MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

13:43 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General A selfmate in a game?
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Steven Dowd [Saturday, Sep 5, 2009 17:29]

A selfmate in a game?


There have been all sorts of composed games, from Alekhine to tourneys where forbidding early draw offers have led to weird 60 move mutual stalemates, etc. And in blitz games we see people with huge advantage promoting 6 times to rook etc, just to prove a point and so on.

I wonder if anyone has ever, for whatever reason (to make Krabbe's column, to throw rating points etc) tried to enforce a selfmate in a game where they were ahead on material?
 
(Read Only)pid=4054
(2) Posted by Michael McDowell [Saturday, Sep 5, 2009 21:54]

Irving Chernev's book "The Chess Companion" features a game allegedly played by correspondence between Paris and Marseilles in 1878 where White gave odds of queen and black undertook to force selfmate. Marseilles won by forcing Paris to mate on move 69.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=4057
(3) Posted by Steven Dowd [Sunday, Sep 6, 2009 05:49]

The score of that game can be found in Pritchard's Encyclopedia under Self-mate chess:

1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 c6 3. Nf3 g6 4. e4 e6 5. e5 Bb4 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7. Bxc3 b5 8. h4 h5 9. O-O-O a6 10. Ng5 f5 11. g3 Nh6 12. Bd3 Nf7 13.Bxf5 gxf5 14. Nxf7 Kxf7 15. Bd2 Nd7 16. Rhe1 c5 17. dxc5 Nxc5 18. Bg5 Qg8 19.Re3 Bb7 20. Rc3 Rc8 21. Be3 Nd7 22. Bd4 Rxc3 23. bxc3 a5 24. Kd2 a4 25. Rb1 Ba6
26. Rg1 Qg4 27. Rb1 Rc8 28. Rb4 Rc4 29. Rxc4 dxc4 30. a3 f4 31. Kc1 fxg3 32.fxg3 Qxg3 33. Kb2 Qxh4 34. Kc1 Qe1+ 35. Kb2 Qd1 36. Ba7 Nxe5 37. Bc5 h4 38. Bd4 Nc6 39. Be3 e5 40. Bf2 h3 41. Bg3 e4 42. Bf4 Ke6 43. Bg3 e3 44. Bf4 e2 45. Bg3 Kd7 46. Bh2 e1=Q 47. Bf4 Qee2 48. Bg3 Qdxc2+ 49. Ka1 Qf1+ 50. Be1 Qd2 51. Kb1 h2 52. Ka1 h1=Q 53. Kb1 Qf8 54. Ka1 Qxa3+ 55. Kb1 Qad6 56. Ka1 Qf6 57. Kb1 Kc7
58. Ka1 b4 59. Kb1 b3 60. Ka1 Kb6 61. Kb1 Ka5 62. Ka1 Ne7 63. Kb1 Nc8 64. Ka1 Bb5 65. Kb1 Qa6 66. Ka1 Nb6 67. Kb1 Qh7+ 68. Ka1 Qxc3+ 69. Bxc3#
 
   
(Read Only)pid=4058
(4) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Sep 6, 2009 13:45]

I can't imagine a situation forcing you to lose
by selfmate because nothing hinders you to simply
resign. Well, except the Mafia making bets on
the *exact* outcome (move-# etc.) of a game :-)

Hauke
 
   
(Read Only)pid=4059
(5) Posted by Steven Dowd [Sunday, Sep 6, 2009 15:12]

You might do it to get in the record books, particularly if it was a clever implementation.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=4060
(6) Posted by Joost de Heer [Sunday, Sep 6, 2009 15:25]

 QUOTE 

I can't imagine a situation forcing you to lose by selfmate because nothing hinders you to simply resign.

The same reasoning can be used for mate: You can't win a game by mate, because your opponent can always choose to resign. Yet the ultimate goal of an orthodox chessgame is mate. Resigning is just a way of saying "I can't avoid that my opponent will reach the goal it needs to achieve to win", whether this is mating or selfmating or losing all his pawns.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=4061
(7) Posted by Steven Dowd [Sunday, Sep 6, 2009 18:49]

In fact here we have the solution to the draw death: replace FIDE chess with selfmate chess, where you either win (black forces white to mate him, or he loses) or lose.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=4062
(8) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 7, 2009 01:02]; edited by Kevin Begley [09-09-07]

Sorry in advance if this goes slightly off topic...

Selfmate-Chess is a poor solution to avoid "draw death."
Non-balanced games require, as a matter of fundamental fairness, double-pairings.
In spite of the remarkable game sited, it is obvious that Queen odds are insufficient to force selfmate.
And, the resulting "game death" (the extra Queen side always loses) would be a cure far worse than the disease.

If draw-death were really so severe, there are better solutions (crazyhouse, for example, is almost never drawn, and the second player does win a reasonable percentage).

I'm afriad Capablanca's "draw death" argument is unlikely to sell anybody on unorthodox chess.
Unless of course, you can demonstrate a tic-tac-toe-simple forced draw (for black).
Or perhaps, if you can extrapolate the day of complete "draw death" (where even an accident-prone member of the top 10 could be expected to never lose a game)...

If a world champion could not make this case, after enduring scores of challenges (for years) without a single loss, chances are the blame does not lie entirely with the flawed variant Capablanca suggested as a replacement.

And, even if you can somehow convince 99% of the tournament players that chess is predominantly a test of opening preperation and pre-game analysis (which I don't even believe), you'll not easily sell them on radical departures (selfmate-chess and crazyhouse are hardly marginal adjustments to compensate for "draw death").

If you want to find the optimal replacement for chess, it seems to me, you'd have to satisfy the following criteria:

1) Game is almost always never drawn (though its flavor is always enhanced by the rich possibilities for stalemate combination).
2) Percentage of wins is nearly equal for the first- and second-players.
3) Human World Champion almost always defeats a computer.
4) Computer almost always defeats a non-master.
5) The game strongly resembles modern chess.
6) The game is rooted in the historical development of chess.
7) The game reconstitutes "harmony." (Queens do not remain the unbalanced combination of R+B, but no single-handed mates, etc).

Some years ago, full of foolishness, I endeavored to create such a game.
Mainly, I borrowed ideas from Capablanca's variant, and from Morely's "one contribution to chess" (an idea which even Troitzky is known to have considered)...
After numerous failed attempts, and having discovered that the online variant community (at that time) was badly compromised from ads sold to a particularly poor commercial variant (sadly, even a few GMs were paid to play this nonsense), I abandoned these pursuits.

Even if you create an ideal version of such a game, can you really expect it would be appreciated by serious chess players and variant enthusiasts?
Back when variant enthusiasts (and some well known GMs) were raving about Omega Chess, I had serious doubts!
If this atmosphere has changed, please pardon me for not noticing.

Shortly after I gave up hope, I made an interesting discovery, which would reduce all 3 of Capablanca's major pieces into a single unit (which I called the "psycho" -- see my article in the latest issue of StrateGems). This might have substantially improved a number of my flawed variant creations (in fact, the vast majority of large variants suffer precisely from such an excessive unit-count), but still, I'm not certain a playable board game emerges...

On an 8x10 board, without corners, using psycho-knights in place of Queens, I think you'd be moving in the right direction (towards something I had tentatively called "Game of the Psycho-Queen," but I never really bothered to fully settle on the rules).
What's the point?

Unfortuantely, the real problem comes down to marketing the solution.
I wouldn't bother looking for a good slogan for my idea -- it is very sketchy for OTB play (considering the changing states of the psycho units)...

But, even if you do happen to find a truly worthy replacement, you'll need to educate the "variant community" why your game deserves more attention than the vast arrays of garbage currently shelved on formerly popular webpages (which long ago traded credibility for short-lived commercial success).

Far easier to dump another chess variant on some website than to clean-up the litter commonly found there. I should know -- I spent months asking one website to remove a poorly designed game I had invented. I was continually denied the opportunity to even remove my name from the game (this from a site where I was a major contributor). In the end, I had to consult a lawyer, who advised me to claim copyright, and threaten lawsuit. And, even after all this drama in the hopes to remove some unfortunate clutter, still today, that webpage shames itself by having retained their own flawed desciption of an awful game I once invented (oh yeah, and they still list me as a "permanent non-contributor").

Yes, I am awawre that the British Chess Variant Society might offer better propects for variant chess enthusiasts...
Unfortunately, the lesser variant community (particularly online) does not seem to take good cues from this long established society -- perhaps due to restricted access (a common theme: commercial interests).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=4063
(9) Posted by Steven Dowd [Monday, Sep 7, 2009 09:37]

"In spite of the remarkable game sited, it is obvious that Queen odds are insufficient to force selfmate."

My remarks were made tongue-in-cheek, not meant to be taken seriously, but you would have to prove the above to me.

The game cited was pretty terrible.....

I may try to contact Larry Kaufman (yes, the Rybka guy and World Senior Champ) who has written some very good articles on odds chess, because it seems apparent to me that queen odds are sufficient to force selfmate between reasonably matched players. In fact, I spent some time considering the various options for both sides....

Losing chess has become popular amongst players and composers - the newest version of Fritz features it with 960 - why not selfmate chess?

I will tell you why - because it would be extremely difficult. Players below a certain level would not be able to do it. Anyone can play to just throw their pieces away, selfmate chess would require a pretty good understanding of how to plan in chess.

This is a little off-topic, but I think the connection between the practical game and composition is important in its own way.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=4064
(10) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 7, 2009 22:54]; edited by Kevin Begley [09-09-07]

> Losing chess has become popular ... the newest version of Fritz features [losing-960] ... why not selfmate chess?

Sure, OK, why not selfmate chess?
But, initially, you weren't calling for this as just another variant...

In a previous post, you wrote:
> "...the solution ... [to draw death]: replace FIDE chess with selfmate chess..."

Now, why would the replacement of FIDE Chess with selfmate-chess be a lousy idea?
It's like you are offering a self-refuting gambit here.
The evolution of orthodox chess is complete (unless, of course, you have the expressed consent of major tournament sponsors).

So, in the spirit of this post, I decline your offer to debate the matter, and eagerly await FIDE's announcement of the transformation.
I suggest you sell the idea to Andrej Selivanov (respected composer/solver, FIDE Rep., and perhaps the next FIDE World Champion).

Frankly, I'd love to see it...
Then, after the game is busted (regardless which side proves to be victorious -- though I still stand by my assesment that an extra Queen is not enough), they'll have to move on to something more sensible...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=4065
(11) Posted by Steven Dowd [Monday, Sep 7, 2009 23:57]

"I decline your offer to debate the matter"

I made an offer?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=4066
(12) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Sep 8, 2009 07:21]; edited by Kevin Begley [09-09-08]

Steven asked:
> "I made an offer (to debate the matter)?"

Anytime a variant is offered as a "replacement" for FIDE Chess, yes, absolutely, I consider it an offer to debate.
In fact, it's more like a global challenge -- you'll find such comments are like fighting words to many Chess players.
And, the debate is a vast as Chess itself -- in fact, there is a large array of debates to be had here:

For example:
1) Do circumstances really warrant a further evolution of Chess?
a) Has Chess become a test of pre-game (especially opening) computer analysis (and memorization)?
b) Have we really reached what Capablanca called "Draw Death?"
etc etc etc
2) What are the merits/flaws of the new game being proposed as a replacement?
a) Does it completely solve the current crisis in modern Chess?
b) Does it conform to the historical evolution of Chess?
etc etc etc
3) Are there better replacements (with fewer changes necessary)?
a) Pause to exhibit a million candidate games...
etc etc etc

I can't imagine that you seriously consider selfmate-chess to be a viable candidate to replace FIDE Chess.
If you honestly believe this, the opposing view hardly needs an advocate -- make your case, and good luck.

Oh, and for the record, this can be a very worthwhile debate...
Imagine if, after decades (centuries?) of computer advances, chess became "played out."
For the sake of argument, pretend that this "played out" phenomenon is carefully defined (and agreed upon) in terms of some objective measurement.

If the game were declared "played out" today, I expect FIDE would probably consider chess-960 as its default replacement.
There are a few good reasons for this assumption:
* invented by a former FIDE World Champion,
* fairly popular,
* might actually solve a few problems (w/ modern Chess -- particularly opening analysis/preperation/memorization),
* entire history of orthodox chess problems may be sub-categorized as one of 960 games,
etc

But, it is certainly interesting to consider alternative solutions -- particularly those aiming to solve bigger problems.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=4067
(13) Posted by Steven Dowd [Tuesday, Sep 8, 2009 12:17]; edited by Steven Dowd [09-09-08]

Kevin - I don't wish to correct, but if you read post nine of mine it clearly says:

"My remarks were made tongue-in-cheek, not meant to be taken seriously,"

and this post came right after my joke comment:

"In fact here we have the solution to the draw death: replace FIDE chess with selfmate chess, where you either win (black forces white to mate him, or he loses) or lose"

I thought your debate was part of the joke ( especially liked the part about Andrey S. being world champ of FIDE chess, especially given his crushing performance in the recent FIDE Album 2004-06 selfmate section!), but then I detected a note of seriousness, which seems to be confirmed by the last post. I don't know enough about chess variants to debate them with you, my only serious comment is the one where I think a queen is enough handicap and you don't. I guess that could only be tested with games.....

Actually, if someone ran a selfmate chess tournament, say per email, I would be interested, just to see what "spins out."
 
   
(Read Only)pid=4068
(14) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Tuesday, Sep 8, 2009 15:44]

Off-topic, but I'd like to reply on the points brought up by Kevin Begley, by giving the suggestion of Pierre Drumare: "One day, the orthodox knight will be replaced by the nightrider."

Have a nice week!
Siegfried
 
   
(Read Only)pid=4069
(15) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Sep 9, 2009 03:33]; edited by Kevin Begley [09-09-09]

@Steven,

Thanks for the correction!
I was guessing this had to be a joke, but absent any trace of sarcasm (or humor), I found it difficult to discern your tone.
As for the comment about Andrej, yes, it was intended to be amusing (but seriously, I would like his chances in selfmate-chess).

@Siegfried,

On paper, it is difficult to argue with Pierre Drumare's point.
In practice, however, Nightriders can tend to result in fast simplifications (it is difficult to avoid the offer for early Nightrider exchanges, particularly if they begin from familiar "orthodox Knight" positions, where fast mutual attacks are nearly automatic).
A common error in creating a chess variant is to assume that the substitution (or worse: the addition!) of more interesting units should result in a more lively game.
The more I experimented with introducing different fairy pieces, the more I came to respect the inherent balance in the starting position of orthodox chess.

In spite of a few theoretical defects and special case rules, orthodox chess is an amazingly balanced game.
In terms of non-reciprocal attacks, piece-counts, color complexes, opening tension, the fight for central squares, the need to quickly safe the King for the middlegame, the need to quickly activate the King for the endgame, etc etc etc...

The game is beautifully balanced.

Had it evolved with perfect theoretical harmony, and absent any special case rules, I often wonder if it could ever have been half as good...
 
 
(Read Only)pid=4071

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum General A selfmate in a game?