I just bought myself a handheld chess game, so this info is fascinating. I have yet to win or lose on the thing. It keeps the game as is until I come back for more punishment.
> Finally, one gets up and shouts “Hurry up and move already!”. The
> other blinks a bit and responds “but… I thought it was your move”
That’s not just chess. I’m sure that anyone who’s played very many board games or card games can come up with a dozen similar stories.
As I said, I had a gizmo that would beep after a set amount of seconds. If it was 5 seconds a move, you set it for that. Many years ago I used to play 5 seconds or two seconds (I don’t remember which now) a move, and your opponent would be counting the seconds.
Auntie Social
Basically, what Trunk said. In smaller tourneys, the prize moneys come from the entrants’ fees, but the prizes are not great. In the biggies, the federations sponsor the tournaments to a degree. Sometimes a city will. For example, if the US Open is going to be held, the cities will bid for the site.
A very wealthy Yugoslavian sponsored a Bobby Fischer match about 10 years ago. He paid the prize moneys himself. Since Yugoslavia was on the banned list, Fischer broke the law by going, AFAIK, he is still there.
Here is what Bobby Fischer is doing nowadays.
On a radio show he applauded the actions of the terrorists on 9/11. Check out the link. It’s pretty sad actually.
Indeed. In the 19th century there were no time limits. Slow players could take hours over one move. :eek: (I think this happened in the Morphy - Paulsen match.)
Nope, top class chess demands too much of your time.
barbitu8 has already given the basic picture.
World ranking professionals (very few compared to say golf or tennis) would be millionaires from appearence fees and prize money.
Then there comes a second ‘rank’ of full-time players who travel around playing in tournaments and Leagues. They can supplement their income by coaching or writing (but it’s not very profitable).
Then there are the masters scraping a living (mainly from Eastern Europe). I played a Russian International Master in a Swiss tournament who told me he had come from Russia by car with three friends. They existed on sandwiches and slept in the car. (Rather you than me).
It’s certainly a young man’s game, but Viktor Korchnoi, in his 70’s, would thrash 99% of all chessplayers. (I think he attributes this to caviar!)
There are various forms of quick chess. The main two are:
- 5 minutes each for all your moves
- 10 seconds precisely for each move
The quickest is 1 minute each. Games are poor quality, but it is quicker than table-tennis. 
Shalmanese,
your story certainly is apocryphal!
International players can play blindfold (calling and receiving the moves in chess notation). They wouldn’t have any trouble in memorising a chess position in 10 seconds or less. So who is to move is NOT a problem.
This is the modern digital clock, which is replacing the old ‘two clock’ timer (where the clock simply went forwards - usually 6 o’clock was default time).
Digital clocks have less moving parts, and can be programmed for Fischer time controls (extra time per move, avoiding time scrambles).
puggyfish,
See you at the 4NCL then!
I have played in every division, but only for expenses. (My team has hired Speelman, Short, Adams and Morozevich.)
Corporate sponsors like banks and insurance companies feel that chess suits their image (intelligent? polite?).
Sometimes the board of a company will have a keen player, who recommends chess to the company.
The UK National League (4NCL) is funded by entry fees. A few teams are sponsored, either by companies or individuals, but most simply get the players to pay.
When Terence Chapman (wealthy businessman and strong amateur player) wanted to play Kasparov (at odds of two pawns), he put up the money himself, and it was a close match!
barbitu8,
Federations (including the World organisation) don’t have any money for sponsorship!
The English chess federation lost its main sponsor recently, so the team for the European Championships was very weak (no Adams or Short).
I think the US federation has come close to bankruptcy several times.
World Championship matches have been sponsored by companies or cities, but that isn’t going well at present.
If you have $1,000,000, you can have Kramnik play Leko in your front room
The World Federation (FIDE) has a rich President, who is also President of an (ex-Soviet) country. I don’t know how much more money he will put into the sport.
The “whose move is it anyway?” story I have heard attributed to Paulsen, versus Morphy. It may well be true as, cerebral capacity notwithstanding, chessplayers have perpetrated the odd really hilarious brainfart, including missing a mate on the move (and we’re talking players of the calibre of Nimzovitch and Bogolyubov here). One of my favourites is the unenviable record Fritz Saemisch established in a tournament (I’d need to look it up) - played 13, lost 13, all by exceeding the time limit.
For an interesting variation on “blitz” chess, my lunchroom crowd at my last job would bring in a clock and give both sides five minutes. The player who wins (or doesn’t run out of time during) the five-on-five match has his clock set to four minutes, but the loser retains his five-minute limit. The match proceeds until a player has emerged victorious after starting with two minutes on his own clock (his opponent’s clock is irrelevant). A typical exchange would go like this:
game 1: 5+5 (10 min), player 1 (checkmate!)
game 2: 4+5 (9 min), 1 wins again (time)
game 3: 3+5 (8 min), 2 wins (time)
game 4: 3+4 (7 min), 1 wins (time)
game 5: 2+4 (6 min), 2 wins (checkmate!)
game 6: 2+3 (5 min), 1 wins (time)
first player wins his two-minute game, and the match.
It’s really just a “best of seven games” match, with a twist. You find out how good you are at laying traps and “seeing” the board very quickly.
Etiquette for players using clocks: I’m not sure if the official international tournament rules specifically state this, but in our lunchroom it was considered very bad manners to start/stop the clock with the hand that didn’t move your piece. One should, instead, move a piece with one’s preferred hand, and once it’s placed, reach the same hand to stop the clock (and start the opponent’s turn). One other piece of etiquette we practiced in the lunchroom was that the player who drew the white pawn (to decide first move) deferred to the other player’s choice of which side to place the clock on. A lefty and a righty might agree to place the clock to their mutual satisfaction, but otherwise one player has to reach across the board, costing precious seconds in a blitz match.
Before time limits were established, there was a game played in the 19th C between two grandmasters. It was Black’s turn to move, but after he didn’t move for two days, it was finally discovered that he had died. The usual cigar smoke had hidden the smell.
Getting a little off topic here, but there are a few funny rules Jurph made me think of.
It actually is a chess rule (USCF anyway) that you must hit the clock with the hand that moved the piece. To call a guy on this rule in longer play is kind of “needling”, but its a good habit to be in. I read a story recently about a good Russian blitz player. He claimed one of his secrets was when both of the players are short on time, move whatever piece is closest to the clock. I think he was only half kidding.
Also, in blitz, if a player is put in check and doesn’t move out of it (or block it, or capture) or if he moves himself into check, the game is over. I don’t know how standard this is. In “normal” chess, the other player would get 2 minutes added to his clock. If this happens, its usually in endgame play. Keep in mind that in “real” chess, a player does not say “check” when he puts his opponent in check. Some (overly sensitive people, IMO) consider it rude.
Also, in tournament play, the player with the black pieces chooses equipment (set and board, as long as they’re legal), and which side to place the clock. I’m not sure if gets to decide what side of the table to be on, but I think he does.
I like your 2-minute contest, Jurph.
Saemisch lost all his 13 games in the 1969 Linkoping tournament. He lost every game on time. :eek:
However Colonel Moreau in the 1903 Monte Carlo tournament* achieved 26 losses (yes, you guessed - out of 26 games).
It’s true there has been the odd appalling blunder by grandmasters. But seriously, these guys know whose move it is! And they play with clocks, which show whose turn it is. If it was ever said, it would have been sarcastic (and illegal).
I have now found the likely ‘anecdote’ as follows:
During the Morphy - Paulsen** match (1852, if memory serves), Paulsen took hours over some moves. During one trance, Morphy asked “Why don’t you move?” Paulsen replied “Oh, is it my move?”
N.B. The laws of chess forbid players to distract, worry or annoy their opponent. Asking them to move would therefore be illegal.
And now for some chess…
*Marshall-Moreau, Monte Carlo
- e4 e5
- f4 exf4
- Nf3 g5
- Bc4 g4
- OO gxf3
- Qxf3 Qf6
- e5 Qxe5
- Bxf7+ Kd8
- d4 Qxd4+
- Kh1 Bh6
- Bd2 Qg7
- Bb3 Nc6
- Bc3 Ne5
- Qd5 d6
- Rd1 Bd7
- Ba4 Bc6
- Bxc6 bxc6
- Qxe5 Qg4
- Na3 Kd7
- Nc4 f3
Marshall announced mate in 11:
- Rxd6+ cxd6
- Qxd6+ Kc8
- Qxc6+ Kd8
- Rd1+ Ke7
- Qd6+ Ke8
- Re1+ Kf7
- Ne5+ Ke8
- Ng6+ Be3
- Rxe3+ Qe6
- Qxe6+ Kd8
- Ba5 mate
**if you want a Morphy-Paulsen game, just ask!
Cite?
I just wonder how they stayed awake, yet didn’t eat, drink or go to the toilet.
It’s illegal to be sarcastic in chess?
It is a FIDE (international chess federation) rule.
In international chess you would draw the arbiter’s attention to a player ignoring it. If it was a time scramble, there is usually an arbiter watching anyway.
Yes, some players claim that making short moves (in length) on the side of the board nearest the clock helps. I suspect that good moves are more important!
In blitz chess, the players agree whether to play ‘clock press’ or not. With ‘clock press’ any illegal move (not just check) loses, only once the clock is pressed.
The arbiter uses his judgement (see 6.14 below) after an illegal move.
It’s normally in a time scramble (one or both players have to make a lot of moves quickly to reach the time limit), not in an ending.
I once said check to a grandmaster. :eek: After the game, he pointed out that only beginners need to be reminded. Nobody says check in international chess.
Only in the US do players bring their own sets!
Everywhere else the arbiter sets the room out, with the clocks all facing the same way, so the arbiter can watch more than one game at once. It is merely customary to put the clock on black’s right.
Laws of chess refer:
6.4 Before the start of the game the arbiter decides where the chess clock is placed.
6.8 b A player must stop his clock with the same hand as that with which he made his move.
6.14 If an irregularity occurs and/or the pieces have to be restored to a previous position, the arbiter shall use his best judgement to determine the times to be shown on the clocks.
12.5 It is forbidden to distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.
13.3 The arbiter shall observe the games, especially when the players are short of time,
It’s certainly against the Straight Dope rules to post sarcastically and not include a rolleye smiley - look it up!
:rolleyes:
Well, glee, I wasn’t being sarcastic. I was asking an earnest question.
You said –
I assumed that you meant that it was illegal because it was sarcastic. The only other meaning I could make out was that it was illegal to be mistaken about whose turn it was to play.
That post was so obviously facetious I thought a smiley was unnecessary. I think one doesn’t use smileys in obviously non-serious lines. Look it up.
:rolleyes: **
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I really thought you were being sarcastic. :eek:
As posted above, it is forbidden to distract the opponent in any way. This includes talking to them, unless you are offering a draw. Even saying check (in international chess) is considered rude.
So if Morphy really did say something to Paulsen, it would have been illegal.
(Since Morphy was obviously grandmaster strength, he would certainly know whose move it was, so he would also have been sarcastic.)
Thanks, glee.
You know, this discussion is reminding me why I quit playing chess. It’s supposed to be a game, isn’t it? As soon as someone brought a time clock into our high school chess club it stopped being fun. All these formalities give it the atmosphere of a funeral. No wonder Bobby Fischer lost his marbles.
There is an Indian saying: “Chess is a sea in which a gnat may drink and an elephant may bathe.”
Chess is a game.
A game is a friendly contest, usually not very serious.
I teach pupils the moves of chess at my school (and they benefit by developing their concentration, memory and self-discipline).
I tell them that they don’t have to play touch-move at first (but if they improve, they certainly should), and that they should say check.
They have fun (and make blunders!).
Chess is a sport.
A sport is a serious contest, usually involving training and preparation. There is a referee and spectators watch.
I play in the UK National League. Each game takes up to 7 hours. Each game is under the supervision of an arbiter, is recorded and then posted on the Internet.
All these games (and millions of others) are stored on databases and can be analysed.
Most of the top players will spend an hour or so before the game, studying recent games of their opponents.
Chess is a career.
A career demands dedication, self-improvement and takes up a lot of time. A career is not a game.
(I have the best job in the World - I teach chess at a school full-time. )
Gary Kasparov, who has visited my school, is the strongest player in the World. He stays there by exhaustive training and analysis. He is in constant demand for tournaments, matches and exhibitions. He is a contributing editor to the Wall Street Journal, a fluent lecturer in English and is obviously highly intelligent and charismatic.
My point is that chess has many levels.
Any kid can run a race for fun (and they don’t need a starter).
Any adult can run a race competitively.
But to reach an Olympic final requires massive effort.
So if you want to play chess at a decent level, you do need the formality of a chess clock and an arbiter.
(Even in friendly chess, playing touch-move avoids distracting your opponent.)
And I’m sorry for Bobby Fischer, but most players benefit from playing chess.
Fischer had problems growing up, perhaps didn’t get good advice and is obviously immature and naive (and obnoxious) outside the world of chess.
Have you ever played Bridge? A nice sociable game, but play in any formal setting, a tournament, or whatnot, you get your ass chewed out by your partner if you err. You play a chessgame and you and your partner may rehash it when it’s over, point out errors, etc. in a friendly way. But in a Bridge game…
your partner points out where you went wrong (in his opinion - and his opinion may be wrong) in a very stern manner.
The statement about the chess player who died reminds me of another true (
) story at work many years ago when I worked in Chgo. There was a back room, out of the view of the public (God forbid the public should ever see the sorry folks who toiled away back there), where title examiners, with their green visers on, burned the midnight oil examing titles to real estates. One examiner hadn’t cashed any paycheck for a month, so the President of the company came down from his Ivory Tower (on the top floor, closest to God he can get) to see why he hadn’t cashed any recent checks, and also to commend him for his increased productivity. It was then discovered that he had been dead for a month! (He never bathed anyway.)