Editing 1800: Chess Notation
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Explanation== | ==Explanation== | ||
− | + | {{incomplete|Please change this comment when editing this page and not remove it too fast.}} | |
− | |||
− | + | [[Cueball]] begins a conversation with [[White Hat]] with the declaration that he will be scoring his conversations using chess notation. | |
− | + | Given the caption, Cueball believes that this is a drawn conversation since White Hat doesn't care. | |
− | + | The double question marks at the end of the title text can be interpreted in two ways: on one hand, they can indicate that the other party is confused by the statement, not understanding what it means. At the same time, the question marks in parentheses can also be interpreted as chess annotation commenting on the soundness of such move, as explained below. | |
− | : | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | + | === Chess notation (and annotation) === | |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
{{w|Chess}} players and critics use certain {{w|chess notation|notations}} to write down chess games in a very short fashion (for example the {{w|Forsyth–Edwards Notation}}, which is both computer- and human-readable). In addition, ''{{w|chess annotation symbols}}'' like ! and !? help to comment certain moves in a similarly short fashion. That way it is possible to print or discuss a chess game (or a chess opening) in a limited space, for example in printed reference manuals. | {{w|Chess}} players and critics use certain {{w|chess notation|notations}} to write down chess games in a very short fashion (for example the {{w|Forsyth–Edwards Notation}}, which is both computer- and human-readable). In addition, ''{{w|chess annotation symbols}}'' like ! and !? help to comment certain moves in a similarly short fashion. That way it is possible to print or discuss a chess game (or a chess opening) in a limited space, for example in printed reference manuals. | ||
Line 61: | Line 46: | ||
The official chess rules offer some ways the concept of a "draw" could be applied to a human conversation. According to the {{w|World Chess Federation}} (FIDE) rules, a draw can occur: | The official chess rules offer some ways the concept of a "draw" could be applied to a human conversation. According to the {{w|World Chess Federation}} (FIDE) rules, a draw can occur: | ||
− | #by agreement. Any player can offer a draw when it is | + | #by agreement. Any player can offer a draw when it is his turn to move. |
#by stalemate. As explained above: The king is not in check, but no legal moves are available. | #by stalemate. As explained above: The king is not in check, but no legal moves are available. | ||
− | #when the same position (with the same possible legal moves) occurs at least three times, with the same player having the same possibilities of moving | + | #when the same position (with the same possible legal moves) occurs at least three times, with the same player having the same possibilities of moving his pieces. This draw must be requested by the player. According to the FIDE rule 9.6, the arbiter himself declares the game drawn when the same position occurs five times. |
#when 50 moves have passed without a capture or a pawn move. Again, the draw occurs only upon request. According to the same FIDE rule 9.6, the arbiter declares the game drawn when 75 moves have passed, without a request by either player. | #when 50 moves have passed without a capture or a pawn move. Again, the draw occurs only upon request. According to the same FIDE rule 9.6, the arbiter declares the game drawn when 75 moves have passed, without a request by either player. | ||
− | #when one of the players has used up | + | #when one of the players has used up his time, but his opponent has not enough material to mate. For example, king and pawn mate against a king in certain situations, while king against king leads to a draw by the 50-move-rule. |
#when both players have used up their time, but the arbiter cannot determine who did so first. This is impossible with modern electronic chess clocks, though. | #when both players have used up their time, but the arbiter cannot determine who did so first. This is impossible with modern electronic chess clocks, though. | ||
− | #upon request, when the opponent does not play seriously and attempts to win the game by timeout | + | #upon request, when the opponent does not play seriously, and attempts to win the game by timeout. |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
=== Chess games and conversations === | === Chess games and conversations === | ||
− | + | The notion of applying chess scores to conversations begs the question if and how chess play and conversations can be compared. | |
− | |||
− | + | Chess games and human conversations do have some things in common: | |
− | *The outcome fully depends on the | + | *The outcome fully depends on the behaviour of the partner/opponent. |
*As in chess, there is no certainty that a certain statement will have the desired effect. The opponent can always react in a surprising way. | *As in chess, there is no certainty that a certain statement will have the desired effect. The opponent can always react in a surprising way. | ||
*Chess players, like conversation partners, do not "calculate" the opponent's next move(s). They don't compute anything. They are not cold-blooded machines. They do, however, similar to conversation partners in a job interview or a televised debate: | *Chess players, like conversation partners, do not "calculate" the opponent's next move(s). They don't compute anything. They are not cold-blooded machines. They do, however, similar to conversation partners in a job interview or a televised debate: | ||
Line 88: | Line 65: | ||
**try to identify the opponent's weaknesses, and try to remedy one's own weaknesses. Prepare against surprises and pitfalls. | **try to identify the opponent's weaknesses, and try to remedy one's own weaknesses. Prepare against surprises and pitfalls. | ||
**focus on a few promising moves, and quickly spot if they're easily refutable. "You see, I spent 8 years programming {{w|BANCStar programming language|BANCStar}} applications at..." - "Anybody with that experience is dangerous and should be locked up." - "Oh." | **focus on a few promising moves, and quickly spot if they're easily refutable. "You see, I spent 8 years programming {{w|BANCStar programming language|BANCStar}} applications at..." - "Anybody with that experience is dangerous and should be locked up." - "Oh." | ||
− | *The question of what is considered a good move (or statement) can only be answered in a subjective way. Chess engines though use algorithms to assess the position | + | *The question of what is considered a good move (or statement) can only be answered in a subjective way. Chess engines though use algorithms to assess the position; and they can calculate the value of different possible moves. In human conversations, social norms help avoid making bad moves. |
*It is difficult to win against an experienced, alert partner or opponent. Competent exploitation of the opponent's errors is often the only way to win. | *It is difficult to win against an experienced, alert partner or opponent. Competent exploitation of the opponent's errors is often the only way to win. | ||
*In both, you will try to find moves that make your win more probable, while avoiding deleterious moves. Due to inadequate computing power, it is hitherto impossible to calculate all possible ways a chess game (or a conversation) could play out. See also [[1002: Game AIs]]. Therefore it is impossible to design a path that leads to a guaranteed outcome - except when the situation has been simplified enough. There are handbooks to play endgames, explaining how to secure either a win or a draw, no matter the capability of the opponent. Nowadays, computer-generated {{w|endgame tablebase}}s exist for six-piece and seven-piece endgames. Those for six pieces are freely available and are about 1 terabyte large. | *In both, you will try to find moves that make your win more probable, while avoiding deleterious moves. Due to inadequate computing power, it is hitherto impossible to calculate all possible ways a chess game (or a conversation) could play out. See also [[1002: Game AIs]]. Therefore it is impossible to design a path that leads to a guaranteed outcome - except when the situation has been simplified enough. There are handbooks to play endgames, explaining how to secure either a win or a draw, no matter the capability of the opponent. Nowadays, computer-generated {{w|endgame tablebase}}s exist for six-piece and seven-piece endgames. Those for six pieces are freely available and are about 1 terabyte large. | ||
− | + | Differences: | |
*Chess games are inherently competitive, zero-sum ventures; if one player wins, the other loses. In contrast, conversations aren't usually competitive, so there isn't really a concept of a winner and loser unless the conversation was an argument or debate. Often, both people in a ''friendly'' conversation will benefit ("win") from having had the conversation. | *Chess games are inherently competitive, zero-sum ventures; if one player wins, the other loses. In contrast, conversations aren't usually competitive, so there isn't really a concept of a winner and loser unless the conversation was an argument or debate. Often, both people in a ''friendly'' conversation will benefit ("win") from having had the conversation. | ||
− | *Both chess games and conversations are turn-based, but lacking time controls, people's statements sometimes | + | *Both chess games and conversations are turn-based, but lacking time controls, people's statements sometimes last an eternity or even longer. |
*Especially in disputes, (agreed) draws are extremely rare. | *Especially in disputes, (agreed) draws are extremely rare. | ||
*It is difficult to judge the winner of a conversation. | *It is difficult to judge the winner of a conversation. | ||
− | + | *Chess games are extremely constrained by a set of rules. Players are expected to behave gentlemanly, and arbiters can hand out punishments for any behavior that brings the game in disrepute. | |
− | *Chess games are extremely constrained by a set of rules. Players are expected to behave gentlemanly, and arbiters can hand out punishments for any behavior that brings the game | + | |
+ | ==Transcript== | ||
+ | :[Cueball and White Hat facing each other.] | ||
+ | :Cueball: I've decided to score all my conversations using chess win-loss notation. | ||
+ | :White Hat: I don't know or care what that means. | ||
+ | :Cueball: Fine. | ||
+ | :White Hat: Fine. | ||
+ | |||
+ | :[Caption below the frame:] | ||
+ | :½–½ | ||
{{comic discussion}} | {{comic discussion}} | ||
Line 105: | Line 91: | ||
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]] | [[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]] | ||
[[Category:Chess]] | [[Category:Chess]] | ||
− |