From zefrank

Voting CLOSED (Qg5 Wins)

Final Tally

21. ... Qg6 - 8 Votes

21. ... fxe4 - 3 Votes

21. ... Nc5 - 0 Votes

21. ... c5 - 2 Votes

21. ... Qg5 - 12 Votes

21. ... Ba6 - 1 Votes

20. ... c6 - 3 Votes

Doesn't that mean that we've got 12 out of 29 votes for Rac8. How come that this is 63% and not 41% approval rating? (see yesterday), JackH 01:29, 28 July 2006 (PDT)

• That overlooks the fact that there were only 20 distinct voters. 63% is wrong though. the correct support percentage is 12 / 20 = 60%. Jeff 11:30, 28 July 2006 (PDT)

general stuff

Today's Suggested Moves have been posted, and the voting polls will open at Thursday 7PM EDT and close at Friday 12AM EDT(Thursday night), in order to give time for enough deliberation before the votes are cast. Don't have a username/Id yet? Get one here! and take some credit for your contributions!

Remember to check back even if you've already cast your vote! .. there's still some disagreement between potential moves .. and analysis will most likely continue up until Sunday night when the polls close. It's also not too late to submit a vote for another move that has not been evaluated yet .. (although it looks like we have most of the best move options available, people can always miss things).

• (very) Rough draft of the Fabuloso Chess Edit Guide is now up and located here

Use the following tags to help suggest moves, and remember if you want to throw up an example speculative board in the discussion, please refer to the Edit Guide on how to properly format it.

 <!-- ==Speculative Move== -->

 <!-- REMOVE THIS LINE TO INSERT BOARD

  REMOVE THIS LINE TO INSERT BOARD -->

 <!-- MAKE CERTAIN YOU ADD A COMMENT TO JUSTIFY THIS POSITION-->

{{clear}}

Just follow the instructions, and completely delete those lines .. and don't forget to replace 'Speculative Move' with the actual move name. Also bear in mind that anything after the clear tag won't be visible, so don't enter any text underneath it (unless you're adding another section)

Voting Instructions

Cut and paste the following to vote

# '''VOTE''' by ~~~~: add a comment! 

• You may vote for many moves as you like, but only one vote per move.
• When voting closes, the move with the most votes wins.
• If there is a tie, whoever tallies the votes breaks the tie.

Anti-voting

Just to be complicated, I've decided to "anti-vote" this move (-87⁴). It works as follows.

• A user can vote or anti-vote for as many moves as they like, but cannot vote and anti-vote during the same move.
• Anti-votes count as "-1" when votes are tallied.
• Effectively, anti-voting allows users to support all moves except those they anti-vote for. The advantage of this is early voters aren't forced to vote against moves that have yet to be proposed.
  • UMMM NO! We would have to vote on whether to allow anti-votes first. You can't just decide something like that Geedubber 15:58, 27 July 2006 (PDT)
    • Ok, so he goes down as a vote for everything except those two. If you allow multiple votes this is just a notational convenience. Speed8ump 16:02, 27 July 2006 (PDT)
      • The math works out differently. It is not the same thing Geedubber 16:09, 27 July 2006 (PDT)
        • which only matters for the percentage, not the winning move. If you don't tally it his way I'll just cast my votes that way. I wouldn't normally vote but I feel you are being unfair. For the record I'm also annoyed at him for causing such confusion. Speed8ump 16:11, 27 July 2006 (PDT)
          • and deciding a new voting method without community consent is fair? just mark him down as voting for all other moves, I would be chill with that. Hell, I'll do it for him. Geedubber 16:17, 27 July 2006 (PDT)
            • Thanks, that's all I wanted. Speed8ump 16:25, 27 July 2006 (PDT)
  • If we allow anti-votes, then the best voting strategy will be to always anti-vote the moves you don't like which effectively makes anti-voting just some extra editing you need to do on the page to express your preferences. Unless anti-voting is restricted to only certain moves, but that just makes it more tedious because you have to keep checking back and switching your anti-vote to the leading competing move. Executive Summary: Allowing anti-votes is equivalent to not allowing them except for extra busy work monitoring and editing the wiki page. Jeff 16:18, 27 July 2006 (PDT)
    • yes, as I said, a notational difference, not really a mathematical one, since we allow multi-voting (which I frankly think is wishy-washy, but the masses have spoken). Speed8ump 16:25, 27 July 2006 (PDT)
    • actually, I think anti-voting is setting us up for a problem. If everyone antivotes then I can sabotage the move by adding an undebated move just before the vote tally. This move will have 0 antivotes and will therefore win. I'd call that an emphatic reason *not* to allow this. Speed8ump 17:03, 27 July 2006 (PDT)

• Perhaps we should hold the anti-voting vote tomorrow. cause I am pretty sure 87 would want to vote for it. Otis and Axl voted early as well so they won't be able to vote for or against it. Geedubber 16:44, 27 July 2006 (PDT)
  • I'd agree, since I'm sure that 87 would also like to defend the use of it for those who must cast votes early. The current system does prevent early voters from preferring moves haven't evaluated over moves they actively feel are bad. Whatever, it all works out in the end. Speed8ump 16:56, 27 July 2006 (PDT)
• In response to DavidHowell's comment in his vote below: The problem with anti-votes is not how you envision that they could be used but rather how other people will inevitably use them. See Unintended Consequence and Game Theory
  • While Jeff's description of the best voting strategy (above) doesn't really proove the point, it does show the problem. If he is correct then everyone will begin doing this. If everyone does this then we are open to the possibility of the sniping problem. I'm not saying it *will* happen, but at least think through the consequences. Heck, if Ze could pull it off he might do so just to watch us squirm. Speed8ump
• Okay, now *I* want a new voting system. Each of us have to list our ELO chess ratings. Then our votes will each get factored by a weight equal to the square root of our rating. If you anti-vote, the vote is worth -0.5 times the square root of your ELO. If you don't have an ELO rating, then you have to submit your vote to a Wiki committee, consisting of ELO-rated members, who will determine if your vote will count. After two approved votes, you don't have to submit your vote to a committee anymore and you can vote as a full "member" of the Wiki. That all sounds simple, right? Snark 19:56, 27 July 2006 (PDT)
  • Even better, since some people don't have accurate ELO ratings or ratings from the same pool, we should all duke it out on FICS in a big roundrobin tournament. Or not. Jeff 06:46, 28 July 2006 (PDT)
• Isn't it interesting that while I'm sure you abuse your health care benefits... i.e. my doctor vist co-pay is only $35 so I don't care who fit's the bill, or that the money obviously has to come from somewhere? Your main concern is of the overuse and abuse of the ability to exercise a more finely tuned mecanic in expressing ones views. I'm sure by the simple fact that many of the voters don't actually understand the idea and therefore regect and vote against it, that your fears are well founded. Perhaps I should change my vote since Ze always talks down to his audience we should definately keep a system full of potential developement "dumbed down"--DavidHowell 03:45, 28 July 2006 (PDT)
  • Despite my earlier comments that it is just a notational convenience, it isn't. I admit I was wrong about that. What anti-voting implies is that new moves automatically are assumed good, rather than assumed to be crap. Normal voting assumes all moves are bad, and promotes the good ones. Anti-voting assumes all moves are good and demotes the bad ones. Assuming all moves are good is not a good plan in chess. There are usually just a few good moves and a whole mess of bad ones. Oh, and BTW, insulting your audience is generally considered "not persuasive".

Vote for or against anti-voting

This poll has been moved to Move 22 discussion. You may vote on this issue until 12am Monday (Sunday night).

Strategy Discussion

Contents 1 Voting CLOSED (Qg5 Wins) 1.1 Final Tally 1.2 general stuff 1.3 Voting Instructions 1.3.1 Anti-voting 1.4 Vote for or against anti-voting 2 Strategy Discussion 2.1 Rac8 3 Suggested Move Summary 3.1 Qg6 3.1.1 Voting 3.2 fxe4 3.2.1 Voting 3.3 Nc5 3.3.1 Voting 3.4 c5 3.4.1 Voting 3.5 Qg5 3.5.1 Voting 3.6 Ba6 3.6.1 Voting 3.7 c6 3.7.1 Voting

Rac8

must have been a pretty good move...he's sure taking his sweet time responding to it!  : )

• It may be time to "Make our Move" and start the fxe5 chain . . . where it stops, nobody knows! SaintPeter 13:05, 27 July 2006 (PDT)
• Does anybody see a good reason for Ze to play this move? The only reasons I can think of are either to attack a5 (don't see one) or to prevent b5 which is not a threat to him in the first place. TtT

Suggested Move Summary

Suggested Position Suggested Move: Qg6	Suggested Position Suggested Move: fxe4	Suggested Position Suggested Move: Nc5
Suggested Position Suggested Move: Qg5	Suggested Position Suggested Move: c5	Suggested Position