Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > News, Views, and Gossip
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-08-2007, 12:19 PM
UrmaBlume UrmaBlume is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 150
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-08-2007, 12:52 PM
Raised2Win Raised2Win is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 712
Default Re: Chess needs a doubling cube

chess is the ultimate nits game
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-08-2007, 12:55 PM
En Passant En Passant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Junkyard
Posts: 1,253
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-08-2007, 02:45 PM
Dire Dire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,511
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-08-2007, 03:07 PM
En Passant En Passant is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Junkyard
Posts: 1,253
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-08-2007, 09:37 PM
Dire Dire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,511
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-08-2007, 09:54 PM
MicroBob MicroBob is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The cat is back by popular demand.
Posts: 29,344
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-08-2007, 10:28 PM
curtains curtains is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 13,960
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-08-2007, 10:32 PM
curtains curtains is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 13,960
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-08-2007, 10:33 PM
curtains curtains is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 13,960
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.