Media comments on chess

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17408
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:53 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:46 pm
I do not want increments at all.
Let's suppose the players reach the "Arkell" ending of KRB v KR. What do want to see happen?

With increments it will be played out until either the player with KRB delivers mate or the player with KR claims a draw under the 50 move rule. Other chances are that either player oversteps the time allowance or there's a stalemate allowed. That would also have applied under the traditional rules of unlimited adjournments.

Without increments what happens? Either player may loose on time or they appeal to the arbiter if allowed under "unable" rules. That's what I mean about allowing the arbiter to determine the result.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17408
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:28 am

A piece in the Mail about Alpha Zero
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... -book.html

I don't think it adds much to what already is known.

What I wouldn't mind knowing is how good Alpha Zero thinks various gambits are. So how does it think the Morra compares to the Blackmar or the Kings Gambit? Maybe the forthcoming Sadler/Regan book will answer these things, or perhaps the "objective" merits of various openings will remain a closely guarded secret.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 1869
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Geoff Chandler » Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:15 am

Hi Roger,

More hypothetical situations. 'Let us suppose...'

We have had 11 decisive games from the last 5 World Championships. 7 of those came in Carlsen v Anand matches.
In three of the matches we got 4 decisive games from 36 matches. These are facts. Something needs to be done.
Have Carlsen play Anand all the time! Hopefully the new lad at FIDE lad will look into it and come up with something.
(it will be something nobody has thought of before...decrements! Can these clocks go backwards.)

(Checked Keith's games from 1977 to 2018 cannot find a KRB v KR ending. He had a few with pawns but no pure KRB v KR.
mind you this is from chessgames.com, they may not have all his games. )

In your second case that is what use to happen, the player made an appeal. It seemed to work. Chess is still here.

In increment chess you can still make an appeal if your opponent is just faffing about trying to stumble onto a win.
Or do you want them mess to about till the 50 move kicks in. If neither player claims the draw the arbiter steps in on move 75
and stops the game. I still see arbiters about at tournaments, Are you saying with increment chess we do not need arbiters?.

But you are winning this debate. This is how it should have been done without a 'let's suppose...' a real example.

I was looking for something else to make a point but had an Ah So moment I could not argue with. (it happens)

Duda - Caruana Olympiad 2018. (This went to a KRB v KR ending)

https://www.chessbomb.com/arena/2018-ba ... na_Fabiano

When the last pawn was taken (move 67) Duda had 2 minutes 10 seconds on his clock. Caruana had 2 minutes 30 seconds.
When the game was eventually drawn on move 118 Duda had 3 minutes 55 secs left and Caruana 3 minutes 10 seconds.
They are gaining time, both know it's drawn and are flicking out the moves. Caruana is looking for a mistake setting a trap
here and there but it does not look likely, but you never know, chess is chess.

At move 60 I want 15 minutes on their clocks and no increments. then Fab had 2 minutes 12 seconds, Duda 48 seconds.
We would have got a positive result. I'm happy.

Then I looked at the game and I can envisage Caruana moving without rhyme or reason simply to playing to clock him.
Yes it would have been ugly. Not sure I want that....infact I don't. Caruana was playing chess there. Have to give him that.

OK Increments are back in, but only after move 60. Odds on we won't see move 60 and get a positive results if no increments before then.

I can see your side. Hopefully we can agree that something has to be done. No more 6-6 matches with 12 draws.

The Karjakin idea, or was it Justin's, 13 games, (financially we can fit in the extra day because we are not having tie break day)
if drawn the most Black's wins, Champion chooses to have White or Black at the start of the match. That is interesting. Could work.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17408
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:49 am

Geoff Chandler wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:15 am
In increment chess you can still make an appeal if your opponent is just faffing about trying to stumble onto a win.
You are wrong, there is no such rule.

The only rule is that arbiters can step in if they spot five repetitions or 75 moves without a pawn move or piece capture.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 1869
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Geoff Chandler » Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:49 pm

Hi Roger,

I thought if you were not making any effort to win one could make such a claim.
But as I would never try such a thing (never tried to clock an opponent.) and
wins on time I have had are infact very few. (I can only think of two!)
then it's not something I would be too much aware off.

Do these situations not arise in increment? Thinking about it I guess not.
So one good point about these increments is it discourages bad sportsmanship.

Despite my ranting and raving on forums etc...etc.... and I wear my grumpy old man rights like a badge.
I've never been involved in a OTB dispute. I am naïve in these matters.
(I noticed me and you are both children of 1951.)
The rest will be thinking the grumpy old men are at it again!

But if I'm mistaken, then I'm wrong. Thanks for the heads up.

John Upham
Posts: 4157
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:29 am
Location: Cove, Hampshire, England.
Contact:

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by John Upham » Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:37 pm

Geoff,

Increments tend to avoid adjournments which (IMHO) is a good plus point.

Increments tend to avoid adjudications which (IMHO) is an even better plus point. The prospect of a third party completing someone else's game is ridiculous.

They avoid persons with lost positions flagging their opponent.

They reduce persons tediously playing on with lost positions trying to annoy everyone.

Ideally an evening session would be 40 in 2.5 hours etc but that is somewhat impractical.

I do not see a down side to increments other than they did not happen until the advent of digital clocks.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 1869
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Geoff Chandler » Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:00 pm

Hi John,

Agree with everything you say. in the 80's I was instrumental and heavily involved in getting adjournments out of the Edinburgh League.

My gripe is that at the top level increments are cutting down on decisive games. Not really the players fault for getting so good
they can avoid blunders due to the extra thinking time they get. Looking for a happy medium. Do not like rapid/blitz
to resolve tie breaks, but it produces decisive games (12 draws to 3-0) so time and how it is used and given is a factor.
That needs tweaking in classical games or do we just shrug our shoulders and leave things as they are.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 17408
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Roger de Coverly » Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:54 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 2:49 pm

I thought if you were not making any effort to win one could make such a claim.
You think incorrectly. In any event I don't see why having a game observed by an arbiter should require a higher standard of play than one without. So if a player cannot figure out how to deliver mate with Rook and King or perhaps with Knight and Bishop, they have 50 moves to attempt to find a method.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 1869
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sat Dec 08, 2018 2:33 pm

Hi Roger,

"I thought if you were not making any effort to win one could make such a claim." (I said that)

"You think incorrectly." Agree, but within reason. I thought there was a fabled 'two minute' rule.
Here again I must remind you I have never used such a rule or been involved in it.
I know how to move the pieces, I know how to act at a chessboard. I need not know anything else.

I did a quick check on this two minute thing. This was posted by Tryfon Gavriel in June last year.

https://www.quora.com/In-chess-tourname ... ut-of-time

"As far as most UK classical and FIDE Classic tournament rules go, if a player is purely trying to win on time,
then you can (if you have a certain low threshold of time left) call the arbiter and get a ruling on this.
The opponent cannot win just purely on time under English Chess Federation (ECF) chess rules."

“10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock,
he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)

a. If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible
to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim."

But I now take it these rules are no longer in place now we have increment clocks.
but it is the use of the word 'MOST' are there two sets of rules. One for increments clocks and another for mechanical clocks.

Seeking clarification and to avoid 'thinking incorrectly' (you should see some of my games, I can furnish dozens of
examples of me thinking incorrectly.) today I checked the FIDE rules and the role of arbiter.

The arbiter must not intervene in a game except in cases described by the Laws of Chess. He shall not indicate the number
of moves completed,
except in applying Article 8.5 when at least one flag has fallen.

Good arbiters are being kept at a distance.

75-move rule: 9.6.2

The game is drawn if the last 75 moves have been completed by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture.

( but who invokes the 75 move rule, if it is the arbiter then he is infact indicating the number of moves played...)

Carl, do I get a ECF Forum nit-pickers badge for that one?

Alex McFarlane
Posts: 1383
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Alex McFarlane » Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:03 pm

Hi Geoff,

I don't think you win a prize for nit-picking,though you may qualify for the post with the most errors in it!

There is no such thing as ECF Chess Rules. It is the FIDE Laws of Chess

10.2 was not as quoted in June last year. That rule had been moved to Appendix G 4 years previously and was about to be moved again less than a month later.

There is not a rule for increment clocks and mechanical clocks but there are different rules when increments are used and when they are not. If they are not used the clock can be digital or analogue (Now that is nit-picking!!!).

The arbiter is not saying how many moves have been played only that 75 have been played since the last pawn move or capture. Assuming the number of moves is 75 or more the total moves made is not important and is not announced by the arbiter as such.

Glad you have now read the rules though! Next thing we know you will be looking to attend an arbiters' course.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 1869
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sat Dec 08, 2018 4:04 pm

Hi Alex,

To be fair I was only the messenger there about the ECF Chess Rules....FIDE Laws of Chess ( I copied and pasted it).

(looked plausible..they have their own rating system so why not have there own set of rules
to encourage theses empty house rows they seem to thrive on.)

The post I used was dated June last year. Had no idea the rule had been removed.
Why should I. These OTB knick-knack rules don't apply to me. How many times have I
phoned you up to clarify a point in the rules. I know how the bits move. That will do for me.

I was nit-picking on the 75 move rule....I want my badge!

Thought about becoming an arbiter, but with the new powers invested in me I could not refrain from butting in when a player had a good
looking sac on.I would invoke ' rule 99 paragraph 66b.' If the arbiter sees a move that looks interesting he can force the player to make it.'

Neill Cooper
Posts: 1212
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Croydon
Contact:

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Neill Cooper » Sat Dec 08, 2018 6:30 pm

Friday's Times had a nice article about Alpha Zero and also a leader article. Good seeing chess getting such coverage in the national press.

Keith Arkell
Posts: 606
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Keith Arkell » Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:26 am

Geoff Chandler wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:15 am
Hi Roger,

(Checked Keith's games from 1977 to 2018 cannot find a KRB v KR ending. He had a few with pawns but no pure KRB v KR.
mind you this is from chessgames.com, they may not have all his games. )
They certainly don't, Mr Chandler, but what is your point? That I am lying when I say I have had 25, to date?

Would you care to make a bet with me that I haven't won this endgame 25/25 times? If so I will give you very good odds. But first I would recommend you consult with IM Loz Cooper, who accounts for 3 of them, John Nunn's Pawnless endgame book, written a couple of decades ago, which accounts for some more, and ( just thinking off the top of my head), in the summer of 2017, alone, it isn't hard to find that I had one at Paignton and one at the Midland Open ( not to mention the one v Dom Mackle, at a Plymouth Rapidplay, which didn't get published, but which I'm sure he would confirm were you to accept my bet).

Given the above, and that that I've been active for 40+ years, I'm surprised you don't think there are far more than 25, but if you want to give me some money then feel free to take up my bet. :?

And, by the way, I used this technique of offering to make a financial bet ( in that case of £100) a couple of years ago on Daniel King's Facebook wall, to silence a feminist, called Amanda Ross, when she wrongly challenged my grammatical use of the word 'would'.

Sadly, before I had succeeded in extracting an agreenent from her to bet me, James Essinger, best known for his book about the evolution of English language and spelling, and, incidentally, also known to us guys for his co-authoring of 'The Mating Game', with Jovanka Houska, stepped in and proclaimed that I was right and she was wrong.

For anyone who is interested, the sentence I used, and which related to Hou Yifan's protestations over her Gibraltar pairings, was ''The computer would have made the pairings by following a pre-ordained method based on scores of the players, their colour sequences, number of floats, relative ratings, etc''. Despite her claims to having a 'degree in English', or something like that, she seemed curiously unaware that my use of the word 'would', in this context, implied certainty.

I hope her degree didn't leave her with student debt. As an autodidact, I owe the state nothing :D

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 3756
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sun Dec 09, 2018 7:55 am

Returning to a point made upline.
It was suggested that increments should only be introduced after move 60. I disagree. I strongly believe that the rate of play shuld remain the same throughout the game and the Laws the game is played to. Otherwise people become confused.
It has been an objctive of the Laws in the past 25 years to minimise the involvement of the arbiter. When I was a youngster, there were 33 pieces on the board, the 33rd being the arbiter.
Even so, we do have our place. e.g. 1 Nf3 Nc6 2 Ng1 Nb8 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nb1 Ng8 5 Nf3 Nc6 6 Ng1 Nb8. 7 Nc3 Nh6 8 Nb1 Ng8 and the game is over on the 5 fold occurrence of position. I believe this brings the game into disrepute and the arbiter could and should have stepped in earlier.

The things one gets up to while on holiday in Mauritius!

LawrenceCooper
Posts: 4853
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:13 am

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by LawrenceCooper » Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:14 am

Keith Arkell wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:26 am
Geoff Chandler wrote:
Fri Dec 07, 2018 4:15 am
Hi Roger,

(Checked Keith's games from 1977 to 2018 cannot find a KRB v KR ending. He had a few with pawns but no pure KRB v KR.
mind you this is from chessgames.com, they may not have all his games. )
They certainly don't, Mr Chandler, but what is your point? That I am lying when I say I have had 25, to date?

Would you care to make a bet with me that I haven't won this endgame 25/25 times? If so I will give you very good odds. But first I would recommend you consult with IM Loz Cooper, who accounts for 3 of them........
Here's the one I have the moves for:

[Event "Staffs Open"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1991.05.26"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Arkell, Keith"]
[Black "Cooper, Lawrence H"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D20"]
[WhiteElo "2455"]
[BlackElo "2240"]
[Annotator "KCA"]
[PlyCount "183"]
[EventDate "1991.??.??"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. e4 e5 4. Nf3 exd4 5. Qxd4 Nc6 6. Qxd8+ Nxd8 7. Bxc4 Be6
8. Nbd2 Nf6 9. O-O Nxe4 10. Bxe6 Nxd2 11. Bxf7+ Nxf7 12. Re1+ Kd7 13. Bxd2 Bd6
14. Bc3 Rhg8 15. Nd4 Rae8 16. Nf5 Rxe1+ 17. Rxe1 g6 18. Nxd6 Nxd6 19. Re3 Re8
20. Rh3 Re7 21. g4 Rf7 22. f3 c5 23. Kg2 b5 24. b3 Ke6 25. Rh6 c4
26. h4 Nc8 27. h5 Ne7 28. hxg6 hxg6 29. bxc4 bxc4 30. Kg3 Rf8 31. f4 Rd8 32.
f5+ Nxf5+ 33. gxf5+ Kxf5 34. Kf2 Rd3 35. Bb4 c3 36. Rh7 Rd2+ 37. Kf3 Rd3+ 38.
Ke2 Rd2+ 39. Ke3 Rxa2 40. Bxc3 Kg4 41. Bd4 Ra3+ 42. Ke4 Ra4 43. Rh1 g5 44. Rg1+
Kh5 45. Ke5 Kg6 46. Rh1 Ra5+ 47. Ke4 Ra4 48. Rh8 Kf7 49. Rh6 a6 50. Rf6+ Ke7
51. Rg6 Ra5 52. Be5 Ra2 53. Rxg5 Rd2 54. Rg7+ Ke6 55. Rg6+ Kd7 56. Bf4 Rd1 57.
Rxa6 Ke7 58. Rc6 Kd7 59. Rc2 Ke6 60. Bd2 Kd6 61. Bb4+ Kd7 62. Ke5 Rh1 63. Bc3
Rh5+ 64. Ke4 Ke6 65. Bd4 Rh4+ 66. Kd3 Kd5 67. Rc5+ Kd6 68. Rg5 Ke6 69. Kc4 Rh1
70. Rg6+ Kf5 71. Rf6+ Ke4 72. Re6+ Kf5 73. Kd5 Rd1 74. Rf6+ Kg5 75. Rf2 Kg4 76.
Ke4 Re1+ 77. Be3 Kh5 78. Rg2 Ra1 79. Bf4 Ra4+ 80. Kf5 Ra5+ 81. Be5 Ra4 82. Rg8
Ra6 83. Rg5+ Kh4 84. Rg4+ Kh3 85. Rg3+ Kh4 86. Rb3 Ra5 87. Rb4+ Kh5 88. Rb1 Ra4
89. Rc1 Rb4 90. Ra1 Rc4 91. Bd6 Kh6 92. Ra7
1-0

There was also one at the Walsall Rapid, I don't have the moves but recall I was black and had 3 pawns (b6,c7,d6 from memory) which he rounded up without any problems. Like Keith, I am certain there's a third game but don't recall when/where or have it in my database.

Post Reply