| |
Main
Date: 05 Oct 2007 11:33:29
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
Rather than the idea of removing pieces as balancing, how about the
following levels of handicapping (greater handicap):
* First, have the weaker player choose white or black.
* Allow the weaker player a chance to score points on a draw, but the
stronger player doesn't.
* Allow the weaker player to play white, and get two non-capture moves
to start before their opponent gets a move.
* Three non-capture moves at start of game.
* Four non-capture moves at start of game.
And so on. Can go up to maybe 6 or 7. The moves can't have the
player capturing any pieces of an opponent. You could also restrict
the moves a player's own half of the board. In other words, for
handicapping, borrow from progressive chess.
Comments?
- Rich
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 09:16:03
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
On Oct 7, 11:55 am, Ken Blake <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:25:35 -0700, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 11:07 pm, "Ian Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > "Rich Hutnik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > > On Oct 6, 3:46 pm, "Ian Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> "Rich Hutnik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > > >>news:[email protected]...
>
> > > >> > Rather than the idea of removing pieces as balancing, how about the
> > > >> > following levels of handicapping (greater handicap):
> > > >> > * First, have the weaker player choose white or black.
> > > >> > * Allow the weaker player a chance to score points on a draw, but the
> > > >> > stronger player doesn't.
> > > >> > * Allow the weaker player to play white, and get two non-capture moves
> > > >> > to start before their opponent gets a move.
> > > >> > * Three non-capture moves at start of game.
> > > >> > * Four non-capture moves at start of game.
>
> > > >> > And so on. Can go up to maybe 6 or 7. The moves can't have the
> > > >> > player capturing any pieces of an opponent. You could also restrict
> > > >> > the moves a player's own half of the board. In other words, for
> > > >> > handicapping, borrow from progressive chess.
>
> > > >> > Comments?
>
> > > >> This strikes me as a great idea to keep weak players weak.
>
> > > > How does it keep weak players weak, when the weak player gets to make
> > > > multiple moves before the stronger opponent gets to make moves?
>
> > > The weak player never learns to play chess from the initial position, never
> > > is forced to study opening play, does not learn the normal patterns of the
> > > game,and, as a result, never strengthens his game. He is always treated as
> > > a cripple.
>
> > So, is having the stronger player give up pieces (the norm for
> > handicapping) a better idea? In this way, if tweaked right, a player
> > would need to learn the right openings and so on. Is your argument
> > that handicapping should NEVER be used?
>
> I'm with Ian entirely. Handicapping by starting with fewer pieces is
> almost as bad. As far as I'm concerned, the best way to give a weaker
> player a handicap, by far, is to give him more time on the clock. The
> keeps the game symmetrical, and can balance to some extent differences
> in skill levels.
Ok. I was just pondering here, thinking how Go worked, and the idea
of progression moves seemed to be actually closer to go than removing
pieces. A novice will still botch the opening badly. Removing pieces
seemed to be a serious butchering of the game, which is why I was
pondering the alternatives.
- Rich
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 12:17:21
From: Ken Blake
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:16:03 -0700, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Oct 7, 11:55 am, Ken Blake <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:25:35 -0700, Rich Hutnik <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 6, 11:07 pm, "Ian Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > The weak player never learns to play chess from the initial position, never
> > > > is forced to study opening play, does not learn the normal patterns of the
> > > > game,and, as a result, never strengthens his game. He is always treated as
> > > > a cripple.
> >
> > > So, is having the stronger player give up pieces (the norm for
> > > handicapping) a better idea? In this way, if tweaked right, a player
> > > would need to learn the right openings and so on. Is your argument
> > > that handicapping should NEVER be used?
> >
> > I'm with Ian entirely. Handicapping by starting with fewer pieces is
> > almost as bad. As far as I'm concerned, the best way to give a weaker
> > player a handicap, by far, is to give him more time on the clock. The
> > keeps the game symmetrical, and can balance to some extent differences
> > in skill levels.
>
> Ok. I was just pondering here, thinking how Go worked, and the idea
> of progression moves seemed to be actually closer to go than removing
> pieces. A novice will still botch the opening badly. Removing pieces
> seemed to be a serious butchering of the game, which is why I was
> pondering the alternatives.
Yes, handicapping in Go, by allowing the weaker player extra moves,
works very well. Unlike Chess, it doesn't destroy the symmetry and
integrity of the game. It's one of the respects in which Go is the
better of the two games.
--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 00:25:35
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
On Oct 6, 11:07 pm, "Ian Burton" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rich Hutnik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 3:46 pm, "Ian Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Rich Hutnik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:[email protected]...
>
> >> > Rather than the idea of removing pieces as balancing, how about the
> >> > following levels of handicapping (greater handicap):
> >> > * First, have the weaker player choose white or black.
> >> > * Allow the weaker player a chance to score points on a draw, but the
> >> > stronger player doesn't.
> >> > * Allow the weaker player to play white, and get two non-capture moves
> >> > to start before their opponent gets a move.
> >> > * Three non-capture moves at start of game.
> >> > * Four non-capture moves at start of game.
>
> >> > And so on. Can go up to maybe 6 or 7. The moves can't have the
> >> > player capturing any pieces of an opponent. You could also restrict
> >> > the moves a player's own half of the board. In other words, for
> >> > handicapping, borrow from progressive chess.
>
> >> > Comments?
>
> >> This strikes me as a great idea to keep weak players weak.
>
> > How does it keep weak players weak, when the weak player gets to make
> > multiple moves before the stronger opponent gets to make moves?
>
> The weak player never learns to play chess from the initial position, never
> is forced to study opening play, does not learn the normal patterns of the
> game,and, as a result, never strengthens his game. He is always treated as
> a cripple.
So, is having the stronger player give up pieces (the norm for
handicapping) a better idea? In this way, if tweaked right, a player
would need to learn the right openings and so on. Is your argument
that handicapping should NEVER be used?
- Rich
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 11:22:25
From: Ian Burton
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
"Rich Hutnik" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 6, 11:07 pm, "Ian Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Rich Hutnik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 6, 3:46 pm, "Ian Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> "Rich Hutnik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >> > Rather than the idea of removing pieces as balancing, how about the
>> >> > following levels of handicapping (greater handicap):
>> >> > * First, have the weaker player choose white or black.
>> >> > * Allow the weaker player a chance to score points on a draw, but
>> >> > the
>> >> > stronger player doesn't.
>> >> > * Allow the weaker player to play white, and get two non-capture
>> >> > moves
>> >> > to start before their opponent gets a move.
>> >> > * Three non-capture moves at start of game.
>> >> > * Four non-capture moves at start of game.
>>
>> >> > And so on. Can go up to maybe 6 or 7. The moves can't have the
>> >> > player capturing any pieces of an opponent. You could also restrict
>> >> > the moves a player's own half of the board. In other words, for
>> >> > handicapping, borrow from progressive chess.
>>
>> >> > Comments?
>>
>> >> This strikes me as a great idea to keep weak players weak.
>>
>> > How does it keep weak players weak, when the weak player gets to make
>> > multiple moves before the stronger opponent gets to make moves?
>>
>> The weak player never learns to play chess from the initial position,
>> never
>> is forced to study opening play, does not learn the normal patterns of
>> the
>> game,and, as a result, never strengthens his game. He is always treated
>> as
>> a cripple.
>
> So, is having the stronger player give up pieces (the norm for
> handicapping) a better idea? In this way, if tweaked right, a player
> would need to learn the right openings and so on. Is your argument
> that handicapping should NEVER be used?
The only odds I'd ever give (or take) are time odds. Time odds maintain the
game's integrity.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)
>
> - Rich
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 08:55:45
From: Ken Blake
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:25:35 -0700, Rich Hutnik <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:07 pm, "Ian Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "Rich Hutnik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 6, 3:46 pm, "Ian Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> "Rich Hutnik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > >>news:[email protected]...
> >
> > >> > Rather than the idea of removing pieces as balancing, how about the
> > >> > following levels of handicapping (greater handicap):
> > >> > * First, have the weaker player choose white or black.
> > >> > * Allow the weaker player a chance to score points on a draw, but the
> > >> > stronger player doesn't.
> > >> > * Allow the weaker player to play white, and get two non-capture moves
> > >> > to start before their opponent gets a move.
> > >> > * Three non-capture moves at start of game.
> > >> > * Four non-capture moves at start of game.
> >
> > >> > And so on. Can go up to maybe 6 or 7. The moves can't have the
> > >> > player capturing any pieces of an opponent. You could also restrict
> > >> > the moves a player's own half of the board. In other words, for
> > >> > handicapping, borrow from progressive chess.
> >
> > >> > Comments?
> >
> > >> This strikes me as a great idea to keep weak players weak.
> >
> > > How does it keep weak players weak, when the weak player gets to make
> > > multiple moves before the stronger opponent gets to make moves?
> >
> > The weak player never learns to play chess from the initial position, never
> > is forced to study opening play, does not learn the normal patterns of the
> > game,and, as a result, never strengthens his game. He is always treated as
> > a cripple.
>
> So, is having the stronger player give up pieces (the norm for
> handicapping) a better idea? In this way, if tweaked right, a player
> would need to learn the right openings and so on. Is your argument
> that handicapping should NEVER be used?
I'm with Ian entirely. Handicapping by starting with fewer pieces is
almost as bad. As far as I'm concerned, the best way to give a weaker
player a handicap, by far, is to give him more time on the clock. The
keeps the game symmetrical, and can balance to some extent differences
in skill levels.
--
Ken Blake
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 17:20:36
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
On Oct 6, 4:05 pm, "Ian Burton" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Ian Burton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Christopher Dearlove" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> In message <[email protected]>, Rich
> >> Hutnik <[email protected]> writes
> >>>* Allow the weaker player to play white, and get two non-capture moves
> >>>to start before their opponent gets a move.
> >>>* Three non-capture moves at start of game.
> >>>* Four non-capture moves at start of game.
>
> >>>And so on. Can go up to maybe 6 or 7.
>
> >> How many moves needed to create a "can't lose" simple mating attack?
> >> No more than 6 I think (e4, Bc4, d3, Nf3, Ne5, Qf3) but I'm sure someone
> >> can do better.
>
> > Why do you need d3?
>
> > There is a position after 16 moves on White's side of the board -- no
> > crossing into Black's territory -- that forces mate in two moves. I used
> > to have a copy of the moves, but can't find them today. Perhaps someone
> > out there can post them.
> > --
> > Ian Burton
> > (Please reply to the Newsgroup)
>
> *****************
> Here is the forced mate I mentioned in an earlier post.
>
> My thanks to Chessville, John Watson M.D., and Rick Kennedy.
>
> a4, Na3, h4, Nf3, d4, Nd2, Rh3, Nac4, Ra3, Ne4, Qd2, Rhf3, g3, Bh3, Qf4,
> Rae3. The Schachfreund, ed. M. Alapin, in British Chess Magazine, January
> 1899 p.20
What happens if black knight on G8 moves to F6?
Also, as a variation on what I say, you could give black the ability
to make two or more non-capture moves to prevent variations on Fool's
Mate?
How about handicapping in chess by changing time on the clock?
- Rich
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 19:57:52
From: Ian Burton
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
"Rich Hutnik" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 6, 4:05 pm, "Ian Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Ian Burton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Christopher Dearlove" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> In message <[email protected]>,
>> >> Rich
>> >> Hutnik <[email protected]> writes
>> >>>* Allow the weaker player to play white, and get two non-capture moves
>> >>>to start before their opponent gets a move.
>> >>>* Three non-capture moves at start of game.
>> >>>* Four non-capture moves at start of game.
>>
>> >>>And so on. Can go up to maybe 6 or 7.
>>
>> >> How many moves needed to create a "can't lose" simple mating attack?
>> >> No more than 6 I think (e4, Bc4, d3, Nf3, Ne5, Qf3) but I'm sure
>> >> someone
>> >> can do better.
>>
>> > Why do you need d3?
>>
>> > There is a position after 16 moves on White's side of the board -- no
>> > crossing into Black's territory -- that forces mate in two moves. I
>> > used
>> > to have a copy of the moves, but can't find them today. Perhaps
>> > someone
>> > out there can post them.
>> > --
>> > Ian Burton
>> > (Please reply to the Newsgroup)
>>
>> *****************
>> Here is the forced mate I mentioned in an earlier post.
>>
>> My thanks to Chessville, John Watson M.D., and Rick Kennedy.
>>
>> a4, Na3, h4, Nf3, d4, Nd2, Rh3, Nac4, Ra3, Ne4, Qd2, Rhf3, g3, Bh3, Qf4,
>> Rae3. The Schachfreund, ed. M. Alapin, in British Chess Magazine,
>> January
>> 1899 p.20
>
> What happens if black knight on G8 moves to F6?
If ...Nf6, then 1. Ned6+, cxd6 2. Nxd6++
CORRECTION: Ra3 above, should be Raa3
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)
>
> Also, as a variation on what I say, you could give black the ability
> to make two or more non-capture moves to prevent variations on Fool's
> Mate?
>
> How about handicapping in chess by changing time on the clock?
>
> - Rich
>
>
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 17:01:25
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
On Oct 6, 3:46 pm, "Ian Burton" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rich Hutnik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > Rather than the idea of removing pieces as balancing, how about the
> > following levels of handicapping (greater handicap):
> > * First, have the weaker player choose white or black.
> > * Allow the weaker player a chance to score points on a draw, but the
> > stronger player doesn't.
> > * Allow the weaker player to play white, and get two non-capture moves
> > to start before their opponent gets a move.
> > * Three non-capture moves at start of game.
> > * Four non-capture moves at start of game.
>
> > And so on. Can go up to maybe 6 or 7. The moves can't have the
> > player capturing any pieces of an opponent. You could also restrict
> > the moves a player's own half of the board. In other words, for
> > handicapping, borrow from progressive chess.
>
> > Comments?
>
> This strikes me as a great idea to keep weak players weak.
How does it keep weak players weak, when the weak player gets to make
multiple moves before the stronger opponent gets to make moves?
- Rich
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 20:07:02
From: Ian Burton
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
"Rich Hutnik" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 6, 3:46 pm, "Ian Burton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Rich Hutnik" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Rather than the idea of removing pieces as balancing, how about the
>> > following levels of handicapping (greater handicap):
>> > * First, have the weaker player choose white or black.
>> > * Allow the weaker player a chance to score points on a draw, but the
>> > stronger player doesn't.
>> > * Allow the weaker player to play white, and get two non-capture moves
>> > to start before their opponent gets a move.
>> > * Three non-capture moves at start of game.
>> > * Four non-capture moves at start of game.
>>
>> > And so on. Can go up to maybe 6 or 7. The moves can't have the
>> > player capturing any pieces of an opponent. You could also restrict
>> > the moves a player's own half of the board. In other words, for
>> > handicapping, borrow from progressive chess.
>>
>> > Comments?
>>
>> This strikes me as a great idea to keep weak players weak.
>
> How does it keep weak players weak, when the weak player gets to make
> multiple moves before the stronger opponent gets to make moves?
The weak player never learns to play chess from the initial position, never
is forced to study opening play, does not learn the normal patterns of the
game,and, as a result, never strengthens his game. He is always treated as
a cripple.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)
>
> - Rich
>
>
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 21:42:38
From: Christopher Dearlove
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
In message <[email protected] >, Ian Burton
<[email protected] > writes
>Why do you need d3?
I don't, see my other post where I corrected myself.
--
Christopher Dearlove
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 12:46:30
From: Ian Burton
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
"Rich Hutnik" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Rather than the idea of removing pieces as balancing, how about the
> following levels of handicapping (greater handicap):
> * First, have the weaker player choose white or black.
> * Allow the weaker player a chance to score points on a draw, but the
> stronger player doesn't.
> * Allow the weaker player to play white, and get two non-capture moves
> to start before their opponent gets a move.
> * Three non-capture moves at start of game.
> * Four non-capture moves at start of game.
>
> And so on. Can go up to maybe 6 or 7. The moves can't have the
> player capturing any pieces of an opponent. You could also restrict
> the moves a player's own half of the board. In other words, for
> handicapping, borrow from progressive chess.
>
> Comments?
This strikes me as a great idea to keep weak players weak.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 20:01:51
From: Christopher Dearlove
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
In message <[email protected] >, Rich
Hutnik <[email protected] > writes
>* Allow the weaker player to play white, and get two non-capture moves
>to start before their opponent gets a move.
>* Three non-capture moves at start of game.
>* Four non-capture moves at start of game.
>
>And so on. Can go up to maybe 6 or 7.
How many moves needed to create a "can't lose" simple mating attack?
No more than 6 I think (e4, Bc4, d3, Nf3, Ne5, Qf3) but I'm sure someone
can do better.
--
Christopher Dearlove
|
| | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 12:57:25
From: Ian Burton
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
"Christopher Dearlove" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>, Rich
> Hutnik <[email protected]> writes
>>* Allow the weaker player to play white, and get two non-capture moves
>>to start before their opponent gets a move.
>>* Three non-capture moves at start of game.
>>* Four non-capture moves at start of game.
>>
>>And so on. Can go up to maybe 6 or 7.
>
> How many moves needed to create a "can't lose" simple mating attack?
> No more than 6 I think (e4, Bc4, d3, Nf3, Ne5, Qf3) but I'm sure someone
> can do better.
Why do you need d3?
There is a position after 16 moves on White's side of the board -- no
crossing into Black's territory -- that forces mate in two moves. I used to
have a copy of the moves, but can't find them today. Perhaps someone out
there can post them.
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 13:05:20
From: Ian Burton
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
"Ian Burton" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Christopher Dearlove" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In message <[email protected]>, Rich
>> Hutnik <[email protected]> writes
>>>* Allow the weaker player to play white, and get two non-capture moves
>>>to start before their opponent gets a move.
>>>* Three non-capture moves at start of game.
>>>* Four non-capture moves at start of game.
>>>
>>>And so on. Can go up to maybe 6 or 7.
>>
>> How many moves needed to create a "can't lose" simple mating attack?
>> No more than 6 I think (e4, Bc4, d3, Nf3, Ne5, Qf3) but I'm sure someone
>> can do better.
>
> Why do you need d3?
>
> There is a position after 16 moves on White's side of the board -- no
> crossing into Black's territory -- that forces mate in two moves. I used
> to have a copy of the moves, but can't find them today. Perhaps someone
> out there can post them.
> --
> Ian Burton
> (Please reply to the Newsgroup)
*****************
Here is the forced mate I mentioned in an earlier post.
My thanks to Chessville, John Watson M.D., and Rick Kennedy.
a4, Na3, h4, Nf3, d4, Nd2, Rh3, Nac4, Ra3, Ne4, Qd2, Rhf3, g3, Bh3, Qf4,
Rae3. The Schachfreund, ed. M. Alapin, in British Chess Magazine, January
1899 p.20
--
Ian Burton
(Please reply to the Newsgroup)
>
>
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 20:06:06
From: Christopher Dearlove
Subject: Re: How about borrowing from progressive chess for handicapping of players?
|
In message <[email protected] >, Rich
Hutnik <[email protected] > writes
>* Allow the weaker player to play white, and get two non-capture moves
>to start before their opponent gets a move.
>* Three non-capture moves at start of game.
>* Four non-capture moves at start of game.
My last reply hasn't got back to me yet. Make it 5, delete d3.
(d3 was there so Nh6 could be replied to by Bxh6, but I put it
in before adding Bc4, which allows a reply to Nh3 of Qxf7
Nxf7, Bxf7 mate).
Anyone for 4? (Or is there an error in my 5?)
--
Christopher Dearlove
|
|
