In an effort to address this, ACTJCL President Charles Bishop organised an extra event for the middle day of the Championship. He invited 4 of the strongest ACT Juniors for a Round Robin event, intended both to get them together and playing, but also to show the the younger ACT Juniors chess at the "top of the ladder". I snuck over at lunchtime to have a look and was fortunate to catch the end of a couple of very exciting games. Charles had obviously chosen the field well, as at the end of the 2nd round each of the players (Michael Wei, Junta Ikeda, Andrew Brown, and Yi Yuan) had each score 1 win and 1 loss each. In the third round Michael Wei defeated Andrew Brown and Yi Yuan beat Junta Ikeda, leaving Michael Wei the winner on tie-break by virtue of defeating Yi Yuan in the following game.
Tuesday, 30 September 2008
ACT Junior Championships
The ACT Junior Chess Championships is underway at the ACT Junior Chess League headquarters at Campbell High. A large field of 60 players has entered this 3 day, 9 round event. As with a lot of junior events, the age of the field is weighted towards the younger end, with the older juniors often not playing due to concerns about school, their social lives, or even the strength of the tournament.
In an effort to address this, ACTJCL President Charles Bishop organised an extra event for the middle day of the Championship. He invited 4 of the strongest ACT Juniors for a Round Robin event, intended both to get them together and playing, but also to show the the younger ACT Juniors chess at the "top of the ladder". I snuck over at lunchtime to have a look and was fortunate to catch the end of a couple of very exciting games. Charles had obviously chosen the field well, as at the end of the 2nd round each of the players (Michael Wei, Junta Ikeda, Andrew Brown, and Yi Yuan) had each score 1 win and 1 loss each. In the third round Michael Wei defeated Andrew Brown and Yi Yuan beat Junta Ikeda, leaving Michael Wei the winner on tie-break by virtue of defeating Yi Yuan in the following game.
In an effort to address this, ACTJCL President Charles Bishop organised an extra event for the middle day of the Championship. He invited 4 of the strongest ACT Juniors for a Round Robin event, intended both to get them together and playing, but also to show the the younger ACT Juniors chess at the "top of the ladder". I snuck over at lunchtime to have a look and was fortunate to catch the end of a couple of very exciting games. Charles had obviously chosen the field well, as at the end of the 2nd round each of the players (Michael Wei, Junta Ikeda, Andrew Brown, and Yi Yuan) had each score 1 win and 1 loss each. In the third round Michael Wei defeated Andrew Brown and Yi Yuan beat Junta Ikeda, leaving Michael Wei the winner on tie-break by virtue of defeating Yi Yuan in the following game.
Monday, 29 September 2008
The Presidential Race
While the stakes might not be as high as the US Presidential race, the Australian Chess Federation is currently calling for nominations for the position of ACF President. The election will take place at the ACF National Conference on the 6th January 2009, and nominations for the post are required by the 7th of October 2008.
Of course there may not be an election, if there is only 1 nomination. In the mid 1980's to the early 1990's this was often the case, with the President being elected unopposed. However in those days it was also common to have the President rolled before the next election by the ACF Council. Normally this took place about a year into their term, although the ACF council once carried a motion of no confidence in the President the day after he had been elected by the National Conference.
I must say I'm somewhat surprised that more people don't stand for the office of ACF President, as the qualification requirements are fairly low. Actually they seem to be non-existent. For starters you don't have to be nominated by anyone except yourself. You don't have to be a member of a state association, or even an Australian citizen or resident. Even being banned from playing chess by the ACF doesn't seem to bar you from running.
And the other attraction of the office is once you are there, you can pretty much do as much (or as little) work as you wish. Previous Presidents have utilised the office to work towards getting the Olympiad in Australia, having chess recognised as a sport, rewriting ACF by-laws, or even working to improve chess in Australia. You can even work hard at just being President of the ACF, if you wish.
So I'm not sure what this years election will throw up, although I know of one potential candidate running on a platform of openness and transparency for the ACF. And there may be other chess players (or non-players as this doesn't seem to be a disqualification for the post) who feel that they have something to contribute or say about chess in this country. So if you do, simply fire off an email to ACF Secretary Jey Hoole at jeydh4@hotmail.com , possibly with the subject line "I'd be a totally awesome President of the ACF!"
Of course there may not be an election, if there is only 1 nomination. In the mid 1980's to the early 1990's this was often the case, with the President being elected unopposed. However in those days it was also common to have the President rolled before the next election by the ACF Council. Normally this took place about a year into their term, although the ACF council once carried a motion of no confidence in the President the day after he had been elected by the National Conference.
I must say I'm somewhat surprised that more people don't stand for the office of ACF President, as the qualification requirements are fairly low. Actually they seem to be non-existent. For starters you don't have to be nominated by anyone except yourself. You don't have to be a member of a state association, or even an Australian citizen or resident. Even being banned from playing chess by the ACF doesn't seem to bar you from running.
And the other attraction of the office is once you are there, you can pretty much do as much (or as little) work as you wish. Previous Presidents have utilised the office to work towards getting the Olympiad in Australia, having chess recognised as a sport, rewriting ACF by-laws, or even working to improve chess in Australia. You can even work hard at just being President of the ACF, if you wish.
So I'm not sure what this years election will throw up, although I know of one potential candidate running on a platform of openness and transparency for the ACF. And there may be other chess players (or non-players as this doesn't seem to be a disqualification for the post) who feel that they have something to contribute or say about chess in this country. So if you do, simply fire off an email to ACF Secretary Jey Hoole at jeydh4@hotmail.com , possibly with the subject line "I'd be a totally awesome President of the ACF!"
Sunday, 28 September 2008
Opening Statistics
What is the most popular chess opening used in competition? The Sicilian Defence would rank highly, as would the Ruy Lopez and the Queens Gambit. But then again, it would depend on where you look.
The Chessworld site keeps statistics on all the games played. To measure the popularity of openings they use a sample method (as opposed to a counting method), sampling from a set of games played when the site "matured" (ie after the first 2,000,000 games played).
Surprisingly the most popular opening is the Philidors Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6). Even I, who can usually construct an a priori justification for any result, struggle with a reason for this. Even assuming that most players on the site are casual players, I still cannot see why 2. ... d6 is instinctively better than 2. ... Nc6. In second place is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, and third is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6. I'm assuming there is no double counting of games, as otherwise the Kings Knight Opening would be a superset of the Philidors. Fourth place is less of a surprise at least in terms of casual players. It is Vant Kruijs Opening (1.e3). Other weird an wonderful openings included the KP: Patzer Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Qh5) in seventh place, and Damianos Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?) in 15th.
As for the Sicilian, it checks in at 20th, just ahead of the Alekhines and the Caro Kan.
The Chessworld site keeps statistics on all the games played. To measure the popularity of openings they use a sample method (as opposed to a counting method), sampling from a set of games played when the site "matured" (ie after the first 2,000,000 games played).
Surprisingly the most popular opening is the Philidors Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6). Even I, who can usually construct an a priori justification for any result, struggle with a reason for this. Even assuming that most players on the site are casual players, I still cannot see why 2. ... d6 is instinctively better than 2. ... Nc6. In second place is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3, and third is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6. I'm assuming there is no double counting of games, as otherwise the Kings Knight Opening would be a superset of the Philidors. Fourth place is less of a surprise at least in terms of casual players. It is Vant Kruijs Opening (1.e3). Other weird an wonderful openings included the KP: Patzer Opening (1.e4 e5 2.Qh5) in seventh place, and Damianos Defence (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?) in 15th.
As for the Sicilian, it checks in at 20th, just ahead of the Alekhines and the Caro Kan.
Saturday, 27 September 2008
A County Class Chessplayer
"Games Playing with Computers" by A.G. Bell has joined my collection of books on computer chess. It isn't just about computer chess though, and contains other games of strategy and skill. It is somewhat limited in its scope although this is mainly because it was published way back in 1972.
It does contain coverage of a fairly early version of the famous Northwestern University Chess program which dominated computer chess throughout the 1970's. In the book there is the full score of an exhibition game played between the Chess program (running on a CDC 6600) and Stewart Reuben. In the book Reuben is described as a "County Class Chessplayer". Of course these days Reuebn is more well known as an arbiter and event organiser although he is still a semi-regular tournament player.
In the game Reuben gets a clear advantage from the opening, but misses a small tactic and although Chess makes heavy going towards the end, the program wins out.
Friday, 26 September 2008
FIDE Laws of Chess 2009
As I remarked earlier, the draft proposals for the 2009 FIDE Laws of Chess are being circulated. While most of the changes have been in tidying up some of the wording of previous rules, a couple of interesting proposals have been made.
In terms of changing the wording the clause "even with the most unskilled counterplay" has been dropped from section 6.10 (and wherever else it is used). The removal of this phrase indicates that games ending on time with K+N v K+N (as in this years Womens World Championship) or K+N v K+B must be declared wins (rather than draws) by arbiters. The Rules Committee is basically saying "we have looked at this rule, we've dropped some superfluous wording, and we like what is left".
The most significant new rule is to allow organisers to forbid draws by agreement before a set number of rules, or even at all. The first proposal states
The rules of the competition may specify that players cannot agree a draw in less than a specified number of moves or at all, without the agreement of the arbiter or his representative.
The second proposal says
Players are not allowed to propose a draw. They can claim a draw in positions mentioned in 9.2 and 9.3. In all other positions players cannot agree a draw without the agreement of the arbiter or his representative.
Now I believe the first proposal is more likely to be accepted, if only for the reason that you can make the second proposal operate under the first one by making the specified number of moves 8,000 or some such large number. But I suspect the real debate will be whether players can claim under 9.2 and 9.3 at any stage of the game. At the Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee meeting where this will be discussed in November I will certainly raise the issue, not because I have a strong position on this, but simply to make sure that the rules clarify the situation about players agreeing to short draws by playing trivial repetitions.
As for the rest of it there is some stuff about mobiles phones, some clarification about what spectators can do if they see a breach of the laws (tell an arbiter but not the players), and as mentioned before, a proposed set of rules for Chess 960. However there is one interesting, and helpful, piece of wording in the sections on Quickplay and Blitz. There is finally an attempt to define "adequate supervision". For Quickplay it is 1 arbiter for at most 3 games, and for Blitz, 1 arbiter for each game. And if adequate supervision for these games exists, then the normal rules of chess apply.
In terms of changing the wording the clause "even with the most unskilled counterplay" has been dropped from section 6.10 (and wherever else it is used). The removal of this phrase indicates that games ending on time with K+N v K+N (as in this years Womens World Championship) or K+N v K+B must be declared wins (rather than draws) by arbiters. The Rules Committee is basically saying "we have looked at this rule, we've dropped some superfluous wording, and we like what is left".
The most significant new rule is to allow organisers to forbid draws by agreement before a set number of rules, or even at all. The first proposal states
The second proposal says
Now I believe the first proposal is more likely to be accepted, if only for the reason that you can make the second proposal operate under the first one by making the specified number of moves 8,000 or some such large number. But I suspect the real debate will be whether players can claim under 9.2 and 9.3 at any stage of the game. At the Rules and Tournament Regulations Committee meeting where this will be discussed in November I will certainly raise the issue, not because I have a strong position on this, but simply to make sure that the rules clarify the situation about players agreeing to short draws by playing trivial repetitions.
As for the rest of it there is some stuff about mobiles phones, some clarification about what spectators can do if they see a breach of the laws (tell an arbiter but not the players), and as mentioned before, a proposed set of rules for Chess 960. However there is one interesting, and helpful, piece of wording in the sections on Quickplay and Blitz. There is finally an attempt to define "adequate supervision". For Quickplay it is 1 arbiter for at most 3 games, and for Blitz, 1 arbiter for each game. And if adequate supervision for these games exists, then the normal rules of chess apply.
Thursday, 25 September 2008
Score!
High on the list of "must read" chess books is "My System" by Aron Nimzowitsch. But when discussing it with some fellow chess coaches on the weekend, I had to confess that I'd never read it. I had it at home, and had looked at it a couple of times, but never made the effort, or so I thought. It turned out that not only had I not read it, I didn't even own a copy. I did have a copy of the follow up "Chess Praxis" but at some point in the past I had confused the two, and thought I had the former.
However the chess gods were clearly smiling on me as I walked through the doors of the annual Lifeline Bookfair here in Canberra. Heading straight for the "Board Games" section I not only spotted a large selection of chess books, but sitting right in the middle, calling out to me with its bright red cover, was a copy of My System, with $3 written on the inside cover. Into the bag it went, along with about half a dozen other books, and a glaring hole in my chess knowledge is about to be filled!
However the chess gods were clearly smiling on me as I walked through the doors of the annual Lifeline Bookfair here in Canberra. Heading straight for the "Board Games" section I not only spotted a large selection of chess books, but sitting right in the middle, calling out to me with its bright red cover, was a copy of My System, with $3 written on the inside cover. Into the bag it went, along with about half a dozen other books, and a glaring hole in my chess knowledge is about to be filled!
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Chess 960
The draft proposals for changes to the FIDE Rules of Chess have been circulated, and these will be voted on during the Olympiad in November. While I will look at some of the proposals later, there is a significant section on the rules for Chess 960 (or Fischer Random).
Now there are 2 schools of thought on this. They are: Given that FIDE hasn't codified the rules for other chess variants (Suicide, Transfer etc) why should FIDE be dealing with the rules to this? or Chess 960 is both close enough the standard chess and becoming increasingly 'mainstream' so FIDE should be the body to set the rules.
I am in favour of the second school of thought, but only in the framework of FIDE setting up a sub-committee to codify a number of chess variants. However for the moment there is a draft set of rules for Chess 960 and a proposal that they become an appendix to the Official Laws of Chess.
Attached to the proposal was a petition from a large number of players supporting the move. The name at the top of the petition was Viswanathan Anand, followed by a number of other Grandmasters, so it has some strong support. (As an aside, the name towards the bottom of the petition, and on the covering letter, was Albert Vasse from DGT, so there is corporate interest as well).
There is no doubt that Chess 960 is becoming more popular, and may even be seen at the 2009 Doeberl Cup. Under serious consideration is holding a Chess 960 event on the Saturday evening, in place of the Lightning. The same prize pool will be on offer (ie over $1000 like this year), and the intention is to alternate Chess 960 and Lightning from year to year. Hopefully the 'resistence to change' trait that afflicts many chess players will be overcome by the 'lets try something different' fever this time.
Now there are 2 schools of thought on this. They are: Given that FIDE hasn't codified the rules for other chess variants (Suicide, Transfer etc) why should FIDE be dealing with the rules to this? or Chess 960 is both close enough the standard chess and becoming increasingly 'mainstream' so FIDE should be the body to set the rules.
I am in favour of the second school of thought, but only in the framework of FIDE setting up a sub-committee to codify a number of chess variants. However for the moment there is a draft set of rules for Chess 960 and a proposal that they become an appendix to the Official Laws of Chess.
Attached to the proposal was a petition from a large number of players supporting the move. The name at the top of the petition was Viswanathan Anand, followed by a number of other Grandmasters, so it has some strong support. (As an aside, the name towards the bottom of the petition, and on the covering letter, was Albert Vasse from DGT, so there is corporate interest as well).
There is no doubt that Chess 960 is becoming more popular, and may even be seen at the 2009 Doeberl Cup. Under serious consideration is holding a Chess 960 event on the Saturday evening, in place of the Lightning. The same prize pool will be on offer (ie over $1000 like this year), and the intention is to alternate Chess 960 and Lightning from year to year. Hopefully the 'resistence to change' trait that afflicts many chess players will be overcome by the 'lets try something different' fever this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)