From: bogin <bogin <at> YAHOO <dot> CO <dot> JP>
Date: 3 aug 2003
Subject: Re: Beginner's Lessons No.1, Getting Orientated: Perspectives on Shogi and Chess

Interesting comments. I guess it depends upon the the way you approach the
game. The main goal I had for every chess game I ever played was to
checkmate my opponent's king. Of course, as you say, unilateral pawn
promotion into a queen promotion probably would guarantee that, but I never
saw that as the object of the game. for me it was and still is just a way
to reach mate. I know some chess players may evn queen a pawn as a way to
force an opponent to resign. For example, they they have a king and rook
against a lone king, and thus could easily win but they still queen a pawn
to discourage their opponent from playing on. But, I always tried to mate
whenever I had a enough material on the board an only queened pawns when it
was absolutely necessary to win.

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.

Only a 2 dan is shogi. Never got close enough to get an elo in chess. In
fact, I just briefly made it to the mid 2000s in the USCF. So, while
statistically that might imply being above average in both cases, I still
wouldn't consider that to be very strong.

Bill Gaudry

> >
> > And, no I am not a very strong chessplayer. And, I don't really
> believe
> > that I am all that strong at shogi.
> >
>      We know your level in shogi from previous emails to be 3 or 4
> Dan
> amateur by club standards, which is fairly respectible.  I think it
> corresponds to at least 2000 Elo in chess.  My guess is that your
> chess
> ratings (if you ever had one) is lower than this?
>
>    If the ultimate goal of chess was to queen a pawn then all games
> > would end at that point. If the ultimate goal were queening a pawn
> (
> making
> > another queen ) then there would be no option of underpromotion
> would
> > there?
>
>       Underpromotion is rare enough to have almost no effect in
> practical
> play.  Perhaps one game in several hundred requires an underpromotion
> to win
> or draw.
>
> > With respect to tokins, there is a saying that says " attacking
> with a
> > tokin is must faster than it appears." Promoting a pawn in your
> opponent's
> > camp is a huge advantage and often leads to a win. But, promoting a
> pawn
> > doesn't always guarantee a win. I've seen many pro games where the
> one
> > player has promoted a pawn (sometimes even more than one pawn) and
> they've
> > still lost the game. While it is a huge adavantage to have it is
> not a
> 100%
> > gaurantee of victory.
> >
>      Of course if you promote a pawn in shogi while the opponent
> accomplishes nothing you should win.  But if he won a knight, or
> promoted a
> rook, or shattered your castle, etc. etc. the game would be unclear.
> But if
> you promote a pawn in chess and the opponent does not, it is
> extremely
> unlikely that he can have enough compensation to leave the result in
> any
> doubt.
>
> . If every
> > game was won by force then what would be the point of playing.
> Black would
> > win every game since no matter how white responded he would lose.
> There
> > would be a certian move sequence that would win everytime
> regardless of
> how
> > one's opponent defended?
> >
>      Perhaps this is the case; in fact I think many pros believe that
> Black
> should win.  But of course no one knows all the possible variations;
> they
> number in the googols!  So whether or not Black has a forced win in
> shogi
> has no practical significance.
>
> > I know all about come back wins in shogi. I see them all the time.
> It
> > happens all the time among pros. Someone makes a mistake and they
> get a
> bad
> > and sometimes an even losing position but they hang in there and
> make
> > things complicated, and wait for their opponent to make a mistake
> that
> > let's them back into a game. Sometimes their opponent gets
> physically
> > tired, or sometimes they run into time trouble, sometimes they get
> careless
> > and over confident, sometimes they miscalculate and they will lose
> a game
> > that the should have won with best play. So, some players play on
> and hope
> > for the best. But, I think it's pretty unlikely that a top player
> would
> > play on in a game in which they were a rook down without any
> compensation.
> > They would simply assume that their would not blow it?
> >
>      That's right; if the opponent's advantage is large enough to
> give him
> at least a 99% chance of victory (the exact figure depends on the
> personality of the player), the player will normally resign so as not
> to
> insult his opponent and/or depress himself further.
>
> > There are no draws in shogi like there are in chess. However, there
> are
> > instances of jishogi and sennichite. It seems that you assume that
> almost
> > all draws are due to bad moves. That they must be the results of
> multiple
> > mistkes that cancel each other out. But, could it be possible that
> a draw
> > is the result of good play? Both players simply play good moves and
> nobody
> > makes any major mistakes so nobody can get a winning advantage.
>
>     Yes, it is possible that a perfectly played shogi game should end
> in
> sennichite, or in jishogi (I've heard both opinions).  No one knows
> whether
> Black wins or the game is drawn with perfect play (even a White win
> with
> perfect play is possible, though extremely implausible).
>
> Aren't
> > these types of draws more common between very strong masters than
> the
> > mistake-filled draws? I know you are a very strong chess player so
> you
> > probably know more about this than I. Do strong players purposely
> play to
> > the end of dead-drawn positions if they know that with best play
> they
> can't
> > win?
>
>      Generally a draw is agreed if it's 99% certain that it would
> happen
> anyway.  Actually, in chess a draw is often agreed even when the
> result is
> totally unclear, a practice that has come under sharp attack
> recently.
>
> Haven't you ever drawn a game in which you made good moves? A game in
> > which no mistakes were made or at least in which the mistakes were
> small
> > enough to overcome?
> >
>      Of course.
>
> > How is that different from someone who resigns a game in shogi
> because
> they
> > feel they have no hope to win? Sometimes pros games end when one
> pro
> simply
> > felt that he had no hope in winning and resigns because it is
> pointless to
> > play on. Even though his king wasn't under direct attack and mate
> was
> > imminent and he probably could play on for another 10 or so more
> moves, he
> > resigned because he knew he simply couldn't win. Mate was
> inevitable.
> >
>      There is no difference in this respect.
>
> > The ultimate goal of chess is to checkmate your opponent's king.
> Looking
> in
> > any beginners guide or rule book under or how a game is ended and
> I'm
> prety
> > sure that it says something like  "A game is ended when either one
> player
> > is checkmated, resigns or a draw is agreed." I'm pretty sure that
> it
> > doesn't say a game is over when a pawn is queened.
>
>     No it doesn't, but if it did it would make no practical
> difference.
> That is why I agree with the claim that the principle object in chess
> is to
> queen a pawn, with checkmate an alternate goal.  I'm not talking
> about the
> actual rule; I'm talking about what chessplayers try to do in a game.
>  We
> don't even think about what will happen after we queen a pawn
> (normally);
> even an average amateur with one minute remaining on his clock can
> defeat
> Kasparov with an extra queen in a simple ending.  But in shogi there
> is no
> such simple achievement that will guarantee victory, at least not one
> we can
> play for.  We might win the opponent's rook for free if he gives it
> away,
> but in general playing to win a free rook is not a viable game plan.
> But in
> chess promoting a pawn is indeed the principle goal in the majority
> of
> games.
>
> >
> > My analogy may have been a stretch but I simply meant that the
> ultimate
> > goal of shogi is not to promote a rook any more that the ultimate
> goal of
> > chess is to promote a pawn. When you play shogi what do you try to
> do? You
> > try tomate you opponent's king. When you play chess what do you try
> and
> do?
> > You try to mate your opponent's king? Isn't that so?
>
>      Only formally.  In actual practice there are two alternate ways
> to win,
> checkmate or unilateral pawn promotion,  which will end the game
> almost
> always.  You can't say this about promoting a rook in shogi.
>
> >
> > This just may be my way of looking at this so I'd be interested in
> hearing
> > what other people think is the ultimate goal or object of each
> game?
> >
> > Bill Gaudry
> >
>      I enjoy both games, and I'm a chess pro.  But they differ
> greatly in
> their basic nature.
>
>      Larry Kaufman


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! BB is Broadband by Yahoo!
http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/