On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:15:14 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

[[At length I should like to ask Mr. Walker something about his original
post - since he seems to have been a strong player - is his inclination to
change things based on ennui, or insufficient challenge to himself. I am
maybe a bit better than he was, but approx the same bracket,

Very modest of you, Phil (rated 2034), to admit you're only a "maybe a
bit better" than Walker (rated 2235), since he outranks you by a full
rating class.

Now, as I remember from an earlier post, his peak was something like
2330, so your 2450 peak rating was higher. Of course, his rating was
earned in tournament play while you pulled yours out of your ass.

But your claim above evidently matches your *current* strength to his
*prior* strength, which complicates the issue.

What's that algorithm for mapping from real to imaginary ratings
again?

Mike Murray wrote:
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:15:14 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

[[At length I should like to ask Mr. Walker something about his original
post - since he seems to have been a strong player - is his inclination to
change things based on ennui, or insufficient challenge to himself. I am
maybe a bit better than he was, but approx the same bracket,

Very modest of you, Phil (rated 2034), to admit you're only a "maybe a
bit better" than Walker (rated 2235), since he outranks you by a full
rating class.

Now, as I remember from an earlier post, his peak was something like
2330, so your 2450 peak rating was higher. Of course, his rating was
earned in tournament play while you pulled yours out of your ass.

But your claim above evidently matches your *current* strength to his
*prior* strength, which complicates the issue.

What's that algorithm for mapping from real to imaginary ratings
again?

I am stepping away from this. Phil is an active player, I am not. It
is fine with me if he is a stronger player.

I actually think that the rating system as a symbolic pecking order is
one of the downsides of chess.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

Matt Nemmers wrote:
On Aug 19, 8:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" wrote:
I actually think that the rating system as a symbolic pecking order is
one of the downsides of chess.

Absolutely it is.

Not because of the system itself, but because of how some rather
unimpressive woodpushers seem to get an exaggerated notion of their
own importance based on a number assigned to them by a non-profit
organization.

Some of the more pathetic specimens actually brag about a rating that
was earned a while back when they played their last rated game --
sometimes more than a decade ago. I know of a few players who hit a
plateau and when they figured out they were either too old or didn't
have the apititude to improve, quit the game to be able to brag about
being rated....whatever their magic number was. Some even boast about
PEAK ratings, as if that should knock anyone's socks off with awe.
Those morons need to be sedated.

Ratings may give one a semi-accurate estimate of future performance
over the chessboard, but in my experience I've noticed that, more
often than not, ratings and likeability seem to compare inversely.

Regards,

Matt

Judging from your message you are angry. What's wrong Matt?

You have not mentioned a major reason that many leave the recreational
pastime of chess behind in the US. Many of us turn to careers, raising
a family and being a productive member of society.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

Matt Nemmers wrote:

I actually think that the rating system as a symbolic pecking order is
one of the downsides of chess.

Absolutely it is.

Not because of the system itself, but because of how some rather
unimpressive woodpushers seem to get an exaggerated notion of their
own importance based on a number assigned to them by a non-profit
organization.


If you think ratings can lead to such trouble,
you ain't seen nothing 'till you look at how
*titles* can affect some people's egos. At
least with ratings, you have something that
can self-correct, provided a player remains
active.


Ratings may give one a semi-accurate estimate of future performance
over the chessboard, but in my experience I've noticed that, more
often than not, ratings and likeability seem to compare inversely.


I don't play much anymore, but in my
recent experience I've noticed that some
of the people who get very upset after
losing are in the middle range; this, despite
their greater familiarity with losing due to
having it happen abut half the time. Those
who very rarely lose, like say nearly-IMnes,
may be understood as a man who has hit
his own thumb with a hammer while aiming
at something else.

Some of the more pleasant chaps I've had
the pleasure of knowing through chess just
happened to be in the middle ranges,
ratings-wise. But a few were nearer the top;
they just didn't connect their egos to such
things as ratings and titles, using one or
the other as a sort of air-pump or inflation
device.

However, once a professional chess
player gets to or near the very pinnacle of
chess, something often snaps; we've seen
plenty of validation of Mr. Nemmers' idea
in the not-so-distant past. But I wonder if
at the very, very rock-bottom, there might
not be something similar? Who even
knows the identities of the very worst
chess players in the world, or anything
about how they behave? Maybe what we
need is just one issue of /Chess Life/ in
which the very worst games of chess
ever played are given their due attention.


-- help bot

In article
,
Matt Nemmers wrote:

Some even boast about PEAK ratings, as if that should knock anyone's socks off with awe.

::laughing::

J.D. Walker wrote:
Judging from your message you are angry. What's wrong Matt?

Not a thing. I'm a pretty happy-go-lucky guy, J.D. I just calls 'em
like I sees 'em.

You have not mentioned a major reason that many leave the recreational
pastime of chess behind in the US. Many of us turn to careers, raising
a family and being a productive member of society.

Didn't feel the need to point out the obvious. Personally, I fall
into that category myself. I haven't played a rated game in about two
years, having given up the pastime as a hobby to pursue more
worthwhile goals. But I don't mind telling you that a good chunk of
the chessplayers I've dealt with over the years made that unconscious
decision very easy.

Regards,

Matt

Matt Nemmers wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
Judging from your message you are angry. What's wrong Matt?

Not a thing. I'm a pretty happy-go-lucky guy, J.D. I just calls 'em
like I sees 'em.

Good for you!

You have not mentioned a major reason that many leave the recreational
pastime of chess behind in the US. Many of us turn to careers, raising
a family and being a productive member of society.

Didn't feel the need to point out the obvious.

I have a reason for pointing this out even though it should be obvious.
We have some in chess who not only feel that chess is an extremely
serious pursuit, but almost religious in significance. At least that is
how it appears to me. I disagree. Chess can be a great game; it is
not a religion.

Personally, I fall
into that category myself. I haven't played a rated game in about two
years, having given up the pastime as a hobby to pursue more
worthwhile goals. But I don't mind telling you that a good chunk of
the chessplayers I've dealt with over the years made that unconscious
decision very easy.

Understood.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

This would kill chess if implemented. I would much rather play a chess variant than this contrived system.

There are more than 960 positions that can be arrived at with actual play. How much moves into the game are you suggesting? Matt's chess 256 seems like a subset of this .

I still much rather chess960 which is 960 NEW positions and regular chess which gets me more than 960 positions going forward.



Awarding 1/3 a point for draw 1 for win 0 for loss should be experimented with. The white/black imbalance thing suggested and tried by someone though is silly.

Much worse, is when perfectly playable chess variants are shot down and ignored.

Perhaps chess cannot be really improved -- and any so called improvement is normally just an inferior variant. And we already have drawless chess variants where there is no stalemate, bare king rule, etc.


Displacement chess 2 with the king and queen switched for one color will reset opening theory anyway and is much easier to play. With flexible castling even more interesting.

see:

http://chess.computerwebservices.net/displacement.php

Or see here for the zillions file:
http://www.zillions-of-games.com/cgi...o=show;id=1616

__________________
-------------------------------------------------------

Some fun chess variants :

Holy Grail
http://chess.computerwebservices.net/holy.php

Stealth Ninja Chess
http://chess.computerwebservices.net/stealth.php

Matt Nemmers wrote:
J.D. Walker wrote:
Judging from your message you are angry. What's wrong Matt?

Not a thing. I'm a pretty happy-go-lucky guy, J.D. I just calls 'em
like I sees 'em.

You have not mentioned a major reason that many leave the
recreational pastime of chess behind in the US. Many of us turn to
careers, raising a family and being a productive member of society.

Didn't feel the need to point out the obvious. Personally, I fall
into that category myself.

Do you have a new career or are you still Uncle Sam's hired killer?

"thumbody" wrote in message
...
J.D. Walker wrote:

CHESS REDESIGN

Well, there you have it. A brief sketch of an idea. Tear it apart,
ignore it, or cheer. It is your move.
--

Well done! - Superlative spelling, faultless punctuation & masterful
layout. A post to be proud of! An absolute rarity in these ng's!..

Content-wise? Call me a stick-in-the-mud but for me no 'crisis' exists.
Chess, as a famous GM once remarked is something of a minor
contemplative amusement & computers hardly impact this dynamic..

Variants, for me @ least, are a bit like water-polo. Mildly curious @
first & then rapidly boring.

O! I thought you were going to do the joke!*

Perhaps for most of us, chess the way it
is, is really quite enough..

I agree with that as a general sentiment. I have misplayed the same
positions over and over at every level for 45 years. Sometimes I get bored
with it all, but really bored with game play rather than chess.

I also harbor a suspicion about my own motives in wanting to change chess -
is it really because I have hit a wall, can't seem to negotiate my way
through some chessic situation? I suspect if I continued and found a way
through, I would continue to play regular chess - since this has been the
pattern of my own development.

I don't know that that is any universal condition applicable to all people.

t.

Phil Innes

*"I used to play water polo, but it became so expensive because too many
horses drowned..."