Hrqls: I am sure if Sheldon thought of it there would have to be some big explosion with some piece and the game would be over in a trice but to get there would require 23 moves performed in exactly the right order whilst facing west and only breathing out ... bless his soul.

swordswisher: Not sure if this has gone to air yet but the intended games (if they eventuate) would be of a 10x8 chess variant not of "standard" chess. The one trying to organise this tournament has been around this site over the years but less so of late. If you hear more of this torunament please post it in the 10x8 forum.

WQ :)

I have deleted a few posts are they are considered personal attacks and do not add substance to the debate. They have not been copied to their owners. If this goes the same way again ability to post will be retricted (and for some withdrawn).

This is an interesting debate, please keep it there.

WhisperzQ

pronto_gm: English only this board please

rednaz23: Yes and yes. although when you have a large number of completed games the differential is minor.

DragonKing: Your welcome, thanks ... and yes,it is important to add that it must be the next immediate move.

Groucho: Hi Al Groucho :)

Czuch Chuckers: Your opponents move is called "en passant", is abbreviated e.p., and basically is French for "I pass you" which is what his pawn has just done.

You can read the particluar rule at http://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=1&fwa=ShowGame!g=1560943$i=21 about 4/5th of the way down the page (or just search for "en passant".

This is not a "bug".

Matarilevich: I amm not sure if the possible moves is also a requirement? Can others confirm this?

pawnme: That is sort of my sentiment too ... I mainly play variants, not to find out how good people are (compared to standard chess), but because it is less likely that they will have a lot of extra assistance be that computers, books or having already played a lot games.

S O C R A T E S: I am aware that there are a few who have, in the past, admitted to using Chess programs but I cannot remember who they are nor do I have an inclination to go back through fellowships to work it out.

The result of the discussion was, however, that there was no prohibition on people using programs but it would be correct ettiquette (sp?) for this to be stated upfront, as say does "SMIRF Engine" when he uses it for playing Gothic Chess.

The great difficulty is proving someone is using a program. There are some who believe that they can work it out depending upon the moves which are made ... a level of chess intuition which is far beyond me.

As for further discussion, this is not a taboo topic but please do make unfounded accusations (they will be hidden or deleted). Personally, I wonder what the real difference is between using say a book of openings which is a compilation of moves in a database which is textual (considered by most to be okay) and using a computer program with the same information but with a much faster search engine ... a computer instead of one's brain ... which is considered not okay. Fruit for the sideboard so to speak (in strine).

My preference is for the falling system, rather than removal. Although more complicated, it could be expedential ... 0% for the first month, 1/2% for next month, then 1% for third, and so on. The other question is what you would need to do to start on the slippery slid ... just make a move? start a game? finish a game? hmmm

jfa: With regard to not knowing potentially how good someone is, well there is the graph which gives you an idea of how high a person may have risen at one stage, so long as you are a paying member. Even pawns have graphs, just they can't see them.

ColonelCrockett: I understand what you are saying, but I play chess for enjoyment and relaxation ... having to remember all my past games, write things down and go back to them is not part of that regime. I can admire when someone does something brilliantly, who knows, if I spent hours studying each game maybe I could find the the same (not saying I definitely would, or that it takes those with the ability that amount of time) but that is not why I play.

Actually I prefer the variants where there are less chess books, histories of games and chess programs, because I feel I am usually on a more even playing field, but even here there are some that frustrate me because they are too good (for me) ... I want to play in even contests not be overrun everytime.

danoschek: I tend to play intuitively too, but with far less skill ... and as for plys, unless it is obvious I rarely get past three. As said before ... well constructed!

danoschek: I takeit that "platebox" is another computer chess program like Fritz? Witht he sac, how far ahead had you worked to make sure that you would come out ahead, for quite a while you were, piecewise, a minor and a few pawns behind? Position wise, the bishop and queen focus on e1 was really sweet :)

danoschek: Very neat play, but way beyond what I could ever conceive ... I would never have come up with the knight sac :)

Generally: A few posts have ben clipped as they were not appropriate for this board.

Further discussion regarding the merit and method of offering draws (in Chess) at Bk and with regard to Chess in general is welcome, but there is no need to revisit the Alex v Ed Trice game, at least until it is over, and then only in a constructive manner plesae.

WhisperzQ

It is with regret that I have to advise that one person has taken exception to the selection process for recent post deletions so I feel obliged to delete a few more. Personally, I think they were acceptable observations and comments, but some seem to think that the competition over the board should be carried on in this board with personal point scoring the aim. I did not view the posts I left as falling into this category (the ones I did were deleted in the first round) but to be even more than fair the others have gone too. I apologise to the posters but I hope you can see the dilemma.

Needless to say, a precedence has now been set which will be applied into the future. Should you wish to purvey the deletions I expect there are those who have (and have a reputation for) kept a copy ... you might seek there.

Cheers ... with all our best intents intact

WhisperzQ

The red pen has been out and the matter is now settled so a continuation of the flaming is not required. I have left what I think is necessary to follow the constructive conversation but suggest that further debate on one or another's prowess be pursued elsewhere.

Thank you

WhisperzQ :)

Enough thank you ... let's move on (haha) ... Ed is quite right, he may move at whatever speed he desires so long as it meets the game's conditions. Sportsmanship is often subjective and contests are not always won just with the pieces on the board, but in this case let us just watch and see ... if an earlier estimation is correct that might be around about May next year. Further posts on this matter will probably be deleted.

Apart from the speed with which a computer program can evaluate a situation, what is the difference between refering to a computer sorted database and checking in, say, a book for the same scenario and possible lines of attack/defence which have been successful for others. I wonder if there was the same discussion when books on chess positions and reference voumes of played games first were published.

One reason I play little chess these days is that I have come to realise that I cannot compete with people with great experience who can rely upon a knowledge store of past games, strategies and tactics which I do not have. I prefer to play the variants where each game is new and strategies and tactics need to be worked out each time from scratch .... where storehouses of past games just do not exist.

Have to get Fencer to install a "delete many" button. The deleterious posts have been removed and the ones that didn't make sense without them. If sanity prevails we can continue ... and as he expected Dano is now hidden.

And with that said we might move on please ... analysis of the game will be acceptable (after it is finished of course) but until then we should let them play it out in peace (however long it takes).

9 posts deleted ... please do not flame on this public board.

This discussion has been around before and will be around again. All the points made are valid. My recollection was that it would be acceptable for people to use whatever aids they wanted to, but, to be polite, they should state what aids they do use, particularly if asked ... but there is no certainty in a cyber world.

My preference is to play variations where the use of a program is of little value as the software is either non-existant or insufficiently adavanced to be of consequence. I also like to play these variations as it tends to bring the "masters" a little back to the field as they do not have any "books" in either their mind or written to follow.

I'm sure Ug did :)

Ug: nice ones ... queening pawns into knights just to give you opponent a fighting chance :)

Yes, only paid members can join fellowdhips.

Okay ... four things effect changes to your ratings.

1. The result (obvious) ... a win will generally increase your rating (it won't go down), a draw (ratings generally get closer, the higher dropping and the lower increasing), and loses decrease your rating.
2. Your rating before the result was achieved (again obvious)
3. The difference between the players (again, reasonably obvious, not sure though what happens when a player is not rated, sorry). Where the difference is great and the higher player loses both change dramatically (big penalty on the higher rated player and big reward for the lower rated player) or if the higher player wins both change only a little.
4. The number of games which have been counted to achieve that rating (not so obvious). There is an "averaging" which is based over all the games played, if there are a lot of games the change will be minimised reflecting the establishment of an average position. When a player has only played a few games, there are less games to average against so the changes are more significant.

I believe that it is this last component which caused the your opponent's rating to change but did not effect your rating.

Hope this helps ... for more info check out the FAQ

Okay ... I'm in!

- Select the piece you want to move by "clicking" on it ... only pieces which can be moved can be selected - the cursor changes from an arrow pointer to a hand over these pieces.
- Click on the square you want to move the selected piece to ... again the cursor changes to a hand to indicate which squares are vaild - invalid squares show the arrow pointer.
- Click on the appropriate button below the board (the first button will record the move and then take you back to your main page, the second button will record the move and leave you at the current game, and the third button will record the move and take you to your next game). There is also a button to cancel the move slightly below these three. The buttons only appear after you have made a valid move.

You seem to have made a move already so hopefully you have worked it out :)

Okay, more whisperzzzz ... how does black get their bishop to b4 at move 6 (past the e7 pawn). Maybe that explains the !? marking :)

I think there is something missing from your "real gambit" listing, there should be a line 4 :)