Topic: Lets play a game of Chess - page 77. (Read 160681 times)

It begins! Now is the time for a4! Probably, that is. I actually don't know what the best way to launch our attack is, other than that we must launch it now. Rac1 might also be good. But I think the time is right for a4.

Your move bitcointalk. You have the white pieces

The current position is updated below:


1. Nf3     d5
2. c4      e6
3. g3      Nf6
4. Bg2    dxc4
5. Qa4+  Nbd7
6. Qxc4   c5
7. 0-0     a6
8. d3      b5
9. Qc2    Bb7
10.Nc3    Be7
11.Bf4     0-0
12.Rfd1   Qb6

More than 24 hours have elapsed from the last vote...


Do we all agree we've reached the consensus for Rfd1? It seems so to me...

(Rfd1: recursive acronym of Rfd1 for de w1n!!!) 

Sometimes move order means everything, other times it is less important. Although there are some important differences between Rfd1 and a4 it is possible that some future positions could transpose.

If you plan on playing two moves at some point try to compare the options available to your opponent based on the move order you choose. Sometimes the answer is obvious (when one move order involves a check or capture with a forced response and another move order gives an opponent multiple choices) and sometimes it is not. Giving your opponent a choice could be good (if their best response leads to a transposition while other responses are mistakes) or it could be bad (where the best response leads to a position better for your opponent than would occur with the more forcing move order).

Sometimes you will see a good player repeat a position several times before making a different move. This could be to gain time on the clock before time control. It could also be to give an opponent a chance to make a mistake knowing that their best response would be to repeat. The concept is similar. If you are risking nothing to give your opponent a chance to make a mistake, it might be wise do to so.  Of course exceptions could exist such if your opponent is the one in time trouble and repeating a few moves would help him/her reach time control.

I don't know why they're talking about how they're going to eventually surrender, my suggestion for a4 hasn't changed.

So has the community decided on Rfd1? Or are people still debating the choice?

Did anyone attend this event: https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/

It is something I have been thinking about more lately.

Still no decision?
I didn't expect consensus, but I expected a decision one way or the other. 

I specifically mentioned the Nalimon tablebases because I don't have (and can't get) the Lomonosov tablebases - all up, they're 140 freaking terabytes!

Sounds good. We are basically in agreement.

Its not a big deal but it does look like 7 is now the correct answer. I do remember when it was 6:

http://chessok.com/?page_id=27966
Endgame tablebases are computer databases of chess endings with precise calculations for optimal play in any position, provided the number of pieces on the board does nor exceed a certain limit. With Lomonosov Tablebases, this limit has gone up from 6 pieces to 7!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase
By August 2012, tablebases had solved chess for every position with up to seven pieces (the positions with a lone king versus a king and five pieces were omitted because they were considered uninteresting).[1][2]

6 pieces. I just gave that as an example. A forced checkmate or conversion would also work. I wouldn't want to allow resignation if there's a realistic chance of drawing, put it that way.

I think everything you said sounds reasonable with a possible exception of the Nalimov tablebase comment (proven perfect play/result of any position with 7 pieces or less for those that are curious about the definition). For example if we somehow end up down a rook and a bishop with many pieces remaining (no Nalimov tablebase) in a dull position (no counterplay) it seems silly to play to checkmate.  I am not saying that this is likely to happen, just that we may be better off resigning if it does and hoping he will agree to another game. Playing for stalemate for example seems ridiculous.

On the other hand if it ends up with king knight and bishop against king I say play to the end (even though Nalimov tablebase says we are lost)! Its not always easy to win in 50 moves and maybe we could learn something.

D'oh! I forgot about that. So now it's five votes for Rfd1 (languagehasmeaning, jjacob, abacus, neochiny, and myself) and three for a4 (Timeloard2067, actmyname, and Taras). I hope I've got it right this time.

I forgot about that, too.

Don't worry, I know how you have the whole game planned out. A few moves from now, there will be an epic battle on the queenside, which we will only barely survive due to you being a grandmaster, then you will sacrifice the exchange to bring pressure on our castled king with your bishops, nobody will listen to me when I explain this, everyone except me votes to accept the sacrifice, we resist futilely, and get mated. Is that pretty much how it's going to go down? No, that defeatist attitude won't do. We must win the queenside battle!

I feel resignation should be unanimous unless our position is proved to be losing (eg, by the Nalimov tablebases), since there's no possible way it can help us. If anyone wants to play out a non-trivial losing game, I have no objections.

I do think draws should be decided by popular vote, however. I propose the following rules for draws:

* Anyone who votes for a move that allows a draw by threefold repetition or the fifty-move rule should indicate whether or not they wish to claim the draw (drawing is not mandatory in these cases, but note that our opponent may claim the draw on his move if we don't). We draw if that move is chosen and the majority of those who voted for it wish to claim.

* Anyone who wishes to offer a draw must also vote for a move, as the opponent has the right to demand a move be made before deciding whether to accept the offer, and we'll look pretty silly if those offering a draw can't agree on a move. Anyone who votes for a move without offering a draw is presumed to be voting against the draw offer (though they can of course change their vote). We make the draw offer if the majority agrees to it, even if those voting for a draw offer voted for different moves.

* If letsplayagame offers a draw after making his move, those who wish to accept the offer should say so instead of voting for a move. The vote to accept a draw will be counted as though it were a move, ie, the draw is accepted if it has more votes than the most popular real move. If he offers a draw without making a move, anyone may demand that he make one, in which case no vote on the issue is valid until he does so.

Does that sound reasonable?

Question:

Should resigning be a valid move that we can vote on?

Obviously this is not a near term concern (the current position looks about equal to me) but IF the time comes (I hope we win) we should know in advance if its a valid option or if one person can force the game to be played all the way to checkmate.

Personally I think resigning should be allowed. Aside from a large troll invasion its not a realistic "threat" to our result unless we are obviously losing.

Try to be more specific if you want advice other than what any search engine will reveal.

Chess.com and ChessClub.com are nice places to play

Chess24.com is good for live tournament analysis and commentary

There are many more. It depends on if you want to play, study openings, tactics, endgames, etc

any good chess gaming sites?

He already said that some computer programs are already better than the best humans. So if you use a computer to beat him you have proven nothing and just wasted your time.

hehe... voting for Rfd1... it is the best move i can see...
a4 is useless for me... even if i am black..i can crash white when white do it...
 by the way is fine to use  fritz here? just asking.

I prefer not to confirm or deny every guess or I may reveal myself quickly.   However I can deny in this case since I already provided a clue that eliminated him as a possibility (based on current ratings):

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12179763

Interesting to see another tie vote! I will say that the next several moves for each side will be important in deciding the direction of the game. Keep considering not just your plan but the likely plan of your opponent.

We are 3-3 until now, languagehasmeaning switched to Rfd1. 

Oops! I meant Rac1.
Hate to get the notation wrong.

My second choice is Rfd1. I am against a4 at this point of time.