+- Forums (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Members Only (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-16.html)
+--- Forum: General Chess Chat (https://www.chessscotland.com/forum/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 (/thread-831.html)
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - andyburnett - 07-01-2014
It's certainly an interesting idea to promote the game and get people playing who otherwise wouldn't or couldn't, but personally I wouldn't play someone who wasn't 'there'.
My thoughts are pretty much akin to Ian M's, and my enjoyment of the game is from facing an opponent OTB, not over the internet.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - IMarks - 07-01-2014
David C wrote:
Quote:Ultimately it will be down to event organisers as to whether they embrace the concept or not, although I can see the possibility of new additions to the calendar, possibly in the more remote locations, should such an idea be given Chess Scotland support.Perhaps an idea would be for the remote contingent to get together (online!?) and organise an experimental Remote Open, open to all, remote or not, and played online under appropriate tournament conditions (whatever they would be). This way those who don't mind playing non-there opponents could get their tournament fix, while those of us who prefer facing a living, breathing entity in the flesh could pass.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - seanmilton - 07-01-2014
IMarks Wrote:I agree. That is why I would limit the number of remote games to only those who genuinely would have difficulty in attending an event. The exposure to remote games among congress players should be quite small. I would hope that any player would endure the occasional inconvenience of less than perfect playing conditions for the sake of promoting Scottish Chess.Quote:300 million players play internet games successfully. The technology is proven and as long as the internet connection is secure and the lights stay on it should not disrupt games during a tournament.My main concern is that 'remote' participation would end up as something akin to a glorified game on ICC. 300,000,000 people blitzing away online doesn't equate to two guys playing an 'over-the-board' (!?) game in a weekender via skype or whatever.
Also, as I said in an earlier post, I regard f2f contact as a main component of tournament chess. An opponent's body language, demeanor, reactions etc. play a large part in the game. Watching the other guy on a computer screen, if indeed an image is broadcast, just ain't the same. Mind you, it would get round personal hygiene problems!
The majority of CS events are quite rightly played in the central belt region as this is where most chess clubs and players reside. I fear that the trickle of players that travel at great expense to support CS tournaments will dwindle over time. This will result in lower attendances in chess halls and the eventual extinction of chess out with the central belt region. If CS can engage more readily with these players and possibly ignite the game farther afield, then let's take a little pain to make it happen.
An opponent's body language, demeanour, reactions etc. You obviously have never played against my daughter Anna "Ice Maiden" Milton!
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Phil Thomas - 07-01-2014
Matthew Turner Wrote:Phil Thomas wrote
"What the sub committee is really trying to do is to decide how to upgrade those rules to cope with more advanced technology than the humble telephone. Which includes the real possibility of powerful chess engines being used out of sight of the opponent."
but I wonder how much of an issue this actually is? Let me pose you a question. You play in a 5 round tournament and one of your games is against a player playing remotely. Do you think there is more chance that the remote player will cheat by using a powerful engine or that one of the other four will nip to the toilet and use the app on their smart phone?
Instinctively and intuitively the remote player would be more likely to cheat.
Why? because I wouldn't be in the same room and I wouldn't know if he nipped off to the toilet leaving his clock running at the critical points in the game. Plus as others have said on this thread I would not have any body language to read.
Before anyone accuses me of slandering unnamed people.
I used to play of lot of correspondence chess. The opponents, in general, suddenly became much stronger when powerful chess engines became affordable. I surmise from Andy Muir's post that he may have had similar experiences around the same time. Adequate supervision is essential.
Let me ask all the readers a direct question. How would you feel if Boris Ivanov entered your section but revealed at the last minute that he wasn't able to leave Bulgaria to attend?
Where this concept has merit - in summer time I could fancy going on a family holiday to Arran* and play one round a day in a major Scottish event. A daily commute into Brodick would beat a daily commute into central Glasgow.
* Other islands are available.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Matthew Turner - 07-01-2014
Phil Thomas wrote,
"I used to play of lot of correspondence chess. The opponents, in general, suddenly became much stronger when powerful chess engines became affordable. I surmise from Andy Muir's post that he may have had similar experiences around the same time. Adequate supervision is essential.
Let me ask all the readers a direct question. How would you feel if Boris Ivanov entered your section but revealed at the last minute that he wasn't able to leave Bulgaria to attend?"
I am sure many people would have a similar reaction, but think about it. Consulting computers is not against the rules in correspondence, so I am not sure that yours and others experience in correspondence has anything to do with the current proposals.
If Boris Ivanov entered my section I would be worried he might cheat, but that would be the same if he played at the venue or remotely. I think you need to trust that the vast majority of players will play fairly and have procedures for those who cheat, but again I don't think remote playing need bring huge extra challenges or regulations.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Phil Thomas - 07-01-2014
Phil Thomas Wrote:Which includes the real possibility of powerful chess engines being used out of sight of the opponent.
Matthew,
we seem to have drifted away from the original point I made - I have quoted myself above.
In a normal tournament with opponent in sight (usually) and and neutral chess players all around - -opportunities for assistance from chess engines is restricted by fear of discovery. That fear could be far less in a distant venue. That is why this committee when formed will need to consider the possibility of chess engines being used - at both venues.
Ref correspondence chess rules. At the time I stopped playing correspondence games assistance from Chess Computers was certainly frowned upon and was probably against the rules in force at the time. For me personally the correspondence game became much less fun when I realised that I was frequently competing directly against with my opponents' chess programmes.
For the correspondence game to remain viable today it strikes me as inevitable that rules have to be framed to allow computerised assistance.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Matthew Turner - 07-01-2014
"opportunities for assistance from chess engines is restricted by fear of discovery"
but that is my point - I do not believe this is actually true. I believe that the use of chess engines is restricted by socially accepted norms of behaviour and that doesn't change whether a player is at a venue or remote.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - George Murphy - 07-01-2014
“Let me ask all the readers a direct question. How would you feel if Boris Ivanov entered your section but revealed at the last minute that he wasn't able to leave Bulgaria to attend?”
I realise this passage is intended to express a hypothetical point, but to quote Perry Mason no less, it’s a leading question in that it calls for a conclusion. In plain English, it puts the expected answer into the mouth of the witness. As in a court of law, so here too it’s inadmissible. As I understand it, the motion calls for a feasibility study, and the question it hopes to answer is: is it worth planting the ‘acorn’? will it take root and grow into a stout oak tree? To talk about possible ‘cheating’ as an obstacle to be overcome is one thing - and within the parameters of the study. But, to fantasise about infamous personalities is hyperbole. For starters, we don’t know what the strength of the ‘remote’ player(s) might be. Nor do we know which Scottish communities might qualify as ‘remote’. At present, such profiles are simply concepts for the purpose of debate.
The first sentence of the Motion encapsulates the point: ‘1.2 Motion to create a Working Party to explore the use of live boards and internet to allow players from remote Scottish communities to participate in Chess Scotland congress events.’
So far, I haven’t seen anything to persuade me that the Motion should not be carried. On the contrary, I can see it being amended now or later to include disabled players and even possibly League Matches. But, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. One step at a time is enough for the present.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Phil Thomas - 07-01-2014
George,
I fully agree with you George in that if this notice board was a court of law that question would be disallowed.
However, for a notice board such as this it is it is kind of tame is it not?
Matthew,
I think we have to agree to disagree on the key hypothesis. I really do think that fear of discovery reduces the amount of rule breaking that goes on.
Consider a police car travelling down the centre lane of the motorway at 65 mph.
The number of cars going down the outside lane at 68-70 and even faster diminishes somewhat - at least in my experience.
I am sure you can find counter arguments to that point.and I'm sure they are just as impressive as my example above.
Re: Continuation of AGM - motion 1.2 - Matthew Turner - 07-01-2014
Drivers' speed on motorways is determined by social norms of which the law is an important part. Consider a police car than drives along a motorway for a short distance at 55mph. If the police car merely ensured that the law was followed then drivers would merrily overtake the police car at 68 mph and when it was out of sight bomb on at 100mph. This doesn't happen. Everyone slows down to 55 miles a hours and when the police car departs continues at 80mph.