When only mechanical clocks were available it made sense to require a
player to stop the clocks and claim victory if the opponent
overstepped the time control.
Modern digital clocks can be programmed to stop when time runs out in
sudden death. This should be done. It is no longer necessary to
require anyone to watch the clock. We dont expect olympic runners, or
race car drivers, to turn their heads from side to side in order to
adjudicate their results. We should no to longer expect chess players
to perform a similar task that modern technology can easly address,
and which has nothing to do with chess abilty.
Let us require digital clocks at all events, and change to rules so
they are appropriate for the modern era.

Patrick Cairpre wrote:
When only mechanical clocks were available it made sense to require a
player to stop the clocks and claim victory if the opponent
overstepped the time control.
Modern digital clocks can be programmed to stop when time runs out in
sudden death. This should be done. It is no longer necessary to
require anyone to watch the clock. We dont expect olympic runners, or
race car drivers, to turn their heads from side to side in order to
adjudicate their results. We should no to longer expect chess players
to perform a similar task that modern technology can easly address,
and which has nothing to do with chess abilty.
Let us require digital clocks at all events, and change to rules so
they are appropriate for the modern era.


Hm, that would mean getting rid of all existing mechanical clocks and
replacing them with digital ones; quite a costly operation. Let me guess:
you own a considerable amount of DGT stock?

Ted

"Ted" wrote in message li.nl...

CUT

Hm, that would mean getting rid of all existing mechanical clocks and
replacing them with digital ones; quite a costly operation. Let me guess:
you own a considerable amount of DGT stock?

Ted

I have no financial interest in digital clocks. Still, your concern
regarding the cost is worth addressing. Perhaps we could allow
players using digital clocks to use the advanced features those clocks
have, but still permit mechanical clocks to be used. In the same way
that time-delay (a digital clock advance) is preferred, but non-delay
clocks are permitted.
There is no need to punish persons who currently own mechanical
clocks.
But the use of digitals should be encouraged

Perhaps the rules should be adjusted for digital clocks (and currently,
digital clocks with time delay are the preferred clock in USCF
tournaments - to the point that if White has one, and Black (who usually
gets choice of clock) has an analog clock, players are to use the
digital). Why not change the rule suggested to be applicable when
digital clocks are used. I agree that having someone monitor one's
opponents time to be able to claim a win on time is not needed - with
analog clocks it is necessary since you can have a situation where both
clocks could run out and you wouldn't know who's stopped first - digital
clocks can be set to avoid this.

John


Ted wrote:

Patrick Cairpre wrote:
When only mechanical clocks were available it made sense to require a
player to stop the clocks and claim victory if the opponent
overstepped the time control.
Modern digital clocks can be programmed to stop when time runs out in
sudden death. This should be done. It is no longer necessary to
require anyone to watch the clock. We dont expect olympic runners, or
race car drivers, to turn their heads from side to side in order to
adjudicate their results. We should no to longer expect chess players
to perform a similar task that modern technology can easly address,
and which has nothing to do with chess abilty.
Let us require digital clocks at all events, and change to rules so
they are appropriate for the modern era.

Hm, that would mean getting rid of all existing mechanical clocks and
replacing them with digital ones; quite a costly operation. Let me guess:
you own a considerable amount of DGT stock?

Ted

Alas, At times I really wonder if all these ideas about changing
this...changing that are not something that people that are for some reason
bored with life. Look back, for years and years no body had a problem with
simple clocks....no need for coming up with all sorts of variants on how
chess should be played ( power chess, random chess, etc.) Seems to me
those that advocate these ideas either can't handle doing two things at once
or don't have the patience of staying with something that has great
traditional value.
"Patrick Cairpre" wrote in message
om...
When only mechanical clocks were available it made sense to require a
player to stop the clocks and claim victory if the opponent
overstepped the time control.
Modern digital clocks can be programmed to stop when time runs out in
sudden death. This should be done. It is no longer necessary to
require anyone to watch the clock. We dont expect olympic runners, or
race car drivers, to turn their heads from side to side in order to
adjudicate their results. We should no to longer expect chess players
to perform a similar task that modern technology can easly address,
and which has nothing to do with chess abilty.
Let us require digital clocks at all events, and change to rules so
they are appropriate for the modern era.

In article . net,
says...
Alas, At times I really wonder if all these ideas about changing
this...changing that are not something that people that are for some reason
bored with life. Look back, for years and years no body had a problem with
simple clocks....no need for coming up with all sorts of variants on how
chess should be played ( power chess, random chess, etc.) Seems to me
those that advocate these ideas either can't handle doing two things at once
or don't have the patience of staying with something that has great
traditional value.
"Patrick Cairpre" wrote in message
om...
When only mechanical clocks were available it made sense to require a
player to stop the clocks and claim victory if the opponent
overstepped the time control.
Modern digital clocks can be programmed to stop when time runs out in
sudden death. This should be done. It is no longer necessary to
require anyone to watch the clock. We dont expect olympic runners, or
race car drivers, to turn their heads from side to side in order to
adjudicate their results. We should no to longer expect chess players
to perform a similar task that modern technology can easly address,
and which has nothing to do with chess abilty.
Let us require digital clocks at all events, and change to rules so
they are appropriate for the modern era.



The problem with "having patience of staying with something that has
great traditional value" is that the game has been analyzed to death
practically up to checkmate. The variants you mention, random chess,
power chess are honest attempts to reinvigorate the game with fresh
ideas to lend it some excitement without being burdened with theory.

I think Bobby Fischer could be lured out of retirement if he could be
persuaded to play Crazyhouse Chess. This has the benefit of introducing
an element of unpredictability to classical chess. This would have the
benefit of satisfying the purists by allowing Fischer and his opponent
to play classical chess...but with the added twist of allowing captured
pieces becoming weapons against its opponent. These pieces are dropped
to any vacant square on the board. The exception being the pawns which
can only be dropped up to the 7th rank for White or the 2nd rank for
Black. I love Crazyhouse Chess but unfortunately computer software
programs don't play Crazyhouse Chess. Chessbase Fritz 8 for example,
only plays Shuffle Chess. Which is fine with me. I just wish I had the
option to play Fischer Random as well. I'd go nuts if they introduced
the ability to play Chaos Chess which is point blank the ULTIMATE in
chess. Every piece is randomly placed on the board for both sides and
you play from there. No way theory can EVER interfere with that because
each setup will NEVER be seen again. How many positions for Chaos Chess?
Try 10 into 126th power. But I'll settle with Shuffle Chess which has
2,880 possible opening setups with the rule of bishops on opposite
colors. I think the setup number is even higher if bishops didn't have
to balance out. Now I believe the ultimate challenge for chess players
would be to play under Fischer Random rules but both sides don't have to
mirror each others setups. This would make the current Fischer Random
number of 960 positions climb up to 960,000 possible setups. There's no
way Kasparov, Kramnik or Judit Polgar could ever memorize such a
ridiculously large setup scenario...which is all generated at
RANDOM...forcing these memory drawmasters to forget chess theory and
just play chess.

I'd go nuts if they introduced
the ability to play Chaos Chess which is point blank the ULTIMATE in
chess. Every piece is randomly placed on the board for both sides and
you play from there. No way theory can EVER interfere with that because
each setup will NEVER be seen again. How many positions for Chaos Chess?
Try 10 into 126th power.

Well, that's just silly. You'll get positions in which one side has a quick
forced win, and lots more positions where one side or the other has a strong
advantage. And 10^126 is way off. I calculate the maximum possible number to
be approximately 4.63x10^42 positions, and in effect the number is half that
because of symmetry, and the reduced yet again because some positions will be
illegal (i.e. unpromoted pawns on the eighth rank, both players in check,
player in check who is not on the move.)

If you want to play a game that is not restricted as to starting array, you
might look into Parachute Chess or Unachess, in which the pieces start off the
board and get dropped by the players, subject to some rules restrictions.

"Curt Seefeldt" wrote in message link.net...
Alas, At times I really wonder if all these ideas about changing
this...changing that are not something that people that are for some reason
bored with life. Look back, for years and years no body had a problem with
simple clocks....no need for coming up with all sorts of variants on how
chess should be played ( power chess, random chess, etc.) Seems to me
those that advocate these ideas either can't handle doing two things at once
or don't have the patience of staying with something that has great
traditional value.
"Patrick Cairpre" wrote in message
om...
When only mechanical clocks were available it made sense to require a
player to stop the clocks and claim victory if the opponent
overstepped the time control.
Modern digital clocks can be programmed to stop when time runs out in
sudden death. This should be done. It is no longer necessary to
require anyone to watch the clock. We dont expect olympic runners, or
race car drivers, to turn their heads from side to side in order to
adjudicate their results. We should no to longer expect chess players
to perform a similar task that modern technology can easly address,
and which has nothing to do with chess abilty.
Let us require digital clocks at all events, and change to rules so
they are appropriate for the modern era.


It is faulty logic to equate my suggestion with "chess variants". I am
not advocating any variation to the game. Your argument regarding
change is quite dubious also. The fact that no one complained about
something when no other option was available should not be used as a
reason not to use something better when it arrives. By your thinking
we would all still be naked hunched over animial carcasess sucking the
marrow from their bones.

The current rules were created inside a specific technological
framework.
Activites like calling the flag down, or recording the moves are not
chess.
They are actions demanded of us due to the limits of technology.
When technolgy advances the rules should not prevent us from taking
advantage of it.

I am not advocating any change in "chess". I only suggest that we
permit people to use the technological advances offered by digital
clocks to stop at the end of the sudden death control. Discussions
about fairy chess are off topic

In article ,
(Patrick Cairpre) wrote:

"Curt Seefeldt" wrote in message
link.net...
Alas, At times I really wonder if all these ideas about changing
this...changing that are not something that people that are for some reason
bored with life. Look back, for years and years no body had a problem with
simple clocks....no need for coming up with all sorts of variants on how
chess should be played ( power chess, random chess, etc.) Seems to me
those that advocate these ideas either can't handle doing two things at
once
or don't have the patience of staying with something that has great
traditional value.
"Patrick Cairpre" wrote in message
om...
When only mechanical clocks were available it made sense to require a
player to stop the clocks and claim victory if the opponent
overstepped the time control.
Modern digital clocks can be programmed to stop when time runs out in
sudden death. This should be done. It is no longer necessary to
require anyone to watch the clock. We dont expect olympic runners, or
race car drivers, to turn their heads from side to side in order to
adjudicate their results. We should no to longer expect chess players
to perform a similar task that modern technology can easly address,
and which has nothing to do with chess abilty.
Let us require digital clocks at all events, and change to rules so
they are appropriate for the modern era.


It is faulty logic to equate my suggestion with "chess variants". I am
not advocating any variation to the game. Your argument regarding
change is quite dubious also. The fact that no one complained about
something when no other option was available should not be used as a
reason not to use something better when it arrives. By your thinking
we would all still be naked hunched over animial carcasess sucking the
marrow from their bones.


Mmmmmmm. . . . animal carcass marrow.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

--
without the block
"Patrick Cairpre" wrote in message
om...
"Curt Seefeldt" wrote in message
link.net...
Alas, At times I really wonder if all these ideas about changing
this...changing that are not something that people that are for some
reason
bored with life. Look back, for years and years no body had a problem
with
simple clocks....no need for coming up with all sorts of variants on how
chess should be played ( power chess, random chess, etc.) Seems to me
those that advocate these ideas either can't handle doing two things at
once
or don't have the patience of staying with something that has great
traditional value.
"Patrick Cairpre" wrote in message
om...
When only mechanical clocks were available it made sense to require a
player to stop the clocks and claim victory if the opponent
overstepped the time control.
Modern digital clocks can be programmed to stop when time runs out in
sudden death. This should be done. It is no longer necessary to
require anyone to watch the clock. We dont expect olympic runners, or
race car drivers, to turn their heads from side to side in order to
adjudicate their results. We should no to longer expect chess players
to perform a similar task that modern technology can easly address,
and which has nothing to do with chess abilty.
Let us require digital clocks at all events, and change to rules so
they are appropriate for the modern era.


It is faulty logic to equate my suggestion with "chess variants". I am
not advocating any variation to the game. Your argument regarding
change is quite dubious also. The fact that no one complained about
something when no other option was available should not be used as a
reason not to use something better when it arrives. By your thinking
we would all still be naked hunched over animial carcasess sucking the
marrow from their bones.

The current rules were created inside a specific technological
framework.
Activites like calling the flag down, or recording the moves are not
chess.
They are actions demanded of us due to the limits of technology.
When technolgy advances the rules should not prevent us from taking
advantage of it.

I am not advocating any change in "chess". I only suggest that we
permit people to use the technological advances offered by digital
clocks to stop at the end of the sudden death control. Discussions
about fairy chess are off topic

Patrick, I agree with you, up to a point, regarding tech issues. However,
when looking at either the USCF or FIDE rules, you are dealing with a wide
variety of players. Some have the financial resources for a $100 clock,
others do not. The rules demand a clock, min price about $25. There are
digital clocks avail for about about $40. The rules, at some level, provide
an even playing field for anyone able to show up at a table. The clock
provided should not change the outcome of the game.

Your comparison to runners, drivers, etc. is outside of the scope of
analogy. Chess players provide their own clock, at their own cost. As long
as there is a difference in the cost, then the rules should provide a
similar playing field,without respect to the technology of the clock being
used. If you see the diff between $25 and $40 as inconsequential, keep in
mind that it is important for some, and that preventing players from playing
is hardly the goal of most chess organizations.

The only reason for a clock, is to prevent a game for lasting a disagreeably
long time. Any clock used should prevent this from happening. Anything
else it does introduces new variables, which may or may not be welcomed.
Clocks are traditionally timekeepers, not watchdogs.

Cheers.

David