Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 14:02:03 04/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 1999 at 15:22:01, KarinsDad wrote: >On April 22, 1999 at 14:25:10, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: > >[snip] >> >> I like adjournments. They produce better chess, and that is important for me. >>The negative side is that the players do not sleep well when they have an >>adjourned game, most professional players prefer not to have adjourned games. >> I have had a lot of adjourned games (I even had a game that was adjourned >>twice), and they have helped me to improve my chess. But that was before >>computers were strong enough to be helpful for anaylisis, maybe today a player >>is tempted to let a program analyze and only believe its anaylisis. >> I see nothing wrong in a grandmaster who has a team of analysts to help him >>with the adjourned games (and with her/his general preparation), as they tend to >>improve the quality of the game after the resumption. >>José. > >The problem I have with it is that it is similar to the chess clock delay. With >the clock delay, the player is not forced to make all of their moves within a >given time frame, but rather within some random time frame based on the length >of the game. The same position can be made that the clock delay results in >better chess. > >However, just like adjournments, the better chess is played position for clock >delays is relatively weak. The viewpoint that a delay allows better chess to be >played since it minimizes the chance of a player being rushed and making a >mistake can be countered by the viewpoint that a delay can lengthen the game and >hence can cause mistakes to be made due to fatigue. It is a mechanism which >rewards the slower methodical type of player as opposed to the quicker, not so >methodical type of player (and it also favors younger players who are slower to >fatique than older players). > I have realized this before. In fact, I think that older players prefer action and blitz chess because they get tired with a standard game. Anyway, most of them do not use up all their time, while younger players almost invariably do. >Why should the game NOT be played with ONE player per side within a SET time >limit? This would be equally fair to everyone. > Well, the world championship matches have been played without sudden death time controls until recently. The only ones which have introduced it are the matches Kasparow-Short, Kasparow-Anand and the FIDE knock-out events. If no sudden death time control is used, adjournment becomes neccessary. >With adjournments, it is not necessarily the skill of the individual player that >is being tested in the endgame, but the skill of a team of players. Granted, the >player has to make the actual moves, but he can analyze the game with a computer >and/or team of other players and have a good idea of the basic mechanisms to win >or draw that game that he might not have had over the board. Although it may >result in a better level of chess being played for the first 5 or 10 moves after >the adjournment, it does not necessarily accurately reflect the playing ability >of the two players. > Under those conditions, which prevailed for more than one hundred years, I think it reflects the playing ability. >Also, making a statement that adjournments improves your own chess indicates >that you do not analyze your entire game afterwards as thoroughly as you analyze >an adjourned game when the game is still on the line (otherwise, you would learn >just as much by analyzing the entire game). > Of course I devote much deeper analysis to adjourned positions than to a finished game! I have a drive, which is to score a win or at least a draw. Perhaps it is a defect I have to correct, and I should also devote deep analysis to finished games. But that drive has really helped me. I think it can also work for others. >If people want to play higher quality chess, then they have the option of >correspondence chess. This should produce the highest quality games if that is >the driving factor. There is also the option of playing Advanced Chess (yuck, >but I do not have to worry about this since it will die a fast death once >computers are MUCH better than all humans). > I played an e-mail tournament! You seem to read my mind. I do not like the advanced chess option. >But the main idea of over the board chess where one opponent is playing against >another opponent is BEST served via a game with sudden death time controls and >NO outside influences. > I admit that sudden death may be neccesary for practical reasons. But if you can play full games without sudden death and the posibility of adjournment after the playing session is over (five or six hours) too, I can not recommend it enough. >All other games (in my mind) are chess variants. They are probably enjoyable by >a lot of people, but they are not a true one on one competition within a >reasonable time frame. I guess I am just a purist when it comes to this. > Then the grandmaster practice for more than one hundred years is a chess variant, according to your opinion. >Just my opinion, > >KarinsDad :) I wonder if any computer chess tournament game has been adjourned, and the machines left analysing all the time until resumption. That is an interesting posibility. José.
This page took 0.01 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.