Author: KarinsDad
Date: 11:39:31 04/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2000 at 11:47:43, blass uri wrote: >On April 05, 2000 at 10:01:53, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On April 05, 2000 at 03:55:21, Peter Kappler wrote: >> >>[snip] >>>> >>>>The 50 move rule is a bogus rule anyway. The reason it is bogus is that the >>>>Fischer time controls are bogus. >>> >>>You lost me there. Fischer time controls have nothing to do with the advent of >>>the 50-move rule. The 50-move rule was around long before Fischer time controls >>>became popular. >>> >>>--Peter >> >>Agreed. I should have not said the "reason it is bogus". The 50 move rule was >>bogus when introduced. I liked the concept of 2 people, x amount of time, if you >>got yourself into a position where the 50 move rule could be applied and had >>little time on your clock, too bad. Try to find a draw by rep. Otherwise, your >>flag may fall. >> >>GMs tend to think of chess as the game itself, separate from the clock. They try >>to pretend that there is some artistic quality that time controls stifle. I do >>not understand this when 60% or more of GM games are draws anyway. >> >>Time control SHOULD be part of the game. The 50 move rule takes away from >>winning, drawing, or losing in x amount of time. Fischer rules also take away >>from this. In fact, you cannot have Fischer rules WITHOUT the 50 move rule or >>else a game could go on indefinitely. > >You can have fisher rules without the 50 move rule because there is no rule that >the game must end. Well, most people have a life. They have to eat. They have to sleep. So, having indefinite timed games just does not make any sense, especially at tournaments. > >Your ideas against fisher time control are going to produce more mistakes when >the sides are on time trouble. So? Why do we want a welfare society in a competitive environment like chess? Chess should be competition, aggression, cunning. It shouldn't be an environment of giving everyone a helping hand to do their best or protecting themselves from themselves. The fight should be the thing. Not the ability to fight on. > >I support the old time control of something like 2 hours/40+2 hours/40+2 >hours/40 because I want better games. What is the definition of "better games"? If someone plays at G5+5, they will probably have "worse games" than G60. If someone plays at correspondence, will they necessarily have "better games" than at 2 hours/40+2 hours/40+2 hours/40? Making mistakes is part of the game. If you wanted a game without mistakes, you should play tic tac toe. >> >>Hence, the 50 move rule was bogus to begin with and the Fischer rules came along >>and supported a non-existent NEED for the 50 move rule. > >The need was existent because people wanted better games. The need was more basic than that. GMs were taking a long time in games on early moves and finding out that they were in time trouble later. Since they had a difficult time with time management, they wanted to add rules to prevent themselves from losing games that were effectively drawn (if you discount the clock). It is an ego thing (which of course relates to fame, money, standing, etc.), not a "I want to give the world better games" thing. Now, when you have a position that will take 40 or 60 or 80 moves per side to win, it is easy to just play on without having a real clue as to how to have that win occur. So, the GMs did not want to sit around and let the opponent prove that they knew how to win. And the GMs ESPECIALLY did not want to lose on time when their opponent had no clue on how to win a won position. Again, a humanistic behavior (dealing with both fatigue and ego). So, the 50 move rule was introduced. And, in and of itself, the 50 move rule is not really that bad. I dislike it, but I can live with it. And, it is not that big of a deal for humans since it rarely comes into effect. But, when you add computers to the mix, it can come into effect more since they CAN try to win a position that takes 46 moves per side whereas the human may not know how to win it, so the human may take a chance on a different set of moves to force the game into a position that (s)he can win. But, the Fischer time controls suddenly come along and really change things. Now, a certain style of play is rewarded (the person who plays slowly and well) whereas other styles of play are actually penalized (the person who plays quickly and well) since some of that person's competition was given a reward which did not necessarily benefit him/her. I will probably always consider Fischer time controls to be "Welfare Chess". >humans have better chance against computers with the old time control or with >fisher time control and there is no reason to support computers in games against >humans by changing the rules. > >computers are going to win eventually so I support rules that help humans to >have better chances. > >Uri Not a bad goal for human/computer chess. But, when we are talking human/human chess, the important thing should not be better chess, but the competition. And, hence the reason we have tournaments with different time controls. People who like Fischer can play in tournaments which support Fischer. In the U.S., a lot of tournaments allow a modified type of Fischer (e.g G60 or G55+5). And, as black, you get to use your own clock, so about half of the time, you can force your opponent to play your type of time control. For the most part, playing modified Fischer is ok I guess. It gives more time to people who tend to play longer games (and hence gives them a slight advantage), but at least the first 60 moves (in the G60 or G55+5 example) have to be played within the same time period. I am not impressed with it, but I guess there are a lot of people who want to actually use the advanced features of the digital clock that they purchased in a tournament. KarinsDad :)
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.