can ALWAYS drop a queen to secure a draw. I tried, just as an example, to drop a queen on d4, threatening to win the black pawn by Qe5+. Guess what? If you drop a black queen on ANY square where it is not threatened by white (careful with g8 and h6!) then you have a draw with white to move.
Basically, this example shows that it is almost impossible to change the outcome of the game with your variant. Some endgames are really that drawish... And the point is that there's hundreds of these positions where adding one piece on each side changes absolutely nothing, even with perfect play.
So your variant is, at best, a huge waste of our time...
Mathieu
Mathieu, thanks for playing. I hope your last statement (which I consider a huge jump in logic, to the point of being foolish) doesn't point to an existing bias on your part against variants in general, or even against this particular one?
The fact that you can come up with one or a dozen or, as you claim, even hundreds of such positions is exactly why my proposal includes the rule that 120 moves by both sides is declared a draw. I recognized that you can't force a win in every and all endgame positions just by dropping a piece for each player.
It's revealing that you dispute my claim about King-and-2-pawns by coming up with a King-and-single-pawn example. You even admit that we don't have 8 piece endgame tablebases. The very fact that we don't have 8 game endgame tablebases reveals the incredible variety that you are talking about with 8 piece endgames. And with that incredible variety comes... opportunities to force wins.
I was almost tempted to dispute your claim about there being hundreds of such positions... but the fact is, it doesn't matter. Because if there are hundreds of such positions, then 2 players who want to avoid a 120-move draw will try to avoid reaching those positions. And it looks like the vast majority, if not ALL, such positions are King-and-pawn versus King-and-pawn. It may even be that the pawns have to be on the same file as in your example.
My proposal gives each player plenty of chances to trigger the resurrection of pieces long before it gets down to these hundreds of absolutely drawn positions. In fact, the concept of zugzwang in chess will be expanded. It will now apply to those cases where a player wants to produce a 3-time repetition or keep making non-pawn, non-capturing moves, but at the same time, s/he realizes that doing so will allow the opponent to resurrect a piece first and have much better chances of winning the game.
Please understand a key point about my proposal: IT ONLY ALLOWS STALEMATE DRAWS AND 120-MOVE DRAWS AND LACK OF MATING MATERIAL DRAWS (Note: I am inclined to remove one of the legitimate draws listed under item (iii) in my proposal, and instead making those situations avoid the 20-move rule or exchange off all material).
Why is that a key point? Because it changes the entire psychology about draws. It makes draws VERY undesirable except for stalemate. Who wants to strive for a 120-move draw and risk blundering on the 119th move and losing?
So Mathieu, yes, your hundreds of absolutely drawn positions may indeed exist. Hundreds among... quadrillions... quintillions...???. This in no way allows your huge jump in logic to hold any water at all. In fact, I believe that the amount of time wasted will be significantly LESS than the time being wasted currently.
Last edited by Paul Bonham; Thursday, 13th September, 2012, 12:08 AM.
Reason: clarification of allowable draws
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
your hundreds of absolutely drawn positions may indeed exist. Hundreds among... quadrillions... quintillions...???
Actually, it must be admitted that many drawn endgames would become totally lost with the new rule. For example, KNN against K is a draw, but not KQNN against KQ. Quite a few drawn positions KP against K would become lost with both queens added. Opposite color bishops would not bring as many draws as before, because adding queens may introduce unstoppable mating threats. There must be lots of other examples. Most positions with a material disadvantage of one pawn would become almost impossible to draw, because they are already difficult to hold, and as soon as a draw would be in sight, the stronger side would force repetition to add a new queen... which means that in many positions, people may resign as soon as they lose a pawn, rather than opposing futile resistance and trying to make a draw that does not exist anymore...
Think about it. Even a very elementary position like KQ against K-rook pawn on the 7th is not a draw anymore, because rather than to force stalemate, the stronger side will repeat the position in order to place a new queen on the board, since KQQ against KQP should win easily. So in your new game, endgame books will have to be rewritten entirely, because players will want to learn the few positions that are still drawn and the many resignable positions that are not worth playing anymore.
Now, is all this good or bad? I wonder. But of course new games have the right to exist, and the best way to assess a new game is to try it when all rules are known. Here, you gave only the rules for draws, and considering what you hope to do with this new game, there must be a lot more... so rather than condemning this new board game in advance, I will just wait until it comes to light.
So you're comparing yourself with some of history's greatest inventors... Ok, go ahead and invent this new chess variant, and when you see how few people care about it, then come back and gloat about how awesome you are.
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
Ha ha! good one! This board game, and its author, will never come to light...
Mathieu out
It already has come to light. It's called Crazyhouse, and you can play it on ICC.
Paul thinks (if you could call it that) that adding a few rules, he can change chess into crazyhouse without anyone realising it, just to avoid a non-existent problem where he claims that draws of any kind are bad for organised chess.
The only thing that's bad for organised chess is listening to Paul...
Jordan out
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
So you're comparing yourself with some of history's greatest inventors... Ok, go ahead and invent this new chess variant, and when you see how few people care about it, then come back and gloat about how awesome you are.
This is exactly what a troll would say. I brought up these people to disprove your theory that a 1700 rated chess player can't possibly have any good ideas for chess, by showing that college dropouts can still create some of the world's greatest visions and ideas.
With egg on your face, you come back with me comparing myself to them. So predictable, these ad hominen attacks. It's all been done before, Jordan, and all you show is what an amateur debater (and a troll) you are. If this were a debating reality show, you'd have been shipped home the first day.
You just can't stand the fact that I made you look silly. Let those with eyes to see, see.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
This is exactly what a troll would say. I brought up these people to disprove your theory that a 1700 rated chess player can't possibly have any good ideas for chess, by showing that college dropouts can still create some of the world's greatest visions and ideas..
Fischer did not finish (high) school too. So his brightest idea came to him only after championship years.
Regarding two computer guys: as singers sing "it takes two". S.Jobs had a buddy S.Wozniak (a guy who thought that a good computer must have a colorful monitor.) B.Gates was not alone too (At least P.Allen coined the company name M$)
Actually, it must be admitted that many drawn endgames would become totally lost with the new rule. For example, KNN against K is a draw, but not KQNN against KQ. Quite a few drawn positions KP against K would become lost with both queens added. Opposite color bishops would not bring as many draws as before, because adding queens may introduce unstoppable mating threats. There must be lots of other examples. Most positions with a material disadvantage of one pawn would become almost impossible to draw, because they are already difficult to hold, and as soon as a draw would be in sight, the stronger side would force repetition to add a new queen... which means that in many positions, people may resign as soon as they lose a pawn, rather than opposing futile resistance and trying to make a draw that does not exist anymore...
Think about it. Even a very elementary position like KQ against K-rook pawn on the 7th is not a draw anymore, because rather than to force stalemate, the stronger side will repeat the position in order to place a new queen on the board, since KQQ against KQP should win easily. So in your new game, endgame books will have to be rewritten entirely, because players will want to learn the few positions that are still drawn and the many resignable positions that are not worth playing anymore.
Now, is all this good or bad? I wonder. But of course new games have the right to exist, and the best way to assess a new game is to try it when all rules are known. Here, you gave only the rules for draws, and considering what you hope to do with this new game, there must be a lot more... so rather than condemning this new board game in advance, I will just wait until it comes to light.
You are making good thoughtful point, Louis. But there's one thing I want you to rethink, the point you make that "in many positions, people may resign as soon as they lose a pawn". This might be true in an endgame, but in a middlegame, what the player who loses a pawn can and must do is find the most risky, aggressive moves they can to force the game into unclear avenues.
This is like in tennis when you're down a break in a set, for the rest of that set, you go for shots you normally wouldn't go for. You play more aggressively. Or in golf, when you're trailing the leader and a win is all you hope for, you start trying more aggressive shots. It's all part of the game.
Also, the player who is down a pawn can try and be the FIRST player to be able to resurrect a piece.
I should also mention that this proposal of mine is NOT PART of the new venture that we will be rolling out in 2013. It doesn't need to be. Draws will not be a problem in that venture, but for very different reasons.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Fischer did not finish (high) school too. So his brightest idea came to him only after championship years.
Regarding two computer guys: as singers sing "it takes two". S.Jobs had a buddy S.Wozniak (a guy who thought that a good computer must have a colorful monitor.) B.Gates was not alone too (At least P.Allen coined the company name M$)
Who is your secret helper? :D
Jean Hebert. :D
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Of course, we all would like to see more support for chess - period. The little support there is has to be handed out very carefully since it is so minimal.
Oh.... maybe not so fortunately...
Looks like you got "dragged down" to Jordan's level, Kerry. :p
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
It already has come to light. It's called Crazyhouse, and you can play it on ICC.
Paul thinks (if you could call it that) that adding a few rules, he can change chess into crazyhouse without anyone realising it, just to avoid a non-existent problem where he claims that draws of any kind are bad for organised chess.
The only thing that's bad for organised chess is listening to Paul...
Jordan out
More misinformation from the Trollster. My proposal is not Crazyhouse, it is a hybrid of Crazyhouse and standard chess.
Just to list a few changes from Crazyhouse:
(1) You don't resurrect pieces you've captured, you resurrect pieces that were originally yours and your opponent captured.
(2) you cannot ressurect a piece to give check or checkmate.
(3) there are restrictions on when you can ressurect a piece
There could be more differences, but that's enough to make it clear this is not Crazyhouse.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Tweet
Comment