English Chess Forum

A home for discussions on the English Chess scene.
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:43 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm
Posts: 117
There was a chess question on the TV show 'Pointless' tonight - "We gave 100 people 100 seconds to name as many chess pieces as they could that can move diagonally". (For those unfamiliar with this show, the respondents are 100 randomly selected people).

Predictably, the pawn got the lowest score, cited by 40 respondents. Somewhat more surprisingly it was closely followed by the bishop with only 45. The king was next lowest and the queen received the highest number of answers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:27 am
Posts: 218
It's an interesting question as to whether or not the knight also moves diagonally. Draw a line between its start and end points and you have a sloping line, which I believe is the simplest definition of 'diagonal', although of course we conveniently regard the diagonal in chess as being a 45 degree line belonging to a white or black square complex.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:43 pm
Posts: 978
Location: Croydon
Reg Clucas wrote:
There was a chess question on the TV show 'Pointless' tonight - "We gave 100 people 100 seconds to name as many chess pieces as they could that can move diagonally". (For those unfamiliar with this show, the respondents are 100 randomly selected people).

Predictably, the pawn got the lowest score, cited by 40 respondents. Somewhat more surprisingly it was closely followed by the bishop with only 45. The king was next lowest and the queen received the highest number of answers.

Assuming this a random sample, that implies about half the populations know how the pieces move in chess. That is more than I would have expected.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Posts: 961
Location: Sutton Coldfield
Neill Cooper wrote:
Reg Clucas wrote:
There was a chess question on the TV show 'Pointless' tonight - "We gave 100 people 100 seconds to name as many chess pieces as they could that can move diagonally". (For those unfamiliar with this show, the respondents are 100 randomly selected people).

Predictably, the pawn got the lowest score, cited by 40 respondents. Somewhat more surprisingly it was closely followed by the bishop with only 45. The king was next lowest and the queen received the highest number of answers.

Assuming this a random sample, that implies about half the populations know how the pieces move in chess. That is more than I would have expected.

I had the same thought. But it's also possible that some people just guessed the names of some pieces that they'd heard of, so it's hard to draw any conclusions.

_________________
Ian Kingston
www.iankingston.com
square65.wordpress.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Posts: 7360
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Ian Kingston wrote:
Neill Cooper wrote:
Reg Clucas wrote:
There was a chess question on the TV show 'Pointless' tonight - "We gave 100 people 100 seconds to name as many chess pieces as they could that can move diagonally". (For those unfamiliar with this show, the respondents are 100 randomly selected people).

Predictably, the pawn got the lowest score, cited by 40 respondents. Somewhat more surprisingly it was closely followed by the bishop with only 45. The king was next lowest and the queen received the highest number of answers.

Assuming this a random sample, that implies about half the populations know how the pieces move in chess. That is more than I would have expected.

I had the same thought. But it's also possible that some people just guessed the names of some pieces that they'd heard of, so it's hard to draw any conclusions.


Yes, I think Neill has drawn the wrong conclusion. The question was "We gave 100 people 100 seconds to name as many chess pieces as they could that can move diagonally".

The question is designed to enable people to say random piece names in the hope of saying a piece that moves diagonally.

If the question was "We gave 100 people 100 seconds to name as many Oscar-winning actors as they could", then I for one would just spout out the names of random actors, because I'd have no idea as to whether they were Oscar winners or not.

_________________
April 26-27: National Club Championships
July 12: County Championship Finals Day
July 19-August 2: British Chess Championships


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm
Posts: 117
Alex Holowczak wrote:

If the question was "We gave 100 people 100 seconds to name as many Oscar-winning actors as they could", then I for one would just spout out the names of random actors, because I'd have no idea as to whether they were Oscar winners or not.

I don't know whether they have a process for avoiding this sort of thing, e.g. by ignoring all respondents who give any incorrect answers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:33 am
Posts: 355
Location: Coventry
I think I can see why the show is called 'Pointless' :roll:

Is the title intended to be ironic?

_________________
"Tactics flow naturally from a superior strategical position".
Bobby Fischer


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
Posts: 7360
Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Reg Clucas wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:

If the question was "We gave 100 people 100 seconds to name as many Oscar-winning actors as they could", then I for one would just spout out the names of random actors, because I'd have no idea as to whether they were Oscar winners or not.

I don't know whether they have a process for avoiding this sort of thing, e.g. by ignoring all respondents who give any incorrect answers.


Well, why else would they be given 100 seconds?

_________________
April 26-27: National Club Championships
July 12: County Championship Finals Day
July 19-August 2: British Chess Championships


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Posts: 961
Location: Sutton Coldfield
Reg Clucas wrote:
Alex Holowczak wrote:

If the question was "We gave 100 people 100 seconds to name as many Oscar-winning actors as they could", then I for one would just spout out the names of random actors, because I'd have no idea as to whether they were Oscar winners or not.

I don't know whether they have a process for avoiding this sort of thing, e.g. by ignoring all respondents who give any incorrect answers.

They've occasionally mentioned some of the wrong answers people give, so I suspect not.

Sean Hewitt wrote:
I think I can see why the show is called 'Pointless'

Is the title intended to be ironic?

Definitely an element of that.

Our President will be appearing on the celebrity version of the show - Pointless Celebrities - soon. I think he's partnering snooker player Shaun Murphy.

_________________
Ian Kingston
www.iankingston.com
square65.wordpress.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:43 pm
Posts: 978
Location: Croydon
Alex Holowczak wrote:
Yes, I think Neill has drawn the wrong conclusion.

Agreed. It should have been that 50% of the population know the names of the chess pieces.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:07 pm
Posts: 185
"Pointless Celebrities"? Shurely a tautology??

_________________
"The chess-board is the world ..... the player on the other side is hidden from us ..... he never overlooks a mistake, or makes the smallest allowance for ignorance."
(He doesn't let you resign and start again, either.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Posts: 2498
Location: writer
I haven't seen the programme. Is it intended that the question is worded in a rather meaningless fashion?
Much better would have been:
There are 6 different chess pieces in a chess game. Name all those which can legally move diagonally.
That probably isn't perfect either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
Posts: 961
Location: Sutton Coldfield
More Pointless chess today: contestants were asked:

  • Number of pieces on the board at the start of the game
  • World governing body
  • Name of the IBM computer that beat Kasparov
  • US World Champion
  • The piece which can only move diagonally

_________________
Ian Kingston
www.iankingston.com
square65.wordpress.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Posts: 1117
Location: Fleet, Hampshire
Ian Kingston wrote:
More Pointless chess today: contestants were asked:

  • Number of pieces on the board at the start of the game
  • World governing body
  • Name of the IBM computer that beat Kasparov
  • US World Champion
  • The piece which can only move diagonally

Should we be pleased that 49% of people surveyed knew how many pieces there are on the board at the start of the game or disappointed that 51% didn't know? Similarly, pleased that 57% knew a bishop moves diagonally or disappointed 43% didn't know? I was a bit surprised that only 20% knew Fischer and 6% Deep Blue, but not at all surprised that only 1% knew of FIDE.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Pointless Chess
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:24 pm
Posts: 999
Ian Thompson wrote:
...not at all surprised that only 1% knew of FIDE

Really? That means c. 600,000 British people did know! Halve it to eliminate children, the insane, and obsessive football supporters. That makes 300,000 Brits who have heard of FIDE. Frankly, this is alarming!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Exabot [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group