Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 28th 04, 10:50 AM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future?

I can think of many reasons that it is:

1. Cheating is impossible.

2 ANY weaknesses in your game will come out at this time control and eat
up your clock.

3. Players who can find solutions to problems QUICKLY are rewarded. At the
slower time controls, someone who is 80 percent slower than their opponent
can have the clock hide this weakness.

4. A game can't take more than two minutes, which is perfect for the public
attention span, and television. It's also the most exciting form of the
game.

A one-minute chess match could be best-of-50, which would take 2-3 hours,
ideal for television and media coverage.

--
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library

http://www.cybersheet.com/hotties.html
Why Hotties Choose Losers

http://www.cybersheet.com/6/ubb.x
The Seduction Library Forum


  #2   Report Post  
Old May 28th 04, 12:52 PM
Luther Barnum
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future?

5. Horrible Chess Play with plenty of tactical and positional blunders.


"Ray Gordon" wrote in message
...
I can think of many reasons that it is:

1. Cheating is impossible.

2 ANY weaknesses in your game will come out at this time control and eat
up your clock.

3. Players who can find solutions to problems QUICKLY are rewarded. At

the
slower time controls, someone who is 80 percent slower than their opponent
can have the clock hide this weakness.

4. A game can't take more than two minutes, which is perfect for the

public
attention span, and television. It's also the most exciting form of the
game.

A one-minute chess match could be best-of-50, which would take 2-3 hours,
ideal for television and media coverage.

--
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library

http://www.cybersheet.com/hotties.html
Why Hotties Choose Losers

http://www.cybersheet.com/6/ubb.x
The Seduction Library Forum





  #3   Report Post  
Old May 28th 04, 01:07 PM
Harold Buck
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future?

No.
  #4   Report Post  
Old May 28th 04, 01:44 PM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future?

5. Horrible Chess Play with plenty of tactical and positional blunders.

The US Championship has had that forever and it survived!



  #5   Report Post  
Old May 28th 04, 03:20 PM
Andreas Walkenhorst
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future?

On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:50:02 GMT, "Ray Gordon"
wrote:

I can think of many reasons that it is:

1. Cheating is impossible.


I guess you're a bit too optimistic (at least for internet-chess). It
is not very hard to write a program that checks the mouse position,
identifies the postion on the board of the used program, consults a
uci chess engine and moves the piece to the desired positon.
AND: at such a short time the computer is even more superior

Andreas



  #6   Report Post  
Old May 28th 04, 04:03 PM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future?

I can think of many reasons that it is:

1. Cheating is impossible.


I guess you're a bit too optimistic (at least for internet-chess). It
is not very hard to write a program that checks the mouse position,
identifies the postion on the board of the used program, consults a
uci chess engine and moves the piece to the desired positon.
AND: at such a short time the computer is even more superior


A chess server can detect that type of activity.



  #7   Report Post  
Old May 29th 04, 12:37 AM
MC
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future?

Not if the running (chess engine) program is on a different computer.

What you have here is some sort of client-server program where the client is
just the mouse-click interface that relays moves across a network connection
to a backend-server that runs the chess program.

And the user has the option of clicking in the move himself/herself
overriding the engine.

Not totally impossible. You bet that someone will come around this once
internet prize tournaments become mainstream. I wouldn't be surprised if
it's out there already.

The way I see it, however, this is not the issue. For the life of me I just
can't see how anyone would envision the future of chess as a speed
tic-tac-toe affair.

Chess would do well to preserve its tradition as a classical "art/science"
activity. That is a very honorable niche and I don't see how, if "handled
properly", cannot become more popular and marketable. Those that insist on
diluting its essence and making it more a matter of "chance" than of "skill"
are in for a rude awakening when they discover that Yugi-Oh trading card
tournaments are even more exciting and easier to follow for the audience
than a game of chess.

For some reason chess players have this vision of a professional circuit
a-la ATP (tennis) or PGA (golf) with millions of dollars in corporate
sponsorship. I don't know what they're smoking, but it sure smells good!
To begin with, those folks in golf and tennis at least have (or appear to
have) some "class". Tennis has movement. Golf requires incredible skill
and composure. But I'm not paying a single dollar to watch some dweeb that
doesn't even know how to dress properly (or hold a non-chess conversation
with appropriate skill and "charm") move some wood on a checkered board.

In case you didn't know it, that's what chess engines are for and they
already do a more than decent job.

I want to see a battle between personalities... I want drama, history,
tradition, class, . I want the feeling you get when you walk into an
art or science museum, or watch an opera play... that feeling of awe that
you get when you stand at the threshold of something great.

Not cheap booze that you buy at the corner grocery store for a dollar.
---

"Ray Gordon" wrote in message
...
I can think of many reasons that it is:

1. Cheating is impossible.


I guess you're a bit too optimistic (at least for internet-chess). It
is not very hard to write a program that checks the mouse position,
identifies the postion on the board of the used program, consults a
uci chess engine and moves the piece to the desired positon.
AND: at such a short time the computer is even more superior


A chess server can detect that type of activity.





  #8   Report Post  
Old May 29th 04, 02:20 AM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future?

Not if the running (chess engine) program is on a different computer.

And how do you do this in one-minute chess?

What you have here is some sort of client-server program where the client

is
just the mouse-click interface that relays moves across a network

connection
to a backend-server that runs the chess program.

And the user has the option of clicking in the move himself/herself
overriding the engine.


Well there would have to be a way to verify it in important matches then.


Not totally impossible. You bet that someone will come around this once
internet prize tournaments become mainstream. I wouldn't be surprised if
it's out there already.

The way I see it, however, this is not the issue. For the life of me I

just
can't see how anyone would envision the future of chess as a speed
tic-tac-toe affair.


It's not tic-tac-toe, and it's not luck. One-minute chess requires much
more skill than "slow" chess. To win a game at the one-minute time control,
you need a solid opening repertoire, a good grasp of positional play, good
tactics, and a strong endgame down to the checkmating part. Any flaws in
any part of your game will cost you thinking time which is in short supply.

Slow chess punishes quick thinkers, which in a "mental sport" should be a
primary no-no.


Chess would do well to preserve its tradition as a classical "art/science"
activity. That is a very honorable niche and I don't see how, if "handled
properly", cannot become more popular and marketable.


Fischer made it marketable. One-minute play would be seen much the way the
NFL is. The public can't understand why the games are so slow to begin
with. Even five-minute chess can be boring in TV time. One-minute chess is
ideal because it's intense and the public likes seeing pieces fly all over
the board. Beginning players can relate to the errors made at one-minute as
well.

NFL players talk about having to adjust to "the speed of the game." In the
NFL, you can't lollygag the way you can in the NCAA, and the players have to
adjust to it. I view chess pretty much the same way.

Those that insist on
diluting its essence and making it more a matter of "chance" than of

"skill"
are in for a rude awakening when they discover that Yugi-Oh trading card
tournaments are even more exciting and easier to follow for the audience
than a game of chess.


What makes you think one-minute chess is a game of more chance than
five-minute? Maybe one game, but in a 50-game match, the better player will
win.


For some reason chess players have this vision of a professional circuit
a-la ATP (tennis) or PGA (golf) with millions of dollars in corporate
sponsorship. I don't know what they're smoking, but it sure smells good!
To begin with, those folks in golf and tennis at least have (or appear to
have) some "class". Tennis has movement. Golf requires incredible skill
and composure. But I'm not paying a single dollar to watch some dweeb

that
doesn't even know how to dress properly (or hold a non-chess conversation
with appropriate skill and "charm") move some wood on a checkered board.


Chessplayers are great thinkers.


In case you didn't know it, that's what chess engines are for and they
already do a more than decent job.

I want to see a battle between personalities... I want drama, history,
tradition, class, . I want the feeling you get when you walk into

an
art or science museum, or watch an opera play... that feeling of awe that
you get when you stand at the threshold of something great.

Not cheap booze that you buy at the corner grocery store for a dollar.


I view slow chess the way you view one-minute chess.



  #9   Report Post  
Old May 29th 04, 04:42 AM
MC
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future?

Well there would have to be a way to verify it in important matches then.

Not in the immediate future. Right now what you have is the "honor system"
and "honor" is an endangered personal trait these days.

It's not tic-tac-toe, and it's not luck. One-minute chess requires much
more skill than "slow" chess. To win a game at the one-minute time

control,
you need a solid opening repertoire, a good grasp of positional play, good
tactics, and a strong endgame down to the checkmating part. Any flaws in
any part of your game will cost you thinking time which is in short

supply.

And because humans do not calculate as fast as computers, players also
get away with horrible blunders because their opponents don't have enough
time to take advantage of the error. No wonder speed chess is theoretically
and
tactically ugly...

Slow chess punishes quick thinkers


You bent over backwards so quick on this one that I completely lost you!

I don't think Anand would agree with you. On the contrary, a quick thinker
has more time to look deeper into the position. Quick thinkers should be
able to take advantage of their opponents during time trouble.

Ah, but maybe you're talking about a quick 3-move ahead thinker that gets
his behind handed to him on a platter when he encounters a 10-15 move ahead
thinker across the board...

Fischer made it marketable.


Fischer didn't market anything... He was an exceptional player but a
terrible
ambassador to the game and I won't even spend more energy talking about...
what's his name again?

One-minute play would be seen much the way the NFL is.


I see that you also have been smoking...

The public can't understand why the games are so slow to begin
with.


The general public has no clue what chess really is, nor do they care.
But yes, the average person knows that thinking takes time and so
they understand that chess players take a long time to make a move.
What they don't understand is how in the world can two idiots
derive any kind of satisfaction from sitting for hours on end
staring at pieces on a board...

Even five-minute chess can be boring in TV time.


For the non-enthusiast, chess *IS* boring. Period.

One-minute chess is ideal because it's intense and the public likes
seeing pieces fly all over the board.


A non-chess player has no understanding whatsoever
about "intensity" in chess... that is inside knowledge
and strict domain of those that have come to know
the game.

As for pieces "flying"...
Is that really your idea of excitement? C'mon now...
How about toddlers throwing toys at each other?
Or spouses throwing kitchenware at each other?
Wouldn't that be more exciting that "pieces flying"?

Also, about the public liking to see "pieces fly all over the board"...
I just asked my wife and she couldn't care less.

Beginning players can relate to the errors made at one-minute as
well.


Beginning players have no clue what speed chess is about. The best
speed chess players are also very strong slow players because it
takes a long time to burn all those tactical and positional patterns in
your mind. Speed players play mostly by *intuition*, and chess
intuition is gained through experience. Or so I've read.

NFL players talk about having to adjust to "the speed of the game." In

the
NFL, you can't lollygag the way you can in the NCAA, and the players have

to
adjust to it. I view chess pretty much the same way.


I don't think your analogy is correct here. How about 1 minute billiard
tournaments?
Or 1 minute bowling tournaments? Think those guys can adjust to the "speed
of the game"? What the heck, let's make all major sports 1-minute affairs,
with body parts and equipment flying all over the place...

Each activity has what I would call a "natural" time dimension. Action
sports,
because they are "action" sports, move fast. Chess is not an "action"
sport,
it's a "thinking" *whatever*. And thinking, unless done butt-backwards,
requires time. The fact that you have people moving pieces faster does not
mean that the true "activity" (thinking) is conducted better.

What makes you think one-minute chess is a game of more chance than
five-minute?


Oh, both 1 min and 5 min have a large element of luck involved. I'm talking
"speed" (anything under 30 minutes or so) chess versus "classical" chess.

The many errors that players get away with in speed chess support my "luck"
claim. Haven't many super-strong GM complained about the same thing?
(e.g. Kasparov, etc).

Under time pressure chess players make horrible blunders and/or miss key
moves
that they wouldn't (or would be less likely to) under "classical" time
controls.
Under classical time controls the stronger player will most likely "cream"
the
weaker player. Speed chess? Haven't you been following the ACP
online tournaments? How many so-so GMs are hanging in there 'till
the very end... players that wouldn't stand a chance under longer time
controls.

Maybe one game, but in a 50-game match, the better player will
win.


And nobody will be tuned in at the end of the match to care!
We are talking about the "marketability" of the product.
You are saying that "pieces flying" is good for chess and something
worth watching. I couldn't disagree more.

What I'll agree on is the amount of theory and novelties
that will come out of such event...

Chessplayers are great thinkers.


So are/were many other great philosophers and they died poor.
If you don't package the product properly do not complain if
it doesn't sell Generally speaking, chess players do not dress
professionally, do not have a higher education and have very "narrow"
personalities. For more on this subject, talk to GM Taimanov if you
can, or read his interview on Chessville. (I believe Chessbase also
has an interview of Taimanov... just google him.)

You want corporate sponsorship and earn millions wearing jeans or shorts,
sandals and a t-shirt? I'm sorry my friend, but chess isn't "hip" enough
to get away with this...

I view slow chess the way you view one-minute chess.


Some people are "fixed" at making chess appealing to the masses. They think
that this will bring in millions in corporate sponsorship. They have
to find a way to make chess fit TV programming.

Chess is not for everyone. It doesn't need to be for everyone.
That's what makes it special.

But anyway, gook luck and please remind me to tune in when those
Chess World Series air prime-time on the major networks.


  #10   Report Post  
Old May 29th 04, 03:50 PM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Is ONE-MINUTE CHESS The Future?

All I'll say in addition is that with the massive influx of theory and
computer analysis, time controls should be severely shortened.

--
Everything you need to know about women. FREE!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library

http://www.cybersheet.com/hotties.html
Why Hotties Choose Losers

http://www.cybersheet.com/6/ubb.x
The Seduction Library Forum
"MC" wrote in message
...
Well there would have to be a way to verify it in important matches

then.

Not in the immediate future. Right now what you have is the "honor

system"
and "honor" is an endangered personal trait these days.

It's not tic-tac-toe, and it's not luck. One-minute chess requires much
more skill than "slow" chess. To win a game at the one-minute time

control,
you need a solid opening repertoire, a good grasp of positional play,

good
tactics, and a strong endgame down to the checkmating part. Any flaws

in
any part of your game will cost you thinking time which is in short

supply.

And because humans do not calculate as fast as computers, players also
get away with horrible blunders because their opponents don't have enough
time to take advantage of the error. No wonder speed chess is

theoretically
and
tactically ugly...

Slow chess punishes quick thinkers


You bent over backwards so quick on this one that I completely lost you!

I don't think Anand would agree with you. On the contrary, a quick

thinker
has more time to look deeper into the position. Quick thinkers should be
able to take advantage of their opponents during time trouble.

Ah, but maybe you're talking about a quick 3-move ahead thinker that gets
his behind handed to him on a platter when he encounters a 10-15 move

ahead
thinker across the board...

Fischer made it marketable.


Fischer didn't market anything... He was an exceptional player but a
terrible
ambassador to the game and I won't even spend more energy talking about...
what's his name again?

One-minute play would be seen much the way the NFL is.


I see that you also have been smoking...

The public can't understand why the games are so slow to begin
with.


The general public has no clue what chess really is, nor do they care.
But yes, the average person knows that thinking takes time and so
they understand that chess players take a long time to make a move.
What they don't understand is how in the world can two idiots
derive any kind of satisfaction from sitting for hours on end
staring at pieces on a board...

Even five-minute chess can be boring in TV time.


For the non-enthusiast, chess *IS* boring. Period.

One-minute chess is ideal because it's intense and the public likes
seeing pieces fly all over the board.


A non-chess player has no understanding whatsoever
about "intensity" in chess... that is inside knowledge
and strict domain of those that have come to know
the game.

As for pieces "flying"...
Is that really your idea of excitement? C'mon now...
How about toddlers throwing toys at each other?
Or spouses throwing kitchenware at each other?
Wouldn't that be more exciting that "pieces flying"?

Also, about the public liking to see "pieces fly all over the board"...
I just asked my wife and she couldn't care less.

Beginning players can relate to the errors made at one-minute as
well.


Beginning players have no clue what speed chess is about. The best
speed chess players are also very strong slow players because it
takes a long time to burn all those tactical and positional patterns in
your mind. Speed players play mostly by *intuition*, and chess
intuition is gained through experience. Or so I've read.

NFL players talk about having to adjust to "the speed of the game." In

the
NFL, you can't lollygag the way you can in the NCAA, and the players

have
to
adjust to it. I view chess pretty much the same way.


I don't think your analogy is correct here. How about 1 minute billiard
tournaments?
Or 1 minute bowling tournaments? Think those guys can adjust to the

"speed
of the game"? What the heck, let's make all major sports 1-minute

affairs,
with body parts and equipment flying all over the place...

Each activity has what I would call a "natural" time dimension. Action
sports,
because they are "action" sports, move fast. Chess is not an "action"
sport,
it's a "thinking" *whatever*. And thinking, unless done butt-backwards,
requires time. The fact that you have people moving pieces faster does

not
mean that the true "activity" (thinking) is conducted better.

What makes you think one-minute chess is a game of more chance than
five-minute?


Oh, both 1 min and 5 min have a large element of luck involved. I'm

talking
"speed" (anything under 30 minutes or so) chess versus "classical" chess.

The many errors that players get away with in speed chess support my

"luck"
claim. Haven't many super-strong GM complained about the same thing?
(e.g. Kasparov, etc).

Under time pressure chess players make horrible blunders and/or miss key
moves
that they wouldn't (or would be less likely to) under "classical" time
controls.
Under classical time controls the stronger player will most likely "cream"
the
weaker player. Speed chess? Haven't you been following the ACP
online tournaments? How many so-so GMs are hanging in there 'till
the very end... players that wouldn't stand a chance under longer time
controls.

Maybe one game, but in a 50-game match, the better player will
win.


And nobody will be tuned in at the end of the match to care!
We are talking about the "marketability" of the product.
You are saying that "pieces flying" is good for chess and something
worth watching. I couldn't disagree more.

What I'll agree on is the amount of theory and novelties
that will come out of such event...

Chessplayers are great thinkers.


So are/were many other great philosophers and they died poor.
If you don't package the product properly do not complain if
it doesn't sell Generally speaking, chess players do not dress
professionally, do not have a higher education and have very "narrow"
personalities. For more on this subject, talk to GM Taimanov if you
can, or read his interview on Chessville. (I believe Chessbase also
has an interview of Taimanov... just google him.)

You want corporate sponsorship and earn millions wearing jeans or shorts,
sandals and a t-shirt? I'm sorry my friend, but chess isn't "hip" enough
to get away with this...

I view slow chess the way you view one-minute chess.


Some people are "fixed" at making chess appealing to the masses. They

think
that this will bring in millions in corporate sponsorship. They have
to find a way to make chess fit TV programming.

Chess is not for everyone. It doesn't need to be for everyone.
That's what makes it special.

But anyway, gook luck and please remind me to tune in when those
Chess World Series air prime-time on the major networks.




Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
High School Affiliates RSHaas rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 6 February 19th 04 11:47 AM
Opinions on "The Chess Artist: Genius, Obsession, and the World's Oldest Game", by J.C. Hallman Isidor Gunsberg rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 October 9th 03 05:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017