Talk:Fabuloso Friday 2/Fabuloso Chess

From zefrank

Contents 1 Tributes to Kazz! 2 Another place to talk so Ze cannot read it? 3 Alternatives to Voting 4 Vandalism!

Tributes to Kazz!

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

• I am awesome. Kazz
• Yes indeed, well done! --Gelbi^talk 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.  ; ; ßrigade^rant

Another place to talk so Ze cannot read it?

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... --Gelbi^talk 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. --Gelbi^talk 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. medwards^talk
  • 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... gelbi^talk
    • 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. medwards^talk

• 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. ßrigade^rant

• 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. medwards^talk
    • 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.  :-) ßrigade^rant
      • 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... --gelbi^talk 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. medwards^talk
      • 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. --gelbi^talk 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 se 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? medwards^talk

• 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.ßrigade^rant