mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Hobbies > Chess

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2014-12-08, 05:22   #34
richs
 
richs's Avatar
 
"Rich"
Aug 2002
Benicia, California

100110011002 Posts
Default

Brian, I must say that I would truly miss you as a teammate. There is no reason to immediately jump into a new game. All we have to do is wait a while for a couple of extra players. What's a week or two for a year+ game?
richs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-12-08, 07:26   #35
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3·29·83 Posts
Default

If Xyzzy doesn't mind the clutter, may we also have a private spectators' forum? Perhaps move the old forums to the Archived Projects group?
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-12-08, 08:33   #36
davar55
 
davar55's Avatar
 
May 2004
New York City

10000100010002 Posts
Default

OK,. Silly of me to want to rush into game 3, we ought to work out the teams first.
A few weeks or so until starting is fine, and a move a week or so is a reasonable pace.
I didn't realize the year-long expected time frame, and I'd better not be "pushy"
about it, since I'll be taking the back seat to my partners.
davar55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-12-08, 11:47   #37
Brian-E
 
Brian-E's Avatar
 
"Brian"
Jul 2007
The Netherlands

7·467 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richs View Post
Brian, I must say that I would truly miss you as a teammate. There is no reason to immediately jump into a new game. All we have to do is wait a while for a couple of extra players. What's a week or two for a year+ game?
Thankyou Rich, and my personal strong ideal preference is also to keep our former Geckos team intact if that is at all possible. Maybe we should try even harder to get some new players to join the former Pirates. I note David's and Paul's advertising in the thread in the Lounge a couple of days ago, and we could give that a bit more time in any case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dubslow View Post
If Xyzzy doesn't mind the clutter, may we also have a private spectators' forum? Perhaps move the old forums to the Archived Projects group?
What an interesting idea. It took me a while after reading this to realise what you are getting at: you mean private in the sense that the players of the game cannot see what is being discussed! The only thing, I think, which could be dodgy here is if a lot of people apply for the password to discuss the game, and then what gets discussed there leaks out one way or another to the players through (possibly inadvertent) indiscretions in public threads. But I'm not sure whether that is a serious concern or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davar55 View Post
OK,. Silly of me to want to rush into game 3, we ought to work out the teams first.
A few weeks or so until starting is fine, and a move a week or so is a reasonable pace.
I didn't realize the year-long expected time frame, and I'd better not be "pushy"
about it, since I'll be taking the back seat to my partners.
Yes, it's a long-term commitment. About taking a back seat, as you've mentioned before, I hope that you actually quickly feel able to take an active part in whichever team you end up in. I think everyone else who has ever played in the first and second games did that very quickly. I'm a weak amateur player myself, but I've always felt able to put my point of view in the team play.

Last fiddled with by Brian-E on 2014-12-08 at 11:55
Brian-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-12-08, 14:49   #38
WMHalsdorf
 
WMHalsdorf's Avatar
 
Feb 2005
Bristol, CT

33×19 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian-E View Post
Well, one configuration which would give 3 in each team is the following:

WMHalsdorf, Brian-E, davar55

paulunderwood (captain), henryzz, richs


Team names, and captain of the first mentioned team, still to be decided.

This keeps three of the former Geckos together as they (we) were a closely knit team. It moves davar55 who expressed a preference for the Geckos but this team would no longer exist as such anyway.

Would people be unhappy with that possible arrangement? Are there other suggestions?
This grouping is fine with me and Brian-E wpild be captain.
WMHalsdorf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-12-08, 19:08   #39
henryzz
Just call me Henry
 
henryzz's Avatar
 
"David"
Sep 2007
Cambridge (GMT/BST)

25·3·61 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian-E View Post
Well, one configuration which would give 3 in each team is the following:

WMHalsdorf, Brian-E, davar55

paulunderwood (captain), henryzz, richs


Team names, and captain of the first mentioned team, still to be decided.

This keeps three of the former Geckos together as they (we) were a closely knit team. It moves davar55 who expressed a preference for the Geckos but this team would no longer exist as such anyway.

Would people be unhappy with that possible arrangement? Are there other suggestions?
This grouping would be fine with me.
I am in no hurry to start. Christmas will soon be upon us. We could aim to start straight after Christmas. I am more interested in making sure we have good teams with plenty of players.
henryzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-12-09, 10:49   #40
Brian-E
 
Brian-E's Avatar
 
"Brian"
Jul 2007
The Netherlands

CC516 Posts
Default

While we try to recruit more players, shall we attempt to tie up the other loose ends before the game starts?

Time keeping: a number of people (spectators especially) requested that the play be faster. A suggestion was made that there should be a number of moves required to be made in a certain number of days, instead of a week for every move. But at least two players expressed a preference to keep the one move per week rule in place. Finally a compromise was suggested that this one move per week rule should stay but there should be a strong sporting agreement in place that teams should make their move well before this deadline whenever possible. What do people feel about this compromise, and does anyone have anything else to suggest?

Spectators' private subforum: what do people think about Dubslow's idea?

Any other issues?
Brian-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-12-09, 11:09   #41
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

10011001011002 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian-E View Post
there should be a strong sporting agreement in place that teams should make their move well before this deadline whenever possible. What do people feel about this compromise, and does anyone have anything else to suggest?
I think this is a matter of confidence in one's analysis. If you have an analysis tree that covers what line to play if the opponent makes a particular move, and they do so, then just post the appropriate response without any further discussion. If you're not confident to do so, then your original analysis was incomplete -- maybe you shouldn't be playing correspondence chess?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian-E View Post
Spectators' private subforum: what do people think about Dubslow's idea?
Couldn't hurt.
axn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-12-09, 14:10   #42
science_man_88
 
science_man_88's Avatar
 
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dumbassville

20C016 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian-E View Post
While we try to recruit more players, shall we attempt to tie up the other loose ends before the game starts?

Time keeping: a number of people (spectators especially) requested that the play be faster. A suggestion was made that there should be a number of moves required to be made in a certain number of days, instead of a week for every move. But at least two players expressed a preference to keep the one move per week rule in place. Finally a compromise was suggested that this one move per week rule should stay but there should be a strong sporting agreement in place that teams should make their move well before this deadline whenever possible. What do people feel about this compromise, and does anyone have anything else to suggest?

Spectators' private subforum: what do people think about Dubslow's idea?

Any other issues?

I don't see me playing partly because I'm thinking about other things but I did some math when someone brought up FIDE's 90 minutes for first 40 moves if that's per player then what has been played is like that but with each minute being 4/9 of a week or each move having a time limit of 2 minutes 15 seconds. the 30 extra minutes would add 13 1/3 weeks and each 30 second add is 2/9 of a week.
science_man_88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-12-10, 14:18   #43
Brian-E
 
Brian-E's Avatar
 
"Brian"
Jul 2007
The Netherlands

7×467 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
I think this is a matter of confidence in one's analysis. If you have an analysis tree that covers what line to play if the opponent makes a particular move, and they do so, then just post the appropriate response without any further discussion. If you're not confident to do so, then your original analysis was incomplete -- maybe you shouldn't be playing correspondence chess?
Aside from a few obvious points which I'm sure I don't need to tell you, such as the fact that playing chess is largely a matter of planning and judgment in which concrete analysis of lines often plays only a supportive, checking role, and that in a majority of situations the opponent can easily deviate from pre-analysed lines anyway, I also think you are underestimating the peculiar practical difficulties which team play introduces. I can tell you from our experience playing here in the last two years that it is frequently a struggle to get to a stage within the week's deadline when every member of the team is happy with the move to be played. The Pirates played the latter stages of game 2 very quickly, but I think that is at least partly due to the fact that their team was down to two members by then. That would mean that disagreements amongst the members, or waiting for individual members who are too busy with their everyday working lives to contribute in a timely fashion, were greatly reduced.

The practical requirement now is for all of us to come up with a system which allows the serious, significant time needed for teams to discuss and agree on their move, but still keeps the game moving at a pace which avoids frustration for everyone involved, including spectators. All practical suggestions are welcome!


Quote:
Couldn't hurt.
(referring to Dubslow's suggestion of a private forum for spectators)

Sounds good!
Is anyone concerned about possible leakage of what gets discussed in such a private forum to the players, considering the possibility that a relatively large number of people might apply to join it? Or am I worrying needlessly?
Brian-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-12-11, 05:10   #44
retina
Undefined
 
retina's Avatar
 
"The unspeakable one"
Jun 2006
My evil lair

17E316 Posts
Default

I used to play chess in the long distant past. I was never any good though. If I was to join a team it would drag down the level of play I am sure. With some poor choices of move being suggested and a failure to understand why some other move is better, my vote would best be ignored.

But, however, I will be interested to watch the proceedings from a non-participatory position. I'll try my best to not throw peanuts into the ring.
retina is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vote chess game 4: To be decided? Some chess variant will be interesting to consider with! Raman Chess 6 2016-12-06 06:50
Vote Chess: Game 4 Xyzzy Chess 14 2015-11-12 20:54
Vote Chess: Game 2 henryzz Chess 288 2014-12-05 17:31
Vote Chess game 1: the post snort'em Brian-E Chess 36 2014-01-23 16:22
Vote Chess: Game 1 henryzz Chess 306 2013-07-08 18:29

All times are UTC. The time now is 17:27.

Wed Apr 14 17:27:16 UTC 2021 up 6 days, 12:08, 0 users, load averages: 2.94, 2.99, 3.15

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.