Talk:Progressive chess

Old talk
The last paragraph states that black holds a decisive advantage by being allowed more plys at the end of each move. As it looks to me, that's plain wrong, since by the same token, white is allowed more plys at the end of his own move just the same. It's probably true that the game is a certain win for one side, but the given explanation is faulty in my opinion. If I'm not completely wrong here, the mentioned paragraph should be taken out. Thanks for your attention, and apologies if I'm wrong. Desaran.

Traditionally, the first move of the game goes to white with chess (and variants). With a variable number of individual moves made per player, the term "inning" is introduced for clarity (in the usual sense as with baseball).

Inning #1

W-1 move (ratio 1:0)

B-2 moves (ratio 1:2)

Black had 1 more move than white.

Inning #2

W-3 moves (ratio 4:2)

B-4 moves (ratio 4:6)

Black had 2 more moves than white.

Inning #3

W-5 moves (ratio 9:6)

B-6 moves (ratio 9:12)

Black had 3 more moves than white.

And so forth ...

Although a slight advantage is attributable to white by having the first move of the game, a decisive, grossly-large advantage exists for black where counted correctly at the end of each inning. Furthermore, the advantage only grows larger by 1 move with every inning that white survives.

Although a lot can be said for the ingenuity of white when this player somehow manages to win, this game is fundamentally unfair and unstable, notwithstanding. Black MUST make a serious error to lose. This is mathematically evident. So, there is actually nothing to argue about. If people enjoy playing the game anyway, so be it (I guess).

BadSanta


 * You are making the (incorrect) assumption that a game will last to the end of an "inning". The fact is that at the end of a White turn White will have made more moves than Black, just as at the end of a Black turn Black will have made more moves than White. If White checkmates Black, then the fact that Black would have got more moves if he had lived to make them is neither here nor there.


 * Above you've laid out the advantage that Black has after each of his turns. Let me lay out the advantage White has after each of his: after White's first move, he has made one more move than Black; after his second, the advantage is two moves (because he has made four moves to Black's two); after the third it is three moves (nine moves to Black's six); after the fourth it is four... and so on. These are just the same differences as Black has. I don't see how we can conclude either player has a "decisive" advantage.


 * I have removed the last paragraph from the article. If somebody can give a reputable source that states progressive chess gives a decisive advantage to Black (or to White for that matter), then lets quote them as saying so. But by no means is it "mathematically evident" that this is the case. --Camembert

Incidentally, take a look at from Doug Hyatt's website linked from the article: "The question theory seeks to answer is the following: Is progressive chess a win for white or is it a draw?" And a bit further down: "Both e4 and d4 are very strong moves. Both moves may very well win for white." Doesn't sound like Black has a decisive advantage to me... --Camembert


 * Upon reading your well-structured remarks, I realized I was dead wrong. Sorry, I have been playing games in The Symmetrical Chess Collection too much lately.  Within chess variants of this type, the game cannot end until both players have taken an equal number of turns.  The sudden death nature of progressive chess renders my assumptions faulty (and the calculations based upon that foundation misapplied).  Thanks for your vigilance.  The article belongs exactly as you have made it.  BadSanta