On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:16:03 -0700, Rich Hutnik
wrote:

On Oct 7, 11:55 am, Ken Blake
wrote:
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:25:35 -0700, Rich Hutnik
wrote:



On Oct 6, 11:07 pm, "Ian Burton" 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