Maybe someone of you can please share the games with me (via PM) or us.
BTW MiG29 = Fulcrum2000 ;-)
Our game was more of a book battle then an actual on the board clash. In hindsight probably lucky for me as I was 'somewhat' overpowered in the hardware department
> "Nelson (with Anson)" is a misstatement on a near-cosmic scale.
I'm aware of this, i just named you first (and Anson in brackets) because you're the active member of this forum, or at least you were the active member (hint: missing your opening-updates). In each case your games were very interesting to browse through, especially your treatment vs. Schachmatt/Sunnytown's Blumenfeld... would be interesting to see your team participating in WBCCC;
same goes for Ozymandias, who has scored even more points vs. the top half of the standings than you guys. Interesting is also that engine-only Donkasand finished 9th of 29, which could mean a) his superiour hardware/book (and as we see in WBCCC his Sicilian&Slav-lines are excellent and top-notch) and/or b) that some of the lower-finishing 20 (lets call them "the sunny ones") manage to perform worse than engine-only.
> Some of the opening's we did not play were interesting as well.
I'm sure a have a few nice things up at shelf (as often the reason why some moves are not played or were chosen over the "normal one" would be more interesting as the move itself)... your black-play of Sicilian speaks for itself as you're most likely the strongest in this category, so i hope you will think about saying goodbye and in the end stay with WBCCC.........................................................
> you were the active member
It pains me to say this, but right now I have my hands full on other projects. In a way I've traded up from WBCCC to TCEC, plus there is the ongoing stuff I do that gets no publicity but takes up time.
> would be interesting to see your team participating in WBCCC
I think Anson is a fierce competitor in everything he attempts and he would do well, but he's also a very practical guy. As it stands prize-fund Freestyle tournaments do not represent a good return on time and equipment invested even if you finish first. All the more so correspondence tournaments with their much smaller payouts. I might also add that the correspondence format would tend to diminish Anson's dominance, which is in part based on his incredibly steady nerves under pressure. Wins depend on mistakes and in this format far fewer are made.
> Wins depend on mistakes and in this format far fewer are made
Just to clarify that. Nelson, are you saying that in this format, with the blitz time control, that there are far fewer mistakes to take advantage of? Or at least, certainly not large mistakes.
> Have you guys flipped over to a quasi Freestyle format when I wasn't looking?
No, its "blitz" 30days+1hour compared to the normally much longer correspondence-chess time-controls used at other sites.
And answering Garvin's question, before Nelson's statistical proof, at least to me it seems pretty obvious that both a) shorter time-controls and b) wider distribution of players-strength results into more decisive results... especially as a) also produces way more mouse-slips, time-outs and so on (Ozymandias wrote a nice article about that on infinitychess) and b) brings openings and sharp play on board that is nowadays necessary to score anything beyond 0.5 points...
The Unbeatable - Correspondence Chess threatened by the drawdeath where he firstly addresses "Blitz Correspondence Chess" somehow as a contradistinction to its own (Blitz<->Correspondence) and secondly states that in his opinion this time-control is even more threatened by drawdeath due to the fact that "the influence/relevance of computer-assistance is even higher than in traditional correspondence chess time-controls". Given that only strong players play a tournament i may even second that opinion as their is simply not enough time to go deep down lines and finding something beyond computer-calculations resulting in more or less often balanced positions, but somehow WBCCC shows that the mix of the blitz time-control and a relatively wide-spread field in terms of strength gives at least a satisfying number of decisive games. When i see some KID-positions on ICCF where computer-assistance are not much of help yet i can envision that there might be more decisive games compared to the relatively peaceful KID's (with exception of the Mattvs.Paul-game) we have seen in WBCCC so far.
Btw., as a first step against the drawdeath he suggests abolishing the patt-draw (i'm here fully with him, yet i don't think it will make that much differnence) and in general to think about metrics for a finer granularity of the end-result than the 1-0 1/2-1/2 0-1 we're used to, so the "better player" actually gets more out of the game... personally i'm especially thinking about a) those opposite bishop-endings were one side has two pawns more, b) rook+pawn vs. rook and so on, maybe this will get scored 3/4-1/4 or 5/8-3/8 some day.
I've talked with Arno about this, in the past, but so far he's only been willing to implement the "stalemate tie-break" in lesser Freestyle events. He was against any "piece counting" at the time, but he may be forced to follow through, with one or both measures, in the future.
> the "stalemate tie-break" in lesser Freestyle events.
i think this discourages risk as black as taking risk as black recognizes the fact to defend worse but defendable positions which means the incidence of being stalemated increases for the black risk-taking players.
my opinion is that many players will play how they play. leko will make his draws against world class players. a few players can and will adapt. the strongest players can do so more easily, i think the 3-1-0 system even more clearly favors them (it seems to do so in premier league football).
i'm a bigger fan of the 3-1-0 score system as this definitely produces more decisive results.
the counterargument is: is 2 wins and 4 losses as equally impressive as 6 draws? in the tournament i listed, is Wang Hao's (+6 -3 =1) better than Magnus Carlsen's (+4 -0 =6)? i would say yes and yes.
Are there any examples of 3-1-0 in computer chess? I will check...
> Intragrand and maximus certainly were successful enough winning in the last freestyle and I think the placement and scoring was totally fair --- you make your own luck in chess.
Intagrand was a winning "team" of Anson Williams, David Evans, Nelson Hernandez and that guy with the mega hardware. Al, who is my friend was not only the best freestyler on FICGS normally, he rented a 16 core just for this tournament. Is that how they made their own luck, come on man. The scoring system I proposed would have radically changed the way that freestyle was played out!
It would definitely affect this tour, especially the guys who "mainline" their way to draws hoping their opponent will make a mistake, You couldn't do that in my system.
The 0.4 - 0.6 system seems interesting. Or one that most accurately values the value of having the White pieces more correctly relative to the Black system. But it certainly makes the math trickier and while I prefer White, if I had a 12 game match against 1 opponent with that scoring system I would prefer 12 Blacks! Although thanks to withdrawals and luck I have three less Whites than Blacks. Anyway people who mainline games to draws will not win swiss tournaments without wins.
> The 0.4 - 0.6 system seems interesting. Or one that most accurately values the value of having the White pieces more correctly relative to the Black system. But it certainly makes the math trickier and while I prefer White, if I had a 12 game match against 1 opponent with that scoring system I would prefer 12 Blacks!
I would agree to this match. As I understand it I would get white in all 12 games, draws would count 0.4 for white and 0.6 for black.
These are my terms: 1. All 12 games to start at once, 2. We can convince Dadi to let us use the xfcc server. 3. Time controls same as WBCCC.
Let me know if you were serious or just blowing smoke,
I was thinking that for sake of fairness in colors, I would have proposed we use your proposed scoring system but we both get 6 Whites and 6 Blacks, but then the scoring system is no longer relevant in a match setting in which we have the same number of colors, say that there are 10 draws with 1 win apiece but player A wins with White and player B wins with Black then player A = (5 *.4 + 1) + (5*.6 + 0) = 6 (you will always get 6 when both sides have the same number of wins in a 12 game match and have 6 tries with each color). So an unequal color distribution is obviously necessary to make the scoring system relevant in a match situation [if all match win margins are regarded equally]; that is part of the point of the scoring system.
Our games tend to be on the fun side and I do and will intend to mix things up with my openings selections.
For a slight sporting incentive, I propose we play for a $50 amazon gift card. Sometimes amazon has these buy $50 get $10 amazon credit deals and in any case I have plenty of amazon credit ($133 in fact and I am donating $25 of that to the WBCCC prize pool this year) and win or lose, playing you is always a pleasure.
So yes, I am ready and prepared to play with 12 Blacks per the conditions you requested under your scoring system OR with any distribution of colors you would prefer under your scoring system given that I do not have more Whites than Blacks. For instance, if I get 3 Whites and 9 Blacks, if you score 1 White win, that would draw the match for you.
Now all we have to do is set it up. I wonder if Garvin would help us, Garvin?? Also if Dadi would allow it, it sounds fun. It would be a good test for seeing how an alternate scoring system would work in practical play.
12 Blacks for me it is then. If the FICGS WC is any indication, having White is no guarantee of getting much out of the position. But I am not Eros. And I will change up my openings a bit each game as I have been doing of late in the WBCCC.
> Hope Dadi/Garvin will approve this, you two guys are good for decisive interesting games and bring life into a somewhat rusty subforum.
Exactly what I was thinking!
Just recently, Infinity Chess server have introduced a correspondence chess section, so I suggest if you want people to watch over your games you can try the IC server.
> the guys who "mainline" their way to draws hoping their opponent will make a mistake
This statement has a lot of truth in it... it seems some kind of provoking the other side; there are corr-players where you can easily predict the first 20-30 (mainline-)moves and you still have no real advantage because the lines they use over and over again are just sound, so actually play comes down trying to refute (or accept when you're smart) opening-theory... while Chess960/FischerRandom is not really the solution (Nickel also addresses this) due to many unbalanced or easy starting positions (just thinking about the bishops in the corner waiting to be traded of shortly), it would be funny maybe to make a "lottery of classical-chess opening-lines" the players have to play through (maybe using Nelson's TCEC-set as a good starting point), at least it would avoid players clinging to their same defenses over and over again... there is a reason people don't want to see it in engine-games (yes, because it is boring/lame!). And here you have to credit especially Matt for bringing interesting openings over and over again.
> [The 0.4 - 0.6 system] if I had a 12 game match against 1 opponent with that scoring system I would prefer 12 Blacks!
This already says it all: You shouldn't give black more motivation to draw down games, it already has enough! In my opinion black should get more motivation avoiding all the endgames it can hold being down in material (->"piece counting").
Good luck selling the argument, being in the right doesn't guarantee you'll convince anyone
> Good luck selling the argument, being in the right doesn't guarantee you'll convince anyone
Thinking about such changes regarding classical chess must be like proposing for bigger goals with soccer... yet i think its high time something is done to make the game more attractive again, which basically means that the better player gets more out of the game... obviously that won't happen with good old' FIDE or ICCF, yet i think smaller subsets like InfinityChess or WBCCC here have a real good chance to be cutting-edge innovative... the only other alternative i see is a) playing without engines at all (difficult to achieve) or b) playing a superset of chess-pieces like Capablanca/Gothic/... to regain more complexitiy.
> maybe using Nelson's TCEC-set as a good starting point
I doubt it, though a similar empirical draw-avoiding approach could at least fend off inevitable draw-death for a short while. I say inevitable with grim assurance; if you just look at engine-game draw-rates on an unscientific meta basis, mashing together all kinds of engine contests, all time controls, all strength levels, and just assume the relative strength-mix doesn't change all that much from year to year, you see what is intuitively obvious: draw rates have been steadily climbing every year for the past 15 years with only a couple of very minor, anomalous down-ticks. And since the arrival of high-powered Stockfish it has really skyrocketed: the average strength of a modern engine game is much greater than it was two, three years ago, resulting in more draws. But it's not just Stockfish, of course. Other engines, Syzygy, SSDs, ever more advanced opening theory all chip in their own contributions to the draw trend.
A critic might say that I am extrapolating the current trend, and it does not follow that draw-death is a reasonable assumption. After all, Stockfish, Komodo and the whole chess programming corps could hit a wall. Certainly they've plucked a lot of the low-hanging fruit and now it will be harder to achieve Elo gains. Well, I think that is to some extent true, but I also think it is inevitable that well within our lifetimes we'll see 7-man EGTBs loaded and operational, and computers with processing capabilities making our current stuff seem laughably antique. You combine those things and we could be seeing over a billion tablebase hits at move 9 or even sooner. And what would that mean for the effort to avoid draws?
So the news is this: computer chess as a hobby is doomed to succeed. I've said in the past (controversially) that the ultimate goal of computer chess is to solve the game. Well, let me add an amendment: the ultimate destiny of computer chess is for the hobby to die out because nobody can find a way to avoid a draw.
A bleak conclusion but looking at the bright side we've all had a pretty good run.
Anyone with enough knowledge of the hobby, should be aware of this. Sadly, it isn't the case, and you still read posts defending the opposite.
All we can do, is to delay the inevitable. The measures outlined here could be a first step, but in time, more drastic ones will be needed. In the end, draw awaits, like death, but you can also fight a terminal disease.
To die out seems unlikely and if it ever happens will take probably many years to come. There are so many ways to make the computer/freestyle games still interesting. For instance, strive for closed position in the opening if your a good OTB player you will see a lot of ways how to proceed in the middle-game.
> So the news is this: computer chesas a hobby is doomed to succeed. I've said in the past (controversially) that the ultimate goal of computer chess is to solve the game. Well, let me add anamendment: the ultimate destiny of computer chess is for the hobby to die out because nobody can find a way to avoid a draw.
I have found the reincarnation of Stanley Kubrick! All hail! (I am kidding FYI )
I think we will probably run out of oil before we have to worry about the end of computer chess. In fact that is probably the greatest threat to computer chess IMO. I think we will be okay for the next 20 years.
> I will be dead long before the 20 years are up
That reads really depressed, do you have serious health issues, are you already 80+ or what makes you so sad? Besides that, i don't think that death is something to be afraid of... when its time its time, and one has to arrange with it. Look at Paul, i read he lost wife and daughter, but he seems to enjoy every day and a little corr-chess may even help then and then...
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill