A problem with Turing's run-around-the-house chess game?

Alan Turing is said to have invented a game that combines chess and middle-distance running. It goes like this: You make your move, then you run around the house, and the other player has to make his or her move before you return to your seat. I've never played the game but it sounds like fun. I've always thought, though, that the chess part has got to be much more important than the running part: the difference in time between a sprint and a slow jog is small enough that I'd think it would always make sense just to do the jog and save one's energy for the chess game.

But when I was speaking last week at the University of London, Turing's chess/running game came up somehow in conversation, and somebody made a point which I'd never thought of before, that I think completely destroys the game. I'd always assumed that it makes sense to run as fast as possible, but what if you want the time to think about a move? Then you can just run halfway around the house and sit for as long as you want.

It goes like this. You're in a tough spot and want some time to think. So you make a move where the opponent's move is pretty much obvious, then you go outside and sit on the stoop for an hour or two to ponder. Your opponent makes the obvious move and then has to sit and wait for you to come back in. Sure, he or she can plan ahead, but with less effectiveness than you because of not knowing what you're going to do when you come back in.

So . . . I don't know if anyone has actually played Turing's running chess game, but I think it would need another rule or two to really work.

More like this

There's been some discussion lately about chess-playing software and intelligence. Some smart humans play chess well. Certain software can beat them at chess. Does this mean that the software is smarter than those humans? Of course not. For one thing, intelligence is about versatility, about being…
I had two big deadlines this Friday for various projects, and I am happy to report that I made both of them. That means I finally have time to take a breath, and write the post you have all been waiting for. What happened at the U. S. Amateur Team East chess tournament!? That's right! Over…
After my win in round two I was excited for round three. My opponent sported a 1952 rating, and he had white. He opened with 1. e4. Now, over the years I've tried most of the major defenses to e4. I was an aficionado of the Dragon Sicilian for a while, until I noticed I kept getting mated on h7…
Having neglected my Sunday Chess Problem duties recently, I'll give you a bonus chess post this week. I won't be making a habit of this, however, since I don't usually play games like this. Here's a blitz game I recently played on the Internet Chess Club. I was white. My opponent was black and…

I was always of the understanding that one made a move, then ran, regardless of whether ones opponent is back. That is, you make your move and sit down outside, I make my obvious move and run. If you haven't made your move by the time I'm back, I get to move again. I don't have to wait for you to come back, that seems to defeat the whole think-quick concept.

I'm not sure what would happen if both players came back to the table simultaneously, though.

I suppose one might just rephrase the rules to 'whenever you come back to the table, you get to make a move', that seems more concise.

By Ketil Tveiten (not verified) on 24 Jan 2010 #permalink

What if you still had the timers?

Yes, I think Dylan is right. Use clocks. Make your move, press the clock and set off running around the house. That would be a great game!!