Pointless Chess
-
- Posts: 602
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm
Pointless Chess
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 12:27 am
Re: Pointless Chess
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.
-
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Cumbria
Re: Pointless Chess
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.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.
-
- Posts: 1071
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
- Location: Sutton Coldfield
Re: Pointless Chess
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.Neill Cooper wrote: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.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.
Ian Kingston
http://www.iankingston.com
http://www.iankingston.com
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Pointless Chess
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".Ian Kingston wrote: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.Neill Cooper wrote: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.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 602
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 3:45 pm
Re: Pointless Chess
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.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.
Re: Pointless Chess
I think I can see why the show is called 'Pointless'
Is the title intended to be ironic?
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Is the title intended to be ironic?
-
- Posts: 9085
- Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 5:18 pm
- Location: Oldbury, Worcestershire
Re: Pointless Chess
Well, why else would they be given 100 seconds?Reg Clucas wrote: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.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.
-
- Posts: 1071
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
- Location: Sutton Coldfield
Re: Pointless Chess
They've occasionally mentioned some of the wrong answers people give, so I suspect not.Reg Clucas wrote: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.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.
Definitely an element of that.Sean Hewitt wrote:I think I can see why the show is called 'Pointless'
Is the title intended to be ironic?
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
http://www.iankingston.com
http://www.iankingston.com
-
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Cumbria
Re: Pointless Chess
Agreed. It should have been that 50% of the population know the names of the chess pieces.Alex Holowczak wrote:Yes, I think Neill has drawn the wrong conclusion.
-
- Posts: 711
- Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 1:07 pm
Re: Pointless Chess
"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.)
(He doesn't let you resign and start again, either.)
-
- Posts: 4542
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
- Location: writer
Re: Pointless Chess
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1071
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:16 pm
- Location: Sutton Coldfield
Re: Pointless Chess
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
http://www.iankingston.com
http://www.iankingston.com
-
- Posts: 3551
- Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
- Location: Awbridge, Hampshire
Re: Pointless Chess
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.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
Re: Pointless Chess
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!Ian Thompson wrote:...not at all surprised that only 1% knew of FIDE