Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 11:43:33 04/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 1999 at 11:58:58, KarinsDad wrote: >On April 22, 1999 at 17:02:03, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: > >>On April 22, 1999 at 15:22:01, KarinsDad wrote: >> >[snip] >> >> >>>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. > >Yes, I do think this. Most clocked games in history have been played with sudden >death controls (at least in my experience, just so that tournament directors >could continue the tournament without having to make special considerations, but >I have been in tournaments where this is not the case). So the grandmaster >practice may be a lower percentage occurrence (I do not have statistics on this, >so if someone does, please feel free to post them). > I do not have statistics either. But most likely you are right. My personal practice includes more games without sudden death time controls and the posibility of adjournment, and I am not a grandmaster (: >I think that the original practice of no clocks at all favored the person with >the best stamina, not necessarily the better player. I think adjournments give >an edge (not necessarily a win) to the player with the better analysis team. > >To me, an adjournment (where a computer or team of experts can analysis a >position) is the same as if someone played the first 5 moves of the opening and >then went to the bathroom where they look up a continuation in an opening book >or a chess database. If adjournments are allowed, should checking an opening >book not also be allowed? It will result in better chess and also does not >guarantee a win for the person who looked up the continuation. In fact, while >you are at it, why not have players play Advanced Chess instead of normal chess. >The argument is the same for these options as for adjournments. > >To me (and this in only my opinion), allowing adjournments is the same as >allowing someone to cheat since it allows them to use more resources than just >their own mind. > To summarize, let me only state that I disagree with your opinion on this particular point. >Another problem I have with this is that in a lot of tournaments, you can have >two rounds on Saturday and two on Sunday where a lot of the first day >adjournments are continued on Saturday night. If you have an adjourned first >round game on Saturday and then one of the two persons has a quick game in the >second round whereas the other person has a slow game, then the first person has >more time to analyze the adjourned position than the other before resumption of >the game on Saturday night. That person effectively has more "clock time" to >study that one position (regardless of whether he uses a computer or stronger >players to assist or not). This is not fair at all. > I admit that if two games are played in one day, sudden death is neccesary and that adjournments are not appropiate for those competitions. I think organisers should try to avoid it. >There is a good game that Karpov played when he was young where it is obvious >that the adjournment is the sole reason that one side won as opposed to the >other. I will look it up at home over the weekend and post it. > There are many games like that! Botwinnik and Keres were great analysts of adjourned positions, you can check their games that are over forty moves, and if you can get annotations from them you realize that those guys made incredibly deep analysis before the resumption. Anyway, please post the game you mention once you find it. >> >> 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. > >This is an interesting idea, however, I have noticed that in a lot of positions, >programs often stick (more than half of the time) with the move that they >calculated within the first minute. So there may be a lot of "adjourned" >positions that the next move is the same. However, I'm sure that the PVs would >be much better. > And even more interesting would be a comp-human match with adjournments! Imagine the machine analyising for 18 hours and the human (I am thinking of a grandmaster) working with her/his team of analysts. Most programs should be modified to handle adjournments; because when you adjourn a game there is always the other player's turn for your perspective. I think current programs choose a move to "ponder" on when it is the opponents turn, and that would be disastrous if the opponent actually makes another move (imagine wasting 18 hours of computer time). >>José. > >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.