Yuvraj Singh Dot Chess!

India vs Australia, 3rd ODI 2009, New Delhi
Indian lead 2-1

The Kotla Pitch in New Delhi, as usual, was slow and low with an uneven bounce. Ponting won the toss and batted first. He mentioned 225 as a par score and it turned out that it was a fair call, as India had to work hard to get there.

In a surprise move Ponting opened and put momentum on the board. He was perhaps right in opening, as this was a pitch where players could occupy but get stuck. So coming at number 3 could mean that valuable new ball overs - when the ball came on better- could have been lost. As it turned out Watson was stuck, and only got going after 10 overs. Unfortunately, Australia and Ponting himself could not push ahead in the middle overs, when Dhoni used Jadeja, Yuvraj, Raina as part time bowlers to compliment Harbhajan.

Hussey was perhaps apt for such a pitch, as he works the ball straighter and in front of square, and had the patience this pitch demanded. He struck some big shots towards the end, and to finish with a run-a-ball eighty- was way above par from both sides.

India were set a total of 230 in 50 overs.

Sehwag and Tendulkar opened and you could tell how sticky the wicket was- Sehwag made 11 of 25 balls. Keeping the ball straight always pays big rewards on slow-low pitches (ask Anil Kumble about Kotla). Aussie bowlers were willing to bang it a bit short (cannot drive/loft), but on account of the low and unpredictable bounce, playing across the line was risky.

Tendulkar scored with ease, with wristy shots on the leg side from the straight balls. Sehwag finally tried to whack a short Johnson ball, across the line but was bowled. Tendulkar was run out pushing to mid-on and running around the bowler. Gambhir tried to work Hauritz against the turn and was bowled too.

It must be said that both Ponting and Tendulkar set the tone for both the innings by providing momentum up front on a pitch which would not. If either team failed to score in the opening overs, the innings would really fall flat, when wickets fell.

At 60/3, India were in a spot of bother, but the asking rate was within control. Indian needed a 50 each from Yuvraj and Dhoni. They did better than that. But how they did it was indeed worth inspecting, especially with Yuvraj Singh not being expected to work the ball and wait.

Yuvraj and Dhoni made sure they do not play a single forcing shot across the line (avoiding the mistakes of Sehwag and Gambhir). Aussies kept it striaght and occasionally hitting the rough (the pitch was merely a spindle shaped patch). The key was that Australian bowling lacked the spinners and if they could not get wickets, even 3 runs an over from India would keep them within striking distance. Credit to Yuvraj for holding back his flair (natural game). But eventually when Australia had to take wickets, the bowlers pitched it up- which Yuvraj made the most off, with big lofted shots.

This was a classic case of tactics flowing from a good position! (par strike rate, no more wickets lost, forcing bowlers to get you... then unleash lofted shots).

This is a determined Indian side, willing to work to get into positions from which you can play your natural game.

@saumilzx
Mumbai India

Aussies get Tendulkar by One Shot Bowling!

The last time Tendulkar played Australia in a big series, was in the CB Series, Australia 2008, where India won 2-0 in the finals. Tendulkar scored a hundreds and a ninety in both the games.

Today, after Australia posted 292, they knew that a run-a-ball effort, which Tendulkar is perhaps the only player in world cricket to achieve without risk taking would dent their chances.

After quite some time, Tendulkar has faced some one-shot bowling (as in my book- when a bowler bowls balls which pretty much have only one natural reply, and they only keep bowling that way). In this case, the balls were innocuous in themselves as they were bowled wide of off stump, at a good length or fuller. This means that the natural shots are through cover/extra cover. So the slips were off with more fielders in front on offside (sounds strange? but this is a recognition of the fact that Aussies wanted to control the strike rate and then get wickets indirectly).

Tendulkar in such a case (chasing run-a-ball), would normally have to try to fabricate something different to meet this strike rate. He did work one on the on side and drove one very straight, to a ball wide of off stump. There was a brilliant dive to stop a square cut at point. But he was well prepared to wait, as the method for chasing 300 in ODIs has now got a clear direction these days (see my earlier post on The Probabilities of Chasing 300 in ODIs in T20 era http://bit.ly/IQ2zn ) and moreover, Austrlian bowling still relies heavily on seam, and there will be runs in the middle and towards the end.

They eventually got him this time, after missing out similarly during the CB Series 2008, though it was not quite one shot bowling then. (http://bit.ly/1bdzR2 ).

Whether they persist with such an approach again is to be seen, because the days when Tendulkar was the only main wicket (he still is the main wicket) are hopefully gone. Not trying to get a batsman out or giving him singles is fine when others may not produce the strike rate. Michael Bevan in the commentary box has already questioned/hinted if this is a good idea.

For this Australian bowling attack to last another 5-6 ODIs in India is going to be a test for sure. Hauritz is a good spinner, but again, when Indian openers click in, or India bat first, he will be tested. Not giving Australians an early wicket, with even a moderate strike rate can well be India's approach, especially if they prop their spin department in the middle overs (Yuvraj likely to return soon?). India may have to play an extra spinner in place of a seamer?

@saumilzx
Oct 25, 2009

The Probability of chasing 300 runs in ODIs, in a T20 era

Australia vs India 1-0,
1st ODI 2009 (7 match series)

Australia managed to put up a very strong 292 after batting first in Vadodara on a slowish surface. India dropped chances from Ponting and then Hussey made the most of their second batting powerplay towards the end of the innings.

Chasing about 300 runs in an ODI has never been easy. The bowling side knows that they have margins favoring them, and can implement plans accordingly. Also, batting sides know that they pretty much have to be on the button from word go. Anything close to 300, demands that batting sides have to be run-a-ball or better to keep the chase within control. But trying to maintain such a strike rate, usually leads to wickets at regular intervals or in a bunch, if some players cannot get going.

Today's game highlighted how things are changing in the way batting side approach their chase of large totals.To begin with let us just see how cricket is different in an era of T20.

Teams typically chase 140-150 runs (are expected to) in 20 overs.So in an ODI, if 140-150 runs remain at the 30 over mark, it seems fair for the batting side, provided they have have not lost any wicket (ideally), and have one powerplay intact. This was the case today, but sort of, since India had lost two wickets. Even if a wicket or two has fallen, it is still fairly probable, since the batsmen are set when 20 overs are left, unlike in a T20, where no batter is ever 'set'.

So the T20 impact has been that teams can consider a 20-30 run deficit (balls minus runs remaining) as a run-a-ball plus 3 or 4 big shots. Again, today, Harbhajan and Praveen Kumar almost pulled off the win, with some crazy hitting of some poor bowling by the Aussies towards the end.

But India's approach by the batters indicated that chasing close to 300 can now be planned in two phases- one of not losing wickets at a reasonable strike rate (150 runs in 30 overs) and then playing it like a T20, with a powerplay in hand.

This almost worked, even if you ignore that the tail-enders were never accounted to score like this. The second power play where Gambhir, Raina and Dhoni got out was the difference. Which again means that treating the second phase as a T20 is not that similar, because bowlers are also well set!

The probability of chasing 300 runs in ODIs is still going to favor the side which batted first (since holding wickets in the first 30 overs is not a given), but clearly there seems to be a method for it, even on slowish wickets like Vadordara today. More importantly, for spectators, such games will not be seen as clearly one-sided.

@saumilzx
25 Oct 2009

Credit Rating for Sportspersons

Posted in context of a Wall Street Journal Article suggesting removal of Women's Titles in Chess and reigning World Women's Champion Alexandra Kosteniuk's strong response against it.

Here is an excerpt of my Preface from Dot Chess-The Cricket in Between (2007)- where this topic is touched upon.

I have always wished for a credit rating system in every sport which allows us to recognize contributions of players who may not be in the top 10 or in the 'medals' category in an event such as the Olympics.

For instance, athletes who 'finished' 5th or 10th in a world event, must not to be seen as those who failed their nation, because not many professionals can ever brag to be in the top 10 or 100 or even 1000 in the world of their specific field. Yet such professionals- doctors, engineers etc- get their due credit in society because their jobs are more 'necessary'. They can save lives or improve living conditions. Sure, I agree being an engineer myself.

But in my view, deeper down we make our lives worth living because we (should) pursue our interests in our free time- which is typically about sports, art, travel etc. So in effect the quality of our free time depends on the quality of the sportspersons and other creative persons. If we fail to credit sportspersons, then most of them have to quit and do routine jobs which many others might do just as well (as Alexandra has pointed out about women players quitting earlier than men).

Legendary Hockey Player Dhyan Chand- and leader of an invincible Indian hockey team during 1930's-40's adviced his son not to play the sport, as he would end up starving. Sports, Chess, and Art in India and elsewhere are filled with such stories- which might make for a great movie but do little for the well being of the discipline.

This debate- whether women's events and norms must be any different from men's in chess, (since it is an intellectual sport), are best answered by Alexandra- who is a women's world champion. There only about 20 women in the top 1000 FIDE rated players. She explains that performance of women in chess is yet to reach standards of men- for various historic/social reasons but most of all people fail to gauge that to concentrate for 3 weeks during an international event, is physically demanding- where men hold the advantage like in most other sports. I guess her viewpoint matters, as she has been through the process and hurdles beyond chess.

Now coming to the credit rating of sportspersons. I can tell you that chess is in fact, is ahead of other sports and society as well. You can be IM or GM or (WGM/WIM) if you are indeed advanced in chess. This gives fans a way to recognize that even to be in a top list of 1000 in the world takes unbelievable effort and sacrifices. Such credits are missing in other sports, where players have made similar sacrifices in their youth but may yet be in the top 100 or lesser.

Next is the gender based issue. If there is a norm few notches lower for women, no problem, the title attributed is also not the same. So there are no qualitative concessions as such- you get a WGM instead of GM. But there is an acknowledgement about the fact that it is a bit more demanding for women to participate and progress- so crediting effort at an intermediary level - which still is like an ivy league achievement, mind you- which make sense.

In fact, in society, the variations of degrees such as PhD or Masters are far far greater. Graduating from Harvard or from another average institution leads to the same title such as MS or Dr. This is a lot more inconsistent than chess, as you cannot get the same title in chess with different effort.

So rather than reduce norms in chess, we need to see how we can learn and apply it to other disciplines. As a chess enthusiast I can easily understand that a WGM also took years of sacrifice and that it is not some diluted attribution. It will be a privilege to ask questions and get tips from a WGM or WIM (I do not think that Alexandra's twitter followers undermine her tips or podcasts, saying 'it is only women's world champ').

It is easy to write about sports. Figuring out what it takes to be in a list of 1000 who have contributed for decades, is another matter.

Saumil
Mumbai
18 Oct 2009

Ebooks vs Printed Books (or no reading at all?)

5 points that ebook gadgets will need to address to be viable alternatives to print.

A blog debate at nytimes about whether our brains like ebooks, has some excellent views across the history of reading, and if humans were meant to read at all.

For instance, Plato disliked reading because it was apparently a 'new' distractive medium. Incidentally, I just bought an audiobook of Plato's Republic (itunes for $1.99). This is great, as the masterpiece is anyway in a dialogue form.

In ancient India, oral traditions of knowledge were the key (partially because there was no printing technology few thousand years ago, but it was about listening more than writing or reading). Sound permeates the space around and mantras had chandas (a meter of specific syllables per quarter-verse) for rhythmic renditions. In fact, letters and words represent the sound they make. So reading is about speaking sentences to yourself.

However, no one can dispute the value of a printed page, which offers parallel pieces of information. Can be distracting or can be useful as a whole, if it is a chart or a graph.

Ok, the debate is, if electronic publishing such as ebooks (with or without audio visual additions) will be viable alternatives to printed books.

Firstly, there is no reason to believe that print will be totally obsolete- just as drawing and painting are still valid art forms even after photography and film have been around for over 150 years. Now it is digital photography... So a book like a drawing- requires 'no processing' or rendering on a device. It just 'works' when you flip pages.

Now looking at it from the view of ebooks. Based on current options the readers are not quite there. Most gadgets-kindle or whatever-fall flat. The iPhone versions are crisp, but way to small to be meaningful alternatives to print.

So what enhancements are needed for ebooks to be seen as viable alternatives to print?

1. It should feel like a real book!
Yes, we need at least a tablet of 5x7 inches. Then you need a curvy-curly feel with the look of pages/binding etc. If Apple makes a tablet, they will have focused half their efforts on just this aspect. So comparing a yet-to-be-disclosed tablet vs printed books are not meaningful, because half an Apple can overhaul the current state of (pathetic) ebook renderings. ... the test for this will be if a book is open on a tablet and lying on a sofa or desk, would you mistake it for a printed book?

2. Free of Distractions.
Since your book and content are electronic, you have an option to keep looking for different options because of widgets, notifications, and just our ever inquisitive behaviour of looking for updates or doing a cover flow of your virtual library.

But just as they overcame distractions in Plato's time, they can eventually in this era. The device has to impose a stricter locking metaphor. For instance, many writing tools- such as WriteRoom on the Macs black out the screen- windows and icons- so that you can do nothing else but write. If it is a ebook gadget, such an impostion for reading will be needed. Can be done.

Such distractions are valid, for instance, on the iPod as well. Since you can access all your song albums you might tend to not listen to anything specific properly. But nobody can dispute the fact that an ipod is a viable alternative to CDs or tapes. (Of course the main difference between ipod and ebook analogy is that the way we listen to music- the speakers or earphones have remained the same, so an iPod was instantly accepted as a new technology. This is a matter of point 1, above).

3. Fixing/Flexing Book Sizes?
I can tell you that arriving at the right size for a book is one heck of a major time consuming headache (having printed photographic travel guides, in postcard size and mini-coffee table format). When you print, the sheet sizes of a press have to be fully utilized in order to save costs. This is not much of issue for novels, but for photographic books, you want a large size for impact and for convenience you need a small one (especially in travel).

So the ebook will solve this problem? Not sure!
Scalabilty of content has progressed (for sure) since two decades of desktop publishing. PDF and Postscript were invented exactly for this- to scale shapes and fonts- and to render on screen and print in a consistent manner. Safari on the iPhone displays web content brilliantly with pinch-zoom.... but wait.. is not our point 1 about a feel of the book? If you pinch-zoom-scroll then it is not like a real book!

However, this does not mean that when content does not fit in a tablet or display, you undermine the medium just because of scrolling or zooming.

But this issue of size, is where utmost caution will be needed by designers of ebook gadgets-

a) those books which can fit the display, they need to make sure the zoom options are kept off the interface and users are forced to dig in if they need to zoom, (only it they must). Perhaps revert to normal page size when powered on/off/or launched. When all is exact, let it look real!

b) When the content does not fit display, use an overall containing frame as 'virtual' magazine or newspaper. The internal areas can then follow conventional zoom, scroll mouseover etc.

The Times Reader (RSS) by Dustin Macdonald on Mac OS X - does a brilliant job off fitting dynamic content within a look of a newspaper, with headlines and articles flowing into allocated columns. The overall newspaper look is of fixed size, but content flows in, and then details can be viewed (as in RSS summary and full page etc).

I would also love to see what I have mentioned in a earlier blog- to dock an ipod touch into many CPU-less tablets of various sizes

4. Annotation and scribbling as if it is paper.
A lot of avid readers love books because of the ability to mark, highlight and scribble notes on the pages. The digital medium should do this better than print (Preview, the default Mac viewer already does a basic job), and if openURL is adopted then referencing other books in a collection will just take research and referencing to new levels.

Also, for touch based devices the disadvantage of accurate scribbling an annotation has to be addressed! see tweet

5. Text to speech cannot be ignored.
Audio books by real people narrating a story is great. But Text to speech (TTS) has made huge strides. Alex the new voice introduced in Mac OS X Leopard was is an indication of how natural it can be. So listening to text rendered by a computer should not be underestimated. My first podcast on a famous cricket match after Mumbai terror attacks of 2008 was using TTS.

We may be in for an era of listening and reading to go hand in hand. Both are after all sequenced forms of communication. I do it all the time, rather than print. Relaxing my eyes and saving trees as well!

Saumilzx
Mumbai
16 Oct 2009