Clandestine 1: :)

Nothingness: I just came across cssdixieland's post, which got me to go back and find our two posts from 2019, though just a short scroll on this page.
I wrote in my reply to him that I use a long version of the Algebraic Notation. I do not take shortcuts. I write the piece abbreviation, and I name both pieces if a capture is made and I use an × to denote a capture or a - for moving a piece to a square without a capture. I also name the square the piece is moved from to the square the piece is moving to.

So 1. P-K4 as I often see it in Algebraic Notation is just 1. e4
In my notation it is 1. P E2-E4
I only write in capital letters.

Let us say a capture is made.
Abbreviation and shortcuts are also widely used in Descriptive Notation.

Say 23. R×R, and not as 23. R on QB1 × R on QB3 unless there is ambiguity as to which Rook might take the opponent's Rook on which B file if the other opponent's Rook happens to be on KB3 while White's other Rook is on KB1.
Then it might be 23. R(QB1)×R

In my notation this never happens and it looks the same regardless of the position.
23. R×R C1-C3
I am not sure how the main way of Algebraic Notation does this, though it seems it is geared to using the least amount of writing as possible.

I had not thought that someone would leave out the × when making a capture. I just came across someone writing it that way. I am having a very hard time following the games he writes about. How lazy of him not to write the × or -. What does it save? Why do it? Is this common among current players?

cssdixieland: Yeah, well, your argument makes about as much sense as the people that say the United States should never, ever adopt the Metric System. There's better ways to do things, and you are right we do not have to do things in a different way just because there are better ways.

Keeping track of the moves in a Chess game is just a way to save the game. Why does it matter how it is done? You make it sound like using the Algebraic Notation is the worse thing in the world, and using tradition as a reason is one reason of many I have heard why we do not use the Metric System here. On BrainKing there is also a pictorial notation, though it does use the algebraic numbering for the squares. My version of the Algebraic Notation is not standard. I do not use shortcuts. I name both squares and I use - for move, and × for capture, and I use the standard abbreviation for the piece every time for every move. My way of using Algebraic Notation eliminates all ambiguity, and it is very easy to use. I can still use Descriptive Notation, but why should I? It is easy to make mistakes using it, and has all sorts of ambiguous moves that require care when recording a game so that you get the right move recorded. I suppose it has a romance to it as it treats both sides equally, but other than that, I see no advantage to preferring it over Algebraic Notation.

When you posted here in reply to a four year old post, I was surprised. I had thought that Descriptive Notation had been completely replaced, and only people that study old games written before Algebraic Notation took over would need to know Descriptive Notation. I find out that I am incorrect in this assumption. Are their many people that share your belief in the Descriptive Notation? The reason to keep track is so that you can replay the game or share it with someone else. If most people do not know Descriptive Notation and you only publish games using it, you will lose a lot of people, or those people must learn it.

Which system is easier? The Metric System or U.S. Standard? We both know the Metric System is easier, but the U.S. Standard has many adherents over the Metric. The Metric System's simplicity is one major reason why is should be used in the United States, though I can think of more reasons. I like the U.S. Standard, but I am also very good with numbers. Most Americans are not, so why do they resist the Metric System? Laziness? Inertia? Or maybe know one cares? You got me why. Considering we have had a decimal money system since 1792, you'd think we would have been on the Metric System bandwagon since the French invented it. Consider that the Metric System was adopted as the standard in United States in 1866 and 1876 and it sill is not universal. That's right, over 150 years ago. It's tradition.

AH, you are talking about the abbreviated algebraic notation. I do not use it as I do not like it for the reasons that you state.

P-K4 is P E2-E4. On this site it is e2-e4. I am not sure why Pawns are disrespected so much that they do not get a "P". As much as I do not like Pawns, I still put a "P" for them when I keep notation. I may not like them, but I know they are of key importance to Chess and many variants. I want to see it spelled out. Just writing e4 does not work for me.

You might try changing the settings as that is how it appears on the Chess variants I play.
It appears as e2-e4 instead of e4.

Nothingness: I do not use notation as I no longer record the games. I used to use algebraic notation for recording Dark Chess games as it is easier to follow a game when the site uses it instead of having an option to use descriptive notation. The algebraic notation is simple and doesn't have hardly any ambiguity in use. Why do you prefer descriptive notation? Force of habit? Both notations work, why not use the one that is easier to find in current writings?

ketchuplover: Wild game.

ketchuplover: Yes, that is an amazingly bad move, kethcuplover. Being two Rooks up and just two moves from a checkmate that your opponent cannot stop had to hurt. Oops! Ouch!!

rabbitoid: OK, rabbitoid. I finally got out a Chess set and put the pieces on the squares indicated. Thank you.

ketchuplover: I do not understand this notation. How can your Rook get to D4 in three moves?

ketchuplover: No.

ketchuplover: And I see It's Your Turn is number 16 now.
So what gives? Why the sudden appearance and in the top 100 when just a few weeks ago BrainKing wasn't even on the chart? I wish the chess-links site would explain the column headings and maybe write up something.

rabbitoid: Sounds like a bias of some kind. Maybe they should state this in the list too?

ketchuplover: Site visits? I looked at their chart, but I cannot figure out what the columns mean. They do not have a legend explaining the column headers, and I'm not very good with abbreviations when I do not know the subject very well.

ketchuplover: I am doubting their accuracy. Perhaps they've never heard of BrainKing? Or maybe they personally dislike this site?
Or does 109,000 members mean nothing? What criteria do they use for ranking a site for be good for Chess?

ketchuplover: I have read some of the rules and prize categories. I like how they are trying to prevent draws by not allowing them except by asking the tournament director. This is almost identical to my solution, though they have a 30 move rule for some reason. I wish them well with this tournament. I wonder how many people will enter and how many of the top rated tournament champions of the world will enter?

computeropponen: I disagree. What do you mean by better? Better for what? Winning? I doubt it, and there's more to playing games than winning, even if the object of a game is to win the game.

While it is true that a player can fashion the timing of his moves to increase the chance of a time out or loss of patience in his opponent, doing so greatly increases the chance of that particular opponent of not playing with him again. If winning the game is that important, then that is the type of game you'll have.

This is not the way I like to play. I want to win every game, but doing things that aren't part of the game seem to me like you are playing some other game. It is similar to those with lofty ratings in games without a chance mechanism refusing to play lower rated players. Are you playing a game, or are you playing the site and deceiving yourself about your own playing skills?

I would much rather play a good game and lose than play poorly and win. At least most of the time. If the game has a chance mechanism, such as Backgammon, then a little luck and making poor moves can be very rewarding for reasons that Chess cannot ever be. In Chess and other games where luck is minimal or non-existent, I want to play my best and win or lose with my opponent doing his best.

Using the clock to beat me works quite well, but you'll not get me to play you many games. If I start a game and the clock is going to be part of the game and strategy, I would hope my opponent and myself discussed this before the game so that he or I won't feel deceived and will use the clock in a way that is more than just part of rules and is part of the game we expected before we started to play it.

ketchuplover: I think a good proposal would be to prohibit agreed to draws.

If a player wants to declare a draw, he should have to ask a tournament director or committee and then demonstrate that he can FORCE a draw or prevent his opponent from winning. All drawn games should be subject to review.

computeropponen: I tried Chinese Chess once. I did not like the experience and am unwilling to subject myself to it again.. I dislike all the move restrictions and other things about the game. I can see that the game can be a very challenging game to play, but that doesn't mean that I like playing it.

Since you turned down all four of the invitations I sent, you will have to find someone else to play. The two games I sent are very good games, but if you don't like to play them, or don't want to learn to play them, that's how it is. But I did offer to play you, an unrated player, so don't say all people in the top ten of every game won't play unrated players. I have noticed this very thing about a few players, but that's their choice. Play and win and move up in the ranking, then maybe they'll play you. Complaining about it here isn't going to get you much, or maybe as far as it got you in whatever discussion board that has Chinese Chess in it.

I would play Chu Shogi if this site ever adds it. I occasionally play Japaneses Chess or Shogi, but I don't really like that game very much either.

All of these games are mostly off topic on this discussion board, so I imagine if you keep up the antics and complaining you'll find yourself banned here too.

computeropponen: Well, well, well, my fine furry friend!

I have sent you four game invitations. They are not regular Chess or Chinese Chess. In Embassy Chess I might say that I too am a garbage player if understand your meaning of the word garbage, but I like the game and am in the top 10 on this site. As for Dark Chess, rating or not, I am one of the best that play it, though I am a lot weaker than I was about seven years ago. So get your unrated self over to the games and see what you can do. I often move all day long, but I work on the road and might miss a few days on occasion, but fear not as I have set the time parameters with a Fischer Clock and you won't have to worry about slow moving games that do not end.

bobwhoosta: This a common complaint with various players. It is fair by the rules, but it's certainly not in the spirit of the game when the situation was equal and the moves were coming faster. If they move at different paces depending on the game situation, then this person is playing two games instead of one. Them's the breaks for you.

The Fischer Clock or a shorter time limit is what I do. Or pick my opponents carefully. Some will slip through, so create the time parameters yourself. Most people are happy with whatever you have, and those of us that have work or other obligations away from the computer will pick the time limit that fits into their life. Or, as you've noted, I have a Rook unlimited membership and it solves this problem even if the annoying game is still on my list of games.

ColonelCrockett: This whole thing about not knowing what your opponent is doing when playing on the internet is why I like Dark Chess! The board is dark for everyone except the two players, so this makes getting outside help harder. The type of thinking needed to play it well is very hard for computer programmers. Though seeing how they've figured out Poker and Contract Bridge, I'd say this is not the case any more. Which leaves it to the fact that Dark Chess is under the programmer's radar for the time being and I can still beat the computers, few that play it that is. Them machines are getting smarter everyday. It's just a matter of time before they start thinking at their own direction and initiative. Then I'm sure self awareness will be right behind that day. Will it be Terminator 2 or something good for humanity? That's the question I think we'll face soon.

ketchuplover: It seems rather expensive to me. Five bucks a month to play Chess online? And only Chess? What's the gimmick that'd hook me into that deal?

mctrivia: Speed, yeah, right. :) You guys have lost it and I'm having a good laugh now just listening to the speculation. I have yet to meet a smart person that takes speed on a regular basis. And I've known a few. Perhaps in lower doses and used medicinally instead of as a drug to get high it might conceivably have such a use, but if so, why wouldn't it be a more widely known fact? The amount taken to get high is lot more than the amount needed to feel its affect of waking you up and increasing alertness. So maybe there's something to this drug angle except for one thing. Speed is a long lasting drug and you wouldn't need to make frequent trips to the restroom. One extra trip at most. No reason one couldn't just take it before leaving your hotel room and not take it again until the next day. Is coffee drinking allowed at this tournament?

Like the joke picture on the link that had all the phones, computers, and monitors, along with the padded toilet seat, if there's anything going on with the frequent trips to the restroom besides him having a urinary problem, it will be getting outside help and using machines to make the moves. You wouldn't need such an elaborate set up. A cell phone and a few even one conspirators a call away who are watching the tournament would be enough.

I have a question about the use of the restroom while the tournament game is going on. Does your clock run while you're in the restroom and it's your turn?

I kind of like that one. :)

Hey, I think it's two syllables and goes rue-ee

chessmec: I haven't figure out if the rating is worth much. I know I can't play Chess as good as you guys, but I have beaten Mely twice in Gothic Chess. Him and I are now playing Janus Chess in a tournament. Maybe the games are different enough that I have a chance against strong Chess players in them? Though I have the feeling that Ed Trice will have his way with us in the tournament, I shall try to win every game.
These ratings seem kind of bogus to me. I can win 20 games of Dark Chess in a row and not go up but a couple of points. I lose a game and I drop 16 or more. Supposedly this is because one gets less points from defeating lower rated players and more points from defeating higher rated players and penalized more for losing to lower rated players.

I've seen that if a new person on this site plays high rated people and wins, he'll start off with a high rating. It is curious that Ed Trice doesn't have a 2700 or even a 2600 rating in Gothic Chess. He's won over a hundred games without a loss. How is it that Mely can have a 2700 rating in regular Chess with a record of 33 and 1? I take it he has played high rated players and won the games. As for Ed, there weren't any high rated players at the beginning and he started against lower rated players. This kind of system seems to need a way to fix this, but it isn't really broken if one considers comparing the ratings inside their own game and not against other games with different people. So a number 1 at 2308 is comparable to 1 at 2700. To use mine and Mely's rating of two different games. Still, I've lost nearly one hundred points over the last three months with a winning record and am still the top rated player in Dark Chess. I'm confused about this, but that is the way it is.

Chessmaster1000: The rule could be that a Rook may only be captured if it it throwing a check or if the capturing move throws a check. Plus regular checkmates could win. Besides, a Pawn can be promoted to a Rook, so instead of going for a Queen, it might go a lot differently in the ending. A Queen might still be your choice, but only because it'll help you get two Rooks with your remaining Pawns. Especially if a regular checkmate is not a win.

Yes, ughaibu, give it some thought. You might be onto a variant of a sort here. :)

[Small edit as the original post this comment refered to has been deleted - WQ :]

This particular game was brought to my attention awhile back. Your phenomenal record of wins and your attitude towards them brings special interest to it too. As anyone looking at my standings can see, I don't play regular Chess on this site. Yet, Chess itself and what happens in it does on occasion hold my interest. You are right that you may play the game as this site and the rules allow you too. I see a lot of duplicity in your actions because of this game and how you treat Alex. Believe me, I find it hard to believe that he ever showered you with insults, but perhaps he has. Who am I to argue with you? Yes, I'm me and we've had numerous disagreements in the past. Doesn't change this particular situation and if anything it brings to light how you are. Do you think you have this game as a draw, or do you have other reasons for continuing it? You're always telling everyone how many moves ahead you can see a game being played. (Yes, I cite the 72 move mate from a four piece Gothic Chess ending). I look at this game you have with Alex. A few months ago, it looked to me like he had it, but I had to differ to your greater playing ability and experience and just assumed that I was missing something you and him could see in the position. Now, when I look at the game after your last move, I can't see how you can't lose it. [Example of projected play in current game deleted WQ :] Is this not the case?

chessmec: I see no reason not to discuss this particular game. It illustrates my argument to a tee. As for a feature request, this has little to do with this game site as it does to me for how Chess itself is played everywhere. I think the draw rules are not right. Perhaps you're right, a feature request is a good place to bring it up also. Draws shouldn't be allowed on this site in game where a draw is not a possible outcome, such as Backgammon or Pente. That does sound like something this site could change and is a legitimate feature request. Though I kind of think that Fencer must like having draws in those games possible, or he'd not allow them in the first place. Chess is different, and its history of draws and how they're allowed to happens precedes some of the controlling powers of it now. And believe me, I'm no fan of F.I.D.E.

>http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=415627


Why do you offer a draw in this game? I've been following it for a few months now. I'm not the best of Chess players, but I know I could win this game with Alex's position. Least ways, I think I could win it, even if my opponent was Bobby Fischer or Boris Spassky. I thought good Chess players, when playing each other, would acknowledge how things were going down and that you would resign in a position such as this. Only us lesser players (such as myself) would hang on and hope for our opponent to err or miscue and perhaps get lucky and win the game.

The reason I raise this is I'd like to remind readers of how I, if I was in charge of Chess rules, would change the rules concernings draws as I posted on this board April 15th and 16th.

Draws in my opinion should not be allowed unless the asking person can show the opponent cannot win the game or for other reasons that I stated. If the opponent decides to play on and refuses to accept the draw the player asking for the draw should be penalized in some way. Such as not being allowed to win the game, or not being able to ask for a draw the rest of the game, or both. The way the draw rules are now just asks for someone to take advantage of the rules or to manipulate them as they're able to. Just doesn't right or in the spirit of fair play to me.

[Minor editing WQ :]

Matarilevich: What game are you refering to? How can you be so certain that far into the future?

AbigailII: Ah, that's the thing. Who determines that the position is a draw? The players do, right? Don't you see a conflict of interest in this during a tournament? If agreed to draws are allowed, I believe some of the power to have them should be taken from the players involved. Have it go to a tribunal and change the procedure for asking for a draw. Instead of asking your opponent for a draw, you make the announcement it is a draw and have the tournament draw tribunal check your game out as it continues to be played. Or you be required to play more moves or you demonstrate that your opponent can't win the game. Whether or not you can win is no longer your concern. I'd certainly no longer allow the person asking for a draw to be allowed to win the game if his draw is turned down. Just changing this aspect of asking for draws would discourage a lot of early draw offers. Their opponent would be free to decline and then would be able to play on knowing that they couldn't lose the game. This would make a draw offer happening only when the person was certain that he was right.

From what I understand of a game that Ed and Alex have going right now, Ed should've resigned or Alex should've accepted a draw a few moves back. Now, how can that be? I'm glad they're continuing the game until all doubt is removed, even if it's not being done in the most sportsmanlike manner.

Yes, players could purposely start repeating positions during a game to get their draw out of it. I'm sure that would require collusion and could be dealt with. Everything else in Chess is analyzed, a repeated position could come under more scrutiny if they started happening more.

Don't they have tournaments where the time is increased if more moves are needed and all the moves that were required to be made in the allotted have been made? I know there's plenty of tournaments that only give you so much time for the whole game regardless of how many moves the game takes, but it seems to me I've heard of tournaments where they give you a couple hours to make say 40 moves. If the game continues after the 40 moves have been made, they'd add time to the clock and get another move count going. I'm sure something could be worked out if time was a problem caused by changing the draw rules. If it was harder to get draws, I'm thinking games would be played tougher and the players wouldn't plan on an easy game knowing they couldn't expect to hold there own and then offer a draw at the opportune time. That should make the Chess better too.

Your question of me about playing 'til being mated isn't easy to answer and has nothing to do with draws. So I'll not address it now. When you resign, you get zero for a score. A draw can get you zero or a half point depending on the rules of the match or tournament. When it's nothing, as I've seen them do in two player matches, is the percentage of draws the same as when the same two players play each other when the draws count as a half point? And how 'bout when different players are compared? I'd think the ratio would be the same, but perhaps there is a difference. Anybody know?

ughaibu: This shogi sounds like a fun and challenging game. I've heard a few people talk about it. Chess type game played by millions in Asia I've been told. Perhaps it'll get on this site eventually and I can give it a try. redsales says he plays it too.

Drawing must've evolved differently in the Chess playing traditions of the two games. The whole idea of two players being able to know the outcome and so don't need to play it out is something I find wrong with Chess. I know if I sponsored tournaments that I'd insist on having a change in the draw rule when it came to agreed draws. Of course with F.I.D.E. in control of Chess, it's their way, or the highway.

danoschek: [post edited WQ] I wonder why though? How'd draws ever come to be seen as an acceptable outcome for a game? If the game is truly that evenly played, then a draw it is. I think allowing players to agree to draws while there's still a chance for one side or the other to win is wrong. If anything, I'd require more moves to be made before an agreed to draw is allowed, but I think eliminating them except for the ways I said earlier plus stalemates would be the way to lower the number of draws without changing the rules of Chess.

I see that you have draws in Backgammon and Pente. How is it possible to have a draw in either one of those games when it can't happen if played by the rules that I know?

I think draws that are agreed to should not be allowed, period. The only allowed draws should be where it could be shown that neither side can win, like insufficient force, perpetual check, repeated positions, or by stating one's line of play and the tournament director agreeing to it being a draw. Agreed to draws just make it easy for both players and allow shenanigans to happen in tournaments by letting some players advance to the next round without having to really play some games.
Yeah, I've heard the bit about they'd be wasting their time by playing it out, but I sure don't see the point in playing if you're not even going to play the game in the first place.

Making this simple change would certainly lower the number of draws in Chess that I hear people complaining about all the time, and it wouldn't change Chess in any of the ways as I've seen some other ideas for changing the draw rules would.