![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
In WBCCC 2011 we did not have this prob.
Now we have it and it looks serious.
I am not talking about games where one side has an advantage but about games in which you could pick any of say 10 moves and game is a draw.
I know its within rules but i believe a player should be able to turn to arbiter and say i may have spent a bit of time but game is a dead draw now.
Welcome other opinions.
Now we have it and it looks serious.
I am not talking about games where one side has an advantage but about games in which you could pick any of say 10 moves and game is a draw.
I know its within rules but i believe a player should be able to turn to arbiter and say i may have spent a bit of time but game is a dead draw now.
Welcome other opinions.
![[in]](/mwf/v12/flags/in.png "India")
As its World Blitz Corr Chess Championship , Time is a factor to win. There is no problem in it. In otb most wins come from time trouble.
Hence Winning in time is a part of this WBCCC.
Hence Winning in time is a part of this WBCCC.
+1
-1
do you like that if in a total draw position,me playing against you,and because you habe 'x' problems,i try to flag you om time,and i win the game based only on that,a draw game?and worst,would you like that me,knowing that is a dead draw,i wont accept your draw offer just to flag you?
do you like that if in a total draw position,me playing against you,and because you habe 'x' problems,i try to flag you om time,and i win the game based only on that,a draw game?and worst,would you like that me,knowing that is a dead draw,i wont accept your draw offer just to flag you?
A total draw position as you explained is a different matter, I agree with you on that point.
that is what i claim,about draw positions
and im gonna be more clear;an endgame Kbk v K,even if it a won endgame,if your opponent doesnt know how to give check mate to you,and he is only trying to win based on time without making any single imrpovement,you can also claim to the arbiter,an arbiter will declare the game draw if he looks your opponent doesnt know how to mate you and he is only trying to flag you
and im gonna be more clear;an endgame Kbk v K,even if it a won endgame,if your opponent doesnt know how to give check mate to you,and he is only trying to win based on time without making any single imrpovement,you can also claim to the arbiter,an arbiter will declare the game draw if he looks your opponent doesnt know how to mate you and he is only trying to flag you
Om my friend,do you know that a player can claim a draw in a draw position if the player shows to the arbiter that his opponent isnt making any single improvement to his position,and he is only trying to win on time?
read the FIDE rules
read the FIDE rules
The most important thing is to convince the Arbirter and now a days arbiters are not fools.
some positions are clear draw,and even more,playing with engines are more clear draw;arbiter only need to look the game with an engine and see that the opponent never made any aingle improvement in the last moves,and that cam be easy look with the help of the engines Om
What if there is a Horizon effect ?
Om,to have an engine an horizont effect,you need a lot of factors:
1)that engines never had enough deep search
2)that just with that enigine was analized the game (i doubt that more than one engine has the same horizont effect)
3)that a player was only using the ''engine-skill'' to play his game (with none knowledge from his part)
4)that he uses a weak hardware (and that can be avoided because some people here has a very powerful machines)
5)that when more than 1 player agree that is a dead draw,all the players had the same horizon effect,and that is nearly impossible since one of them have good hardware,and other weak hardware
so in esence,if various players agree about is a dead draw,you can surely discard the horizon effect...apart from that,some players here have good skills to detect if a position is a dead draw or not,and have the general ideas to make the 'draw'...and appart from that,if different persons with different engines with different times with different hardware gives the same evaluation (lets say +0.01) to the position,you can safely discard the horizon effect
1)that engines never had enough deep search
2)that just with that enigine was analized the game (i doubt that more than one engine has the same horizont effect)
3)that a player was only using the ''engine-skill'' to play his game (with none knowledge from his part)
4)that he uses a weak hardware (and that can be avoided because some people here has a very powerful machines)
5)that when more than 1 player agree that is a dead draw,all the players had the same horizon effect,and that is nearly impossible since one of them have good hardware,and other weak hardware
so in esence,if various players agree about is a dead draw,you can surely discard the horizon effect...apart from that,some players here have good skills to detect if a position is a dead draw or not,and have the general ideas to make the 'draw'...and appart from that,if different persons with different engines with different times with different hardware gives the same evaluation (lets say +0.01) to the position,you can safely discard the horizon effect
+1
totally agree with you;here,and playing eith the help of the engines,is a total faul of respect for your opponent play and play in a draw position,and the worst,in a position that you know that id a draw,just to try to flag your opponent
if that were a OTB tournament,a player cam speak with the arbitet and tell him:ey,that is a draw position,and my opponent isnt make any single improvement on his position,and he is trying to win his game only based on time
of course,you can only claim that in a clear dead position...and with the help of the engines,an arbiter (here Garvin) can know in a few minutes if the position is a clear deaw or not,if the opponent is making any single improvement on his position or not,and since we are playing with FIDE rules,the opponent can claim the draw,and will avoid lossing on time in a position that his opponent cant win and from his play,cant improve
totally agree with you;here,and playing eith the help of the engines,is a total faul of respect for your opponent play and play in a draw position,and the worst,in a position that you know that id a draw,just to try to flag your opponent
if that were a OTB tournament,a player cam speak with the arbitet and tell him:ey,that is a draw position,and my opponent isnt make any single improvement on his position,and he is trying to win his game only based on time
of course,you can only claim that in a clear dead position...and with the help of the engines,an arbiter (here Garvin) can know in a few minutes if the position is a clear deaw or not,if the opponent is making any single improvement on his position or not,and since we are playing with FIDE rules,the opponent can claim the draw,and will avoid lossing on time in a position that his opponent cant win and from his play,cant improve
I don't play in this event, but from my humble viewpoint - when it's a formal competition - not a friendly game - and there's allotted time - winning on time is a fair strategy and if someone is able to do that - kudos! Almost as sweet if not sweeter than winning by a great novelty. Paraphrasing on Clinton - "It's the win, stupid" :)
![[mx]](/mwf/v12/flags/mx.png "Mexico")
+1
A win is a win, flagging is not less valid than checkmating the opponent.
A win is a win, flagging is not less valid than checkmating the opponent.
![[fi]](/mwf/v12/flags/fi.png "Finland")
> A win is a win, flagging is not less valid than checkmating the opponent.
There's actually a bughouse variant where mate doesn't even count: pawns are promoted to pieces from the other board, so the mated player's partner can undo the mate by promoting the mating piece away.
It seems that would solve all these problems: Since we're not playing chess anyway I'm proposing that Bughouse Variant for WBCCC 2013, it would probably solve the "too much draws" issue as well. Gonna get crazy with 4 simultaneous games per player and the drama that would emerge when two players that hate each other have to be partners would ensure nobody can say "god, this is boring" anymore.
> It seems that would solve all these problems: Since we're not playing chess anyway I'm proposing that Bughouse Variant for WBCCC 2013, it would probably solve the "too much draws" issue as well.
Bughouse (in any form) is much more about moving faster than your opponent('s partner) than blitz could ever hope to be. Correspondence bughouse would be just like 2-minute bughouse.
Does this also apply to Bughouse with increment? Because, there it's very pointless to sit as long as the increment is long enough to ensure the parties can't lose on time (imagine, 2 minute Bughouse with 1 hour increment).
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
Sure. In Bughouse, it is extremely important to have more time than your partner's opponent. For this reason, correspondence bughouse does not sound like a good idea.
> In Bughouse, it is extremely important to have more time than your partner's opponent.
Even if it's ensured the game won't be won on time? I think if one side applied that strategy of playing like 2minute bughouse, while the other took their time to move (and we're talking here of 30 days for whole game plus one hour increment) that the team taking its time would play so much better moves that would obliterate the other team before the time on the clock of the teams is of any concern.
Imagine a Bughouse game with infinite clocks, here, all players have always the same time, so you can't have more than your opponent's partner. I think after the time control gets long enough it approaches this effect and the game is decided on the board.
I said it is very important to have more time on the clock. So if your opponents take their time, you can do the same, just a little less.
A bughouse game with infinite time will never be decided.
A bughouse game with infinite time will never be decided.
>just a little less.
I have actually played Bughouse with increment at FICS. I can say the bigger the increment, the less important time on the clock is. I have never played Vempele's variant with the piece promoting to kings, though, perhaps that's different.
> A bughouse game with infinite time will never be decided.
All games on corr chess section start with infinite time (no time forfeit on the clock), most of them end with decided result.
> I have never played Vempele's variant with the piece promoting to kings, though, perhaps that's different.
No, pawns still promote to the same pieces they do in regular chess, those pieces just come from the other board.
Oh, so here:
White just needs to wait for his partner to promote a pawn to the Black Queen on the other board so the king is free and white can continue? And then if the partner's opponent has more time on the clock, he can just sit and wait till this one is flagged? It would sound really crazy.
I had pictured the partner promoting a pawn to White's king, so the king would escape to the other board, but I don't know if this would cross the line between crazy and retarded.
r1n2r2/p2pp3/Kq1n2b1/pp1B1b1k/1p5P/1ppPNNQ1/P1P1P1PP/R4B1R w - -
White just needs to wait for his partner to promote a pawn to the Black Queen on the other board so the king is free and white can continue? And then if the partner's opponent has more time on the clock, he can just sit and wait till this one is flagged? It would sound really crazy.
I had pictured the partner promoting a pawn to White's king, so the king would escape to the other board, but I don't know if this would cross the line between crazy and retarded.
Maybe I should explain what I mean: In Bughouse, waiting (e.g. for a particular piece) is a very important part of the strategy.
And his point is that increments tend to resolve the stalling situation in favor of the non-stalling side.
Also killing some of the essence of bughouse.
Also killing some of the essence of bughouse.
I'm not sure what 'the non-stalling side' means. Suppose you will get a desired piece in the other board's next move. If you have more time than your partner's opponent, you can wait. If not, you cannot. Increments don't change that.
I agree that increments most likely change the game a lot, though I never tried Bughouse with increments.
I agree that increments most likely change the game a lot, though I never tried Bughouse with increments.
> Suppose you will get a desired piece in the other board's next move.
That's rare. It usually takes more than one move to get the piece.
> I agree that increments most likely change the game a lot, though I never tried Bughouse with increments.
Me neither, except possibly some 0 1.
> Also killing some of the essence of bughouse.
Oh yes, it wasn't very popular, as I would only play with increment (because otherwise I'd just lose on time all my games), eventually people realized they didn't like increment bughouse at all and would rather wait for another player than play with me in there.
(4 seconds increment is enough to ensure nobody loses on time, and enough to kill the game's essense)
In today's game, Gelfand vs Anand, Gelfand had only 12 minutes left on the clock, whereas Anand had more than an hour. Yet Anand offered a draw.
They weren't playing blitz. Probably Gelfand could have played the rest of the game in 12 minutes.
Unlike yourself i would gain no pleasure from winning on time in a completely drawn game in which neither side is making any progress whatsoever and possibly spending more time studying opponents sleeping patterns.
However it takes all sorts so to speak.
However it takes all sorts so to speak.
The question really seems to me, it is nice to say that something is good or bad, that we would prefer to see people act in a certain way, but it is quite another to design a hard and fast rule that I can implement. I certainly am not in favour of a subjective rule that leaves me open to claims of an unfair call based on my opinion.
So, I would prefer this conversation to be about designing a new rule, if required. At least by having the conversation, it may eventually be decided that letting the players sort it out is the best answer.
FWIW, no player has approached me so far complaining about the current state of affairs whilst their game is in progress. So if the players in progress are not bringing an issue to my attention, then I will just sit back and watch the situation and see how it resolves on its own.
So, I would prefer this conversation to be about designing a new rule, if required. At least by having the conversation, it may eventually be decided that letting the players sort it out is the best answer.
FWIW, no player has approached me so far complaining about the current state of affairs whilst their game is in progress. So if the players in progress are not bringing an issue to my attention, then I will just sit back and watch the situation and see how it resolves on its own.
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
> The question really seems to me, it is nice to say that something is good or bad, that we would prefer to see people act in a certain way, but it is quite another to design a hard and fast rule that I can implement. I certainly am not in favour of a subjective rule that leaves me open to claims of an unfair call based on my opinion.
+1.
From Barnard- Om my friend,do you know that a player can claim a draw in a draw position if the player shows to the arbiter that his opponent isnt making any single improvement to his position,and he is only trying to win on time? Read the FIDE rules Hello Barnard, the issue of 10.2 has been discussed during WBCCC 2011. http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20924
For a lot of matters that come up now and again in 2012, do have a discussed history from 2011, where different ideas were discussed and some tried as 2011 was for all practical purposes a test event in preparation for 2012.
Hi Garvin
i saw your comment now,and i must tell that i dont agree with those ideasso sorry for the delay...,for example one:
what engine will use the arbiter?that someone stated...
well,the answer is easy:the arbiter can use every engine,at his discretion...that question is a dumb question...imagine a Fianl of the World Championship,and imagine that one player claim a draw based on the rule 10.2...im pretty sure that the arbiter will know a lot of less chess than the player,but he will use 'his skills' (or today,a chess engine),and see if a player made any single improvement,or not,and if he is trying to win based on time,or not
so my position is very clear:if we follow the FIDE rules,and the FIDE rules say very clear what to do in this case,the arbiter can/must look the game,and decide if it is a draw because the opponent isnt making any single improvement to the position,or not
of course,prior to that case,one player must claim to the arbiter for the draw,if not,arbiter must remain silent,as you are doing in the game deka-natmaku,and as you very clear pointed in your comment
i saw your comment now,and i must tell that i dont agree with those ideasso sorry for the delay...,for example one:
what engine will use the arbiter?that someone stated...
well,the answer is easy:the arbiter can use every engine,at his discretion...that question is a dumb question...imagine a Fianl of the World Championship,and imagine that one player claim a draw based on the rule 10.2...im pretty sure that the arbiter will know a lot of less chess than the player,but he will use 'his skills' (or today,a chess engine),and see if a player made any single improvement,or not,and if he is trying to win based on time,or not
so my position is very clear:if we follow the FIDE rules,and the FIDE rules say very clear what to do in this case,the arbiter can/must look the game,and decide if it is a draw because the opponent isnt making any single improvement to the position,or not
of course,prior to that case,one player must claim to the arbiter for the draw,if not,arbiter must remain silent,as you are doing in the game deka-natmaku,and as you very clear pointed in your comment
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill