Topic: CryptoNote technical discussion and Chess Challenge - page 55. (Read 96133 times)
My vote is for h3. On Rd1 there is Ng4 followed by Qb6 with f2 becoming a problem. I also do not like Nd5 since it allows Ng4.
Nd5
Rd1
I think d1 is a good square for the rook but I am worried about
10.Rd1 Ng4
depending on where we move our queen Qb6 could a problem because f2 would be weak.
How about 10.h3 now? It will stop both Ng4 and Bg4 for black.
I would love to play 10.b3 but it fails to
10.b3 Nxe4
11.Qxe4 Bxc3
10.b3 Nxe4
11.Nxe4 Bxa1
My second favorite move after 10.h3 is probably 10.Nd5
Rd1
Current position
Based on the votes in this thread Team Boolberry has chosen to play O-O. Now it is time for Team Monero to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.
Team Monero (white pieces) vs. Team Boolberry (black pieces)
white to move
1.e4 c5
2.Nf3 d6
3.d4 cxd4
4.Qxd4 a6
5.c4 Nc6
6.Qe3 g6
7.Nc3 Bg7
8.Be2 Nf6
9.O-O O-O
Based on the votes in this thread Team Boolberry has chosen to play O-O. Now it is time for Team Monero to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.
Team Monero (white pieces) vs. Team Boolberry (black pieces)
white to move
1.e4 c5
2.Nf3 d6
3.d4 cxd4
4.Qxd4 a6
5.c4 Nc6
6.Qe3 g6
7.Nc3 Bg7
8.Be2 Nf6
9.O-O O-O
O-O
I would play here 0-0. King safety first 
I vote for Ng4
Current position
Based on the votes in this thread Team Monero has chosen to play O-O. Now it is time for Team Boolberry to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.
Team Monero (white pieces) vs. Team Boolberry (black pieces)
black to move
1.e4 c5
2.Nf3 d6
3.d4 cxd4
4.Qxd4 a6
5.c4 Nc6
6.Qe3 g6
7.Nc3 Bg7
8.Be2 Nf6
9.O-O
Based on the votes in this thread Team Monero has chosen to play O-O. Now it is time for Team Boolberry to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.
Team Monero (white pieces) vs. Team Boolberry (black pieces)
black to move
1.e4 c5
2.Nf3 d6
3.d4 cxd4
4.Qxd4 a6
5.c4 Nc6
6.Qe3 g6
7.Nc3 Bg7
8.Be2 Nf6
9.O-O
h3 to stop Ng4
those moves are very ineffective. It better to develop. Will post tomorrow a game I just played at the club where you can see why.
I don't see Ng4 as that dangerous (we can just move the queen) but I'm going to vote for h3 because I don't like having to go on the defensive.
I see no point in debating because O-O looks fine and I agree with smooth that Ng4 is not "dangerous". However h3 is also a good move. See this game:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1802118&kpage=3
9.h3 would lead to literally the exact same position. In that game black played 9....Nd7 and 10....Nde5
It is not hard to imagine how h3 could be helpful since Ng4 and Nde5 accomplishes the same thing (as Nd7 and Nde5) and makes white move the queen again. So if any time is "wasted" with h3, time is potentially gained by not having to move the queen in response to Ng4 on its way to e5.
We have a nice center with white. The problem is finding an easy way to develop our pieces to good squares. For example, we would like to play b3 and Bb2 but it is not always so easy for tactical reasons on the long diagonal. Svidler ended up "wasting" a move with Rb1 in a failed attempt to prepare it. We may want to talk about another plan besides Rb1 based on the game linked above.
We could just skip Rb1 and just play b3. I don't see where Rb1 is needed, although maybe it helps a deter an attack on that side a bit.
EDIT: Oh, okay the pawn at b2 is protecting the c3 knight from being pinned once black moves the knight (as in above game). Hmm.
h3 to stop Ng4
those moves are very ineffective. It better to develop. Will post tomorrow a game I just played at the club where you can see why.
I don't see Ng4 as that dangerous (we can just move the queen) but I'm going to vote for h3 because I don't like having to go on the defensive.
I see no point in debating because O-O looks fine and I agree with smooth that Ng4 is not "dangerous". However h3 is also a good move. See this game:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1802118&kpage=3
9.h3 would lead to literally the exact same position. In that game black played 9....Nd7 and 10....Nde5
It is not hard to imagine how h3 could be helpful since Ng4 and Nde5 accomplishes the same thing (as Nd7 and Nde5) and makes white move the queen again. So if any time is "wasted" with h3, time is potentially gained by not having to move the queen in response to Ng4 on its way to e5.
We have a nice center with white. The problem is finding an easy way to develop our pieces to good squares. For example, we would like to play b3 and Bb2 but it is not always so easy for tactical reasons on the long diagonal. Svidler ended up "wasting" a move with Rb1 in a failed attempt to prepare it. We may want to talk about another plan besides Rb1 based on the game linked above.
h3 to stop Ng4
those moves are very ineffective. It better to develop. Will post tomorrow a game I just played at the club where you can see why.
O-O
h3 to stop Ng4
I don't see Ng4 as that dangerous (we can just move the queen) but I'm going to vote for h3 because I don't like having to go on the defensive.
I think we have a tie now so this move will lose to O-O unless someone else votes for it.
h3
h3 to stop Ng4
O-O
Castling is smart. +1 vote
Can someone give me some cliff notes for this?
https://github.com/ShenNoether/MiniNero/blob/master/RingCT0.1_copy.pdf
I assume it is too late for 0.9 but could it be in the next release? Is this as important as it sounds? What are the negatives? Anything we should be worried about from sections 4, 5 or six of the paper (tag linkability, exculpability and unforgeability) still needs to be completed)
1. Definitely not going to be in 0.9. The math isn't even done yet (as you pointed out).
2. The idea is to still have ring signatures, and allow the amounts to be hidden but cryptographically commit to sum(out)=sum(in).
You are good at giving technical answers that make sense to people like me who are not overly technical. I like the way that sounds. Hopefully it works out and can be implemented eventually.
O-O
Castling is smart. +1 vote
Can someone give me some cliff notes for this?
https://github.com/ShenNoether/MiniNero/blob/master/RingCT0.1_copy.pdf
I assume it is too late for 0.9 but could it be in the next release? Is this as important as it sounds? What are the negatives? Anything we should be worried about from sections 4, 5 or six of the paper (tag linkability, exculpability and unforgeability) still needs to be completed)
1. Definitely not going to be in 0.9. The math isn't even done yet (as you pointed out).
2. The idea is to still have ring signatures, and allow the amounts to be hidden but cryptographically commit to sum(out)=sum(in).
O-O
Castling is smart. +1 vote
Can someone give me some cliff notes for this?
https://github.com/ShenNoether/MiniNero/blob/master/RingCT0.1_copy.pdf
I assume it is too late for 0.9 but could it be in the next release? Is this as important as it sounds? What are the negatives? Anything we should be worried about from sections 4, 5 or six of the paper (tag linkability, exculpability and unforgeability) still needs to be completed)
O-O
Jump to: