"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 6, 3:46 pm, "Ian Burton" wrote:
"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message

oups.com...



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

On Oct 6, 11:07 pm, "Ian Burton" wrote:
"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Oct 6, 3:46 pm, "Ian Burton" wrote:
"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message

groups.com...

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

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:25:35 -0700, Rich Hutnik
wrote:

On Oct 6, 11:07 pm, "Ian Burton" wrote:
"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Oct 6, 3:46 pm, "Ian Burton" wrote:
"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message

groups.com...

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

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:
"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Oct 6, 3:46 pm, "Ian Burton" wrote:
"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message

groups.com...

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

"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 6, 11:07 pm, "Ian Burton" wrote:
"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Oct 6, 3:46 pm, "Ian Burton" wrote:
"Rich Hutnik" wrote in message

groups.com...

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

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