Thursday, August 18, 2011

Third Round Colors, Ruling

Great Physicist, Richard Feynman [1]

The third round pairings in a Quad is a coin toss, between the players, the night of the game. Winner to get White. Tournament Director Charles Hart specifically researched the ruling. Thus Rogers table is proxy only, for the third round.

Evidentially, it used to be that the winner got to choose, but if you think about it, its better the way it is. No one can prepare for the one color with better than a 50% chance. Also when determined the night of the game, it further takes away the potential advantage of a player known as Wht or Blk well before the game.

For IF the winner, for example, knew he wanted to choose Blk, anticipating that his opponent would likely want the conventionally conceived advantage of Wht if he instead won the toss (the other player), this random winner would be able to plan for Blk as a likelihood, given his predeliction for Blk in this specific instance. Not perfectly probable, but reasonably.

The editor is not saying this is good or bad, only that if two players well known to each other arrived at this juncture, said player could prepare better. Blk being more predictable, and despite the tempo disadvantage, having the potential advantage of predictability. Its the same in the stock market. Predictability is premium!

Its the old saw: "Woman decides, man abides". So Blk, if you ask me!

[1] Feynman was the person, who at a near glance, was able to determine the reason for the disasterous failure of the Challenger Space Shuttle, the O-Rings. Nice quick summery of his perspicacity linked here. A real practical genius. His utterly amazing summary, Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle, linked here in red. Incredible mind. Math genius of practical kind also.


Anonymous said...

Very nice but preparing before a game at amateur level means absolutely nothing.

transformation said...

Thats why David Korn of your club, only compiled 300 games the week before playing Doran Race, skimming many of them, in the Kings Indian Attack as Blk, of which he looked at precisely 80 of them which were high level GM games, with loses for Wht, in order to make a key early move decision.

He realized that give a certain move, instead of another move, he could get 'playable positions' much more like his consistent Tore as Wht, Slav's and Caro as Blk, so that he could have a much better chance of not so much getting an edge, as not loosing one.

It must be a total accident that he beat 1977 ELO Doran as a 1466, and got the exact position at move 12. or so, that he had in his analysis, Doran made the obvious natural developing move, but his assiduous research in ChessBase, the entire week before, not only in fact showed him that it was wrong, for a commensurable reason, but in fact showed him in different games how to address it, then Korn ran it in fritz.

that, too must have been an accident, and had no bearing on Korn's quickly dismembering his much greater opponent?

luck? just a bad day?? a few bad moves? no. He took him out in a real game, move by move by move.

without that prep, it never would have happened. it gave him the confidence he needed.

he prepared for two weeks for his game with Tica, and also found his comfort.

then two days on his game with Fortunato, all as expected.

yes, you can prepare, and i am doing so this week. i observe my opponents, remember what i see, and plan the decision of what to do.

now, question:

do YOU play a consistent repertoire A. and do you B. or have you ever used chessBase. C. dont assert this unless you fulfill A. and B.

Peace, dk

Anonymous said...

I play every opening and all of them badly. I own chessbase but its a nice decorative icon on my desktop. Do yo think its possible to win games without any opening knowledge?

Heuristical said...

"We the willing, being led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful.

"We have done so much, for so long, with so little, that we could now do almost anything with nothing"

Anonymous said...

Doran says
The game against Korn solodified my reluctance to play in West Orange tournaments that allow my oppponents to prepare. David is far stronger than 1466 when he can prepare for his opponent. When His rating becomes stable he will continue to perform 200 points above his rating when he has time to prepare for a speciific opponent. The down side is that if he consistently plays at west orange his rating will become higher than his playing strength. Say 1900 at west orange and 1700 when he cant prepare. That will make him a liability at the US am team. My current rating prevents me from playing on the same team at the 2012 Us am team. (my team took 4 place overall in 2011) A 4 game match with DK would solve that problem. I am not conceding that I would lose a match with DK but wining 2.5 to 1.5 would cost me many raating points.

If West Orange did the pairings the same day as the tournament I would play without fear of losing rating points.

Heuristical said...

Doran, you are a darn good man, and i am very proud to know you.

your heart is always real. this is most rare.

blessings, and thx for your honest words. such a valuable thing in the era of the The Patriot Act.

Peace, dk

Heuristical said...

i cannot edit comments tags, without great hardship. just click grey abv, for active link to site. otherwise, red for links as always.

Anonymous said...

All I'm trying to say is that preparing a specific opening for a game is not good enough to win it. It takes skill in planning and calculation. At no point did I say that DK is a bad player or that he got "lucky". However, I do feel that becoming an expert in opening preparation would not be sufficient to beat a stronger player. Perhaps, DK is just becoming a better player overall. Don't attribute to opening preparation what you have earned yourself.