Challange Match
M Valvo
have nothing to do when it is over! Therefore, I want to propose another
match. I suspect the DT are tired of playing with me by now, so I won't
put them on the spot again (unless they would want to do it again... I
would be game!), so I am going to challange the net. In Toto.
Here is how it could work. Someone would agree to receive the move-votes
of everyone on the net. Which ever move receives the most votes within a
specified time period would be played. I will comment just like I did in
my game with DT. But given the situation, I may LIE once in awhile!
So. What do you time? Do you-all want to try it? Post your yea/nay.
e.a.knowles
> would be game!), so I am going to challange the net. In Toto.
>
> Here is how it could work. Someone would agree to receive the move-votes
> of everyone on the net. Which ever move receives the most votes within a
> specified time period would be played. I will comment just like I did in
It seems there's a built-in advantage for the master(M Valvo) here.
Naturally the worst moves would get the most votes since the majority
of players are weak (i.e. non-masters). It'd be just like a presidential
election.... 8-)
What might be more interesting (but more clumsy to implement) would be
two "teams" each headed by a strong player (say a Valvo team and a
Berliner team). We could select certain "tabiyas" (standard opening
positions) for "discussion", from which to start the games. Players on
each team would e-mail their move choices and their analysis and opinion
supporting their moves to their "team leader" (the master) and the team
leader would select which move would actually be posted. Teams would
consist of maybe 3 or 4 players besides the leader (so that he's not
to inundated with e-mail). It would be just like a world championship
(which Spassky once said has now become a match between two "camps").
Who knows, we might even find some TNs. The rules would have to include:
1) That moves be made within a certain time,
2) That no analysis on a game in progress be posted to the net,
3) That if computers are used in the analysis, then DT and Hitech
can't be on the same team 8-)
After the games, the analysis could be compiled and distributed and then
discussed.
What could also be interesting, would be that before the games, the
team members within each team "vote" to decide what opening tabiyas
would be put up for "discussion in the match". Like a period of bidding
before a bridge game...
What does everybody think? Mike? Hans? DT?
-Ed Knowles
P.S. I find, in vast majority of instances, that Louis Blairs
contribution to the group to be very stimulating and constructive.
We all slip once in a while (i.e., violate net etiquette), but being
the logical, rational chess nerds that we are, we can be tolerant,
nicht wahr?? After all, we don't want this group to deteriorate into
the flame fest that a lot of other groups have become, do we?
Hans Berliner
> Naturally the worst moves would get the most votes since the majority
> of players are weak (i.e. non-masters). It'd be just like a presidential
> election.... 8-)
>
> What might be more interesting (but more clumsy to implement) would be
> two "teams" each headed by a strong player (say a Valvo team and a
> Berliner team).
Yikes!! I have learned several important things in the years I have played
chess, and one of them is (as someone else has already eloquently pointed
out) that chess is not a team game. Even team matches are horrific, when
the result of a match is decided by some 27th board result. But worst of all
is the senseless tug-of-war that goes on when several people form a committee
to steer the game. I have given simultaneous exhibitions with one or two
other masters and been horrified to return to a board where my fellow master
just retracted my move because he did not understand what it was all about.
Can't you tell from the tone of this net, that chess is a game for supreme
egos. Individualism will succeed or fail. In a committee, the less informed
contributors may learn something , but hardly more than they could have by
trying to understand Valvo's (for the most part excellent) comments in the
present set. However, the quality of the play will be worse than the
AVERAGE of the contributors, because no steady course will be steered.
I don't have amounts of time available right now otherwise I think an
interesting challenge might be to replay the King's Gambit game from some
point with a symbiotic pair playing white (such as me and Hitech). However,
no time.
--
Umesh D. Joglekar
I, like most other netters, have enjoyed Valvo-DT match very much.
The most enjoyable part was having a player comment on his own moves while
making them. Quite often you see annotated tournament games which have after
the fact analysis but you rarely get a chance to see a player commenting on
what he thinks of the position and how he expects the game to turn out.
I can think of only one other instance where you can get the feel
that you are witnessing a game in progress with the master whispering his
thinking to you. (Though in this case the game was being described years after
it was played. -- Bronstein explaining how he trapped Gligoric, explaining
the preparation, the bait and finally the execution. See 200 Open Game by
Bronstein).
So here is my suggestion. Rather than having group matches which
everyone knows will degenerate into lousy games, why not have two masters
say Valvo and **** Volunteer master **.
The game can proceed just like Valvo-DT, i.e., by e-mail between two
players. Each player can post his running commentary just like Valvo gave a blow
by blow account of his game. The subject line will tell the player A that the
particular posting refers to comments by player B or any other netter as a
followup to comments by player B so he can skip that posting.
This will give every one an opportunity to witness serious games with
comments by either players while the game is in progress.
How about it Mike?
- Umesh D. joglekar
If there are more volunteers ( By that I mean very strong players)
then we can have more of these matches. I am sure, this would liven
things up on this net.
- Umesh
David Kristofferson
la Valvo vs. Deep Thought with a running commentary on the moves. Out
of all the suggestions over the last several days this would be the
most instructive. I'm not sure that the secrecy on the analysis need
be as strict as Umesh mentioned however (knowing intentions in advance
might just force the participants to analyze even deeper!), but it
would be nice if such an "honor" system could be followed. No quick
draws, please! Possibly two games with predefined sharp openings
should be used?!
--
Sincerely,
Dave Kristofferson
BIONET Resource Manager
ceb...@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu
Wasn't there some kind of computer versus vote of majority thing going
on on the net about six months ago? What happened to it?
I agree with the others that a collective vote would be pretty weak
play.
Bob Lummis
> I second Umesh's suggestion to have two real masters play each other a
> la Valvo vs. Deep Thought with a running commentary on the moves.
> I'm not sure that the secrecy on the analysis need
> be as strict as Umesh mentioned however (knowing intentions in advance
> might just force the participants to analyze even deeper!), but it
> would be nice if such an "honor" system could be followed.
I think it would be very interesting to carry this idea one small step
further. Let's have two strong players compete with full discussion of
their reasoning and intentions, and NO restriction against the opponent
reading their comments.
In fact it would be quite interesting to have a lecture format (not on the
net, but in a room with a large game board and two large analysis boards)
in which the players make moves at the game board and give a running
discussion before each move of their reasoning. The audience would be allowed
to question or comment, and the opponent would be allowed to listen! The
only rule would be that the person *not* on move could not talk -- thus no
verbal discussion or debating between them.
--
Robert C. Lummis, Director of Scientific Computing
Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, N.Y.
Domain: b...@aecom.yu.edu
UUCP: {uunet,philabs,phri}!aecom!bob
David Furtney
<I think it would be very interesting to carry this idea one small step
<further. Let's have two strong players compete with full discussion of
<their reasoning and intentions, and NO restriction against the opponent
<reading their comments.
<
<In fact it would be quite interesting to have a lecture format (not on the
<net, but in a room with a large game board and two large analysis boards)
<in which the players make moves at the game board and give a running
<discussion before each move of their reasoning. The audience would be allowed
<to question or comment, and the opponent would be allowed to listen! The
<only rule would be that the person *not* on move could not talk -- thus no
<verbal discussion or debating between them.
Yes, I like this idea a lot. It's not so important that each side can
hear what the other side is thinking. Maybe one side would have blundered
or fallen for a trap and doesn't, and instead we are treated to a battle
of ideas and judgement. Horrors! Any takers?
Domain: fur...@boulder.Colorado.EDU
UUCP: ..!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!furtney