With the 2018 World Championship seeing 12 drawn games in a row, there has been talk of how to possibly provide more excitement in such matches. In the cases where both players are almost equally matched, finding a way to provide a level of decisiveness is difficult.
Borrowing heavily from discussions I have seen on the English Chess Forum (involving IA Alex Holowczak and others), I wonder if the following format could work
The match is divided into 3 sets of 4 games. The first player to reach 2.5 points wins the set (as in Tennis). In the case of a 2-2 tie, then a tie-breaker of 6 blitz games are held (G/5m) with the first to 3.5 wining the set. In the case of a 3-3 tie in the tie-break, then an 'Armageddon' game is held to decide the set. The first player to win 2 sets wins the title. Colours alternate for each game of the set (including Armageddon if necessary). They swap for the first game of the next set. The defending Champion has choice of White or Black for the first game of the first set.
I'm not saying that this format is perfect, but in terms of marketing and tension, it may be a slight improvement over the current system, as there will be a leader and chaser earlier in the event.
Showing posts with label Ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ideas. Show all posts
Tuesday, 27 November 2018
Saturday, 13 May 2017
Stephen Fry explains the Dunning Kruger Effect
The Dunning Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where low-ability individuals overestimate their abilities. It has been known (formally) since 1999, although I am sure this effect was observed well before then, possibly under the heading 'to stupid to know they're stupid'.
For anyone unfamiliar with this effect, there is a short video (narrated by Stephen Fry) which explains it in the context of current American politics.
But what has this to do with chess? In this case not a lot, but it does relate to an observation I've made over the years. The biggest mistakes we make in chess don't happen when we don't have an answer to the problem in front of us, but when we (incorrectly) think we have the best answer to the problem in front of us. Often a game is lost because the move we thought that worked had a fatal flaw in it, and we would have been better off choosing a less flashy move. Usually this is described as over-confidence, which of course is a manifestation of Dunning-Kruger.
By the way, there is a flip side to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Often people who excel at a task don't realise that what they are doing is difficult for the average practitioner, and assume because it is easy for them, it must be easy for everyone. Anyone who has ever coached chess is probably aware of this (although maybe not consciously!)
For anyone unfamiliar with this effect, there is a short video (narrated by Stephen Fry) which explains it in the context of current American politics.
But what has this to do with chess? In this case not a lot, but it does relate to an observation I've made over the years. The biggest mistakes we make in chess don't happen when we don't have an answer to the problem in front of us, but when we (incorrectly) think we have the best answer to the problem in front of us. Often a game is lost because the move we thought that worked had a fatal flaw in it, and we would have been better off choosing a less flashy move. Usually this is described as over-confidence, which of course is a manifestation of Dunning-Kruger.
By the way, there is a flip side to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Often people who excel at a task don't realise that what they are doing is difficult for the average practitioner, and assume because it is easy for them, it must be easy for everyone. Anyone who has ever coached chess is probably aware of this (although maybe not consciously!)
Sunday, 23 October 2016
33/33/33
My absence over the weekend isn't to do with Civ VI (as hinted a previous post), but due to attending the 50th birthday party of Charles Zworestine (one of Australia's leading arbiters). Issues with trains late in the evening resulted in a fairly late return to where I was staying (after 1 am) and a missed deadline for yesterdays post.
Despite this I have a quick look at Civ VI and I already think its pretty good. My son mentioned that in updating the game from Civ V (and early versions) the developers used the 33/33/33 rule. Basically, they kept 33% of the game from Civ V as is. They improved 33% of the features in Civ V, and finally, the added 33% new features to the game.
This then got me thinking how this could be applied to chess improvement. Changing how we play is often difficult, but a similar idea might be helpful. If you are thinking of a change of style/opening or approach, then look after you more recent set of games, and see what you are doing right and wrong. Keep 33% of the features where it seems to be working for you, improve the next 33% and finally, replace what isn't working with something that is. By using these ratios, you don't completely throw away everything you know, but at the same time, you do commit to improving existing skills and learning some new ones.
It probably applies best to openings (keep a third, improve a third, change a third), but it may also be applicable to other parts of the game as well.
Despite this I have a quick look at Civ VI and I already think its pretty good. My son mentioned that in updating the game from Civ V (and early versions) the developers used the 33/33/33 rule. Basically, they kept 33% of the game from Civ V as is. They improved 33% of the features in Civ V, and finally, the added 33% new features to the game.
This then got me thinking how this could be applied to chess improvement. Changing how we play is often difficult, but a similar idea might be helpful. If you are thinking of a change of style/opening or approach, then look after you more recent set of games, and see what you are doing right and wrong. Keep 33% of the features where it seems to be working for you, improve the next 33% and finally, replace what isn't working with something that is. By using these ratios, you don't completely throw away everything you know, but at the same time, you do commit to improving existing skills and learning some new ones.
It probably applies best to openings (keep a third, improve a third, change a third), but it may also be applicable to other parts of the game as well.
Friday, 7 October 2016
Why we blunder
If no one made a mistake at chess, then it would be a very boring game. So mistakes are important to chess, even if we preferred that only our opponents made them.
When we make mistakes we have plenty of reasons (or excuses) for doing so. Shortness of time, missing a strong reply, or choosing the wrong plane, are just some of the more serious reasons. Feeling sick, assuming the opponent was weak, or being distracted by the lighting, are some of the less serious ones.
Now a study has looked at possible cause for why we blunder. "Assessing Human Error Against The Benchmark of Perfection" analysed over 20 million games between amateur players, and 1 million Grandmaster games to determine under what conditions mistakes were made. The paper identified three main indicators of blunders, but came up with a somewhat surprising conclusion.
The three major factors were
Shortness of time seems obvious, although it appears that once you have taken more than 10 seconds to make a decision, the chances of blundering drop off. Skill level is also pretty straight forward, in that stronger players blunder less. That leaves the complexity of the position, which the authors believe is the major factor in whether a player makes a mistake or not.
As suggested in this article which summarises the paper, this conclusion probably requires more testing. If the claim holds up, it may explain why players like Lasker and Tal seemingly 'hypnotised' their opponents into losing, as both relied on keeping the game complicated. Of course such a strategy may backfire, but or players looking to close the gap with stronger opponents, this may be a new approach to improvement.
When we make mistakes we have plenty of reasons (or excuses) for doing so. Shortness of time, missing a strong reply, or choosing the wrong plane, are just some of the more serious reasons. Feeling sick, assuming the opponent was weak, or being distracted by the lighting, are some of the less serious ones.
Now a study has looked at possible cause for why we blunder. "Assessing Human Error Against The Benchmark of Perfection" analysed over 20 million games between amateur players, and 1 million Grandmaster games to determine under what conditions mistakes were made. The paper identified three main indicators of blunders, but came up with a somewhat surprising conclusion.
The three major factors were
- Shortness of time
- Skill level of the player
- Complexity of the position
Shortness of time seems obvious, although it appears that once you have taken more than 10 seconds to make a decision, the chances of blundering drop off. Skill level is also pretty straight forward, in that stronger players blunder less. That leaves the complexity of the position, which the authors believe is the major factor in whether a player makes a mistake or not.
As suggested in this article which summarises the paper, this conclusion probably requires more testing. If the claim holds up, it may explain why players like Lasker and Tal seemingly 'hypnotised' their opponents into losing, as both relied on keeping the game complicated. Of course such a strategy may backfire, but or players looking to close the gap with stronger opponents, this may be a new approach to improvement.
Tuesday, 21 June 2016
A game, or problem solving?
I've just stumbled across a game/concept called Moveless chess. The idea is that you defeat your opponent, not by moving pieces, but by transforming them. You are given a position, and a number of 'points' which can be used to turn one type of piece into another. The points match the standard value of chess pieces (Q=9, R=5 etc) and each transformation reduces the number of points you have. The idea is to checkmate your opponent by transforming your existing pieces. In the meantime your opponent can move, so it isn't as simple as it looks.
I've had a quick play with it, and even at the simplest level it took a couple of tries to solve the position. I'm sure with practice I can do better (like most things). It looks like a pleasant alternative to traditional chess problems, although the solving technique of 'I wish I had a queen instead of a knight here' doesn't neccesarily translate to real world chess.
I've had a quick play with it, and even at the simplest level it took a couple of tries to solve the position. I'm sure with practice I can do better (like most things). It looks like a pleasant alternative to traditional chess problems, although the solving technique of 'I wish I had a queen instead of a knight here' doesn't neccesarily translate to real world chess.
Monday, 9 May 2016
The restfulness of Chess
To me chess has always been a stressful game. Every move brings me closer to victory or defeat and often I don't know which one will happen first. As a result I often have to motivate myself just to get to the board.
So I was a little surprised to find that not everyone thinks this way. A couple of chess playing friends of mine believe that chess is the cure to stress. When they sit down and play, that's all they occupy their mind with, removing any worries and concerns about the outside world. And while they take their chess seriously, it is a different kind of seriousness.
So maybe that's what I've been doing wrong. Instead of concentrating on scoring points and boosting my rating, I should instead focussing on the meditative aspects of the game.
So I was a little surprised to find that not everyone thinks this way. A couple of chess playing friends of mine believe that chess is the cure to stress. When they sit down and play, that's all they occupy their mind with, removing any worries and concerns about the outside world. And while they take their chess seriously, it is a different kind of seriousness.
So maybe that's what I've been doing wrong. Instead of concentrating on scoring points and boosting my rating, I should instead focussing on the meditative aspects of the game.
Tuesday, 26 April 2016
Rise and shine campers
One piece of advice I constantly read about being successful is that successful people wake up 3 hours before they get to work. The idea is that this time is then spent planning/organising the day ahead, leaving more time to be productive.
Of late I have been trying this idea although the results have been mixed. In terms of this blog, the major change is that I don't always post just before (or after) midnight as I used to, instead leaving it until the early morning to write something. As it turns out this does not always work, as when I wake up I am not at my most productive.
So for now, the early rising is always better theory, has a mixed outcome at best.
Of late I have been trying this idea although the results have been mixed. In terms of this blog, the major change is that I don't always post just before (or after) midnight as I used to, instead leaving it until the early morning to write something. As it turns out this does not always work, as when I wake up I am not at my most productive.
So for now, the early rising is always better theory, has a mixed outcome at best.
Monday, 21 March 2016
Marshall's Handicap
Looking through the always interesting Chess Notes, I rediscovered the story of Frank Marshall once scoring 100% in an event, but still only finishing third. It was a tournament in Richmond UK in 1912, but was played under a 'handicap' scoring system. At the time these events were quite popular, but seem to have fallen from favour these days.
Nonetheless the scoring system is an interesting one. Players were ranked by class from 1 to 8 (with 1 being the best). If you won a game against a player in your own class you earned 16 points. You scores 2 points less per class for wins against lower ranked players, and 2 points more for each class for wins against higher ranked players. I assume for draws you scored half a winning total each. There was also a modification at the end, where your final score was the points divided by total games, with a 0.1 per game played bonus added.
Of course the problem with Marshall was that he was classed above the rest of the field and was picking up less points than everyone else (Apparently there were not many class 2 players either). But as a 'hit and giggle' event for hyperactive junior players (or bored adults), such a format may still work under the right circumstances.
Nonetheless the scoring system is an interesting one. Players were ranked by class from 1 to 8 (with 1 being the best). If you won a game against a player in your own class you earned 16 points. You scores 2 points less per class for wins against lower ranked players, and 2 points more for each class for wins against higher ranked players. I assume for draws you scored half a winning total each. There was also a modification at the end, where your final score was the points divided by total games, with a 0.1 per game played bonus added.
Of course the problem with Marshall was that he was classed above the rest of the field and was picking up less points than everyone else (Apparently there were not many class 2 players either). But as a 'hit and giggle' event for hyperactive junior players (or bored adults), such a format may still work under the right circumstances.
Saturday, 6 February 2016
Who needs 10 GM's?
I was having a discussion today with a fellow chessplayer about IM Moulthun Ly's stellar performance at the 2016 Gibraltar Masters. I remarked that Ly is now very close to the GM title (1 norm and few rating points away), and that would mean that Australia would have 6 GM's (including the retired Ian Rogers), and good chances for a few more (ie George Xie comes out of retirement, and the next wave of young IM's comes through).
It is entirely feasible than in the next few years Australia will have 10 GM's, and it was this thought that made me remember something from around 25 years ago. In the early 1990's the Australian Chess Federation (ACF) was presented with a draft strategic plan (authored by Brian Jones I think) and part of the plan was a number of goals. One of these goals was the number of titled players, specifically 10 GM's and 20 IM's within the life of the plan. Of course to achieve this goal, the ACF would need to commit resources and energy, both through the organisation of activities to help players (tournaments and training), and by increasing the funding levels in Australia (through increased income sources).
Unfortunately when it was presented, it was shot down on the spot, with comments like "10 grandmasters. That will never happen". It was explained that falling short by a few GM's is still not a bad outcome, but I do recall that even this was rejected, with another comment about whether the number of GM's in Australia really meant that much.
So 25 years later, some of the goals of the plan have happened anyway, although not through any co-ordinated decision making. It is true that the ACF is more willing to fund development in the country (eg GM tournaments), although it is still on a case by case basis, rather than as part of a specific policy. But I do wonder if the plan had been accepted at the time, how much further along Australian chess would be.
It is entirely feasible than in the next few years Australia will have 10 GM's, and it was this thought that made me remember something from around 25 years ago. In the early 1990's the Australian Chess Federation (ACF) was presented with a draft strategic plan (authored by Brian Jones I think) and part of the plan was a number of goals. One of these goals was the number of titled players, specifically 10 GM's and 20 IM's within the life of the plan. Of course to achieve this goal, the ACF would need to commit resources and energy, both through the organisation of activities to help players (tournaments and training), and by increasing the funding levels in Australia (through increased income sources).
Unfortunately when it was presented, it was shot down on the spot, with comments like "10 grandmasters. That will never happen". It was explained that falling short by a few GM's is still not a bad outcome, but I do recall that even this was rejected, with another comment about whether the number of GM's in Australia really meant that much.
So 25 years later, some of the goals of the plan have happened anyway, although not through any co-ordinated decision making. It is true that the ACF is more willing to fund development in the country (eg GM tournaments), although it is still on a case by case basis, rather than as part of a specific policy. But I do wonder if the plan had been accepted at the time, how much further along Australian chess would be.
Sunday, 27 December 2015
What would make chess easier? (And would it ruin the game?)
I have been spending my Xmas break watching far too much television. On one of the shows, "8 out of 10 cats", there was a survey statistic quoted about what would make chess more enjoyable. Apparently 68% of the respondents replied "If it was easier".
I'm not sure about the source and accuracy of this response (as it is a comedy panel show), just as I'm not sure exactly what would make chess easier. Do the respondents mean that they find it easier to play better, or do they mean that the rules should be changed to make it easier.
If it is the first case the obvious solution is to simply let everyone use computers. But I'm sure this would make the game less enjoyable, as we would would be reduced to typists, transferring moves from board to screen and back.
If it is about changing the rules of the game, then I can't think what might help. Reduce the size of the board is a possibility (6x6 dropping a knight and bishop). The risk though is that a change like this increase the number of drawn games. The same outcome might occur of we under power (or over power) the pieces (eg pieces can move a max of 4 squares).
Indeed the more I think of this the more I wonder if what the respondents really meant is for chess to be easier for them, but for no one else. If so, the best solution I can think of is good old fashioned hard work!
I'm not sure about the source and accuracy of this response (as it is a comedy panel show), just as I'm not sure exactly what would make chess easier. Do the respondents mean that they find it easier to play better, or do they mean that the rules should be changed to make it easier.
If it is the first case the obvious solution is to simply let everyone use computers. But I'm sure this would make the game less enjoyable, as we would would be reduced to typists, transferring moves from board to screen and back.
If it is about changing the rules of the game, then I can't think what might help. Reduce the size of the board is a possibility (6x6 dropping a knight and bishop). The risk though is that a change like this increase the number of drawn games. The same outcome might occur of we under power (or over power) the pieces (eg pieces can move a max of 4 squares).
Indeed the more I think of this the more I wonder if what the respondents really meant is for chess to be easier for them, but for no one else. If so, the best solution I can think of is good old fashioned hard work!
Monday, 3 August 2015
King of the ring
Over the years I have experimented with various tournament formats, to see whether variety is really the spice of life. However one format I was not aware of is currently being used in the Russia v China Match. It is apparently borrowed from Go, and it is a combination of a team match and a 'last man standing' type event.
Each team submits a playing order before the start of the match (unknown to the other team), and then the first two players meet. After that it is 'winner stays on' while the loser is replaced by the next player on the list. Obviously the match winner is the team which wins the final match, and eliminates the last player on the opposing team.
As it turns out, the Russian's are running away with the match, as Sergey Karjakin has turned into a one man wrecking queue. He has dispatched his first 4 opponents (Wei Yi, Ding Liren, Ni Hua, Yu Yangyi) and only needs to beat Wang Yue to complete a clean sweep. Even if he now loses, Wang Yue has to beat the other 4 Russian players to win the match!
Despite what seems to be a somewhat shorter match than the organisers anticipated, this format may be worth repeating. One tweak, which has been used in the USA, is to rank the teams in order of rating, and start with the lowest rated players first. This at least has the advantage of stretching the match out, as opponents are more likely to become harder to beat, rather than easier!
Each team submits a playing order before the start of the match (unknown to the other team), and then the first two players meet. After that it is 'winner stays on' while the loser is replaced by the next player on the list. Obviously the match winner is the team which wins the final match, and eliminates the last player on the opposing team.
As it turns out, the Russian's are running away with the match, as Sergey Karjakin has turned into a one man wrecking queue. He has dispatched his first 4 opponents (Wei Yi, Ding Liren, Ni Hua, Yu Yangyi) and only needs to beat Wang Yue to complete a clean sweep. Even if he now loses, Wang Yue has to beat the other 4 Russian players to win the match!
Despite what seems to be a somewhat shorter match than the organisers anticipated, this format may be worth repeating. One tweak, which has been used in the USA, is to rank the teams in order of rating, and start with the lowest rated players first. This at least has the advantage of stretching the match out, as opponents are more likely to become harder to beat, rather than easier!
Saturday, 29 November 2014
King of the lounge room
Getting into competitive chess can be tough, especially if you start as an adult. There is a pretty big step between playing with your friends, and turning up to a rated competition where everyone is super serious. As I have noted preciously, this can turn into a big disincentive for new players, as getting beaten in every game can be discouraging, no matter how close you came to winning.
One piece of advice I give to new players is not to worry about their initial tournament results. The rider I attach to this is that even if they don't win any competition games, they will learn enough to at least beat their casual chess opponents. "King of the lounge room" is a term I have coined to describe this.
I do like to quantify things though, so I do wonder what skills you need to be "King of the lounge room". Based on what I have seen over the years, being alert enough to capture pieces for free, and knowing when to capture the last moved piece is a pretty good place to start. I would also throw in a couple of basic checkmating ideas, namely Q+B mating patterns (ie target f7) and Q+N mating patterns. At this level I don't think openings really matter (e4, Nf3, B somewhere is normally fine), but endgame knowledge does help. Nothing too in depth, but certainly knowing when to push your passers, and how to promote them, would provide plenty of 'fluky' wins. Mating with K+Q v K is also helpful, although I have seen enough 'accidental' checkmates to make me wonder if it is essential.
Feel free to suggest other skills in the comment section, noting that this is for players whose ambitions don't extend much beyond bragging rights over a few beers.
One piece of advice I give to new players is not to worry about their initial tournament results. The rider I attach to this is that even if they don't win any competition games, they will learn enough to at least beat their casual chess opponents. "King of the lounge room" is a term I have coined to describe this.
I do like to quantify things though, so I do wonder what skills you need to be "King of the lounge room". Based on what I have seen over the years, being alert enough to capture pieces for free, and knowing when to capture the last moved piece is a pretty good place to start. I would also throw in a couple of basic checkmating ideas, namely Q+B mating patterns (ie target f7) and Q+N mating patterns. At this level I don't think openings really matter (e4, Nf3, B somewhere is normally fine), but endgame knowledge does help. Nothing too in depth, but certainly knowing when to push your passers, and how to promote them, would provide plenty of 'fluky' wins. Mating with K+Q v K is also helpful, although I have seen enough 'accidental' checkmates to make me wonder if it is essential.
Feel free to suggest other skills in the comment section, noting that this is for players whose ambitions don't extend much beyond bragging rights over a few beers.
Sunday, 26 October 2014
Does Tournament Theory apply to chess?
I was recently pointed in the direction of an area of Economics called "Tournament Theory" (thx Leron Kwong). It is a theory in personnel economics (human resource management) that tries to explain that rewards (pay and compensation) is not based on additional productivity, but on the relative difference between individuals.
The situations it tries to explain do appear in chess, but I wonder if this is coincidental. For example, normally tournaments are structured so that 1st prize is significantly larger than 2nd prize (normally twice as much). But the winner of a tournament is not normally twice as good as the player that came second. So the reason for the difference is not based on performance, but on tournament ranking. This also occurs on the field of business, where the President of a company earns a great deal more than Vice-Presidents.
As this theory was only first proposed in the early 1980's, chess practice clearly pre-dates it. I assume that the method of dividing up prizes in a chess tournaments probably arose through trial and error, before a model that the majority of players seemed happy with was developed.
Nonetheless, there may be some ideas that chess could use. I have seen events where 1st prize greatly exceeds the other prizes (1st $1000, 2nd $100), and this seems to have skewed the performance of the top players. Given that one of the goals of tournament theory is to maximise the effort of the tournament participants, it may turn out that there is a theoretical "better way" to divide up prize money in events.
(NB I know a number of economists read this blog, so if I have got anything wrong on this topic, feel free to correct or expand)
The situations it tries to explain do appear in chess, but I wonder if this is coincidental. For example, normally tournaments are structured so that 1st prize is significantly larger than 2nd prize (normally twice as much). But the winner of a tournament is not normally twice as good as the player that came second. So the reason for the difference is not based on performance, but on tournament ranking. This also occurs on the field of business, where the President of a company earns a great deal more than Vice-Presidents.
As this theory was only first proposed in the early 1980's, chess practice clearly pre-dates it. I assume that the method of dividing up prizes in a chess tournaments probably arose through trial and error, before a model that the majority of players seemed happy with was developed.
Nonetheless, there may be some ideas that chess could use. I have seen events where 1st prize greatly exceeds the other prizes (1st $1000, 2nd $100), and this seems to have skewed the performance of the top players. Given that one of the goals of tournament theory is to maximise the effort of the tournament participants, it may turn out that there is a theoretical "better way" to divide up prize money in events.
(NB I know a number of economists read this blog, so if I have got anything wrong on this topic, feel free to correct or expand)
Tuesday, 8 July 2014
The Chess Genie
Image you find an abandoned chess board while walking along a beach. You pick it up and give it a rub, and suddenly a genie appears. "Hello, mortal" she says in quite a load voice. "I will grant you one, chess related wish". "One" you say, "what about the other two". "Budget cutbacks" she says, "there is a bit of a wish deficit at the moment". "And to make it worse, you only get to choose between two options". Realising this deal isn't as good as you'de been lead to believe by 1960's sitcoms, you simply shrug your shoulders.
"Your choices are: Your will never play anything worse than the third best move in a position or You will never play a move that makes you position worse by more than a half pawn"
Assuming the genie is on the up and up, and the power of the wish will always assess the position correctly, which option would you prefer?
"Your choices are: Your will never play anything worse than the third best move in a position or You will never play a move that makes you position worse by more than a half pawn"
Assuming the genie is on the up and up, and the power of the wish will always assess the position correctly, which option would you prefer?
Monday, 9 June 2014
When are two pawns enough for the piece?
I'm currently watching the Karjakin - Carlsen game from the Norway Supertournament, and up until now the moves are just whizzing by. Clearly both sides are following pre game preparation, including a piece sacrifice by Karjakin in a line of the Berlin Defence. (NB Necessary update. Carlsen has returned the piece in the time it took me to type the opening sentences!)
Normally you see a piece sacrificed for three pawns (for two pawns it is normally a blunder), but I suspect opinions differ on the correctness. I've seen conflicting advice on whether it is better to have the extra pawns in the ending, middlegame or opening, and I guess there is no hard and fast rule. More likely it is a case of 'annotation by result' where successful sacrifices are correct and unsuccessful ones are 'brave' at best. But in the case of the current game it seems it is neither winning or losing, merely 'exact'.
Normally you see a piece sacrificed for three pawns (for two pawns it is normally a blunder), but I suspect opinions differ on the correctness. I've seen conflicting advice on whether it is better to have the extra pawns in the ending, middlegame or opening, and I guess there is no hard and fast rule. More likely it is a case of 'annotation by result' where successful sacrifices are correct and unsuccessful ones are 'brave' at best. But in the case of the current game it seems it is neither winning or losing, merely 'exact'.
Thursday, 29 May 2014
Graphical representation of chess data
I was tipped off* the other day about a series of posts that presented chess related data in graphical ways. The author of these posts, Randal Olson, looked at a number of different chess data sets, covering varied topics, and found a nice way to present the information.
A lot of the work is historical analysis, for example charting the popularity of various openings over the years. In the early years (his starting point is 1850), 1.e4 reigned supreme, but by the 1930's was surpassed by 1.d4. But from 1950 1.d4 became less popular and 1.e4 once again become the most popular opening move.
As a lot of the charts are percentage based, there are some surprising results. In the 1850's the Pirc Defence was played in over 10% of recorded games, although this can be attributed to the Cochrane - Bannerjee matchs, which contributed a sizeable number of games to the data set for those years.
Other topics covered are ratings, length of games, percentage of draws, and even how many games end in checkmate. The work seems to be ongoing, so I'll provide a link to his first chess related post, and you can find your way from there. http://www.randalolson.com/2014/05/24/chess-tournament-matches-and-elo-ratings/
(* It was my brother who alerted me to this work although starting his email with "Hey nerdlinger" is not the way to ensure a Christmas card this year)
A lot of the work is historical analysis, for example charting the popularity of various openings over the years. In the early years (his starting point is 1850), 1.e4 reigned supreme, but by the 1930's was surpassed by 1.d4. But from 1950 1.d4 became less popular and 1.e4 once again become the most popular opening move.
As a lot of the charts are percentage based, there are some surprising results. In the 1850's the Pirc Defence was played in over 10% of recorded games, although this can be attributed to the Cochrane - Bannerjee matchs, which contributed a sizeable number of games to the data set for those years.
Other topics covered are ratings, length of games, percentage of draws, and even how many games end in checkmate. The work seems to be ongoing, so I'll provide a link to his first chess related post, and you can find your way from there. http://www.randalolson.com/2014/05/24/chess-tournament-matches-and-elo-ratings/
(* It was my brother who alerted me to this work although starting his email with "Hey nerdlinger" is not the way to ensure a Christmas card this year)
Sunday, 16 March 2014
Tournament Rating System
The idea of a tournament rating system has been around for a while, although it has yet to be put into practice. (NB By rating system I mean the same system used for hotels and restaurants, and not the old Category XX system FIDE used for norm tournaments).
Jovan Petronic has revisited the idea on one of the Anti-Cheating Forums on Facebook, and has even suggested some criteria. The problem he is trying to solve is twofold. Firstly, how to pick from the large number of tournaments that now fill the chess calendar (although this may be more of a European problem). Secondly, to both encourage and reward tournament organisers who achieve higher standards. Stars would be awarded for things like: Prize money > $xxxx, conditions offered for titled players, event running for greater than 5 years, offering title norms, etc
The obvious body to police such a scheme would be the FIDE Events Commission, although they might find themselves overwhelmed with the number of events on the list. And while I am sure the job of 'chess tournament inspector' would be a good one, finding the money to fund a flying squad of judges might be a difficult ask.
Jovan Petronic has revisited the idea on one of the Anti-Cheating Forums on Facebook, and has even suggested some criteria. The problem he is trying to solve is twofold. Firstly, how to pick from the large number of tournaments that now fill the chess calendar (although this may be more of a European problem). Secondly, to both encourage and reward tournament organisers who achieve higher standards. Stars would be awarded for things like: Prize money > $xxxx, conditions offered for titled players, event running for greater than 5 years, offering title norms, etc
The obvious body to police such a scheme would be the FIDE Events Commission, although they might find themselves overwhelmed with the number of events on the list. And while I am sure the job of 'chess tournament inspector' would be a good one, finding the money to fund a flying squad of judges might be a difficult ask.
Sunday, 2 March 2014
Would Fischer lose to the current generation?
GM Hikaru Nakamura is well known for speaking his mind. His twitter feed is often quite entertaining/controversial, and he can usually be relied upon to give a good quote or two during an interview. In his latest interview (during a Reddit "Ask me anything" session) he was asked how Bobby Fischer would do against the current generation of top players. His reply that "Fischer would certainly lose to all of us" is the kind of answer that headline writers love, as it is guaranteed to provoke an animated discussion. Nonetheless, even if that was his entire answer, I would be inclined to agree with him.
But of course as with most headlines, there was more to the answer than that, and Nakamura did qualify his reply. He sensibly pointed out that the game has changed since Fischer played (the rise of computers being his main observation) and if he availed himself of these tools, he would soon catch up. I also think another factor to be considered is the increased competitiveness of top level chess these days. The era of the short draw is over, and even in games where a draw is the desired result, it is often a hard fought draw. So if Fischer was to challenge the new generation, he would have to lift the intensity of his game to match theirs. Of course Fischer was a player who strived to win each game, so he might have found the transition a little easier than his contemporaries, but I suspect he still might have been surprised out how much extra effort was required.
** Correction: As pointed out in the comments section, Nakamura's actual quote was "Fischer would almost certainly lose to all of us", which is less emphatic than what I've presented in the body of the article.
But of course as with most headlines, there was more to the answer than that, and Nakamura did qualify his reply. He sensibly pointed out that the game has changed since Fischer played (the rise of computers being his main observation) and if he availed himself of these tools, he would soon catch up. I also think another factor to be considered is the increased competitiveness of top level chess these days. The era of the short draw is over, and even in games where a draw is the desired result, it is often a hard fought draw. So if Fischer was to challenge the new generation, he would have to lift the intensity of his game to match theirs. Of course Fischer was a player who strived to win each game, so he might have found the transition a little easier than his contemporaries, but I suspect he still might have been surprised out how much extra effort was required.
** Correction: As pointed out in the comments section, Nakamura's actual quote was "Fischer would almost certainly lose to all of us", which is less emphatic than what I've presented in the body of the article.
Saturday, 18 January 2014
Can we all be pigeon-holed?
I've never thought that there is a specific personality type that goes with being a chessplayer. Of course there are certain 'types' of chess players, in a psychological sense, but there are enough distinct 'types' for me to think that chess players are no different than other groups in society. Being a chessplayer may mean you approach specific situations in a certain way, but don't think this can be described as a personality trait.
I've seen a couple of articles on the psychology of chess players in the last couple of days. The first one actually takes the opposite point of view than I've just put forward. Ben Wyde believes that playing chess does influence your personality. He lays out his arguments for this in a post titled 'Chess, Stereotypes, and Personalty'
The other link is to a website that claims to determine your Chess Personality. It does this by asking you 20 questions, which are a mix of 'attitude' type questions, and position specific type questions. Based on your answer it gives you a 'personalty', a master you are most like, and a suggested choice of openings. Based on my answers I am a 'Champion', which makes me like Kasparov, and I should play Ruy Lopez, Queens Gambit Declined and the Sicilian. Despite the temptation to say "yeah that's just like me" I'm sceptical of its accuracy.
I've seen a couple of articles on the psychology of chess players in the last couple of days. The first one actually takes the opposite point of view than I've just put forward. Ben Wyde believes that playing chess does influence your personality. He lays out his arguments for this in a post titled 'Chess, Stereotypes, and Personalty'
The other link is to a website that claims to determine your Chess Personality. It does this by asking you 20 questions, which are a mix of 'attitude' type questions, and position specific type questions. Based on your answer it gives you a 'personalty', a master you are most like, and a suggested choice of openings. Based on my answers I am a 'Champion', which makes me like Kasparov, and I should play Ruy Lopez, Queens Gambit Declined and the Sicilian. Despite the temptation to say "yeah that's just like me" I'm sceptical of its accuracy.
Wednesday, 1 January 2014
New Year (Chess) Resolutions
The only resolution I make every New Year is not to make any resolutions. Although this keeps life simple for me, I can't help feeling conflicted inside.
But if you are the sort of chess player who does make resolutions here is a random collection that you may wish to borrow from
Of course there are plenty of other resolutions that could be added to the list, so if you have some of your own, feel free to list them in the comments section.
But if you are the sort of chess player who does make resolutions here is a random collection that you may wish to borrow from
- Master a new opening
- Beat someone who you have not beaten in your previous games
- Master the KBN v K checkmate
- Introduce someone new to the game
- Score 100% against junior players
- Borrow a chess book from your local library
- Play at least one tournament outside your home city/town
- Sponsor a prize at a local event
Of course there are plenty of other resolutions that could be added to the list, so if you have some of your own, feel free to list them in the comments section.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)