Talk:Fabuloso Friday 2/Fabuloso Chess

From zefrank

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Tributes to Kazz!

Well, since User:Kazz came up with the chess idea, let's give him the credit that he deserves before he starts to praise himself too much and that would make him look bad...

  • I am awesome. Kazz
  • Yes indeed, well done! --Gelbitalk 05:58, 24 June 2006 (PDT)
  • I bow to thy greatness o-Kazz! :D CeruleanNinja 07:29, 24 June 2006 (PDT)
  • Maybe Kazz can be the person to send our move into Ze! We need that decided soon. I'm willing to do it, but I don't want to just take it on because no one else is. bobbie_mac
  • I am still awesome. Kazz
  • Kazz's idea is giving me a migrane.  ; ; ßrigaderant
  • Good idea. So good, in fact, I challenge Kazz to a game in the Lounge. Bring your awesomeness. It shall be fun. - Danetrix

Another place to talk so Ze cannot read it?

The flipped Fabuloso Attack plan
Image:chess_zhor_26-flip.png
Image:chess_zver_26_flip.png
h1 g1 f1 e1 d1 c1 b1 a1
h2 g2 f2 e2 d2 c2 b2 a2
h3 g3 f3 e3 d3 c3 b3 a3
h4 g4 f4 e4 d4 c4 b4 a4
h5 g5 f5 e5 d5 c5 b5 a5
h6 g6 f6 e6 d6 c6 b6 a6
h7 g7 f7 e7 d7 c7 b7 a7
h8 g8 f8 e8 d8 c8 b8 a8
Image:chess_zver_26_flip.png
Image:chess_zhor_26-flip.png
It is important that we keep the secret Fabuloso attack plan hidden from Ze!

Does anyone have a forum? Irc? I'll set up an IRC channel but a forum would be much better. The IRC channel for Fabuloso Chess can be found at Irc.7sinz.net #Fabuloso -Edi

And this prevents Ze from seeing it how? - MisterMan

Well, that is why I said a forum would be better. Someone would be able to control who got on the forum as well as that you couldn't veiw postings until after you had logged in. - Edi

Wouldn't Ze just be able to log in to the IRC channel, or read the forum? He's just as anonymous as the rest of us. In either case, we'll have to collaborate and confirm our moves on the wiki at some point. Let's just play so well that even though he knows what we're planning, he can't stop it. -RJC
Yes I agree, take it easy! Let him read... I don't think we need to go paranoid. With our analysis and sound strategy (see illustration) we will beat him even if he knows our plans, besides if we are about to lose, there are lots of powermoves being suggested here... --Gelbitalk 06:31, 24 June 2006 (PDT)

Maybe a serious explanation as to why we take this concern so lightly... Unless you have a say 5 minutes time constraint, you don't win by trapping the opponent. You win by doing a deeper analysis at each move so that you are more likely to become aware of favorable deviations from previously analysed lines before you opponent. If we would put up a detailed analysis here and Ze would just follow with what we think is the best response from the wiki, he would be at a clear disadvantage. --Gelbitalk 19:32, 24 June 2006 (PDT)

Alternatives to Voting


Well guys, I'm not very happy with the voting... currently the move being chosen is suboptimal, it isn't quite a blunder, but if the game continues like this I'm quite sure we will lose. Ok, let's keep this neutral from if the current move is good or bad. The current voting is very flawed. At least I would like to see either a registered user name or your IP, basically I say we only accept votes that include the ~~~. Here are some better ways of picking our move, please add your own suggestions and also comment on these ideas!

  • The fact that I as able to anonymously edit pages here was a huge impetus for me to initially contribute and eventually create the initial organization of Move2 (and thus, taking the step of getting a username). As unhappy as I would be of disenfranchising people who don't want to get a username, I have to agree that I want to see a name attached to each vote. medwardstalk
    • But you don't even need to register! If you leave ~~~ it will leave your IP, there is no way we can find you from your IP, unless you surf from a named computer... gelbitalk
      • True, and I didn't want to get into authentication of identity because it felt to big-brother-ish for something that is supposed to be fun, but an IP is better to ID actually unique users than them just using any old tag-line (or nothing). In truth we could confirm each vote by watching diffs when changes are made to a vote section, but at some point the masses need to take on some work like themselves. I am therefore in favour of a minimum requirement of ~~~. However, where we derive our authority to make such a decision is still something of a grey area. medwardstalk
        • I'm going to be a poopyhead and point out that the large number of open proxies, plus free shell accounts, etc. available makes IP tracking fairly pointless, unless you want to try to track said proxies. Authentication is pointless without an established identity, something that takes a lot more effort to forge (see: sock puppets). Speaking of which, the counterfitter's motto is "forge on." Anywho, if there's obviously a severe problem with hard chargers interfering, a benevolent dictatorship/oligarchy (e.g. established Fabulosos) seems like an acceptable solution. Hopefully this can remain fun, open, and generally awesome.--NikolasCo 10:05, 21 July 2006 (PDT)
  • Move games. We do some quick voting, but we pick the move by playing a game between the supporters of each move. The winning move is made! Maybe during this game taking back moves is allowed because the goal is to analyse the move not to compete. If the game is incomplete the one who made the last move is considered the winner. Hopefully, we are gentlemen and will resign when we see that a side has a clear advantage.
  • I'll personally (and willingly) play out the next 5 moves (at least) for any move that I support/vote for, if anyone is willing to play it out. Just set up a board on a page and leave me a comment in my page with a link. ßrigaderant
  • The Veto-challange. Instead of playing out every move, we can go ahead voting, but if you think something is a blunder, then you can veto challange it, the details needs working out, but essentially you post a response to the move and then the people supporting that move will have to continue that game. The conditions the same as above.
    • The problem with both these scenarios is we need two good chess strategists to go head ot head. We don't have time for an entire collaborative game every day. medwardstalk
      • I'm ranked USCF 1600 .. which is pretty decent. I'm no master, but I've studied plenty of chess theory and had over 1000 ranked games (from all time controls, 30 minute game all the way down to 30 second lightning) .. I prefer playing 5 0 or 10 0 (blitz) if anyone cares. So if I qualify as a 'strategist' then you only need one more.  :-) ßrigaderant
        • Yes, well, just playing man-against-man probably won't tell us much about the merits of the move, I was thinking more in terms of collaborative games, but it is true we don't have time for that... Hmmm, I'm thinking... --gelbitalk 16:53, 29 June 2006 (PDT)
          • Sure it will, a joint move page for both opponents, and every move on a personal page the players can outline their strategy, why they think their move was sound and why they dismissed the alternatives. Gentlemenly conduct keeps the guys from spying on eachother, not that I'm overly concerned with that anyways, the point is to prove how the moves can be sound with or without your opponents foreknowledge. medwardstalk
        • I will try something with playing out moves... so no rules attached to it, I will create a page to just experiment with the move. --gelbitalk 16:56, 29 June 2006 (PDT)

Vandalism!

OK, so there was some joke vandalism earlier today (someone removed the king and shouted "oh we won"). I chortled, then fixed it. However, 198.145.74.114 made quite a few changes over time to the front-page chess board. I only caught it when he wiped all the pieces off the board. Anyways, there is no real long term solution to this other than for those of us doing a lot of editing to be vigilant. I propose keeping a list of IPs and usernames here so we can quickly review their changes and revert them as necessary. It'll be easier than camping the recent changes page at least. Thoughts? Illusionary power gone to medwards' head? medwardstalk

  • Yea .. i noticed that our knight was moved around too .. I fixed the boards but will attempt to keep an eye on those as well. Instead of logging IPs let's just attempt to keep an eye out .. MAYBE it was just a cute/innocent harmless gesture/mistake.ßrigaderant
  • The knight was moved again. I fixed it to corrospond with the the currently Last move listed below the board of : 5. e3 Ne4. Danetrix
    • Looks like we just forgot to update the board to reflect the voted move. That's a fun one to start with, that was the first change I made when I started with this (updated the board to reflect Ze's second move) --Medwards
  • Ugh, anyone know how the formatting got so messed up here? Was a complete mess for awhile.
  • 68.251.47.113 jacked up the boards on the main chess page again. http://www.hostip.info/index.html spit out Elizabethton, TN, US as the location of the vandal .. any ideas on what we can/should do in regards to this? It's the 2nd time. ßrigaderant
  • I don't aprove of vandalism, but when did we decide that non-constructive heckling and unsigned comments will not be tolerated? Can we have a vote on this to see what the community thinks? I like non-constructive heckling. Wophugus
    • It's not so much the unsigned comments as it is the unsigned votes. I think we all agree that signing with an IP is sufficient (a simple barrier to prevent easy submission of non-unique commentary) but it has tended towards encouraging people to get usernames. medwardstalk

Timing

Currently all moves are due at mignight. Ze usually posts the moves sometime in the afternoon, which gives us about 10 hours to make a move. I think that sometimes this is okay, but move 5 felt very, very rushed. There was a lot of contention, and though the votes weren't what I call "close", it was probably the most debated move thus far, or at least felt that way. I don't believe that we have a set timeline, though I understand wanting to get the game going as quickly as possible. I think that we should implement some type of extension schedule. Lets say that if an extension vote gets 20% of the total votes that the move deadline goes to the next weekday midnight. Something along those lines anyhow. Anyone in agreement? arcblah

  • I'm not sure that would improve things much, the problem is that people cast their votes very early... when I started to look at the moves yesterday, the votes were at least 12-4 and then we started playing out moves. People who voted after that were at least going both ways. But, I don't think we should extend the deadline, then this game will never end. --gelbitalk 06:02, 30 June 2006 (PDT)
  • I think I'd rather this game never end than it end in pathetic defeat. I won't trounce move 5 in particular, but from what I have seen so far I am pretty confident that with enough poorly but well written rationalization any move could be voted in. While it would certainly require more effort, a move to extend could be coupled with a clearing of the votes. I know it's a lot of work and would likely be obnoxious, but I hope there is a better way than our current methodology. As it stands now, someone who posts an excellent move at 7:00pm EST will never win the vote. That's dumb. arcblah
  • Well, I still think it is better to solve that by opening the polls by 9pm EST and closing them at midnight. Without time constraints it is far less of a challenge. --gelbitalk 07:02, 30 June 2006 (PDT)
  • That's a perfectly valid suggestion as well. I'd be happy to see that implemented. arcblah
  • Works great in theory .. but bear in mind that there may be both international players, or those that can only vote during work hours (maybe no internet access at home/rather not take up time with family to vote, etc. One thing to realize: The opening is the easy part, and I didn't even suggest move 5, I just supported it. The middlegame, where tactics get crazy and lines branch out, will influence the greatest debate, possibly even moreso than the endgame. I'm waiting for Ze to play c5 (dxe5 is a bad move for him) and no one has noticed that he's been setting us up for a Classic Bishop Sacrifice .. it's going to get heated from here on out, and we are playing an aggressive game because Ze's playing a defensive one. ßrigaderant 10:16, 30 June 2006 (PDT)
  • The situation of there being international players and voting at particular times still applies brigade. Right now unless you can be on the internet between approximately 2pm and 11:59 EST you cannot vote. Sure cutting it down limits it further, but you cannot ignore that there are currently restrictions. Personally, I don't care that much either. You would rather have people vote at 3:00pm without seeing any debate on the situation whatsoever? I wouldn't. arcblah
  • I think that 9pm might be too restrictive. The proposed moves were up (so far) by 7:00pm, correct? Why don't we open the polls then? --Lordsah 10:59, 30 June 2006 (PDT)
  • I think that's fine too. The point is that I think there needs to be some restriction. If people start voting as soon as the first move is up, then they are voting without any open debate and that's bad.arcblah
  • That seems fair .. 5 hours to deliberate, 5 hours to vote. I'll update the template for move 7 after the polls close tonight and offer a brief explanation as to the change. ßrigaderant
  • I'll be the first to admit that I was a bit hesitant about time-restrictive voting when we had such a lousy turn-out for Move 7 .. but I think now that it was more due to people out of work/holiday weekend than limitations. We only had 3 'early adopters' for moves this afternoon (myself being one of them), and I think the current system is working pretty well (23 votes tallied today, 20 after 7PM). What do you guys think? ßrigaderant
    • I think it is working out well. There is usually ample discussion before anyone has voted, and nowadays I'd say more than enough people chiming in with votes. It wasn't as if there were 50 votes on moves 2 and 3 anyhow. arc

Voting deadlocks...

Yeah, so what do we do when we are tied, if this happens again we forfeit a move... an excellent thing to do at a Zugzwang, but otherwise quite devastating. Any ideas??? --gelbitalk

  • If the time deadline were strictly enforced this may not have happened. Maybe we need an earlier deadline with possiblity of a runoff? if it's a 3-way tie that is. Rock, paper, scissors if we still have a tie.--salmancini
  • Why not simply make it a popularity contest purre and simple? Instaed of voting for the move, vote for the one you want to decide.
  • How about hosting a small single elimination chess tourney of all supporters of each move. On each side of the dispute, the voters would pair off against themselves until there is one clear winner, and then the clear winner from each side of the voting fence would play against each other. The victor of that game would also determine the victorious vote. Squable settled! (I do a similar type of thing with peanut m&m's to figure out which m&m is strongest and it works pretty well). --Lentz
  • time issues. it's simply not practical with a move-per-day timelimit Kingpatzer 12:01, 10 July 2006 (PDT)
  • That's why it must be speed chess -no more than 5 minutes per a side, maybe reduce it to 2 minutes per side. How many people are actually voting on moves anyways? 12? Even if it's an even split, that means 3 games per side, calculating for full use of time controls, that's up to 30 minutes plus an additional 2 hours between each round (which I think is more than generous), that's 6 house and 30 minutes, and then 10 more minutes for the final round, and you've made a decision in less than 7 hours resolving the dead lock. That seems significantly faster than the 70 some hours it took to not come up with any move at all... even if you guys get encounter a stalemate during a weekday, I think that's plenty of time to resolve the deadlock by a minor tourney. But to be honest, I just want to see you guys jump through my little hoops. :) Good luck fabulosos. --Lentz
  • I like these ideas, but for a realistic one, we could just let the poster ONLY vote in case of ties and then he has the deciding vote. Maybe the name of the current poster should be written on the main page and he should both mail the move to Ze and also update the main page with our move! --gelbitalk 11:47, 10 July 2006 (PDT)
  • I like this idea. But would the person who posts be excluded from voting?salmancini
  • I like this as well, and I agree the person who submits the move only gets a vote in the case of a tie. medwardstalk
  • Well, actually he doesn't have to, but then his normal vote should be considered different from the tie breaking, so in effect he would have two votes, but it's not really a big deal! I'm fine with any solution! --gelbitalk 12:23, 10 July 2006 (PDT)
  • the whole "forfeit a move" line is odd. If it's a time violation we should lose the game, if it's not we make a move. The ability to skip a move is simply not part of the rules of chess. Kingpatzer 12:01, 10 July 2006 (PDT)
  • yeah that's true. But if you think about it he can' t be spending anywhere near as much time deciding on his move as we are. we submit our move @ midnight the day before his show and he posts his show around midday? Let's just avoid this situation and chalk it up to the alternate rules of fabuloso chess. My guess is he doesn't know that there is no such thing as forfeiting moves and is just trying to not be a dick and end the game, even though he would be well within his rights to do so at this point. Although, I gues the move was submitted but bounced back....do-over.salmancini
  • We need to set up a list of (agreed-upon) vote submitters. Then there should be a time that each vote needs to be confirmed, and the vote-submitter breaks ties after reviewing all deliberations, even if it is necessary that they vote twice. ßrigaderant
Example:
Major is on the list at 12:00AM EST .. he breaks any ties.
Brigade is on the list at 1:00AM EST .. if Major hasn't updated 'move sent' by then, Brigade sends/breaks ties.
Volunteer in Mountain Time Zone at 2:00AM EST .. same situation
Geedubber is in Pacific .. at 3:00AM EST he submits.
Just for example. I think it's fair and simple .. and we have 4 people as backup. Plus, when submitting the vote, we need to have a 'confirmation receipt' on the E-mail, or also we could stick it in the comments for Ze (as a backup)

The End Is Near

who's who?


The end really isn't that near (we're not even halfway there), but we're totally the dude in the black cloak. I've found a series of solid moves that leads to a checkmate in move 37 (which is the fastest mate I could find). I know that sounds ridiculously far away, but if Ze plays his best moves (with a small degree of variation), the end is indeed nigh. I'm extremely hesitant about describing it here, because I'm sure Ze iz lurking. I don't particularly want to hear him sing and play guitar, so I guess I'll compromise: it seems the best line for both players is 15. Be2 e5. I'm not sure how I should share the move list, or if it will work (considering there are 23 moves left), but if there is a secure way to share the strategy and ensure that voting will comply, I will do my part. If Ze strays from the plan, we are at least giving him a good fight. 12.217.38.217 23:37, 17 July 2006 (PDT)MJTisMe23

  • Wow, that's pretty impressive. Are you going to do a power move in a black robe and tell Ze "e5. Mate in 22"? -Jeff 16:30, 18 July 2006 (PDT)
  • I knew this would face sarcasm. I'm only trying to figure out a way to communicate a long-term strategy, a luxury that a single player in a single sitting doesn't have. Of course, Ze will probably make some unexpected moves, but that is why I would like more people to study it. Our somewhat unorthodox opening (which was before I learned about the game) actually fared pretty well, despite some disagreements about voting. I would like to include everyone, but showing it here would be disasterous. I could email the moves to interested parties, which would eliminate spying.
    • If it truly is a series of solid moves, then it doesn't matter if Ze sees it or not. Maybe some of White's moves in your sequence are not quite so solid? Regardless, one funny thing I/ve realized is that there's no way for Ze to tell if any of the posted analysis is sincere or competent. There was analysis that would have lead White to winning positions with either 9. cxd5 or 12. cxd5 but Ze chose inferior moves which is why Black is now winning. Jeff 21:58, 18 July 2006 (PDT)
  • Dude, it is totally mate in 17. And I am not being sarcastic. Geedubber 17:57, 18 July 2006 (PDT)
    • I'm happy with making one good move at a time, and having thought out responses to the next one. Announcing mate in 'X' where 'X' is any number > 3 is best left to the movies. Us mortals do make mistakes :) Kingpatzer 07:15, 19 July 2006 (PDT)
  • That's perfectly fine with me, I just wanted to throw it out there, in case anyone was interested. It will still be fun to see if the game does evolve in a similar way (as unlikely as that may be). 12.217.36.103 10:29, 19 July 2006 (PDT)MJTisMe23
  • 16. d5 was not only dubiously taken back, but it also strays from my plans. Luckily, it's a pretty bad move, and now Ze has a whole new set of problems! 12.217.35.201 22:31, 20 July 2006 (PDT)MJTisMe23

Chess engines?

I noticed someone had posted a deep analysis from a chess engine in the last move and it caused some discussion, but let's decide here. There is nothing to say about using chess engines to aid one's analysis, we just can't control that and I don't care how somebody reaches a certain conclusion. But do we want computer analysis on the wiki? How is it helpful? Any opinions?

  • first, i don't think a chess engine is necessary even for fairly weak players. When I started taking lessons my instructor (a very strong IM at the time) felt the best way for me to learn the game was to do my own analysis. With a little patience and practice, a 1600 player can do 2-3 move analysis as well as a 2200 player. But even if it were the case that we couldn't win without a computer, I think the computer posting just kind of spams the wiki. I find it near impossible to read the way it's formatted. And that to me is the bigger problem in a forum that's intended to help communicate something. Kingpatzer 07:13, 19 July 2006 (PDT)
  • I found that unreadable and unnecessary. We are sort of winning (knock on wood), we don't need fritz. Move that to the magic dumpster if you like. Geedubber 10:08, 19 July 2006 (PDT)
  • The chess engine isn't a fabuloso, and so it shouldn't be allowed to play. The point of this is to see how a bunch of strangers can arrive at a decision, not to bring in a lot of technology and blast Ze.--Neal 17:14, 19 July 2006 (PDT)

Chess engines search speed

The current FAQ has some stuff about chess program speed. I did some testing with Crafty and found that it was in the midst of depth 13 in 10sec and completes it's search of depth 18 in under 10min. This is on a bargain chip from a couple years ago (Sempron 1.5GHz), so ... yeah. I'd expect it to get into depth 21+ in an hour. Anywho, the point made is valid, and that's what really matters. --NikolasCo 10:05, 21 July 2006 (PDT)

  • Chess programs don't increase depth linearly with respect to time, but rather logarithmically. So if you upgrade from your Sempron to some dual core X2 or something like that, it won't make a *huge* difference. I don't think any chess engine can do a full width 21 ply search from general open positions even given days to analyze.

Consensus

  • I think we're calculating the consensus %-age incorrectly, at least for move 16. We had 20 votes cast, and the move that won got 11 votes. That's 55% as reported. However, at least 3 people voted for both Nb8 and Bb7, and I voted for Bb5. I think we had only 16 unique voters. So that means we had a consensus of 69% not 55%. Kingpatzer 07:30, 21 July 2006 (PDT)
Personal tools