Chess Whatever

[ER]

As a sequence to the above a relevant discussion started in another forum.
I think it's more appropriate and relevant to transfer it here

ok in a tournament game, White wants to give Black Queen odds. The arbiter and digital board won't have any bar of it, So, the players start a series of (legal) moves to reach the following position with White to play! (actually as GM David Smerdon pointed out, it is mathematically impossible to be Black's move in this position) Your go!

Attachment 3947

I will not post Capa-Fan's correct solution since other people might have a go - it's quite simple actually

I also transfer part of the discussion

No need to say "with white to move", Elliot - it's mathematically impossible to get this position with black to move!

!!! thanks David, rephrased!

and

Could a simple way of proving this be that it is impossible to get the Knight (s) back to the initial position in an odd number of moves, thus eliminating triangulation chances?

[Kevin Bonham]

Could a simple way of proving this be that it is impossible to get the Knight (s) back to the initial position in an odd number of moves, thus eliminating triangulation chances?

Comment on proof in white text below:

The simplest proof method is actually a form of parity argument (the properties of odd and even numbers). The only pieces that can have moved are knights and possibly rooks and perhaps the white king. However, every knight move changes the colour of the square of the knight, and every rook or white king move possible in the reconstruction does likewise for the rook or white king. This means that every white move changes the number of white knights/roooks/king that are on white squares by 1, and every black move does likewise for black. Since the number of each side's knights/rooks that are on white squares is the same as at the start, the number of half-moves by each side must have been even, therefore each side has made the same number of half-moves, therefore it is white to move.

[ER]

Comment on proof in white text below:

Great, thanks! the possible involvement of other pieces apart from the knights is a factor that I didn't even contemplate about!!!

[ER]

The following exchange took place in the SIO thread

Attachment 4088

Then today I see this.

antichrist 5.PNG

All I have "pledged" is to be there pending on the announcement of a specific Byron Bay Easter tournament and definitely NOT "a Byron Bay tournament".

In all fairness, I think it rings a bell that I 've promised to contribute to an Easter tournament, organized at Byron by A/C
at some stage. However, I frankly cannot recall when and in which thread. If evidence of this can be produced I will do as have promised if I have.

[ER]

the arbiter can't win whatever he does.

In most cases they take the money though, I understand you're a volunteer so it doesn't apply to you.

Also, in most cases arbiters make more money than the tournament wins of the majority of average strength (or even stronger) club players

On the other hand, there're work related losses involved.

A top Australian arbiter had their laptop stolen while directing play during a prestigious tournament in a prestigious chess club.

I think the equipment was neither found/returned nor they ever got compensation for the loss!

BTW I think of initiating an Arbiters, their duties and payments thread.

That would include amongst other things:

Is the concept becoming a close circle - amongst a pre-chosen few?

Are the same arbiters, DOBs, official assistants etc running major tournaments year after year?

Is it really worth enrolling for Arbiter seminar / courses when you know a priori that you don't stand a chance for a "job"?

(On the other hand and of what I have heard it's a wonderful experience and you learn a lot about chess by following the seminars)

I am giving the whole idea a miss for the time being though, too busy with other commitments.

[Patrick Byrom]

In most cases they take the money though, I understand you're a volunteer so it doesn't apply to you.

I get paid, although my duties at the Brisbane Club involve more than just being the arbiter. But my decisions aren't being scrutinised on Chess Chat, of course.

Also, in most cases arbiters make more money than the tournament wins of the majority of average strength (or even stronger) club players

True, although they also work longer hours. No quick wins for them. And they can be stuck at the venue supervising one game long after everyone else has left.

[antichrist]

I get paid, although my duties at the Brisbane Club involve more than just being the arbiter. But my decisions aren't being scrutinised on Chess Chat, of course.

True, although they also work longer hours. No quick wins for them. And they can be stuck at the venue supervising one game long after everyone else has left.

The old analogue clock with guillotine flagfall soon fixes that problem.

[Patrick Byrom]

The old analogue clock with guillotine flagfall soon fixes that problem.

While creating others! Arbitering has been a lot less stressful since Fischer time-controls became standard.

[ER]

I get paid, although my duties at the Brisbane Club involve more than just being the arbiter.

True that!

But my decisions aren't being scrutinised on Chess Chat, of course.

We 'll see to that!

True, although they also work longer hours. No quick wins for them. And they can be stuck at the venue supervising one game long after everyone else has left.

I presume the era of postponing games with resumption at later times would have added extra duties and working hours.

[MichaelBaron]

In most cases they take the money though, I understand you're a volunteer so it doesn't apply to you.

Also, in most cases arbiters make more money than the tournament wins of the majority of average strength (or even stronger) club players

On the other hand, there're work related losses involved.

A top Australian arbiter had their laptop stolen while directing play during a prestigious tournament in a prestigious chess club.

I think the equipment was neither found/returned nor they ever got compensation for the loss!

BTW I think of initiating an Arbiters, their duties and payments thread.

That would include amongst other things:

Is the concept becoming a close circle - amongst a pre-chosen few?

Are the same arbiters, DOBs, official assistants etc running major tournaments year after year?

Is it really worth enrolling for Arbiter seminar / courses when you know a priori that you don't stand a chance for a "job"?

(On the other hand and of what I have heard it's a wonderful experience and you learn a lot about chess by following the seminars)

I am giving the whole idea a miss for the time being though, too busy with other commitments.

MCC Allegro's all arbiters are volunteers who are unpaid...so obviously we play in the tournament ourselves .
2) Re Pay for arbiters (actually, would be a good thread indeed) I doubt many/any are doing it for the money - rather for the love of chess/being part of the chess scene. Pay for being an arbiter is significantly less than pay for ANY and most arbiters that I know of are NOT unemployed and in need of such small amounts of money to supplement their income.

[Adamski]

I get paid, although my duties at the Brisbane Club involve more than just being the arbiter. But my decisions aren't being scrutinised on Chess Chat, of course.

True, although they also work longer hours. No quick wins for them. And they can be stuck at the venue supervising one game long after everyone else has left.

For the record I have never been paid for any arbiting or related duties at Rooty Hill RSL CC (or elsewhere) and don't expect to be. Most chess club work is voluntary.

[antichrist]

For the record I have never been paid for any arbiting or related duties at Rooty Hill RSL CC (or elsewhere) and don't expect to be. Most chess club work is voluntary.

I love volunteering but only when everyone pitches in, some they refuse positions but are happily to see others overloaded with work and responsibilities. That's when I rebel.

[Patrick Byrom]

From Chessexpress: "So if you had the choice, instead of the traditional arrangement of pieces, what would you spend your 39 points on? All Queens? All Smalls? or something in between?"

Can I have a Queen on a2 and a Queen on f2, please - I would be unbeatable as White against the conventional arrangement!

[antichrist]

From Chessexpress: "So if you had the choice, instead of the traditional arrangement of pieces, what would you spend your 39 points on? All Queens? All Smalls? or something in between?"

Can I have a Queen on a2 and a Queen on f2, please - I would be unbeatable as White against the conventional arrangement!

But how would your queens go against a sack full of knights? If 3+ knights to a queen I would love to see that. I presume it could be set up in a computer.

[Kevin Bonham]

But how would your queens go against a sack full of knights? If 3+ knights to a queen I would love to see that. I presume it could be set up in a computer.

I set up a position with K+2Q vs K+6N (each side in one corner) and let Stockfish play against itself at 10 secs/move. Before too long white gave up one queen for two knights and reached this position (white to move)

FEN Viewer

...which is actually a tablebase win for the four knights, although it takes them more than 50 moves. And apparently the four knights win in nearly 40% of random positions.

K+Q vs K+3N is generally a draw (you just sac the queen for one of them and it's drawn), but K+2Q vs K+6N might not be.