3-move drawing program?

[Ingo_Zachos]

Does any of the reader of this forum know a software solution to replace the 3-move card deck?

It would be best to make pairings and draw the openings in one program, but I know no pairing software that can draw a 3-move opening.
But maybe there is a small program that can draw an opening to pairings made in other programs?

I know CheckerBoard can choose a random 3-move opening, but is there any program that can make it for say 10-20 pairings in one round in one step?

That would reduce the time effort and reduces the noise that those pairings have to suffer that already have drawn an opening, while more then half of the other players are still chatting before their games. Plus it would be possible to avoid certain setbacks of the card decks, like giving the same opening to one player two or three times in the same tournament. My dream would be to also monitor if the difficulty of all openings for all players within one tournament, summarized over the rounds. This individual difficulty could be leveled, as the card deck and a pairing by drawing lots from a box does not do the job. Some players get 7 GAYP openings in 9 rounds, while others get 8 from the hard deck, which makes current 3-move event look like a lottery with a good chance of a manipulated drawing device.

Many thx in advance,

Ingo Zachos

[liam stephens]

The draw(of an opening) should be completely random.
It is your proposal that would result in a "manipulated drawing device".

Also, the random redrawing of the same opening is quite acceptable in Tournaments. It is only in Match Play that no repetition is allowed.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Ingo, in general it is not a bad idea if it doesn't make new procedure more complicated and confusing than existing one. Today it take 0.5-1.0 minutes to draw opening from cards.

[JohnAcker]

http://nccheckers.org/ has an opening generator on the front page. But I agree with Alex on this: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[MostFamousDane]

http://nccheckers.org/ has an opening generator on the front page. But I agree with Alex on this: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I have another motto "don't live with broken windows"

[JohnAcker]

And what is "broken" about the current system of drawing 3-move openings? Has the entire Master Division managed to stack the deck such that poor saps like us always end up with unfamiliar openings while they always get easy lines? Perhaps we should just skip the deck altogether and mandate that everyone play the same game. I hear the Glasgow is nice.

[MostFamousDane]

Well I wasn't really disagreeing with the drawing of the 3-move openings but with the motto itself!

The motto is usually used to justify not fixing thing that are in fact broken - the thing is that there is always room for improvement whether Ingo's ideas are an improvement is another matter that I will have to think more about. It is very clear to me that the current 3-move system is VERY broken. For instance the acceptance of the new openings is completely beyond me - you guys must REALLY have been smoking some killer weed when that was decided.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

when that was decided.

And it was decided many, many decades ago when our fathers setup this system. Walter Hellman quoted:

"All sound openings must be played !".

Golden words and concept which is still active today.

What happened if we start building deck based on our own personal preferences ? Some people like crazy openings, other like even openings, some like balanced openings, also the scope can be taken in consideration. And even more worse: the same opening can be boring for one player and advantage-some for another.

Walter Hellman principle (which was supported and highly favored by Marion Tinsley) is neutral to everything and everyone.

Good luck to people who see broken windows at all corners

Also good luck to people who always want to change something ... no matter what, why and how ... just change

[JohnAcker]

Well, I do not particularly enjoy playing the weak side of the new openings, either. But as long as both sides are played, and as long as the openings can be proven to draw before going in the deck, then there's no grounds to call the system unfair.

Even more annoying, though, is when I play a game and my opponent makes better moves than I do! The ACF should really do something about that.

[Ingo_Zachos]

Dear checker friends,

the discussion is deviating from my main question if there is any sotware solution to replace the manual drawing by cards with a software solution like pairing programs replaced the manual pairing, and reduced then time needed to make the pairings.

To "increase" the quality of the drawing process in only secondary. At first I need a program that can draw openings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Alex: the procedure takes 1 minute each pairing. With almost 25 pairings each round it took more then a quarter of an hour in Beijing, which the last boards started later then the first boards, just in case u did not realize it, even with multiple referees. But maybe you did not realized it, as you always played on a top board.

I intend to draw it with the PC, print it and thus allow the players to start them immediately and simultaneously.

2. The card deck produces a random opening in an individual game, but they lead to different opening diffulties of individuals over the tournament , which are in no way random, but system immanent, thus violating the ideal of equal chances to each player.
I am not intending to replace the fairness of the draw, but I want to make it fair even over the whole tournament, which it is not at the moment.
You have to remember that it was created, when even the tournaments were KO or double KO events, in which case the opening ballot only needed to be random over the single game /ballot, in order to create equal chances for each player, but in Swiss System it needs to be random over the whole event, something the card deck was not designed for.

3. I am not intenting to lead a debate on the new opening or any opening or on the use of 3-move. No matter how many and which openings we draw, we:

A) need a software solution to spare time and modernize the process, maybe do the pairings and opening draw in the same program, or to have them made before the round starts at the same time for each player.
B) may fix or reduce the problem of unequal opening difficulties of individual players over all rounds, not just in single encounters, as 1929 is not 2012, and we need to see that the alllocation of opening difficulty over the whole event for each player should be equal or at least minimized as much as possible, not just minimized in an individual game/pairing.
In Beijing, for insatnce, the winner would have been the same in such a system, as Alex was too dominant, but ranks 2-10 and lower could have been entirely different, and were influenced by the fact that not all players had equal opening difficulties.

4. Thx John, for the opening generator. Something like that, but with more then one opening each time, say for all 25 pairings of one round simultaneously.

Greetinx from Dortmund at night,

Ingo Zachos

[Dennis Cayton]

For instance the acceptance of the new openings is completely beyond me - you guys must REALLY have been smoking some killer weed when that was decided.

Greetings Sune:

During the early 1990s, I had a vision.

That vision was to launch an exploratory campaign to get some of the "barred openings" approved for all 3-move matches and tournaments sanctioned by the ACF.

There was little or no active interest in these openings when my campaign began.

It was as if these openings were long forgotten and forever discarded into the dust bin of history.

First, I started the U.S.S. Starship Checkerprise Mail Play Ladder, in which only the "barred openings" could be played.

Next, I conducted the Star Wars Mail Play Tournamensts, which were also restricted to the "barred openings."

I wrote a series of articles in the Keystone Checker Review (KCR) on behalf of these openings.

Finally, I wrote A Compilation Of The Barred Openings (1997).

As a result of these efforts, interest in these openings was reawakened from a deep sleep and began to escalate worldwide.

Many great analysts and players, whose skills far surpassed my own, jumped on the bandwagon and spent many long hours studying these openings.

I then passed the torch to these great analysts and players, who carried on with my vision and campaign.

The rest is history.

Some of these openings were finally approved.

Let me assure you that I was not smoking any kind of "weed" during this time.

To return to the main topic, I also see nothing "broken" about the use of the physical 3-move deck.

Best Wishes,

Dennis Cayton

[JohnAcker]

I was not at Beijing, so I can't speak to how the tournament was run there. But in all the 3-move tournaments I've played under ACF auspices, even fairly large groups had drawn their openings and started play within 5-10 minutes of the first game starting.

Personally, I would rather draw an opening myself than rely on the tournament director or the pairing software. At least then I know who to blame when I get the Octopus!

[MostFamousDane]

And it was decided many, many decades ago when our fathers setup this system.

No it wasn't - there was an original 3-move deck and you guys decided to expand that deck - you CHANGED something which makes it double funny and completely absurd to use an anti argument like "if it aint broken don't fix it"

Good luck to people who see broken windows at all corners

Well if you are familiar with the expression it came from a study that showed that if you broke a window in a building and didn't fix it the likelyhood of cars parked nearby getting stolen increased dramatically. It is used quite a lot in software development where a similar effect can be observed if you introduce hacks in a system and don't remove them again then the system quickly starts to degenerate to a point where the system becomes unstable and unusable. What you should have said was good luck to people who ignores the broken windows!

[JohnAcker]

You're wrong, Sune. When the deck was formalized, the grandmasters of the day recognized that it could be expanded if certain openings were found to be sound. In fact, many of those players devoted much analysis to try and debunk certain uneven openings. Nothing fundamental has changed about the nature of the deck; the "new" openings just continue a pattern of revision that's been going on since the 1940s.

[MostFamousDane]