Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Main

Date: 17 Jan 2006 11:46:58
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Simple question.

Date: 24 Jan 2006 14:45:50
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

David Richerby wrote:
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Would it be fair to permit the players on board 11 to agree
> > to an early draw (thus conserving energy) while denying that
> > opportunity to the players on the top ten boards?
>
> That is, in my opinion, unfair.
> Assuming this is a Swiss-system tournament,

It's a Swiss-system tournament (10 rounds).

> after the first couple of rounds, it's unlikely that anyone will come
> from below board 10 to lead the tournament but the rules are unfair
> to people around, say, board 5-10 who are forced to play longer games
> than people on board 11 but may well be on the same score as them.

The Queenstown Classic 2006 has concluded (rather predictably,
the top three rated players are GM Rogers, 2547 FIDE,
GM Chandler 2537 FIDE, and GM Sermek, 2530 FIDE.):

1) GM Murray Chandler 8.5
2) GM Ian Rogers 8
2) IM David Smerdon 8
4) IM Zong Yuan Zhao 7.5
4) GM Drazen Sermek 7.5
4) 7 other players had 7.5

IM Bob Wade (age 84) finished at 6.

--Nick

Date: 19 Jan 2006 17:31:42
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Nick wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote:
> > > White wins, black wins, draw?
> > > Or were you looking for something more like:
> > >
> > > checkmate
> > > resignation
> > > time forfeit
> > > stalemate
> > > draw by repetition
> > > draw by 50-move rule
> > > draw by mutual agreement
> > > draw by FIDE article 10.2 (player just trying to win on time)
> > > declared drawn by arbiter
> > > declared won by arbiter
> > >
> > > Have I missed any?
> >
> > It's possible for both players to lose the same game.
> >
> > Let's suppose that there's a tournament in which every player's
> > forbidden to offer or to accept draws before, say, move 30.
> > Weiss and Schwarz agree to a draw before move 30, and
> > then the arbiter rules that both players have lost the game.
>
> What I wrote (above) is *not* hypothetical--it's real.
> Here are some regulations for the 2006 Queenstown
> Chess Classic in New Zealand:
>
> http://badbishop.com/queenstownchess/regulations.html
>
> "Short Draws: No draws under 30 moves, except genuine
> repetitions. No pre-arranged/tacit agreements to draw allowed
> (of any length, by repetition or otherwise). Penalties up to
> a double default / deduction of prize money will apply."

Here's an interesting comment about that regulation:

http://badbishop.com/queenstownchess/media03.htm

"The third round of the Queenstown Chess Classic produced
the biggest upset of the tournament so far when Australian
Champion and top seed Grandmaster Ian Rogers lost an
exciting attacking game to German player Michael Geveke.
*Due to a rule specific to this tournament that no game on the
top ten boards can be agreed drawn in less than 30 moves*,
Rogers lost his chance to be able to offer a draw early in the
game before his slightly worse position deteriorated too much.
The no draw rule was stipulated by New Zealand born
Grandmaster Murray Chandler who is the tournament's
main sponsor and most of the top players (including Rogers)
are in agreement with Chandler that such a rule adds to
the fighting content of the tournament."

The tournament's official media release for round 3 states that
the 'no agreed draws before 30 moves' regulation applies only
to games on 'the top ten boards'. If that's the case, then it's
an amendment of the tournament regulation quoted (above).

Would it be fair to permit the players on board 11 to agree
to an early draw (thus conserving energy) while denying that
opportunity to the players on the top ten boards?

--Nick

Date: 20 Jan 2006 10:04:31
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Nick <[email protected] > wrote:
> Would it be fair to permit the players on board 11 to agree
> to an early draw (thus conserving energy) while denying that
> opportunity to the players on the top ten boards?

That is, in my opinion, unfair. Assuming this is a Swiss-system
tournament, after the first couple of rounds, it's unlikely that anyone
will come from below board 10 to lead the tournament but the rules are
unfair to people around, say, board 5-10 who are forced to play longer
games than people on board 11 but may well be on the same score as them.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Psychotic Confusing Gnome (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a smiling garden ornament but
you can't understand it and it wants
to kill you!

Date: 19 Jan 2006 05:03:25
From: David Ames
Subject: What need of it?

Nick wrote:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
> > > > Nick wrote:
> > > Ray Gordon wrote:
> > I was commenting on Ms. Polgar's unfortunate riage result,
>
> 'Unfortunate riage result'? What a disingenuous choice of words!
>

What need to comment on someone's divorce? What need to ask about the
occupation of someone else's father?

I am certainly reminded of Mr. Welch's response to Senator Joseph
McCarthy.

David Ames

Date: 19 Jan 2006 02:15:23
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Nick wrote:
> >
> > Curious, which "Ray Gordon" was that?
>
> He's the same Ray Gordon who, in rec.games.chess.analysis,
> has admitted to calling Susan Polgar a 'dumb cunt', though he
> has lied in apparently denying calling Jennifer Shahade a 'dumb
> cunt', which he did (I already have cited that evidence in detail).
>
> I cannot recall of any case in which, contrary to the apparent
> suspicion of 'Major Cat', Ray Gordon has been impersonated
> by another writer.

The reason why I asked the question is this. I believe that
I have come across postings by "Mr. Gordon" originating with
various ISPs. In view of recent experience with postings by
"Mr. Sloan" ("real" or not), I thought that it is _possible_
that someone else may have posted under the assumed alias
"Ray Gordon". That is all! 8 >)

>
> I do *not* fabricate quotations. Ray Gordon alone is responsible
> for describing Susan Polgar and Jennifer Shahade as 'dumb cunts'.
>
> --Nick

Regards,

Major Cat

Date: 18 Jan 2006 17:01:32
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Major Cat wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > Ray Gordon wrote:
> > > >> Simple but vague.
> > > >
> > > > Simple-minded people often assume that everyone else
> > > > should be able to read their minds.
> > >
> > > Or get their jokes.
> >
> > Recently in rec.games.chess.politics, Ray Gordon has described
> > Susan Polgar and Jennifer Shahade as 'dumb cunts'.
>
> Curious, which "Ray Gordon" was that?

It's the same Ray Gordon who, in rec.games.chess.analysis, has
admitted calling Susan Polgar a 'dumb cunt', though he has lied
in apparently denying calling Jennifer Shahade a 'dumb cunt',
which he did (I already have cited that evidence in detail).

I cannot recall any case in which, contrary to the apparent
implication of 'Major Cat', Ray Gordon was impersonated
by another writer.

I do *not* fabricate quotations. Ray Gordon alone is responsible
for calling Susan Polgar and Jennifer Shahade 'dumb cunts'.

--Nick

Date: 18 Jan 2006 16:54:43
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

My previous attempt to post here seems to have failed.

Major Cat wrote:
> Nick wrote:
> > Ray Gordon wrote:
> > > >> Simple but vague.
> > > >
> > > > Simple-minded people often assume that everyone else
> > > > should be able to read their minds.
> > >
> > > Or get their jokes.
> >
> > Recently in rec.games.chess.politics, Ray Gordon has described
> > Susan Polgar and Jennifer Shahade as 'dumb cunts'.
>
> Curious, which "Ray Gordon" was that?

He's the same Ray Gordon who, in rec.games.chess.analysis,
has admitted to calling Susan Polgar a 'dumb cunt', though he
has lied in apparently denying calling Jennifer Shahade a 'dumb
cunt', which he did (I already have cited that evidence in detail).

I cannot recall of any case in which, contrary to the apparent
suspicion of 'Major Cat', Ray Gordon has been impersonated
by another writer.

I do *not* fabricate quotations. Ray Gordon alone is responsible
for describing Susan Polgar and Jennifer Shahade as 'dumb cunts'.

--Nick

Date: 18 Jan 2006 16:43:44
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Terry wrote:
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Ray Gordon wrote:
> >> >> Simple but vague.
> >> >
> >> > Simple-minded people often assume that everyone else
> >> > should be able to read their minds.
> >>
> >> Or get their jokes.
> >
> > Recently in rec.games.chess.politics, Ray Gordon has described
> > Susan Polgar and Jennifer Shahade as 'dumb cunts'.
>
> Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black.

About the only people who seem more stupid than Ray Gordon are
the people, if any, who seem impressed by Ray Gordon's intelligence.

--Nick

Date: 18 Jan 2006 16:27:29
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Nick wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
> > Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Simple question.
> >
> > Simple but vague.
>
> Simple-minded people often assume that everyone else
> should be able to read their minds.
>
> > White wins, black wins, draw?
> > Or were you looking for something more like:
> >
> > checkmate
> > resignation
> > time forfeit
> > stalemate
> > draw by repetition
> > draw by 50-move rule
> > draw by mutual agreement
> > draw by FIDE article 10.2 (player just trying to win on time)
> > declared drawn by arbiter
> > declared won by arbiter
> >
> > Have I missed any?
>
> It's possible for both players to lose the same game.
>
> Let's suppose that there's a tournament in which every player's
> forbidden to offer or to accept draws before, say, move 30.
> Weiss and Schwarz agree to a draw before move 30, and
> then the arbiter rules that both players have lost the game.

What I wrote (above) is *not* hypothetical--it's real.
Here are some regulations for the 2006 Queenstown
Chess Classic in New Zealand:

http://badbishop.com/queenstownchess/regulations.html

"Short Draws: No draws under 30 moves, except genuine
repetitions. No pre-arranged/tacit agreements to draw allowed
(of any length, by repetition or otherwise). Penalties up to
a double default / deduction of prize money will apply."

A possible objection to that regulation is that there could
be a way to draw a game in 'under 30 moves' that's *not*
by agreement or three-fold repetition. Could a game be
drawn by stalemate, for instance, in 'under 30 moves'?

--Nick

> For a FIDE future scenario, let's suppose that, after their game,
> Weiss and Schwarz both are randomly selected for mandatory
> drug testing. Weiss and Schwarz decline to submit samples
> for testing, and hence both players are considered to have lost
> the game.

Date: 19 Jan 2006 19:55:44
From: Amarande
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Nick wrote:
> Nick wrote:
>
>>David Richerby wrote:
>>
>>>Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Simple question.
>>>
>>>Simple but vague.
>>
>>Simple-minded people often assume that everyone else
>>should be able to read their minds.
>>
>>
>>>White wins, black wins, draw?
>>>Or were you looking for something more like:
>>>
>>> checkmate
>>> resignation
>>> time forfeit
>>> stalemate
>>> draw by repetition
>>> draw by 50-move rule
>>> draw by mutual agreement
>>> draw by FIDE article 10.2 (player just trying to win on time)
>>> declared drawn by arbiter
>>> declared won by arbiter
>>>
>>>Have I missed any?
>>
>>It's possible for both players to lose the same game.
>>
>>Let's suppose that there's a tournament in which every player's
>>forbidden to offer or to accept draws before, say, move 30.
>>Weiss and Schwarz agree to a draw before move 30, and
>>then the arbiter rules that both players have lost the game.
>
>
> What I wrote (above) is *not* hypothetical--it's real.
> Here are some regulations for the 2006 Queenstown
> Chess Classic in New Zealand:
>
> http://badbishop.com/queenstownchess/regulations.html
>
> "Short Draws: No draws under 30 moves, except genuine
> repetitions. No pre-arranged/tacit agreements to draw allowed
> (of any length, by repetition or otherwise). Penalties up to
> a double default / deduction of prize money will apply."
>
> A possible objection to that regulation is that there could
> be a way to draw a game in 'under 30 moves' that's *not*
> by agreement or three-fold repetition. Could a game be
> drawn by stalemate, for instance, in 'under 30 moves'?

Additionally, how does one tell whether a repetition is 'genuine'?

It seems to me that in too many cases this is something that will be
judged on the most specious grounds - there are many games of course
that could be seen as an obvious planned draw, but how would you be able
to prove that the game was NOT a planned draw? All you have to work from
are the players, the moves played, and the result ... it's at least as
complicated as, say, attempting to tell definitely whether or not
computer assistance was used in a correspondence or online game.

In most cases of repetition, at least one player is compelled to repeat
the moves, either because they are the only legal ones (e.g. simple
perpetual check) or because all other moves lead to an irrevocably lost
game (barring gross blunders by the opponent). So in many cases once the
repetition happens it cannot reasonably be stopped.

But even in these cases, frequently the repetition comes as the result
of a combination by a player with an inferior but not necessarily lost
position, who seeing this situation wishes to secure a draw. This is
only natural chess strategy, hardly something that necessarily was
prepared beforehand.

E.g. -

Alekhine,Alexander - Botvinnik,Mikhail [B72]
Nottingham, 1936

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Be2 Bg7 7.Be3 Nc6 8.Nb3
Be6 9.f4 0-0 10.g4 d5 11.f5 Bc8 12.exd5 Nb4 13.d6 Qxd6 14.Bc5 Qf4 15.Rf1
Qxh2 16.Bxb4 Nxg4 17.Bxg4 Qg3+ 18.Rf2 Qg1+ 19.Rf1 Qg3+ 20.Rf2 Qg1+ �-�

(This same game, by the way, according to my database has been played at
least twice since. Further proof for anti-Sicilian advocates of the
unoriginality of that opening, but that's neither here nor there.)

15 Rf1, here, definitely leads to a draw. The remaining moves are
essentially forced, except that Black can check at g3 before or after
sacrificing the Knight at g4; however, this sacrifice is compulsory (15
... Qg3+ 16 Rf2 Qg1+? 17 Bf1! +-).

Black must continue the repetition as he is two pieces down; clearly to
not continue this would be losing.

White must continue it too -

18. Ke2? Qxg4+ and ... Qxb4, and White is now two pawns down in
lamentable circumstances with a surely lost game.

18. Kd2?? Bh6+ and the whole house burns down.

19. Ke2? and again Black simply retakes both Bishops with a winning game.

Black's last chance to not acquiesce to a drawn position is to play 14
... Qxd1+ and then 15 ... Nc6; White's is to play some other 15th move.

Anyway, the point is, it is possible at an early juncture to have a
possible move which, once made, irrevocably commits the position to an
organic draw, and for both players to have a chance to avoid this. How
can you tell, though, whether two players who make these moves agreed
beforehand to a draw? That is the question, and a virtually insoluble
one without which the 'arranged early draw' rule cannot really hope to
reasonably stand.

This is especially true in a case like the one I've given, since the
Sicilian has so much 'book theory' associated with it (and, indeed, the
same draw occurred 3 times within a 10 year timeframe - the other
incidents being Radojcic - Poljakov, 1945, and Yanofsky - Christoffel,
1946) ...

Additionally (the above game involves an "imbroglio" that, in the words
of 500 Master Games of Chess in which it was featured, "could not well
be worse" and isn't exactly the sort of game that players seeking a draw
from the start would be most inclined to go in for), there is also the
case where players deliberately play cautiously and avoid complications,
in order to avoid a loss. Sometimes this leads to an unexpected debacle
(Lasker - Capablanca, 1914 ...), but more often than not, it simply
leads to a position with no real winning prospects for either player.
Such a game, too, could last well over the 30 moves, meaning that this
sort of stipulation is hardly one that can really carry out its purpose,
namely, obviously, preventing people from agreeing to draws at the
outset rather than really playing the game ...

Date: 19 Jan 2006 10:40:06
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Nick <[email protected] > wrote:
> A possible objection to that regulation is that there could
> be a way to draw a game in 'under 30 moves' that's *not*
> by agreement or three-fold repetition. Could a game be
> drawn by stalemate, for instance, in 'under 30 moves'?

There's a construction of stalemate from the initial position within about
fifteen moves but I can't remember the details or think of a suitable
search term to find it. It would be staggeringly obvious that the game
had been pre-arranged, though.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Chocolate Windows (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ graphical user interface that's made
of chocolate!

Date: 18 Jan 2006 14:57:12
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Ray Gordon wrote:
> > > Nick wrote:
> >> > Simple-minded people often assume that everyone else
> >> > should be able to read their minds.
> >
> > Ray Gordon wrote:
> >> Or get their jokes.
>
> Nick wrote:
> > Recently in rec.games.chess.politics, Ray Gordon has described
> > Susan Polgar and Jennifer Shahade as 'dumb cunts'.
>
> Wrong.

That's a lie by Ray Gordon. My statement is factually accurate.
Anyone who uses Google to check rec.games.chess.politics
should be able to confirm the accuracy of my statement.

> I called the former a dumb cunt,

In fact, Ray Gordon called Susan Polgar a 'DUMB CUNT'.

In rec.games.chess.politics on 16 January 2005, Ray Gordon
created a thread that he named (reprinted exactly here):
"Susan Polgar: DUMB CUNT WHO CAN'T CHOOSE MEN..."

> and the latter a chess bitch, which is what SHE CALLS HERSELF.

Ray Gordon has denied calling Jennifer Shahade a 'dumb cunt'.
That's a lie by Ray Gordon.

In rec.games.chess.politics on 17 January 2005, Ray Gordon
created a thread that he named "Jen Shahade: CHESS BITCH
(appropriate title)". Here's what Ray Gordon wrote about
Jennifer Shahade: "She is the latest in a long line of mediocre
American players to cash in (like Waitzkin with his $300,000
book deal), while our *very best* (my note: the asterisks were
Ray Gordon's) players do without. I guess if one is whining
female in her early twenties willing to put on a nightgown for
a book cover, that's all that matters. Given what she had for
a dad, however, it's not like I expected anything more.

Dumb cunt."
--Ray Gordon (17 January 2005, rec.games.chess.politics)

So it should be clear enough even to the nearly illiterate readers
here that Ray Gordon has lied when he denied having called
Jennifer Shahade a 'dumb cunt'. Unlike in the case of Susan
Polgar, Ray Gordon called Jennifer Shahade a 'dumb cunt'
in his post's body rather than in its heading.

> I was commenting on Ms. Polgar's unfortunate riage result,

'Unfortunate riage result'? What a disingenuous choice of words!

Ray Gordon has attempted to imply that he's sympathetic to Susan
Polgar on account of her divorce. On the contrary, Ray Gordon has
written many posts in RGCM and RGCP wherein he has taken great
delight in personally insulting Susan Polgar on account of her divorce.
Many readers in RGCM and RGCP have objected to Ray Gordon.

I brought Ray Gordon's many abuses to Susan Polgar's attention.
Then Susan Polgar wrote a note of appreciation to me.

"Dear Nick, Thank you. I will no longer respond to this person
(Ray Gordon's) postings. It is always sad to see such behavior....
On the other hand, I am glad to see posters like you."
--GM Susan Polgar (19 October 2003, rec.games.chess.misc)

> and in Ms. Shahade's case, the trend for American chessplayers
> who fit certain demographics not tied to FIDE ratings have made
> much more money through their chess fame than even Fischer
> made at his peak.
>
> It was Searching For Bobby Fischer, not Searching For 2532 USCF.

Some of the more naive readers in rec.games.chess.analysis seem
to find it hard to believe that any writer, even Ray Gordon, could have
called Susan Polgar and Jennifer Shahade 'dumb cunts'. Those
naive readers might prefer to assume that I must have exaggerated
or even fabricated what Ray Gordon wrote. I do *not* fabricate
quotations, and my record of writing factually accurate comments
has been exceptionally good.

In fact, there have been many flagrant racist and sexist comments
written in rec.games.chess.* (some of which have been directed
against me personally: I have been called a 'nigger', with the
evident approval of several racist American writers in rgc*.)
No experienced reader should be surprised to find such
racist and sexist comments in rec.games.chess.*

If you are foolish enough to believe what Ray Gordon writes
rather than what I write, then you deserve to be fooled.

--Nick

Date: 18 Jan 2006 00:55:39
From:
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Nick wrote:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
> > >> Simple but vague.
> > >
> > > Simple-minded people often assume that everyone else
> > > should be able to read their minds.
> >
> > Or get their jokes.
>
> Recently in rec.games.chess.politics, Ray Gordon has described
> Susan Polgar and Jennifer Shahade as 'dumb cunts'.
>
> --Nick

Golly! Just think, if you hadn't taken the effort to post that here, I
might have gone for the rest of my life in ignorance of this fact.

Guess I better get over to .politics and get more of this stuff.

Date: 18 Jan 2006 00:33:30
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Nick wrote:
>
> Ray Gordon wrote:
> > >> Simple but vague.
> > >
> > > Simple-minded people often assume that everyone else
> > > should be able to read their minds.
> >
> > Or get their jokes.
>
> Recently in rec.games.chess.politics, Ray Gordon has described
> Susan Polgar and Jennifer Shahade as 'dumb cunts'.
>

Curious, which "Ray Gordon" was that?

Date: 17 Jan 2006 23:58:48
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

[email protected] wrote:
>
> David Ames wrote:
> > Ray Gordon wrote:
> > > Simple question.
> >
> > Someone once asked me to name the Seven Dwarves.
>
> Frito, Spam, Moxie, Pepsi, Gimlet, Legolam, Arrowroot, Goodgulf, and
> Bromosel. Right?

Now, here is an aesthetically sensitive post! 8 >)

Regards,

Major Cat

Date: 17 Jan 2006 19:54:32
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Ray Gordon wrote:
> >> Simple but vague.
> >
> > Simple-minded people often assume that everyone else
> > should be able to read their minds.
>
> Or get their jokes.

Recently in rec.games.chess.politics, Ray Gordon has described
Susan Polgar and Jennifer Shahade as 'dumb cunts'.

--Nick

Date: 18 Jan 2006 09:40:33
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ray Gordon wrote:
>> >> Simple but vague.
>> >
>> > Simple-minded people often assume that everyone else
>> > should be able to read their minds.
>>
>> Or get their jokes.
>
> Recently in rec.games.chess.politics, Ray Gordon has described
> Susan Polgar and Jennifer Shahade as 'dumb cunts'.
>
> --Nick
>

Sounds like the kettle calling the pot black.

Date: 18 Jan 2006 09:20:42
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

>> > Simple-minded people often assume that everyone else
>> > should be able to read their minds.
>>
>> Or get their jokes.
>
> Recently in rec.games.chess.politics, Ray Gordon has described
> Susan Polgar and Jennifer Shahade as 'dumb cunts'.

Wrong.

I called the former a dumb cunt,. and the latter a chess bitch, which is
what SHE CALLS HERSELF.

I was commenting on Ms. Polgar's unfortunate riage result, and in Ms.
Shahade's case, the trend for American chessplayers who fit certain
demographics not tied to FIDE ratings have made much more money through
their chess fame than even Fischer made at his peak.

It was Searching For Bobby Fischer, not Searching For 2532 USCF.

Date: 18 Jan 2006 12:28:21
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> It was Searching For Bobby Fischer, not Searching For 2532 USCF.

IM Waitzkin's current USCF rating is actually 2525 and peaked at 2570.
I suggest you stick to rating DSWs you can actually win.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Dangerous Whisky (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a single-malt whisky but it could
explode at any minute!

Date: 17 Jan 2006 22:44:09
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

On 2006-01-17, Ray Gordon wrote:
> Simple question.

What's the difference between a raven and a writing desk?

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org >
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Date: 18 Jan 2006 09:36:42
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Chris F.A. Johnson <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 2006-01-17, Ray Gordon wrote:
>> Simple question.
>
> What's the difference between a raven and a writing desk?

Easy. There's no legend that says that the king will die if the writing
desks leave the Tower of London.

Dave.

--
David Richerby Voodoo Priest (TM): it's like a man
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ of the cloth that has mystical powers!

Date: 17 Jan 2006 19:16:03
From: Nick
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

David Richerby wrote:
> Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Simple question.
>
> Simple but vague.

Simple-minded people often assume that everyone else
should be able to read their minds.

> White wins, black wins, draw?
> Or were you looking for something more like:
>
> checkmate
> resignation
> time forfeit
> stalemate
> draw by repetition
> draw by 50-move rule
> draw by mutual agreement
> draw by FIDE article 10.2 (player just trying to win on time)
> declared drawn by arbiter
> declared won by arbiter
>
> Have I missed any?

It's possible for both players to lose the same game.

Let's suppose that there's a tournament in which every player's
forbidden to offer or to accept draws before, say, move 30.
Weiss and Schwarz agree to a draw before move 30, and
then the arbiter rules that both players have lost the game.

For a FIDE future scenario, let's suppose that, after their game,
Weiss and Schwarz both are randomly selected for mandatory
drug testing. Weiss and Schwarz decline to submit samples
for testing, and hence both players are considered to have lost
the game.

--Nick

Date: 18 Jan 2006 03:26:48
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

>> Simple but vague.
>
> Simple-minded people often assume that everyone else
> should be able to read their minds.

Or get their jokes.

About 30 percent of serious chessplayers I ask this question to have no
difficulty answering the way MajorCat did, which would be considered correct
if it were ever put to a vote.

My three answers were 1) white dies of a heart attack; 2) black dies of a
heart attack; and 3) a nuclear missile destroys the playing hall.

The question is designed to see if people jump at the obvious answer to
something, which is generally considered a weakness in chess.

Date: 18 Jan 2006 10:02:08
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:

> The question is designed to see if people jump at the obvious answer to
> something, which is generally considered a weakness in chess.

Really? When I see an obvious mate-in-three, I jump at it, and I don't
think that's much of a weakness.

(Sure, sometimes I miss a mate-in-two. But you know what? I've seen
world champions make the same sort of "mistake.")

-Ron

Date: 18 Jan 2006 00:06:08
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> >> Simple but vague.
> >
> > Simple-minded people often assume that everyone else
> > should be able to read their minds.
>
> Or get their jokes.
>
> About 30 percent of serious chessplayers I ask this question to have no
> difficulty answering the way MajorCat did, which would be considered correct
> if it were ever put to a vote.
>
> My three answers were 1) white dies of a heart attack; 2) black dies of a
> heart attack; and 3) a nuclear missile destroys the playing hall.
>
> The question is designed to see if people jump at the obvious answer to
> something, which is generally considered a weakness in chess.

Hmmm, I wonder whether Tal or Kasparov ever considered surrealism
as something that could aid a chess player...

Regards,

Major Cat

Date: 17 Jan 2006 10:00:00
From:
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

David Ames wrote:
> Ray Gordon wrote:
> > Simple question.
>
> Someone once asked me to name the Seven Dwarves.

Frito, Spam, Moxie, Pepsi, Gimlet, Legolam, Arrowroot, Goodgulf, and
Bromosel. Right?

Date: 17 Jan 2006 09:23:14
From: David Ames
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Ray Gordon wrote:
> Simple question.

Someone once asked me to name the Seven Dwarves. So I assigned them
the names A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. I would guess these are as good as
the names assigned to them in the Disney film.

David Ames

Date: 17 Jan 2006 23:57:04
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

David Ames wrote:
>
> Ray Gordon wrote:
> > Simple question.
>
> Someone once asked me to name the Seven Dwarves. So I assigned them
> the names A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. I would guess these are as good as
> the names assigned to them in the Disney film.
>
Only if one believes that the symbolic apparatus one encounters
in logico-mathematical treatises is the greatest that a culture
or civilization can ever come up with... 8 >)

Regards,

Major Cat

Date: 17 Jan 2006 19:13:02
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

>> Simple question.
>
> Someone once asked me to name the Seven Dwarves. So I assigned them
> the names A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. I would guess these are as good as
> the names assigned to them in the Disney film.

Another GM level answer. (Really!)

A GM will never choose the simple answer when he can ridiculously complicate
the question.

Date: 18 Jan 2006 00:00:59
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> >> Simple question.
> >
> > Someone once asked me to name the Seven Dwarves. So I assigned them
> > the names A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. I would guess these are as good as
> > the names assigned to them in the Disney film.
>
> Another GM level answer. (Really!)
>
> A GM will never choose the simple answer when he can ridiculously complicate
> the question.

Apparently, GMs excel in "meta-chessics"... 8 >)

Regards,

Major Cat

Date: 17 Jan 2006 06:37:27
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

David Richerby wrote:
> checkmate
> resignation
> time forfeit
> stalemate
> draw by repetition
> draw by 50-move rule
> draw by mutual agreement
> draw by FIDE article 10.2 (player just trying to win on time)
> declared drawn by arbiter
> declared won by arbiter
>
> Have I missed any?

Draw due to insufficient mating material, e.g. two knights vs. lone
king. Or is that a subset of the 50-move rule?

Date: 17 Jan 2006 19:12:03
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

> David Richerby wrote:
>> checkmate
>> resignation
>> time forfeit
>> stalemate
>> draw by repetition
>> draw by 50-move rule
>> draw by mutual agreement
>> draw by FIDE article 10.2 (player just trying to win on time)
>> declared drawn by arbiter
>> declared won by arbiter
>>
>> Have I missed any?
>
> Draw due to insufficient mating material, e.g. two knights vs. lone
> king. Or is that a subset of the 50-move rule?

Boy are you guys on the wrong track.

MajorCat gave the GM answer.

Date: 17 Jan 2006 23:53:01
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> > David Richerby wrote:
> >> checkmate
> >> resignation
> >> time forfeit
> >> stalemate
> >> draw by repetition
> >> draw by 50-move rule
> >> draw by mutual agreement
> >> draw by FIDE article 10.2 (player just trying to win on time)
> >> declared drawn by arbiter
> >> declared won by arbiter
> >>
> >> Have I missed any?
> >
> > Draw due to insufficient mating material, e.g. two knights vs. lone
> > king. Or is that a subset of the 50-move rule?
>
> Boy are you guys on the wrong track.
>
> MajorCat gave the GM answer.

Thank you! I am of the humble opinion that modernist rationalism
pushed to the extreme deals a death blow to life as a colorful
experience. The fanatical pursuit of instrumentalist efficiency
inexorably leads to the...morgue. 8 >)

Regards,

Major Cat

Date: 17 Jan 2006 15:57:14
From: Raimund Klein
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Taylor Kingston schrieb:
> David Richerby wrote:
>
>> checkmate
>> resignation
>> time forfeit
>> stalemate
>> draw by repetition
>> draw by 50-move rule
>> draw by mutual agreement
>> draw by FIDE article 10.2 (player just trying to win on time)
>> declared drawn by arbiter
>> declared won by arbiter
>>
>>Have I missed any?
>
>
> Draw due to insufficient mating material, e.g. two knights vs. lone
> king. Or is that a subset of the 50-move rule?

King + two knights vs. king is NOT insufficient mating material. The
checkmate cannot be forced, but it's still possible. So indeed this
situation can be covered by 50-move-rule, for example.

However, still missing is the draw, because a "dead" position has arisen
in which neither side can mate the other, regardless how good or bad the
opponent plays (which is probably what you meant). This includes e.g.
K+N vs. K or K+B vs. K+B with bishops of the same field color, but also
positions such as:

White: Kb1, Pb4, e4, g4
Black: Kd7, Pb5, e5, g5

This position is an immediate draw, since no legal move order can lead
to a checkmate for either side. BTW, this also applies if a flag falls
in this situation.

Date: 17 Jan 2006 15:37:20
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Raimund Klein <[email protected] > wrote:
> Taylor Kingston schrieb:
>> David Richerby wrote:
>>> checkmate, resignation, time forfeit, stalemate, draw by repetition,
>>> draw by 50-move rule, draw by mutual agreement, draw by FIDE article
>>> 10.2 (player just trying to win on time), declared drawn by arbiter,
>>> declared won by arbiter
>>>
>>> Have I missed any?
>>
>> Draw due to insufficient mating material, e.g. two knights vs. lone
>> king. Or is that a subset of the 50-move rule?
>
> King + two knights vs. king is NOT insufficient mating material. [...]
>
> However, still missing is the draw, because a "dead" position has arisen
> in which neither side can mate the other, regardless how good or bad the
> opponent plays (which is probably what you meant).

Good point.

There are a couple of subtleties I missed but they can be classed as
``declared won/drawn by the arbiter'' (player doesn't arrive on
time; player tries to make a third illegal move; player's mobile phone or
similar goes off; player persists in breaking the rules). Not sure why I
didn't just check the FIDE website...

Dave.

--
David Richerby Flammable Indelible Hat (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a hat but it can't be erased and
it burns really easily!

Date: 17 Jan 2006 12:34:12
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> Simple question.

Simple but vague. White wins, black wins, draw? Or were you looking for
something more like:

checkmate
resignation
time forfeit
stalemate
draw by repetition
draw by 50-move rule
draw by mutual agreement
draw by FIDE article 10.2 (player just trying to win on time)
declared drawn by arbiter
declared won by arbiter

Have I missed any?

Or pawn ending, rook ending, minor-piece ending, etc.?

Dave.

--
David Richerby Psychotic Dish (TM): it's like a fine
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ ceramic dish but it wants to kill you!

Date: 17 Jan 2006 15:24:38
From: Antonio Torrecillas
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

En/na David Richerby ha escrit:

> declared won by arbiter
(including phone calls like Ponoiov had)

AT

Date: 17 Jan 2006 13:23:02
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

>> Simple question.
>
> Simple but vague. White wins, black wins, draw?

The answer most commonly given by weak players.

Date: 17 Jan 2006 06:59:56
From: Major Cat
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

Ray Gordon wrote:
>
> Simple question.

1) Vaporization due to a nuclear exchange.

2) Running the clock due to a massive stroke.

3) Defeat at the hands of Death.

Simple answers? 8 >)

Regards,

Major Cat

Date: 17 Jan 2006 13:22:29
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Name three possible endings to a chessgame

> Ray Gordon wrote:
>>
>> Simple question.
>
> 1) Vaporization due to a nuclear exchange.
>
> 2) Running the clock due to a massive stroke.
>
> 3) Defeat at the hands of Death.

We have a winner!!