Last weekend there was a Gothic Chess tournament at the University of Tennessee. I had heard about it on the radio and in the paper and it's only 40 minutes from my house, so I drove by to have a look. Nicely organized event with lots of friendly people playing Gothic Chess (i'd say 100 or more). I did catch a glimpse of Ed Trice walking around playing what people were telling me was a "simul". There were 12 people playing Gothic Chess against him at the same time and he won all of the games. Quite a cutie too if I must say so!! I am not the biggest chess fan, but I think you all have some strange sort of jealous thing going on. Lighten up!

CindyInTN: interesting story, but wrong board. Chess variants (10x8) is next door ;-)

CindyInTN: You were there? Why didn't you say hello! I think it was only a 10-board simul, those other 2 boards on the side I was going over a game with 2 people while I was doing part of the simul.

How long were you there? Will you be there next month for the June tournament??

CindyInTN: nobody is jealous about
a busted cheater. facts are just not negotiatable. ~*~

danoschek: a new feature should be enabled - removing postings belonging to another board to that, isn't it (yes, this is OT but when in "Feature request" danoschek can not discuss i post it here)

ughaibu: I'm going to post a thematic chess tournament, winners will be those to first double rooks on the 7th, no draws. The tournament'll be entitled "blind pigs" and'll be co-dedicated to the global moderators and the cloak facility.

If there is no checkmate and winners will be only that would have both Rooks at 7th rank, then i think ALL games will be draw! Because it's impossible to prevent an opponent from capturing at least one of our Rook........

The game would become interesting if only 1 Rook would have to reach 7th rank..........

Thanks. I'll think more about it.

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. :)

Walter Montego:
Again with your additions, two good players would draw 95%+++ of times............

But there are no draws, points are only awarded for wins.

So there would be no points...........
Too many zeroes.....

And i forgot to add:
Too many endless games.............

chessmec: yes - I was called insulting ... guess I used the word intelligence which
might of course be insulting for very stupid people who should not be mods though.
like on the gothic board in earlier times when the word honesty was not welcome ... ~*~

You were playing that chess simul thingy, so I couldn't just walk up and say hello. I'm too shy! ROFL!! I was there for maybe an hour. It was such a nice day I just wanted to get back outside and enjoy it. I'll come to the next event if you'll let me know when the next one is, or will you advertise it on the radio again?

I apologized to fencer that I am no buttkisser hence have to correct his statement.
the average mod of course got into position by buttkissing only, not by social skills
so I can't even fix it to who of the embarrassed dweebs urged to an intervention ... ~*~

CindyInTN: please be fascinated on the 10x8 discussion board ...
btw I play 12 blind simultane against chess beginners and win all too.
seems without vortex (or did you see a bushbox on his back ?) he's a bit timorous. ~*~

@ D! What the heck is a bushbox?

CindyInTN: I just checked, 3rd weekend in June is the next event in Knoxville, but I am scheduled to be in Harrisonburg at the James Madison Univeristy tournament that weekend. I can see if someone will switch with me, I will direct the tournament in Knoxville if they direct the one in Virginia.

CindyInTN: grrrrr it's nothing naughty ...
I replied more extensively in private so my pleasance toward your
ladyship is not decreased too much I hope by returning to chess here. ~*~

I received your reply and i think you got a kick out of mine? Returning to chess now.....

hello everybody

Lone star: ummm . . . hello?!

what up colonel crockett.

Lone star: well, mostly just the sky . . . and you?

no birds, no butterflys, November

Already scored me many nice games in quick-tourneys and even in correspondance.
Got it for a first time at brainking now, have a look at the culmination point of the game
It seems that pressure play could win it prosaic ... but we are here for fun right ? . ~*~

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

WhisperzQ: basically the sac ensured that I kept playing with a rook more ...
but I was particulary pleased that it was even beyond consideration for the fritz 7
although the platebox was able to proove the correctness of my attack meanwhile ... ~*~

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 :)

since the king could not take d2 after the check, the rook a1 was safely out.
'worst' line I had on my board indeed was 17)Nf4 Rad8 18)Ncd5 Nd4 19)Ng2 Qf2
20)Be3 Qf3:+ which I took as good enough - you may say I calculated 7 moves deep. ~*~

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!

WhisperzQ: perhaps you might find it easier for correspondence games if you write down the variations you considered. I have been known to write down moves on a scrap piece of paper and scribble over the entire sheet in frustration when a single missed variation leads to a mess! As far as thinking ahead (which is actually more critical in OTB tournaments) I think it really depends on the position as to whether three moves is superior to seven. as a side note, how did you get to 2100 without thinking further than three moves, you must mean you can only think (more) accurately in a three move analysis tree?

ColonelCrockett: In my opinion chess is not only thinking more and more moves forward ... you will get to a limes soon (of course it is position-dependent)
Look, the difference in thinking moves forward between better players and not so well players is not so big ... decisive is the ability estimating the "virtual" positions correctly.
And of course, sometimes the principles of the opening, the structure of the middlegame and so on are deep anchored in your brain when you are better .., there are typical movements and so on. So sometimes I am not really "thinking" in moves, only looking if there is some danger to me and continuing the plan.
Note: Getting 2100 is relatively easy here. I got this level soon - look at my BKR graph. But then a stagnation occured and I studied something, preparing much and so on ... now I have more than 2300, but this says nothing. Decisive will it be, if i can held my level.

chessmec: This is indeed correct. The difference between a better player and a worse player is not so much in the ability to think ahead as it is in the ability to formulate a plan. The real difference is that the amateur formulates a bad one or doesn't formulate one at all. (I say all this of course knowing that I have not yet reached what I consider "good" so anything I say is subject to scrutiny) (p.s. I should rant about losing a single game to a master player and ending up with a provisional BKR of 1616!)

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.

WhisperzQ: chess is an even contest (although I swear some people have an extra queen) LOL!!

Fencer has started a new team tournament for chess. If anyone is wanting to play The Zoo team would love to have you.

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nf3 e6 5. Be2 Nd7 6. O-O c5 7. c4 dxc4 8. Bxc4 cxd4 9. Qxd4 Bc5 10. Qf4 Ne7 11. Qg3 Be4 12. Nbd2 Nf5 13. Qg4 Bc6 14. Bd3 h5 15. Qf4 g5 16. Nxg5 Rg8 17. Ndf3 Bxf3 18. Nxf3 Rg4 19. Qd2 Nh4 20. Nxh4 Qxh4 21. Be2 Rg8 22. Qf4 Qh3 23. Bf3 O-O-O 24. Qe4
I am curious about the sac on my 15th . . . what do some other people think of it? I saw the position stagnating and thought that against a 2300+ I'd better mix things up before I lost in a "quiet" game. I think the pawn sac was the right idea but I think subsequent moves like 21. ... Rg8 are very suspect.

To Reza: Unrated good chess players will have problems because lots of peolpe wont play them (probably) because they are good in chess and rest wont play them because their rating in Crazy screen is too low.

I would say you will be able beat Mely if you will be minor piece up:)

lukulus: interesting post that came out of nowhere . . . and probably correct . . .

ColonelCrockett: excepting the part about beating Mely, even with an extra piece... I should know

rabbitoid: hmmm . . . I don't know Mely, maybe I'll look him up . . . seems ridiculously high rated though . . .

but he earned all the points in aftermath, you may believe ... ~*~

danoschek: the formula for bkr is really strange :-/

chessmec: it is from US, so European players are confused I already recommended Fencer ELO, but who know what Fencer will do:)

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.

lukulus: Please, Mely is a very well player. But let us take his special case as example.
I started Fischer Random Chess here from beginning, since it ls available at BK. Therefore my BKR-Graph grew slowly, although my results were well.
Now it is easier to get higher at start.

This rating system is not much worth.

Is any rating system really worth that much? I have been playing tournament chess in the US for a number of years now and I've gotten to the point where I beat 1800s pretty regularly and I'm still only a class B. The USCF system is known for its ability to inflate sporadically (at both ends) and this site is under the same problems. The system is also padded at the bottom so that the difference between the 1300-1700 range is relatively small. I don't put much faith in any rating system so whatever Fencer desides to do to alter the BK system it doesn't really matter.

I see only a dustball left by him when I appear on
a chessboard: tuc tuc tuc-tuck ... panic ! while
it seemed just obligatory for me to challenge unrated Mely. - nuff said. ~*~

By observation, the rating system on this site is done by a very simple lookup table and not by the application of a statistical formula (although perhaps the lookup table had its origin in formulae). It seems to depend on two things: (a) your own BKR - not exactly, but instead where it fits into a few very broad bands, and (b) the difference between your BKR and your opponent's - again not exactly but in wide bands of 400 BKR or more. An inexact system like this will generate some odd effects but I think it's still fit for purpose.