Chess needs a doubling cube
 

There is no doubt that any activity that requires intense mental processing is best done on a base of good physical conditioning.

The one point that could bring chess to the forefront for thinking gamblers is the addition of a doubling cube.

In chess, unlike backgammon, there is almost no luck factor. In backgammon, unlike chess, there is a lot of action. The action comes primarily from the doubling cube.

Chess could be a super action game for thinkers with the addition of a backgammon like doubling cube.

Re: Chess needs a doubling cube
 

chess is the ultimate nits game

Re: Chess needs a doubling cube
 

I think that with chess, the longer the game the less of a luck factor there is. I think in poker you can get away from your "A" game and still be profitable, but with chess it is more difficult to do so.

Re: Chess needs a doubling cube
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that with chess, the longer the game the less of a luck factor there is. I think in poker you can get away from your "A" game and still be profitable, but with chess it is more difficult to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this at all. Give a 2400 5 minutes and give a 2000 5 hours. The 2400 will still win just about every time. And at high levels, the games end in 6 hour games just like they do in 5 hour games - the person who makes the next to last mistake wins.

In chess, alot of the game is subconscious. If you don't see a move within the few few seconds of looking at a position - 99% of the time, you're not going to find it no matter how long you look at it if you don't know that it's there (that is, tell a 1500 there's a win in a position and he can often find a move a GM missed but looking for something you don't know is there, is much different).

The longer games might make the blunders more subtle or give a weak player a better chance of not doing anything entirely retarded, but it doesn't change the luck factor at all especially between nonamateur players. There's a reason the best players in the world at slow chess tend to also be the best players in the world at blitz/fast chess.

Re: Chess needs a doubling cube
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that with chess, the longer the game the less of a luck factor there is. I think in poker you can get away from your "A" game and still be profitable, but with chess it is more difficult to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this at all. Give a 2400 5 minutes and give a 2000 5 hours. The 2400 will still win just about every time. And at high levels, the games end in 6 hour games just like they do in 5 hour games - the person who makes the next to last mistake wins.

In chess, alot of the game is subconscious. If you don't see a move within the few few seconds of looking at a position - 99% of the time, you're not going to find it no matter how long you look at it if you don't know that it's there (that is, tell a 1500 there's a win in a position and he can often find a move a GM missed but looking for something you don't know is there, is much different).

The longer games might make the blunders more subtle or give a weak player a better chance of not doing anything entirely retarded, but it doesn't change the luck factor at all especially between nonamateur players. There's a reason the best players in the world at slow chess tend to also be the best players in the world at blitz/fast chess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I worded what I said wrong. I use myself as an example. I have beaten many titled players in blitz games. If I play the same players with standard time controls, I would have a 0% chance of winning.

I think I am really comparing blitz chess to heads up poker. There is a lot more variance. Would you agree with this?

Re: Chess needs a doubling cube
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think I am really comparing blitz chess to heads up poker. There is a lot more variance. Would you agree with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure really. I think it might seem like there's more variance in fast games because you get huge samples very quickly. I mean a 400 point elo difference gives the favorite 'only' about a 90% probability of winning. So if both ratings are accurate and you're a 2200, you should be upsetting world class GMs 1/10 games. So you can easily beat multiple GMs every day on ICC or whatever - but for most people it'd take months/years for you to get the same chance / sample size to upset a single GM OTB in a slow game.

And then there's the freaks to consider. Like Nakamura's 1-minute game, or Roman's 5-minute games. They both have wayyyyy less variance than any slow time control champions.

Re: Chess needs a doubling cube
 

Against a 2500 rated player:

I think perhaps I can win 0.5% of my games in blitz. This might be high, but they actually do blunder occasionally. I'm not including draws.

I think I can win perhaps 0.01% of my games in full time-control.
Really, I probably have less chance than that.
Out of 1,000 full time-control games vs. a 2500 rated player I'll be happy to squeak out the occasional draw.

On the heels of Curtains awesome prop-bet this brings up another idea.
Can Microbob beat Curtains in 1 out of 200 blitz games?
I wouldn't put a whole lot of money on this one.

I'm sure there were some 2400+ blitz-players on ICC who I regularly faced in tournaments who pwned me for over 100 games without me getting a single win.

Re: Chess needs a doubling cube
 

I have played chess with a doubling cube on various occasions. You would lose on a draw if you doubled and would give possession of the cube to your opponent.

Re: Chess needs a doubling cube
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that with chess, the longer the game the less of a luck factor there is. I think in poker you can get away from your "A" game and still be profitable, but with chess it is more difficult to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this at all. Give a 2400 5 minutes and give a 2000 5 hours. The 2400 will still win just about every time. And at high levels, the games end in 6 hour games just like they do in 5 hour games - the person who makes the next to last mistake wins.

In chess, alot of the game is subconscious. If you don't see a move within the few few seconds of looking at a position - 99% of the time, you're not going to find it no matter how long you look at it if you don't know that it's there (that is, tell a 1500 there's a win in a position and he can often find a move a GM missed but looking for something you don't know is there, is much different).

The longer games might make the blunders more subtle or give a weak player a better chance of not doing anything entirely retarded, but it doesn't change the luck factor at all especially between nonamateur players. There's a reason the best players in the world at slow chess tend to also be the best players in the world at blitz/fast chess.

[/ QUOTE ]


lol, I dunno I'm not so excited giving 5 hours to 5 minute odds against a 2000-2100 player. I might be a favorite, but not by much.

Re: Chess needs a doubling cube
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think I am really comparing blitz chess to heads up poker. There is a lot more variance. Would you agree with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure really. I think it might seem like there's more variance in fast games because you get huge samples very quickly. I mean a 400 point elo difference gives the favorite 'only' about a 90% probability of winning. So if both ratings are accurate and you're a 2200, you should be upsetting world class GMs 1/10 games. So you can easily beat multiple GMs every day on ICC or whatever - but for most people it'd take months/years for you to get the same chance / sample size to upset a single GM OTB in a slow game.

And then there's the freaks to consider. Like Nakamura's 1-minute game, or Roman's 5-minute games. They both have wayyyyy less variance than any slow time control champions.

[/ QUOTE ]


There is not that much variance in speed chess at all. In general if one is 200 points stronger than someone at speed chess, and also 200 points stronger than them at slow chess, the results will be the same.