[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
I believe that some might be mistaking the simple quantification of a game through prove-able values as a determination of either its play-ability or enjoyment. These values will only establish particular parameters which a game might be categorized. For example: some players will prefer a game which takes a large number of moves to develop before any significant threat occurs, and others will enjoy a game which starts with exchanges. The preference showed these values should be left to the potential player to determine. And this argument can be the source of many challenged games. [Note: I use the term 'argument' in its positive form.]
When there are subjectivities, statistics are good. Why not a poll?. Voters can list the ten more sensitive games to opening, and the ten less sensitive, in order. Ten poinst to first place, nine to the second, and so on...
Some extensive, but short computer simulation experiments can be performed, say, with the first ten moves. We can see: Percentage of finished games, percentage of forced captures, percentage of threatened goals, and percentage of clear disbalances between teams, defining a disbalance as a difference of some quantity of points, assigning points to pieces and/or other determinant factors according to the game in a rational way. But I´m not clear which are the best measures to see how sensitive is the game to openings
It is highly preferable to quantify this factor if at all possible (in accordance with L. Lynn Smith's proposed criteria, in my opinion). Otherwise, the sought game-specific evaluations are likely to degrade into a chaos of widely-disparate subjective opinions and value judgments, impossible to reach a general concensus on and hence, not readily useful without reservation (as a table of values). Whatever important game-specific factors are not accounted for by the main, proposed initial sensitivity criteria can be supplemented by another factor, designed for that purpose, as a positive or negative adjustment to the total.
Michael Nelson writes: 'It may be that number of moves to attack a goal piece is not always accurate, though no examples spring to mind. Clearly more resarch is needed to decide the best measure.' I believe that we will always have to rely on subjective evaluation. Any attempt to quantify runs into paradoxes like: The Fool's Mate in Shatranj is only fifty percent longer, compared to FIDE chess. 1. Pawn d2 - d3 1. Knight g8 - f6 2. Knight b1 - d2 2. Knight f6 - d5 3. Pawn b2 - b3 3. Knight d5 - c3
David hit one of my biggest pet peeves. And it's this: Don't use 1-10 scales. They are biased. Go ask everyday people (ie, without any relevant background) 'on a 1 to 10 scale, what is average?' And they'll say 'five.' Well, it makes sense, right? But it's wrong. Average is five and a half. And this makes people give ratings that aren't really what they are thinking. I'm sorry if this is too mathematical for your taste. It's just that I needed to say that. Please use 0 to 10 scales, those work nicely.
Larry is on the right track, but the moves to attack a piece measure will give false results in some games. In Decima, for example, White's usual opening move attacks a Black piece, yet the game is less sensitive than FIDE chess. It may be that number of moves to attack a goal piece is not always accurate, though no examples spring to mind. Clearly more resarch is needed to decide the best measure.
Or the sensitivity scale could be based on the minimal number of moves(not turns) needed to threaten an opposing piece. For example: FIDE might be considered equal to 2. White moves then Black can threaten. 1. e4 Nf6(or d5) This will be a fairly easy value to quantify for each game and it involves a prove-able dynamic. Thus limiting the potential for un-intended error based upon bias. Or the value might be the minimal number of moves to threaten an opposing goal piece. This could be difficult to quantify since it might assume poor performance by one player and superior performance of another. And would this value be applied regardless of the potential of capture of the threatening piece? The idea could be to calculate the minimal number of move before one player is forced to perform a move in defense.
Perhaps we should attempt a Sensitivity Scale from [1] Shatranj to [10] Wormhole Chess - a variant where early checkmate is possible, if not probable! My 'Lions and Unicorns Chess' variant also contains some opening traps leading to long forced lines - too long for Zillions to calculate in advance.
Grand Chess and family is less sensitive to openings than FIDE-Chess, but it is not insensitive, as Altair/Achernar/Deneb are not insensitive but definitely less sensitive to openings. The possibility of a wide variety of openings without inmediate risks of a clear loss of the game is important in every game, and in some of them the sensitivity to openings may play an important role in this variety. Further investigations on this topic should be good.
Some games are much more sensitive to openings than others, and prior knowledge of the game can help a lot. FIDE-Chess and Chinese Chess are more sensitive to openings than Shogi, but Ultima-like games are less sensitive; nevertheless, prior good knowledge is a clear advantage, because openings in Ultima-like games are more an abstract positional concept than a definite precise sequence of moves. In some games, prior knowledge is fundamental, or you can lose easely, and I can mention some notorious examples: Ximeracak, Pocket Mutation, Marsellais Chess...(and, perhaps, Falcon Chess, although I´m not enterely sure). Some other games seem to be less sensitive to openings, as Achernar, Grand Chess and other large variants. Is the 'openings sensitivity' an important measure for a game?. At least, it is a good indicative for novices which are trying a game by first time.
12 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.