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. White Hat is not interested, so the conversation dies out, with both Cueball and White Hat saying "Fine". And just as promised, Cueball has scored this particular conversation, giving it a '''½-½''', as he believes that this is a drawn conversation. The reasons for the draw, as explained below too, may be due to a stalemate (the conversation isn't going anywhere), draw by repetition (both players have played the same moves over and over again, and cannot improve their position - probably if "Fine" had been repeated more times), 50-move rule (the conversation has been going on fruitlessly for too long - unlikely here since it is only 4 dialogues long) or something else. | |
− | The (??) | + | The title text contains the same assertion that Cueball is scoring all his conversations in chess notation, followed by a (??). In chess notation, (??) means the move in question was a very bad move - a blunder. Cueball scores this part of the conversation as a blunder, which is understandable as it immediately turned the conversation against him. If Cueball is treating his conversation itself like a chess game (memorizing openings, using tactics, and evaluating various possible things to say), then he will avoid ever opening a conversation with this statement again. Quite a ?? indeed! |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | + | === 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 69: | Line 53: | ||
#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. | ||
− | === | + | === So, what's a "draw" in a conversation? === |
− | + | *Draw agreed: As pointed out by Randall in his cartoon, a drawn conversation is one where all participants agree. | |
− | + | *50-move-rule: Conversation is drawn, based on the excessive duration of the talk. | |
− | + | *Draw by repetition: Both participants have talked in circles, arriving at the same conclusions all over again. No progress has been made. | |
− | + | *Draw by stalemate: When A cannot convince B, but B doesn't have any legal argument left, and would have to resort to lies or logical fallacies in order to continue. | |
− | |||
=== Chess games and conversations === | === Chess games and conversations === | ||
− | + | The notion of applying chess scores to conversations raises 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 behavior of the partner/opponent. | *The outcome fully depends on the behavior 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. | ||
Line 92: | Line 74: | ||
*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 up to an hour. |
*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. | ||
*In chess, every position of the pieces can be analyzed completely independent of the previous moves. It does not matter how the situation evolved. After 1.e4 e5 and 1.e3 e6 2.e4 e5, there is an identical situation. Due to human emotions, though, this is not the case for conversations. No situation is ever exactly the same. | *In chess, every position of the pieces can be analyzed completely independent of the previous moves. It does not matter how the situation evolved. After 1.e4 e5 and 1.e3 e6 2.e4 e5, there is an identical situation. Due to human emotions, though, this is not the case for conversations. No situation is ever exactly the same. | ||
*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 into 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 into disrepute. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==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 97: | ||
[[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]] | [[Category:Comics featuring White Hat]] | ||
[[Category:Chess]] | [[Category:Chess]] | ||
− |