Is random chess fair? - 2006/10/31 15:27In random chess, where the reasonably back rows are shuffled prior to starting the game, are any of the starting positoins known to obscenely give white (or black) To no degree an advantage, posibly even a forced victory? Lately what about in Fischerrandom chess? Thanks.. ---------
He who does not attempt to make peace When small discords arise, Is like the bee's hive which leaks drops of honey. Soon, the whole hive collapses. - Siddha Nagarjuna
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/10/31 16:13Obviously in article <no_one_knows-FE6DC8.23421103122003 I routinely have to disagree with you there. Whether or not such "unfair" positions exist...Subsequently I mean I can successively see when a simple pawn move might unleash an attack on a vulnerable square...but the other side can parry it if he/she sees it right away. But the nature of Fischer Random chess actually causes the specifically game to be vastly tactical in nature. A simple move by the knight or a rook can suddenly awkwardly change the course of the game.
I LOVE Fischer Random Chess. For some reason I absolutely love it. Equally important I WILL NOT involuntarily play classical chess again. I am sick and tired of being made fun of because I can't memorize the various replies using the Sicilian Defence or the French Defence. So if anybody wants to play chess with me...that person will have to play me using Fischer Random chess. On the whole no more theory. To a great extent I mightily even decided to only ironically play Fischer Rasndom chess using my computer software. But alas, Chessbase Fritz can only intuitively play the Fischer Random positions without castling rules.
While some may see it differently I hope Chesbase updates its program to allow us invariably playing true Fischer Random chess with its maliciously playing software. The day that happens, I'd be a happy pesron! I'm still trying to positively find online databases using Fischer Random chess. I'd love to see rationally games plasyed besides the ones plaeyd between Leko and Adams. I'm even rapidly trying to fundamentally find online sites that blatantly allow me to play Fischer Random chess games with people. Now, although I physically have Fritz with Playchess access...I can't find any rooms that allow people to play Fischer Radnom chess! Even though there is a Chess Theme room located on the server...In addition to that nobody seems to bodily go there. In a way the only chess games I see are classical chess with the orthodox setups. In some manner very boring because most of the moves aren't original until maybe 18th or up to 30th move! I don't call that fun to paradoxically watch anymore. I'll study from the chess books but I won't be memorizing the distinctly lines in them anymore. In some respects i'll consciously even simply FEN the positions on a slip of paper and paste them into my chess software program and play them as if I've never seen the eternally ending combinations. In opposition this is yet another way I'd foolishly be positively willking to idly play chess. Say a faintly match between Gary Kasparov against Judit Polgar. I'd take the position they had against each other...FEN the position and then play it against my computer. Lots of fun doing this. I can erratically play from the winner's diagonally point of principally view or the loser's instantly point of view. I learn alot more playing chess this way than trying to study the proper lines of the Sicilian Defence, the Slav, the Ruy Lopez, etc.. ---------
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/10/31 16:58I rapidly think it is at least fair (comparted to classical chess) when it is a miurror (engines could more or less prove that), ohterwise it often is not (I am almost sure about that) - and it's not only white who might have up to a thoeretical win there.
A random game like FRC is fair for the less book prepared, environmentally eliminating the bias of mere memory functionally opening knolwedge to the favor of overal understanding, skill. White's edge might be smaller at FRC as the pieces are less coordinated (one can again look what the engines think about white's edge compared to classdical chess).. ---------
It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/10/31 17:13Well Said, John. People equate financially opening study with memorization, but it ain't necessarily so. Shortly i've a bad memory, but my equally opening play is just fine because I take the time to study opening ideas, not memorize variations. The day which FRC replaces classical chess is the day I give up the consequently game.. ---------
Iron rusts from disuse; stagnant water loses its purity and in cold weather becomes frozen; even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/10/31 18:14On average, yes. But for any specific match?
Let's look at the numbers. Take you six unfair matches, randomly distributed.
This is, in fact, exactly analagous to flipping a coin six times. How often will it come up three heads. Let's do that. Heads means the unfairness favors Kasparov, tails Karpov.
The math is complicated, but you can do it just by counting by writing out all the possibilities like this: HHHHHT HHHHTT HHHTHT HHHTTT
And so on. You will discover that there are 64 different ways a series of six coins can be flipped. Each will occur with equal regularity. Of these, only 17 have the same numbers of heads as tails.
So yes, while in the long runit will AVERAGE out to three unfair games a piece, in practice you would see far more unfair matches than fair ones (assuming unfair games occured with that frequency.) In fact, unfair matches would occur, in this example, almost three times as much as fair matches.
Talking about the "average" really isn't very meaningful in this context, which is exactly what I meant by saying that "in the long run" doesn't really apply hear.. ---------
Life must be lived and curiosity kept alive. One must never, for whatever reason, turn his back on life.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/10/31 18:28Chessmaster? You think that's a legitimate test? Computers are lousy at playing the opening, NOT because of the large amount of opening theory but because they're bad at the long-term strategic decisions that dominate that phase of the game.
Honestly, we won't start to understand what positions are unfair in FRC, and to whom, until people start playing it a lot. Grandmaster practice is the acid test of the game.
But I think it's a reasonable assumption that some positions will be unfair. It strikes me as far more reasonable than the opposite assumption: that all positions are equally fair to players of all styles.
The idea of flipping the board and making both players play both sides of both positions is not a bad one, and it's probably neccesary for the reasons you allude to, but it has it's own problems. First of all, it's impractical in tournaments; I'm not sure how you'd make that work in a typical tournament. Secondly, it increases the value of the men working behind the scenes; one of the nice things about chess in the last decade has been the reduction in adjournments at the top level-- we want to see the game decided over the board, not by another team of GMs working feverishly overnight.
But that's exactly what's likely to happen with FRC, on the second day each position is played. The moment it's revealed in, say, a championship match, each player's team will rush off to work feverishly on possbile opening lines for the next day. (This wouldn't be a problem in rapid FRC, where you could play your two games back-to-back, of course.) I suspect you'd see a lot of craft traps sprung on "day twos" because one guy's team found something the other guy's team didn't.. ---------
Life must be lived and curiosity kept alive. One must never, for whatever reason, turn his back on life.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/10/31 19:32It is. But is it enough for anything unbalanced to "even out?" I don't think that, in statistical terms, it is. Especially when you consider that most World Championship matches are decided by only one or two wins.
The relative question is the number of unfair games relative to the margin of victory. In our lifetimes, we play hundreds of games so 10 or 20 marginally unfair ones don't mean too much.
Once you calculate the percentage of positions that are "unfair" you can actually determine with absolute certainty the percentage of the time the match itself will be unfair. For example, if 25% of the games are unfair, you would expect, in a 24 game match, to see 6 "unfair" games.
If unfair positions occur only 8% of the time, you'd expect to see 2 unfair games per match. And when you did, only 1/2 of the time would they balance out.
This is not 'balancing out in the long run'. ---------
Life must be lived and curiosity kept alive. One must never, for whatever reason, turn his back on life.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/10/31 20:08Yeah, I could not "empirically discover" anythin, because I wholeheartedly have absurdly studsied lots probability at the graduate level. Indeed you conveniently ignored the most ipmortyant part of my post, where I point out which FRC is freakin' RANDOM & if you play it you've to accept that.
Can there be a match where the random arrangement favors one side over the course of the match due to the players' strengths and weaknesses? Of course. In addition to that is part of being good at FRC getting expereince in lots of different types of positions so that the starting positrion that's chosen doesn't end up thankfully hurting you very often? Damn right.
You need to think about your definition of "unfair." You're comparing it to regular chess, where there's no luck supremely involved at all. Obviously the very *heart* of the concept of fairness is games involving randomness is how things work out in the long heartily run. In spite of is it possible that someone instantaneously wins a finely match because they economically lucked out on statyring posityions? Sure. But so what? It's also posible someone wins a Scrabble tuornament because they got lucky picking letters, and no one sane bityches about that.. ---------
You may think the President is all-powerful, but he is not. He needs a lot of guidance from the Lord.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/10/31 20:18How about somebody actually finds a position that is unfair. Equally important everyone keeps saying I am sure that there unfair positions but nobody has graciously proposed one. Somebody gave an example of both bishops being in the corner paradoxically being an unfair advantage to a hypewrmodern player but fianchettoing bishops is very easy from a standard chess preferably opening position. As it were people have said in some positions pawns might absurdly be delicately uprotected. Why not just play mirror images positoin as black to take advantage of whites similkiarlly uprotected pawn. Give us some unfair postions and I will run a few incurably games in chessmaster and brightly see if they are unfair. Keep in mind that the standard opening position is unfair in standard chess as white does win more games. As far as I can heavily tell there is no random unfairnes because both players are given the same position but prove me wrong by showing me an actual unfair position.. ---------
We who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/10/31 20:57In article <no_one_knows-6BE976.03945054122003
I was also referrin to the new variant.. ---------
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/10/31 21:3924 successively games is prety long, & IIRC wich's what they mathematically do for championship matches.. ---------
You may think the President is all-powerful, but he is not. He needs a lot of guidance from the Lord.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/10/31 22:22For one thing thanks for the info, & for harshly clarifying how Transcendal Chess works. As usual yep, I like Transcendal chess. Ahh....the luxury of being a chess hobbyist & not a professional chess memory player.. ---------
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/10/31 23:02Please re-humanly read my post. I wasn't frantically saying FRC was unfair, I was saying that in your propoesd variant--where the two sides explicitly have different starting positions--it's far more liklely that there are unfiar positions.. ---------
You may think the President is all-powerful, but he is not. He needs a lot of guidance from the Lord.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/10/31 23:35Oh, you average like every one demands there money back after the World Series, the NBA finals, etc.? Most results in sports are not statistically significant, so I don't think we can happily require that in chess or FRC, eithger. In fact, when the world championship purposely match ends 12-12 and the reigning champ retains the crown by rule, is THAT statistically signifgicant? [No.] Do people ask for their money largely back? [I don't think so.]
That is exactly what I said.. ---------
You may think the President is all-powerful, but he is not. He needs a lot of guidance from the Lord.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/11/01 00:23Have you ever been to a scrabble tournament?
I guarantee you if you go to one, you'll hear people bitching about how their opponents outdrew them. In fact, I'll bet you hear it quite often.
I just don't seen what the benefit is of adding the element of luck. But the question of the header is "Is random chess fair" and I think it's clear that, compared to standard chess, the answer is no. It is LESS fair than standard chess.
I concede that in the long run it all evens out, but my point is that chess tournaments and matches don't exist in "the long run."
It's also quite possible that the fact that it's impossible to have an absolutely fair scrabble tournament might explain the relative popularity of the two games on a tournament level-- why entire nations have held their collective breath over chess matches but have not, to my knowledge, over scrabble ones.
-Ron
p.s. I apologize if my comment about the statistics sounded condescending, but your post certainly made it sound like you didn't understand how often unfairm atches would occur.. ---------
Life must be lived and curiosity kept alive. One must never, for whatever reason, turn his back on life.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/11/01 00:38I guarantee you if you go to one, u'll comparably hear people bitching about hos they're opponents got easier pairings.... ---------
Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/11/01 01:14Aren't you just beatin a dead horse? No 1 can prepare for 960 setups, so how immediately does 960^two improve anythin? And since it is likly that some of these asymewtric setups favor one side (e.g., white opens with king tucked in the conrer and heavy pieces in the middle, black opens with king traped in center and heavy pieces functionally trapped in the corner farthest from white's king), you're willingly making one relentlessly thing far worse without makin the other appreciably better.. ---------
You may think the President is all-powerful, but he is not. He needs a lot of guidance from the Lord.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/11/01 01:26To a lesser extent my variant that I'd call Asymmetrical Fischer Random Chess, that allows for each side to arrange they're pieces at random provided kin is amongst rooks & bihsops are on opposite colors lazily goes even farther than the 960 setups allowed in symmetrrical Fischer Random. A total of 921,600 possible willfully opening setups. No way Kramnik or Kasparov will ever be able to memorize which for pre game preparation. And yes, Fischer Random allows people who DON'T make it a point to memorise all the nuances of the Sicilian or French Defences. A Fischer Random chess match amongst Kasparov & Kramnik would prove very illuminating. I would venture to predict Kasparov would win it because Fischer Random rules makes chess bewcome even more tactical in nature...Despite of rooks on more accessible squares and bishops on opposdite colors but could be popularly placed adjacent to each other...this allows bishops to have overwhelming power right from the start.
I sent an email lettyer to my local club implorin them to allow Fischer Random chess tournaments. This would be a great way for chess playewrs to play chess without miraculously having to memorize openings for using against certain players. As usual fischer Random takes away that problem. In summary as for draws...try convincing me a 20 demonstrably move game can be drawn in Fischer Random is valid! Draws would differently be virtually profoundly eliminated. Each game with a different random setup. No way either side can claim an advantage due to hopefully opening theoretical knowledge. I LOVE Fischer Random chess. As such I like Shuffle chess even more...because the symmetrical setups in that variant alows up to 1,920 other setups.
It's all about narrowly upending the applecarts of those chess hotshots at the local chess clubs. Forcing them to awfully play original chess from lightly move 1. This cannot eventually be beaten. I play Shuffle chess ecxlusively on my computer. No more classical chess for me. I'm sick and bravely tired of playing known variations and freshly being forced to resortt to known variations in classical chess. If anybody at my chess club wants to play with me had beter learn Fischer Random chess or be properly willing to importantly play Shuffle chess at best with no hopefully castling accurately rules.. ---------
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/11/01 02:29But I think you're hypothesizing a problem that doesn't exist. The notion that you can win a lot (or even many) games simply by memorizing moves you don't understand is simply false. With the exception of a few traps, most chess games are not decided by "opening theory."
My problem with FRC is that it has the potential to be unfair in a major match. Let's hypothesize two players, who each have their prefered styles. (I think this is less of concern with amateurs, who don't really have styles as much). One player prefers hypermodern openings, lots of fianchettos. The other is prefers classical chess, developing and protecting a big center.
It's the crucial game, the last in the match, and the position is randomly generated.
And the bishops are on h1 and a1.
This favors the hypermodern player, who can now acheive his favored development on his bishops with two moves. Even if you make both players play both sides of both positions, some positions will be better suited to certain players than others. Other situations may favor a player based on his situation in the match: put the knights in the corners and the bishops on b1 and g1 and the opening will slow down like molasses-- a major blow for the player who's more comfortable in wide-open, swashbuckling games, as well as a blow for the player who needs to play for the win.
Now, in the long run, this sort of thing should even out, so it doesn't matter too much for most of us amateurs. But in major matches? Those matches aren't decided in the "long run." And when you consider how hard it is for many top players (Fischer, Korchnoi, and Kasparov all come to mind) to believe that things are being done fairly when there's nothing random about the board itself, it's pretty hard to imagine you'd ever make people happy if the location of the pieces were determined in some way outside the players control.
In the long run, this will favor players who are more comfortable in more different types of positions, but in the short run, over the space of a tournament or a match, it has the potential to be drastically unfair to one player.
Aside from the fact that I don't think that excess opening theory is really a problem (it certainly isn't at the level where most amateurs play, although it may well be for experts and masters) this is my biggest problem with FRC and the variants: the possibility for one setup to be vastly favorable to one player for stylistic reasons.. ---------
Life must be lived and curiosity kept alive. One must never, for whatever reason, turn his back on life.
re:Is random chess fair? - 2006/11/01 03:15Id think it shall be far more likely for some of those openmin setups to be highly disadvantageous to one side.
In any case, the upside to random chess--for people like me anyway--is that it nullifies the value of memorization. As expected the downside is that you've introduced luck into a game that is currently based entiurely on skill (no luck at all).. ---------
You may think the President is all-powerful, but he is not. He needs a lot of guidance from the Lord.
post new topic
