From: Larry Kaufman <lkaufman <at> COMCAST <dot> NET>
Date: 2 aug 2003
Subject: Re: Beginner's Lessons No.1, Getting Orientated: Perspectives on Shogi and Chess

----- Original Message -----
From: "bogin" <bogin <at> YAHOO <dot> CO <dot> JP>
To: <SHOGI-L <at> TECHUNIX <dot> TECHNION <dot> AC <dot> IL>
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Beginner's Lessons No.1, Getting Orientated: Perspectives on
Shogi and Chess


> I think that since shogi allows us to use captured pieces that mate can
> happen more swiftly and out of the blue then in chess. You don't have an
> long endings of pawn pushing races to see who "queens" first since more
> than likely that not in shogi mate would have already happened or the game
> would have reverted back to a middlegame type posistion. Perhaps that is
> why there are rarely draws in shogi. It is actulally quite hard for a game
> NOT to end with a decisive result.
>
     I attribute the lack of draws in shogi to the ease of promotions, which
in turn is due partly to the drop rule.  Other things being equal, the
player who is further advanced on the board will promote more easily, and
should therefore win with his superior power.  If chess allowed promotion on
the opponent's third rank and outlawed perpetual check, stalemate as a draw,
and agreed draws (as is the case in shogi), I believe that draws would be
only around 10% at grandmaster level, though that's still way above shogi
(about 1% for amateurs, 2% for pros).

> Only a 2 dan is shogi.

    We know from your ShogiDojo rating that would would be at least a 3 Dan,
probably 4, in most clubs.

Never got close enough to get an elo in chess. In
> fact, I just briefly made it to the mid 2000s in the USCF.

     A USCF rating IS an Elo rating; in fact Elo was an American and
designed the system for us first.  You are confusing Elo with FIDE.  But no
matter; at the 2000-2100 level, USCF and FIDE ratings are equivalent, so as
closely as we can compare, you are the same strength in chess and shogi.  I
was wrong.


So, while
> statistically that might imply being above average in both cases, I still
> wouldn't consider that to be very strong.

     Of course, compared to a pro you are very weak in both games, but by
amateur standards you are pretty good, probably in the top 1% of all players
who play the games at least occasionally (certainly that's true for chess in
the U.S., but perhaps not in Russia!).  Strong or weak has no absolute
meaning in these games, it's only relative to some standard.
>
> Bill Gaudry

     Larry Kaufman