| |
Main
Date: 22 Sep 2006 17:48:27
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: How's THIS for a Rule change? (Equalizing Black)
|
Let BLACK make White's first move, and give White the option of playing
Black if Black makes an intentionally bad move.
White would have the objectively better position, and Black would be able to
dictate the first move of the game for both sides, with White having the
option to turn the tables on any pranks.
Sounds pretty equal to me.
--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2006 07:14:39
From:
Subject: Re: How's THIS for a Rule change? (Equalizing Black)
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> > Sounds to me like it could give Black an undue advantage, if he knows
> > anything about his opponent's repertoire. -- Kingston
>
> To offset the undue advantage of moving first?
Accepting, just for the sake of argument, that it is an "undue"
advantage for someone to move first, I'm saying that this simply
replaces one undue advantage with another.
The answer to White's "undue" advantage is simply the obvious fact
that no one gets to play White all through his chess career. In normal
competition, we all get White only about half the time. Therefore I
would consider Mr. Gordon's idea to be a cure worse than the disease, a
solution for a problem that does not really exist.
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2006 15:21:53
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: How's THIS for a Rule change? (Equalizing Black)
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> Let BLACK make White's first move, and give White the option of playing
> Black if Black makes an intentionally bad move.
>
> White would have the objectively better position, and Black would be able to
> dictate the first move of the game for both sides, with White having the
> option to turn the tables on any pranks.
>
> Sounds pretty equal to me.
Sounds to me like it could give Black an undue advantage, if he knows
anything about his opponent's repertoire. Then he can simply make a
sound move which is nevertheless not to his opponent's taste. For
example some players greatly prefer 1.d4 to 1.e4, and have studied
queenside openings much more than kingside. Against such a player,
Black need merely play 1.e4, giving White the unpleasant choice of
being stuck with an opening he dislikes and does not know as well, or
forfeiting his opening advantage and playing Black. Stinks.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Sep 2006 20:43:50
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: How's THIS for a Rule change? (Equalizing Black)
|
>> Let BLACK make White's first move, and give White the option of playing
>> Black if Black makes an intentionally bad move.
>>
>> White would have the objectively better position, and Black would be able
>> to
>> dictate the first move of the game for both sides, with White having the
>> option to turn the tables on any pranks.
>>
>> Sounds pretty equal to me.
>
> Sounds to me like it could give Black an undue advantage, if he knows
> anything about his opponent's repertoire.
To offset the undue advantage of moving first?
>Then he can simply make a
> sound move which is nevertheless not to his opponent's taste.
Which would be the correct strategy for Black. White also has the option of
switching if the "bad taste" is that severe. Of course, a player who'd
rather take the Black pieces than have to play 1. d4 or 1. c4 wouldn't
inspire much fear.
>For
> example some players greatly prefer 1.d4 to 1.e4, and have studied
> queenside openings much more than kingside. Against such a player,
> Black need merely play 1.e4, giving White the unpleasant choice of
> being stuck with an opening he dislikes and does not know as well, or
> forfeiting his opening advantage and playing Black.
Stinks.
You say it "stinks" but the purpose is to give Black equal winning chances,
which this does (White has an escape hatch in the switch rule).
Players would also have to learn much more about the opening than they
already know.
--
Money is not "game."
Looks are not "game."
Social status or value is not "game."
Those are the things that game makes unnecessary.
A seduction guru who teaches you that looks, money or status is game is not
teaching you "game," but how to be an AFC. He uses his students' money to
get women and laughs that "loser AFCs pay my rent."
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2006 10:23:20
From: chasmad
Subject: Re: How's THIS for a Rule change? (Equalizing Black)
|
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
> Let BLACK make White's first move... <snip etc., etc.>
How about this? Give Black a whopee cushion, give White a kazoo. After
every move, each player produces a noise. This continues until someone
resigns or gets annoyed and leaves.
>
> Sounds pretty equal to me.
>
Yeah! Mine too!
Tell 'em, Pivot Boy!!
Chas.
|
|
