1800: "Chess Notation"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 7:29 pm UTC

1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:05 pm UTC

Image

Title Text: I've decided to score all my conversations using chess win-loss notation. (??)

(!!)

ayryq
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:48 pm UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby ayryq » Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:20 pm UTC

I didn't get it. Here's some hints. The subtitle "½ - ½" means the game (i.e. the conversation) was a draw (no winner). The "??" in the title-text indicates that this move (i.e. Cueball's pronouncement) was a blunder - a very poor move. The commentary above, "(!!)" indicates the opposite, that "1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21" believes this to be an exceptionally brilliant move (i.e. comic?).

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby Soupspoon » Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:21 pm UTC

O-O

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby pogrmman » Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:23 pm UTC

O-O ?!

I really liked this one. The title text is great (!)

It's been ages since I've played chess. I should get back into it.

Plutarch
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:29 am UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby Plutarch » Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:35 pm UTC

I think the white-hat person might have edged a victory if, instead of saying 'I don't know or care what that means,' had instead responded with the more elegant 'I neither know nor care what that means.'

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby WibblyWobbly » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:12 pm UTC

"I'm not really into Pokemon" (!!)

User avatar
stopmadnessnow
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:58 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere in that country with Big Ben in it.

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby stopmadnessnow » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:13 pm UTC

O-O-O
For comic writing or short story writing post-haste, contact the off-the peg joke chap. He has the nous.
http://plwimsett.simplesite.com/ for my site.
https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~01110048bacb43eae6 to hire me at Upwork.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 1990
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby Flumble » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:19 pm UTC

What if both parties win in the conversation?

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby WibblyWobbly » Fri Feb 17, 2017 8:35 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:What if both parties win in the conversation?

Whoever won first takes the point.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:13 pm UTC

pogrmman wrote:It's been ages since I've played chess. I should get back into it.


There's a Chess discussion topic on the "Gaming" boards: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=96851

Modern Chess is fascinating. PC-SCID (free software. W00t) allows you to interact with AIs (so you can see what the computer-AIs are thinking 20 moves ahead in any position). And "Stockfish" keeps getting better and better.

Every game of Chess I play... I download the .pgn file and run it through Stockfish to look for mistakes. Stockfish always comes up with where I failed to see a "Checkmate in 3". With PC-scid, you can explore the "game tree" of your own games and focus on where and when you make mistakes. An easy-to-use "analysis button" makes Stockfish look 20+ moves ahead on every position played in your game. It only takes like 2 minutes for a computer to analyze an entire game.

Better players actually distrust the "shallow" 20-move lookahead from Stockfish and set their analysis to 30+ move lookaheads. But the computer analysis may take 30+ minutes if you set it to a very high setting. I'm only a ~1500 player anyway, so I'm still making basic mistakes. (hanging pieces, missing simple checkmates, etc. etc.)

Flumble wrote:What if both parties win in the conversation?


1/2-1/2
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6180
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby Jorpho » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:33 pm UTC

Eh, I am left with the impression that Chess seems to come down to practice and memorization more than anything else.

Cracked suggests that knowing a few quick plays will be enough to impress most people you play against.
http://www.cracked.com/article_20214_5- ... learn.html

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 544
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby somitomi » Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:53 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Better players actually distrust the "shallow" 20-move lookahead from Stockfish and set their analysis to 30+ move lookaheads. But the computer analysis may take 30+ minutes if you set it to a very high setting. I'm only a ~1500 player anyway, so I'm still making basic mistakes. (hanging pieces, missing simple checkmates, etc. etc.)


I don't even know what the prase "n player" means, but my chess skills pretty much stop at knowing the rules and having heard of the fools mate. Which reminds me of that one time I decided to go play chess at this event called "sports day" at university. I began suspecting this to be a mistake around the time one of the other participants mentioned his Élő rating (or Elo rating), and I had pretty much the same reaction to that as well. Needless to say I was pounded into the dirt four times...
—◯-◯

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:21 pm UTC

somitomi wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Better players actually distrust the "shallow" 20-move lookahead from Stockfish and set their analysis to 30+ move lookaheads. But the computer analysis may take 30+ minutes if you set it to a very high setting. I'm only a ~1500 player anyway, so I'm still making basic mistakes. (hanging pieces, missing simple checkmates, etc. etc.)


I don't even know what the prase "n player" means, but my chess skills pretty much stop at knowing the rules and having heard of the fools mate. Which reminds me of that one time I decided to go play chess at this event called "sports day" at university. I began suspecting this to be a mistake around the time one of the other participants mentioned his Élő rating (or Elo rating), and I had pretty much the same reaction to that as well. Needless to say I was pounded into the dirt four times...


ELO is the numerical number that rates your expected win/loss ratio. 1500 is approaching club level. I probably will consistently lose should I go to my local club, but it'd be "close" games. Club players are ~1600 to 2000 or so. When you sign up for tournaments, knowing the ELO of the players at the tournament can help keep things fun. There's no point matching me against a Grandmaster.

Elo numbers are exponential. Every 400-point differential, Elo assumes 10-to-1 odds of winning. That is, the higher-ranked player is expected to win 10 out of 11 games vs the lower-ranked player.

Beginners are typically around 1000, maybe a bit less. A 1400 player is expected to win 91% of games vs beginners (or 1000-Elo). A 1800 player is expected to win 91% of games against the 1400 player. A 2200 player is expected to in 91% of games vs the 1800 player. A 2600 player is expected to in 91% of games against 2200 players.

So yeah, Beginners are around 1000, Grandmasters are roughly 2400. The best in the world are roughly 2750 or so. The free program "Stockfish" is ranked 3300 Elo, far beyond the 91% chance of winning even against the best human players in the world.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 859
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby da Doctah » Fri Feb 17, 2017 11:08 pm UTC

pogrmman wrote:It's been ages since I've played chess. I should get back into it.


Ditto the first half of that. Back when I still played, algebraic notation hadn't caught on. ("d5? wottinhell kind of piece is a d?")

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3073
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:39 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:
pogrmman wrote:It's been ages since I've played chess. I should get back into it.


Ditto the first half of that. Back when I still played, algebraic notation hadn't caught on. ("d5? wottinhell kind of piece is a d?")


The summertime mid-morning programme1 that first introduced me (largely without imparting the skills they might wish they had imparted to its viewers) to chess, the notation/terminology was very much of the "Knight to Queen's Bishop Three" style ("Nc3", in new terms, for white; "Nc6" for black...I think) and the absolute coordinate system seems to have overtaken that at some time in the intervening decades.

I personally liked the royalty-based (Queen/King divided) and player-relative (rear rank for each player being their row 1) system, but I'll play (and likely lose) under whatever system is in use.


1 In the days before "daytime TV" fluff in its current form, and they didn't have a whole specialist set of channels for ghettoising the TV given to kids, and thus "Why Don't You..?" and the next hour or so was pretty much there for those children not already forced (for better or worse) to roam their external environs.

Iranon
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:30 am UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby Iranon » Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:44 am UTC

Not so much score, but I find the comments quite useful for annotating text:

!! Brilliant
! Good
!? Interesting (maybe not entirely solid... but food for though)
?! Dubious (fairly sure that's wrong, but not stupid... may be hard to prove it wrong)
? Bad
?? Blunder
LEGO won't be ready for the average user until it comes pre-assembled, in a single unified theme, and glued together so it doesn't come apart.

iabervon
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:25 am UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby iabervon » Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:58 am UTC

"I'll just leave this here; there's no rush+"

Want me to make a comic of that? (=)

User avatar
Envelope Generator
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:07 am UTC
Location: pareidolia

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby Envelope Generator » Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:38 am UTC

Let's go to my place, it's closer.

0-0
I'm going to step off the LEM now... here we are, Pismo Beach and all the clams we can eat

eSOANEM wrote:If Fonzie's on the order of 100 zeptokelvin, I think he has bigger problems than difracting through doors.

idon'tknow
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:01 pm UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby idon'tknow » Sat Feb 18, 2017 2:03 pm UTC

Proper win-loss notation would be "+1-4=13"

rmsgrey
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby rmsgrey » Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:02 pm UTC

Jorpho wrote:Eh, I am left with the impression that Chess seems to come down to practice and memorization more than anything else.

Cracked suggests that knowing a few quick plays will be enough to impress most people you play against.
http://www.cracked.com/article_20214_5- ... learn.html


When I stopped playing Chess, at my school's Chess Club, I could fairly reliably beat any player who hadn't memorised openings, but lost fairly reliably to players who had memorised openings (actually, there was a range in between where players had memorised the standard line of an opening, but not ways to punish deviations where playing a strange-but-not-obviously-terrible move early reduced them to "non-memorised" status and often let me win after all).

In general, the closer a game is to being "solved", the more top-level play comes down to knowing the solution rather than reading the situation and figuring out what would be a good move.

Most people have at least a weak solve of tictactoe - from the starting position, they know how to play to avoid losing. Some people can also reliably punish any mistakes by their opponent - and there are some who have managed a strong solve of the game - from any possible position, they can get the best possible result. For them, it pretty much is a game of memorisation (with only something like 650 possible distinct board states, it's feasible to draw out the entire game tree)

User avatar
The Chosen One
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:21 am UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby The Chosen One » Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:37 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
Jorpho wrote:It's feasible to draw out the entire game tree


Here's my favorite:
https://xkcd.com/832/
If you ever find yourself asking, "is the answer to the question, "is the answer to the question, "am I the only one?" no?" no?" The answer is still no, but you should probably close all those Logic Puzzles tabs and go to sleep.

User avatar
markfiend
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:59 am UTC
Location: UK (Leeds)

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby markfiend » Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:27 am UTC

<meta>
Most political discussions on the forums probably come out as a 0-0

Actually, most political discussions on the Internet probably come out at 0-0
</meta>
advanced, forthright, signifficant
pronouns: he/him

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby orthogon » Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:43 am UTC

The Chosen One wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
Jorpho wrote:It's feasible to draw out the entire game tree


Here's my favorite:
https://xkcd.com/832/

Yeah, it's cool, but aiui it's not the entire game tree: it just tells you one optimal move to make at each stage. It doesn't show you alternative optimal moves and it doesn't show non-optimal moves.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby Keyman » Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:13 pm UTC

markfiend wrote:<meta>
Most political discussions on the forums probably come out as a 0-0 (?)

Actually, most political discussions on the Internet probably come out at 0-0 (??)
</meta>

FTFY
A childhood spent walking while reading books has prepared me unexpectedly well for today's world.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Feb 21, 2017 1:00 am UTC

orthogon wrote:
The Chosen One wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
Jorpho wrote:It's feasible to draw out the entire game tree


Here's my favorite:
https://xkcd.com/832/

Yeah, it's cool, but aiui it's not the entire game tree: it just tells you one optimal move to make at each stage. It doesn't show you alternative optimal moves and it doesn't show non-optimal moves.

Yeah, there are a bunch of missing board-states (such as .O./.../.X. which is still a drawn game). Also, there are redundancies once you account for symmetry - XO./.../... is not materially different from X../O../...

Oh, and to get it down to 650 nodes, you need to give up on making it a tree (and possibly on making it a planar graph) - otherwise, the fact that a single position can have multiple distinct immediate ancestors means those positions would be duplicated below each possible parent.

alanbbent
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:46 pm UTC

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby alanbbent » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:18 pm UTC

I've never liked the ?'s and !'s added to chess moves. They're just a subjective commentary on the game, and they can be wrong. Unless everyone runs them through Stockfish or something to somewhat qualify them before I see them.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby pogrmman » Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:07 pm UTC

alanbbent wrote:I've never liked the ?'s and !'s added to chess moves. They're just a subjective commentary on the game, and they can be wrong. Unless everyone runs them through Stockfish or something to somewhat qualify them before I see them.


I've only done it in pretty obvious situations -- like the time my opponent did a move that opened him up to a mate in two. It was basically the only move on the board that did that, so it was a clear blunder.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby Diadem » Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:41 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
somitomi wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
Better players actually distrust the "shallow" 20-move lookahead from Stockfish and set their analysis to 30+ move lookaheads. But the computer analysis may take 30+ minutes if you set it to a very high setting. I'm only a ~1500 player anyway, so I'm still making basic mistakes. (hanging pieces, missing simple checkmates, etc. etc.)


I don't even know what the prase "n player" means, but my chess skills pretty much stop at knowing the rules and having heard of the fools mate. Which reminds me of that one time I decided to go play chess at this event called "sports day" at university. I began suspecting this to be a mistake around the time one of the other participants mentioned his Élő rating (or Elo rating), and I had pretty much the same reaction to that as well. Needless to say I was pounded into the dirt four times...


ELO is the numerical number that rates your expected win/loss ratio. 1500 is approaching club level. I probably will consistently lose should I go to my local club, but it'd be "close" games. Club players are ~1600 to 2000 or so. When you sign up for tournaments, knowing the ELO of the players at the tournament can help keep things fun. There's no point matching me against a Grandmaster.

Elo numbers are exponential. Every 400-point differential, Elo assumes 10-to-1 odds of winning. That is, the higher-ranked player is expected to win 10 out of 11 games vs the lower-ranked player.

Beginners are typically around 1000, maybe a bit less. A 1400 player is expected to win 91% of games vs beginners (or 1000-Elo). A 1800 player is expected to win 91% of games against the 1400 player. A 2200 player is expected to in 91% of games vs the 1800 player. A 2600 player is expected to in 91% of games against 2200 players.

So yeah, Beginners are around 1000, Grandmasters are roughly 2400. The best in the world are roughly 2750 or so. The free program "Stockfish" is ranked 3300 Elo, far beyond the 91% chance of winning even against the best human players in the world.

To add to this a bit:

The Elo rating itself is always a relative rating. You could shift the rating of all players in the world by a constant without changing the system. The way the system works is that based on the rating difference between players it estimates an odds. Like KnightExamplar says, a 400 point difference would be 10:1 odds, or 0.909 for the higher rated player and 0.091 for the lower rated one. Then your actual result is compared to that, so if the higher ranked player wins he'd score 0.091 and if he'd lost he'd score -0.909. This is multiplied by a constant (30 for chess) and that's your actual rating chance. So in this example the higher rated player would win 2.7 points or lose 27.3 points. A draw would be -12.3 points.

This means that rating change is always a zero-sum game. The winner (or lower rated player in case of a draw) gains as much as their opponent loses. This creates a stable rating system, where ratings are comparable, and changes in rating should reflect changes in actual skill rather than point inflation / deflation.

The above is the basics. Calculating actual chess ratings is a bit more complicated. Ratings aren't updated real time. All rated matches over a time period are collected and processed at once, with some complicated iteration rules and complicated exceptions for new players.

While chess is the original user of Elo ranking, it's not the only one. Other sports, as well as many, many multiplayer computer games use Elo or an Elo-inspired system to match people of similar skill. Computer games often use an extension that includes a rating-uncertainty too.

One annoying thing about chess ratings is that they are very country-dependent. The international chess federation (FIDE) keeps track of ratings, but every country also runs their own system. No doubt for historic reasons from a time when international communication was still difficult. The FIDE rating only tracks international and important national tournaments, so basically only the stronger chess players, typically from 2000 upwards. So club players won't have a FIDE rating. But national ratings can be wildly inaccurate in some countries. So if someone mentions a chess rating, and it's a FIDE rating, it's probably fairly accurate, but it it's a national rating, then it depends on which country their from. And in the age of internet many internet sites also keep track of ratings, and well, those can be even more inaccurate. I haven't played chess recently, but back when i still played it actively the largest internet site was ICC, and you had to subtract like 300 points of their rating to get an accurate gauge of strength.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
simplydt
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 8:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1800: "Chess Notation"

Postby simplydt » Sun Jun 04, 2017 8:11 am UTC

Excellent comic!!

Made me chuckle hahaha, Someone should make a follow up about arguments that always end up 0-1 in favour of the other party, could be fun :)
I run a chess start-up https://www.chessable.com - I love XKCD due to it's awesome scientific cartoons, I'm a scientist at heart after all!


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests