Vote Chess: Game 1

[Batalov]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Clearly we'd have to agree whether we regard the use of chess playing software as ethical or not beforehand.

It's totally unethical - but every server I've been to was plagued by proggers. Except gokgs! (obviously because go progs are still way too weak; they are making strides though)

No, I meant specifically gomoku and my fully automated robot.

Yeah, I have a chess robot, too, "crafty"-based. Even that was too strong at almost any settings. There's no chance for a human in chess, backgammon in a long run, othello. But in gomoku, there is! In renju, even more so. A bit of a chance in losers chess (ICC 17).

I never used non-free programs in any of my robots: gnugo, edax, gnubg, Tito, crafty were among different engines that I ran over years.

[henryzz]

I would prefer no chess engines myself.
Maybe one person per team(maybe just one person on the external forum) could post an image of the board after every move. There are probably chess visualization tools on the internet that can be used as well.

How often do we want moves? I would suggest something like at least a move every week and move after 75% of people have voted or a general consensus has been reached by the team(the second rule is upto the team itself to decide and can be adjusted as needed).

[Brian-E]

The main reason I gave up correspondence chess was the general use of chess engines which I felt spoiled the fun of the play. So I am certainly in agreement with the previous three posters on that issue.

Originally Posted by henryzz

How often do we want moves? I would suggest something like at least a move every week and move after 75% of people have voted or a general consensus has been reached by the team(the second rule is upto the team itself to decide and can be adjusted as needed).

Yes, move within a week sounds a good ball-park to me. Time must be allowed for everyone to contribute who wants to, and for a consensus to be reached, but more than a week per move will make the game too long. It could last a few years anyway!

Given the possibly long-term nature of the game, I also suggest that the team make-up should be flexible and new members should be able to join a team as the game progresses. This might hopefully counter the departure of any team members who don't stay the course. Defecting from one team to the other during the game would need a pretty good justification from the player involved, though!

[henryzz]

I don't know how even it would be but I would suggest something like usernames beginning with a, c, e etc on one side b, d, f on the other or maybe odd/even days of the month. In other words you can't move team. You can just start and stop playing. Each team should probably have a team captain who can add people/possibly moderate the subforum.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

I wouldn't participate if we could use software (at least not the first time). I'd like to see how we split up/how alike we think/etc., and using software analysis kinda removes those elements.

I wouldn't want to belong to a club which would accept me as a member

[Xyzzy]

So are you all going to talk about it or make it happen?

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

So are you all going to talk about it or make it happen?

Aren't you the one who needs to make it happen? Like create subfora, one for each team.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

So are you all going to talk about it or make it happen?

Well, talking about it first accomplishes certain things, including (1) generating interest, and (2) making sure everyone is happy with the way it is finally brought off the ground. If we're being pedantic about it, then at least that's the right mindset for a longterm effort like this will be.

Originally Posted by Dubslow

Aren't you the one who needs to make it happen? Like create subfora, one for each team.

Mike's help probably will be required, yes. Let's work out exactly what we require so that he knows what to do for us.

The suggestion by henryzz that team membership should depend on the first character of your name sounds a good one to me. I believe several members of mersenneforum.org have a name which does not start with a letter of the alphabet, so I propose extending the definition to be that of odd or even parity of the ASCII code of the first character of the name.

I'd like to know how many players we are actually going to be able to start with. Here are two lists based on participation in this thread so far. Could people correct any errors and omissions of mine in the lists, and in particular could those in the second list maybe make clear whether they would like to play? And could those who are reading the thread without writing anything, and are interested in playing, also give us a sign? I suggest (strongly) that chess playing strength is not a prerequisite: if it is, then I can't take part anyway.

People who have indicated that they would like to play:

henryzz
Dubslow
Brian-E
Zeta-Flux
LaurV

People who have taken part in this thread but not yet expressed clear intention to play:

Batalov
Xyzzy
davieddy


EDIT: Hmm, looking at those lists, everyone's name so far has a first character with even parity. We may either need a different rule for team membership or just let people decide which team they want to be in for themselves.

[science_man_88]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Well, talking about it first accomplishes certain things, including (1) generating interest, and (2) making sure everyone is happy with the way it is finally brought off the ground. If we're being pedantic about it, then at least that's the right mindset for a longterm effort like this will be.


Mike's help probably will be required, yes. Let's work out exactly what we require so that he knows what to do for us.

The suggestion by henryzz that team membership should depend on the first character of your name sounds a good one to me. I believe several members of mersenneforum.org have a name which does not start with a letter of the alphabet, so I propose extending the definition to be that of odd or even parity of the ASCII code of the first character of the name.

I'd like to know how many players we are actually going to be able to start with. Here are two lists based on participation in this thread so far. Could people correct any errors and omissions of mine in the lists, and in particular could those in the second list maybe make clear whether they would like to play? And could those who are reading the thread without writing anything, and are interested in playing, also give us a sign? I suggest (strongly) that chess playing strength is not a prerequisite: if it is, then I can't take part anyway.

People who have indicated that they would like to play:

henryzz
Dubslow
Brian-E
Zeta-Flux
LaurV

People who have taken part in this thread but not yet expressed clear intention to play:

Batalov
Xyzzy
davieddy


EDIT: Hmm, looking at those lists, everyone's name so far has a first character with even parity. We may either need a different rule for team membership or just let people decide which team they want to be in for themselves.

I'm somewhat interested just lying back to see what develops. but I suck at chess even though I play a lot so nobody is likely wanting me on a team plus that would make 9 people so far. and I'd be the first with a odd parity so unless we team by different rules you're all against me. one thing I thought is the added parity of the characters that might shake something up.

[science_man_88]

separated by second letter parity:

LaurV
Batalov
davieddy
Brian-E

Xyzzy
Zeta-Flux
henryzz
Dubslow


without me this works out perfectly into even teams.

[Raman]

I would be interested in order to participate and then play
if in case you can be able to ably post when and then where, if whether some other conveniently enough for the time periods durations