Media comments on chess

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Kevin Thurlow
Posts: 3019
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Kevin Thurlow » Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:51 am

Friday's Telegraph sport section contained chess... An interview with Moeen Ali (recently rendered as "Maureen" by Sky Sports subtitles) revealed, "Tactically, he believes he is improving partly thanks to a rediscovered passion for chess." He was carrying a chess set around in Sri Lanka, but only Jos Buttler of the England players would take him on, Moeen winning all the time. He said, "You always have to be a step ahead and I find that interesting. Chess works the brain and I think it could help my cricket if I play a lot. Bowling is a bit like chess, you sometimes need to play the longer game."

He has a point, when you are bowling, you are trying to detect weaknesses in the batsman's technique and then attack those, or slightly vary what you do.

Stewart Reuben
Posts: 4011
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:04 pm
Location: writer

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Stewart Reuben » Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:55 am

Keith. This is a genuine inquiry,
When you reach R+B v R again, is there any interest in it for you? Is it not like K + Q v K in blitz for me? The only interest is in whether I will get to mate before my flag falls.
Now K + Q + N v K + R + B + N would interest all of us. Yet it takes more than 200 moves to win the exchange with best play on both sides. Both sides may legitimately be playing for a win. Yet the spoilsports would step in. declaring the game drawn after only 75 moves.

John McKenna
Posts: 3722
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by John McKenna » Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:08 am

Incidently, the game (above and below) begins with the same first four moves as one played yesterday in the British KO Ch. Houska,J-Hawkins,J (4.1).

Last edited by John McKenna on Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
To find a for(u)m that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now. (Samuel Beckett)

John McKenna
Posts: 3722
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 2:02 pm

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by John McKenna » Sun Dec 09, 2018 9:22 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 8:55 am
Keith. This is a genuine inquiry,
When you reach R+B v R again, is there any interest in it for you? Is it not like K + Q v K in blitz for me? The only interest is in whether I will get to mate before my flag falls.
Now K + Q + N v K + R + B + N would interest all of us. Yet it takes more than 200 moves to win the exchange with best play on both sides. Both sides may legitimately be playing for a win. Yet the spoilsports would step in. declaring the game drawn after only 75 moves.
May Keith never tire of his trademark ending.

However, your K + Q + N v K + R + B + N ending may be just too much even for him, though I think he might like to give it a try.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18164
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:31 am

Stewart Reuben wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 7:55 am
Otherwise people become confused.
If you are playing for the world championship, you should be able to cope with such matters.

The context is that there's a possible place for the traditional absolute timings of making a fixed number of moves in a fixed time. Players have to manage their thinking time and arbiters have no reason to intervene. The problem comes if the game has to be finished in a finite time. They could reach such a shortage of time that you could either get a ridiculous result such as King and pawn beating King and Queen or players have to make an appeal to the arbiter for a ruling. Neither are desirable and both can be avoided by introducing an increment at a late stage of the game. The Laws of Chess even allow the substitution of a clock with increments as an arbiter option in the event of a draw claim.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Ian Thompson » Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:47 am

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 10:31 am
The Laws of Chess even allow the substitution of a clock with increments as an arbiter option in the event of a draw claim.
Not quite. The Laws allow the player to request a clock substitution to one with increments and the arbiter to decide whether to grant the request or not. The Laws do not allow the player to claim a draw and the arbiter to then decide to replace the clock instead of ruling on the draw claim.

The Guidelines say that III.5 (draw claims) only applies if III.4 (clock substitutions) doesn't. So, before the game starts, the players will know whether they are able to request clock substitutions or make "cannot/not trying to win" draw claims. It can only be one or the other, not both. III.4 is badly written in my opinion. While there is guidance for the arbiter on how to deal with claims under III.5, there is nothing at all on how to decide whether or not a clock substitution request should be granted.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 18164
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Roger de Coverly » Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:05 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:47 am
While there is guidance for the arbiter on how to deal with claims under III.5, there is nothing at all on how to decide whether or not a clock substitution request should be granted.
I thought the reason it was conditional was that there might not be a suitable clock available or someone who knew how to set it. Is there a hole in the rules which says that if a clock cannot be substituted, you are playing without protection against losing on time in a drawn or won position?

I know that we discussed drafting some rules to allow clock substitution in local league play. We concluded that if a digital clock was guaranteed to be available, you might as well use it with increments from the start of the game.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5148
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:40 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 11:47 am
The Guidelines say that III.5 (draw claims) only applies if III.4 (clock substitutions) doesn't. ... III.4 is badly written in my opinion.
I think FIDE holds the view, which I share, that any tournament where digital clocks are used but without any increments is so perverse as to be beyond help.

This does leave a lacuna when some digital clocks are in use but there are not enough for all boards. It would seem likely that by the time one of the games encumbered by an analogue clock runs into Guideline III, a digital replacement will have become available.

Ian Thompson
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Awbridge, Hampshire

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Ian Thompson » Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:28 pm

Roger de Coverly wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:05 pm
I thought the reason it was conditional was that there might not be a suitable clock available or someone who knew how to set it.
It's not clear to me whether the intent of the rule is to allow someone to avoid losing on time regardless of the position on the board, or whether a clock should only be substituted if the position is such that a draw claim under III.5 would either be accepted immediately, or a decision deferred, if that rule was being used instead.

NickFaulks
Posts: 5148
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:41 pm

Ian Thompson wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:28 pm
It's not clear to me whether the intent of the rule is to allow someone to avoid losing on time regardless of the position on the board, or whether a clock should only be substituted if the position is such that a draw claim under III.5 would either be accepted immediately, or a decision deferred, if that rule was being used instead.
My belief is the first - III.5 is intended to come into play only when all other options, such as III.4, fail for some reason. Perhaps I say that because it is my own view. It is not unknown for a group of people to agree on the wording of a rule because they all think it can be interpreted in the way they variously favour.

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:25 pm

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?
Hi Keith,

Looks like you missed Roger using the term"Arkell" ending of KRB v KR. a few post before mine.
I ran that ending through chessgames.com to see how many you had...just curious to what your win/draw ratio was.

I added they probably do not have all your games. Obviously they don't. No slight intended.

For the record I have one since 1970. A draw (as expected I had the lone Rook....I'm always a piece down) .

Jonathan Bryant
Posts: 3149
Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Jonathan Bryant » Sun Dec 09, 2018 4:05 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:
Sun Dec 09, 2018 3:25 pm
Looks like you missed Roger using the term"Arkell" ending of KRB v KR. a few post before mine.
I ran that ending through chessgames.com to see how many you had...just curious to what your win/draw ratio was.
Last I heard it was +18 =0 -0.

Some comments on Keith’s ending here: http://streathambrixtonchess.blogspot.c ... w-iii.html

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:10 pm

Hi Jonathan,

Thank You.

I knew there must be some knocking about but it was just a ' by the way' moment, was hoping to find a few
to store for a rainy day when someone messes one up and I could find a nigh identical position of Keith's to
say this is how it should be done OTB rather use TB analysis to show it was humanly possible given time constraints.

After the post went onto Britbase which I've always found helpful in the past, but no utility (that I could see)
of just grabbing Keith's games. Then recalled there were few of these endings in the last Olympiad. Found this.

Carlos Ernesto Burgos Figueroa vs Thabo Gumpo - Chess Olympiad (2018)



Black resigned. spotted he can play 59...Rb4. Which has draw chances - (need Keith's help here - Last capture was on move 58. )

The Olympiad time control was 90 minutes for 40 moves then 30 minutes to the end of the game, with a 30-second increment from move 1.

Hmmm...

So off I went to look at an Olympiad that I know had no increment. 1996. Which had two KRB+KR endings. (2018 had 9)
Thought I'd pitch in saying increments increases this risk of this ending. Then thought 'big deal.' where am I going with this?
What exactly is the 'risk' to chess in KRB+KR endings. All I could think of was endgame books eventually out-selling books
on openings and that will never happen. But perhaps some budding endgame author could use that stat to show this type
of ending is on the up (thanks to increments) and needs some study time. (I'll give it a miss - once in 48 years does not seem worth it).

David Sedgwick
Posts: 3496
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 pm
Location: Croydon

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by David Sedgwick » Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:53 pm

https://www.conservativehome.com/thetor ... emate.html.

On the ballot of the Parliamentary Conservative Party regarding confidence or otherwise in Theresa May:

"The Queen is the most powerful piece on the chess board. And the Prime Minister is the most powerful member of the Government, usual rules permitting. May retains the title, but cannot move except into check. Her internal opponents can’t no confidence her for the next twelve months. But she can’t win votes or get legislation through without their help.

Across the board this evening, she and the pawns and knights of the ERG glower and frown at each other. We have stalemate.

And all the while, Labour watch and wait for the day when they can take on the Queen and her allies themselves – if she’s still in place then."

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 2011
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Media comments on chess

Post by Geoff Chandler » Thu Dec 13, 2018 1:25 am

They missed the chance to say one of her pawns might promote to a new Queen.

I see 'stalemate' has been misused again. You cannot have an ongoing stalemate. Stalemate means the game is over.

If we still go in March get ready for all the panic buying, which in some parts of the UK has already started.

Can we get descriptive notation back in our magazines if/when we leave?

Post Reply