< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 8 ·
|Apr-17-11|| ||tpstar: A: Not if Fischer just lost.|
|Apr-17-11|| ||ughaibu: If Spassky was on the move and Fischer was shouting at the controller, then that is not being "a perfect gentleman over the board", regardless of whether Fischer was physically sitting at the board or standing elsewhere in the room. In any case, wiping imaginary specks of dust from the opponents' side of the board is definitely "over the board" behaviour. Resigning by sweeping the pieces off the board is also over the board behaviour, and Fischer's age is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he was a gentleman. He either was or was not a "perfect gentleman", and there are enough accounts to establish that he was not.|
|Apr-18-11|| ||FSR: <ughaibu> "If" is the relevant word. I provided an actual citation; no one else has.|
|Apr-18-11|| ||ughaibu: I linked to Gypsy's quotes from Pachman, if you require an ISBN, I suggest that you ask Gypsy. And about where you can look up Spassky's comments, I suggest you ask Petrosianic, because I dont know where you can read these for yourself, but then again, I see no reason to doubt Gypsy or Petrosianic.|
|Apr-18-11|| ||FSR: Well sure, everyone knows "Gypsy" and "Petrosianic," whoever they may be, are reliable sources. You're the one who claimed that Fischer's poor behavior at the board was "well established." I've provided a reputable source contradicting that, you've provided unknown people citing unknown sources. btw, my psychic had really unflattering things to say about you.|
|Apr-18-11|| ||ughaibu: If you dont want to ask Gypsy or Petrosianic for the information that you claim to desire, that's your affair. |
You provided a quote from people who never played with Fischer. That quote reads "Fischer behaved well at the board. He never complained with the object of upsetting an opponent. . . ."
1) this doesn't preclude the case where his behaviour unintentionally upset his opponents.
2) neither does it preclude intentionally upsetting behaviour which wasn't complaining.
3) it begs the question of why unintentionally upsetting behaviour should all be considered to be gentlemanly.
|Apr-18-11|| ||FSR: The proposition we were debating was whether Fischer behaved like a gentleman at the board. I provided a highly reputable source indicating that he did. Even though you claim that the contrary is well established, you have cited no actual source. Citing "Gypsy" and "Petrosianic" citing unnamed sources is equivalent to "my buddy Joe at the bar said that he heard that Fischer was a real $%."
Moreover, each of those purported sources just cite one alleged instance of poor behavior when he was a kid. If Fischer sometimes acted poorly as a 16 or 17-year-old, that has little bearing on how he behaved as an adult.|
Further, you are now trying to shift the debate to something else - how Fischer acted off the board, and whether that affected his opponents. I don't dispute that Fischer's behavior off the board sometimes made him a huge pain to organizers, and may have disturbed some of his opponents. On the other hand, others are surely happy that he demanded better playing conditions and more money for professional chessplayers. I'm sure Spassky was very happy that in his two matches with Fischer he was playing for large sums of money, not $3,000 (as I recall) as when he played Petrosian for the world championship.
|Apr-18-11|| ||ughaibu: Neither Spassky nor Pachman are "unnamed", are they? If you think that Gypsy and Petrosianic are lying, and that neither Spassky nor Pachman wrote what has been attributed to them, that is your affair. I'm not interested in addressing more daft attempts to pretend that Fischer entirely ceased to be gauche, self obsessed and petty, when he was engaged in playing.|
|Apr-18-11|| ||Shams: "It is also important to remember that [Fischer] was a real chess gentleman during games. He was always very fair and very correct." -- Tal|
|Apr-18-11|| ||ughaibu: That's amusing, after all, Tal himself offered an account of incorrect behaviour by Fischer in one of their 1959 candidates games.|
|Apr-18-11|| ||bartonlaos: <The proposition we were debating was whether Fischer behaved like a gentleman at the board.>|
Does this include his showing up late to delay the start of games?
|Apr-18-11|| ||Once: <Mozart72: Can you measure the White King's safety and the Black King's safety on the chess board?>|
Not easily, but software engines try to. Take these two artificial positions, which vary only by the weakness of the white king and the soundness of his pawn structure. In each case it's white to move
click for larger view
click for larger view
Although there are no immediate tactics, Fritz thinks that there is about one pawn's difference between the two positions. In the first, he thinks that white is marginally ahead because he has the move. In the second, he evaluates it as -0.8 - ie despite having the move white is worse by the equivalent of a little under a pawn.
I've never seen a ready reckoner which allows humans to measure the difference, in the same way that we are taught that a rook is worth five pawns, a knight worth 3 and so on.
One test I use is what I call "checkability". Unless I am into an endgame, I tend for prefer positions where my opponent cannot check my king. A checkable king is usually more vulnerable than an uncheckable king. And I definitely want to avoid positions where my king is being tackled by two or more enemy pieces or has become stalemated.
But a definite measure of king safety with numbers and statistics? No, outside a software engine's analysis I am afraid I haven't seen one.
|Apr-18-11|| ||Granny O Doul: I think it was in the first Chess Life issue that covered the 1977 Spassky-Korchnoi match in Belgrade. Spassky said at the pre-match press conference that he lost the Fischer match psychologically at that moment when he didn't stop the clocks to say "I resign the game, for it is obviously impossible to play for the world championship under such conditions".|
Lothar Schmid spoke about it somewhere, I recall. He said he stopped both clocks after being told "shut up!" ,"breaking all the rules", in Schmid's words. But "somehow I had to get that incredible situation under control".
|Apr-18-11|| ||Mozart72: What are the actuall probabilities of a white or black King, Queen, Rook, Knight, Bishop and Pawn of beeing captured in a chess game?|
|Apr-18-11|| ||shivasuri4: <Once>,the second position is evaluated worse because of the weak pawn structure and poor king safety,not just the latter,I think.|
|Apr-18-11|| ||Mozart72: The probabilities of a Queen getting captured in a chess match is 10%, a Rook 16.66%, a Bishop and Knight 25%, and a pawn 50%. The King's probability is infinity.|
|Apr-18-11|| ||Once: <Mozart72> Huh? How on earth do you come up with those probabilities?|
First, the probability of a king being captured is zero not infinity, because it's illegal and so will never happen.
The probability of other pieces being exchanged will depend on a host of factors, such as the proportion of games which are decided in the middlegame (and so will have lots of pawns and pieces left on the board) versus the proportion of games which are decided in the endgame (when relatively few pieces are left).
So how do you calculate to such precision as 16.66% for a rook to be exchanged?
Show us the proof.
|Apr-18-11|| ||Eric Schiller: King safety can certainly be measured and I wrote algorithms for doing so for several chess programs. But that is only one small factor in a chess game. King safety is often poor in endgames. Piece safety has zero predictive value in chess. The odds of a piece being captured is utterly irrelevant to result. This is easy to prove with any database.|
|Apr-18-11|| ||Shams: <King safety can certainly be measured and I wrote algorithms for doing so for several chess programs.>|
How would you know if your measurements were wrong?
|Apr-18-11|| ||Mozart72: <Once> Here it goes:|
Q = 9/1 = 1/9+1 = 1/10 = 0.1 * 100 = 10 %
R = 5/1 = 1/5+1 = 1/6 = 0.166666667 * 100 = 16.66 %
B = 3/1 = 1/3+1 = 1/4 = 0.25 * 100 = 25 %
N = 3/1 = 1/3+1 = 1/4 = 0.25 * 100 = 25 %
P = 1/1 = 1/1+1 = 1/2 = 0.5 * 100 = 50 %
K = How many points would you give him? 0/1 = 1/0+1 = 1/1 = 1 * 100 = 100 %?
|Apr-19-11|| ||Once: What? That isn't even correct maths. And as far as I can see it has no relationship to chess.|
Let's take your queen line, for example.
9/1 is the same as 9. Anything divided by 1 is itself.
1/9 is one ninth - ie not 9! Where does this come from? The value of a queen is usually given as nine, but that has no bearing whatsoever on its probability of being exchanged. It is an estimate of value to enable you to compare pieces when offered an exchange.
And even if it did have some value, why have you chosen to add 1 to it?
Even if that had some semblance of sense, how do you take account of the fact that you start the game with one queen and eight pawns. Doesn't that make pawns eight times more likely to be exchanged?
The pawn line is the worst. 1/1 is 1. Adding 1 to 1 gives us 2. 1/1+1 has never in the history of mankind ever managed to get to a half.
Tell me something, and please answer honestly - do you really believe in this stuff or are you trying to be funny?
|Apr-19-11|| ||Mozart72: <Once> I am an honest man, and I am not trying to be funny. I guess you do not understand much of the mathematics of gambling. What point value wouild you give to the King? And it is a very serious question? Give me an answer.|
When you have chess tournamounts or chess matches people -just like you and me (or are we any different?)- make wagers on chess outcomes. Chess is also a sport.
|Apr-19-11|| ||Jim Bartle: The casinos make billions off people with your level of sophistication about gambling, Mozart.|
One (one of several) problems with your posts is you do not distinguish clearly between the odds in actually playing chess and the odds needed for calculating predictions of results in order to make bets. Those are two different things.
Frankly I think your calculations for both--odds for playing and odds for betting--are silly and way too simple.
|Apr-19-11|| ||Mozart72: <Jim Bartle> What point value would you give to the King? I want a strait answer and tell me how is it that "odds in actually playing chess and odds needed for calculating predictions of results in order to make bets" are different "silly and way too simple"? King points, pleas?|
|Apr-19-11|| ||Jim Bartle: A what answer? A "strait" answer?
A king is worth an infinite number of points, of course. It's all the other stuff that's pure bunk, as <once> pointed out above. The value of all the other pieces is completely relative, and cannot be calculated without knowing the position.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6 OF 8 ·