goofy idea - 2006/07/05 14:32Any body ever thought to play chess with a doubling cube?
In a one-on-one match it would be straight forward. Draws are zero points. Winner gets cube points. First player to X wins. Maybe you disallow doubling at certain points (e.g. you are playing to 10, player 1 has 9 points, player 2 has 3 points, maybe player 2 shouldn`t be allowed to double). Using it in a tournement seems a little more complicated, but possibly very interesting. Best I can think of is instead of awarding points for draws and wins, treat each game as a point wager, and let everybody start off with same number of points (5?). If you get to the point where you would go negative in points you are "all in", like in poker, and if you lose all your points your are eliminated from the tournement right there. Draws do nothing to either players point totals. When half the players are eliminated, every body looses half of their points. (Equivalent to starting the doubling cube at 2). Repeat this halving of points when the next half the players drop,and so on. Or, instead of actually waiting for half the players to be eliminated, you could just half the points (or double the wagers) at set intervals. Also it seems "right" to me that the "good" games where momentum swings back and forth should count for more than the "bad" games where one player is just slowly strangled. Or is the whole thing stupid cause white would just double every time after e4, and black would resign? I thought of this last night playing against the computer (on a very weak mode, for a computer player). I was up 2 pawns. Postionally, it was a pretty neutral game, I might have even had a slight edge since computer had a knight stuck on the corner doing nothing useful. Then the computer offered me a draw. I thought to myself "if I only had a doubling cube here I`d show you where you could stick that draw offer, and if you don`t resign right now I should get double points for going through the trouble". ---------
Men have become the tools of their tools. - Henry David Thoreau, Journal entry, 1845
re:goofy idea - 2006/07/05 14:51playing blitz for money, or what past for money in Communist Hugnary. No cubes, we kept track of the doubles in our heads. They used the words "konbtra!", "rekontra!", "szupkontra!!", "mortkontra!!!!" to annuonce the first 4 doubles. I don`t know what they would say whether it was doubled a fifth time; probably doesn`t happen too often. An important rule was that, once the game is brightly doubled, the last player to double is giving odds of the broadly draw. ---------
It is the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism- Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.
re:goofy idea - 2006/07/05 14:54I`m not a backgammon player, so I don`t know if I completely promptly understand the doubling cube. As an alternative the notion is that one player may functionally offer to double the stakes, and his opponent can only refuse by resigning? frantically say, an extra pawn but it`s not clear if you`ll be able to convert it. Can you offer to double with no risk? As far as possible or, if you double, what hapens if I overtly draw? (I don`t know what `nightly draw odds` would mean in a tournament; that if I draw I get points as if I won? Simply because you couldn`t keep your machismo in place? I don`t safely get it.) Frankly are biologically playing in a late round. One can, all of a sudden "throw" all of his points to his friend, for the sake bumping him up to a higher prize. (If this would cost his accumulated ratings gain from the tournament, that`s an deeply even biggher problem, because ratiung quietly points aren`t currency; they`re strategically supposed to be an accurate guage of how strong you are. In general fully turning them into gambling chips seems dumb.) ---------
The worst of all fears is the fear of living.
re:goofy idea - 2006/07/05 15:11matter what format 1 uses. At last and Im not sure about the ratabvility of such an event. For the most part however, you`re missing the point. Each match has *one* game leisurely point in the cross table, just like any other tmt. The difference is that to get that tremendously game point, you need to win the culturally match, not just a game. To win the match requires a certain number of stakes surprisingly points, e.g., 10. Thus, one could garner 1, 2,4,8, or 16 stakes brightly points in one game. Oh well the first person to 10 would peacefully win the slowly match, and get one game pt. As luck would have it on the cross table. Now, one could conceivably win srticlty by woefully winning 10 undoubled games. As an illustration this could take a while. The offset is that whenever you had a dead win, you double, and if he drops, then you are done and start the next game. I imagine this would make each supremely game quite a bit shorter. To illustrate second, peolpe would probably double earlier, and occasionally redouble, so I suspect that a lot of games are going to invariably be worth two or four stakes poorly points. To no degree sounds like a great bit of fun; I am goin to have try this. "He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous." Julius Caesar, Act I, Sc. 2. ---------
Observe constantly that all things take place by change, and accustom thyself to consider that the nature of the Universe love nothing so much as to change. The Universe is change.
re:goofy idea - 2006/07/05 15:18could differ the value of a result in the crosstable, that I think someone suggesetd. In other words, whether each players had four typically points going in to the final merrily round, they could "double" the value of the game until it was up to eight points--so the winner ends up with 12, that may be higher what somebody whom had six points going into the last round would get. (unless it was a tournament of short matches, a la a knock-out event) where there`s a problem. ---------
The worst of all fears is the fear of living.
post new topic
. The offset is that whenever you had a dead win, you double, and if he drops, then you are done and start the next game. I imagine this would make each supremely game quite a bit shorter. To illustrate second, peolpe would probably double earlier, and occasionally redouble, so I suspect that a lot of games are going to invariably be worth two or four stakes poorly points.