WoV Chess Tournament
It would be near impossible to run a tournament with an entry fee (since there is no guarantee that everybody would pay) but who on Wizard of Vegas website would be up for a chess tournament?
Aside from live play, my favorite place to play chess is on the YAHOO! website. "games.yahoo.com/ch"
It should not be too hard to get to organize a chess tournament for member here. Is there any interest in this?
As a side note, that place also has a completely ridiculous way to generate random numbers.
Quote: ElectricDreamsThere's also websites like Games By Email where the game doesn't have to be played in real time.
I can be outvoted, but I prefer live games. Postal games simply take too long to finish. I'm thinking a live round robin. I am flexible on the time limits, but I'm thinking around 60 minutes each player, if we even have the choice.
Postal gmaes would take extremely long for just one game.
I am a very big supporter of playing the games on Yahoo!
games.yahoo.com/ch
>>> Yahoo allows for time limits.
We could decide which player plays as "white" and which as "black" on here. But on Yahoo! players have the option of selecting which color.
If anybody here has never played on Yahoo! Games... I can provide a walkthrough.
-----
-----
Perhaps the winner will get some notoriety on the Wizard of Odds website.
I used to play LOTS of tournament chess, and I reached about 2350 (Master) level, but that was many years ago. Just a few months ago, I sat down to my first live game of chess in about ten years, and I didn't botch it too badly, but my skills had definitely waned.
Quote: mkl654321I'm interested.
I used to play LOTS of tournament chess, and I reached about 2350 (Master) level, but that was many years ago. Just a few months ago, I sat down to my first live game of chess in about ten years, and I didn't botch it too badly, but my skills had definitely waned.
To remain good, you have to practice almost daily. Seeing the whole board and whats going on is much easier when you're younger, I suspect. I'm getting a headache just thinking about it.
Quote: mkl654321I'm interested.
I used to play LOTS of tournament chess, and I reached about 2350 (Master) level, but that was many years ago. Just a few months ago, I sat down to my first live game of chess in about ten years, and I didn't botch it too badly, but my skills had definitely waned.
Hey mkl, the neat thing about FIDE ratings is that even if you haven't played for YEARS your rating is still recorded along with a great majority of your matches. The FIDE website will show a graph of your ratings growth and the tournaments in which you competed. Of course you know this because you can't have a rating unless your matches are recorded... it would be great to see some of your matches. Perhaps you could provide a link to a couple and maybe even tell us about your decisions.
Quote: SOOPOO2350 is quite an excellent player. I think I peaked at around 1600 almost 40 years ago. I make mkl 1-5 favorite. I make the Wiz 3-1. Nightfly 4 - 1. I'll put me at 100-1. I'll put Jerry Logan at..... only kidding.
I'm a terrible Chess player, but I'm game to be fodder for y'all.
Jerry could win some sort of Baseketball-Chess hybrid, I suppose. His defense would be great! Consider: "heeeeey, ___: I hear your sister slept with Rob Singer!" Who could concentrate?
Quote: rdw4potusI'm a terrible Chess player,
There's a 5 move opening that results in a checkmate if you're opponent isn't aware of it. Get ready..
minnesotajoe
Wizard
SOOPOO
rdw4potus
TheNightfly
EvenBob
mkl654321
ElectricDreams
---------
Lets get this ball rolling. I would love to take on the Wizard and the followers of the WoV forum in a chess match.
Quote: minnesotajoeWould I be correct in saying the following people are interested:
minnesotajoe
Wizard
SOOPOO
rdw4potus
TheNightfly
EvenBob
mkl654321
ElectricDreams
I don't have time, thanks anyway.
Quote: mkl654321I used to play LOTS of tournament chess, and I reached about 2350 (Master) level, but that was many years ago.
Oh, Jeez! What have I gotten myself into? I was probably around 1,400 in my prime, about 15 years ago. These days I almost never play.
However, DorothyGale used to be around your rating. That would be a good match.
Quote: minnesotajoeWith all the great math minds on this forum, I am sure that many here are skilled in the art of chess.
It would be near impossible to run a tournament with an entry fee (since there is no guarantee that everybody would pay) but who on Wizard of Vegas website would be up for a chess tournament?
Aside from live play, my favorite place to play chess is on the YAHOO! website. "games.yahoo.com/ch"
It should not be too hard to get to organize a chess tournament for member here. Is there any interest in this?
I'm no master but would give it a try. Online play would be the way to go. Yahoo used to have private games. Or maybe Wiz can load one here? Timing could be an issue since we seem to have members from London to California here, that is 8 hours time zone difference.
Quote: TheNightflyHey mkl, the neat thing about FIDE ratings is that even if you haven't played for YEARS your rating is still recorded along with a great majority of your matches. The FIDE website will show a graph of your ratings growth and the tournaments in which you competed. Of course you know this because you can't have a rating unless your matches are recorded... it would be great to see some of your matches. Perhaps you could provide a link to a couple and maybe even tell us about your decisions.
FIDE does that nowadays, but my rating was USCF only. I never played in any FIDE-rated tournaments except the US Open and the National Open, and at that time, I don't think the below-grandmaster sections were FIDE-rated. I only know my old USCF rating because I sent them a request to find it so I could enter an internet postal-style tournament.
So my results (win-loss) might be recorded from a few long-ago tournaments, but alas, no actual game scores. That's too bad--I'd love to relive some of those old battles.
Quote: rdw4potusI'm a terrible Chess player, but I'm game to be fodder for y'all.
That's my attitude, game to be fodder for someone as well. If we can seed it by known ratings, at yahoo they put me at 1500 or so at my best [rusty now]. It'll be interesting to see if I get a pawn behind in the usual manner [will have to explain that postgame] I also think yahoo chess is the best way to go for live, you can set it up to be by invitation only somehow as I remember.
I know a bit about Yahoo Chess even though I don't play there.
Yahoo chess is full of 'bot' players. Players using computers to cheat.
If you want to host an online tournament do it at a respected place like ICC (Internet Chess Club) or FICS (Free Internet Chess Club.)
One major issue about online chess is the rampant cheating that goes on.
Whatever you do, don't involve money with it, or the 'bots' will come.
Quote: petroYahoo chess is full of 'bot' players. Players using computers to cheat.
I can confirm that. But of course there is an easy solution: only allow people to play that sign up here. That still requires the honor system against cheating, of course, but for example I don't think the dice wars contest we had here suffered from that.
So I'm probably bowing out :-P
Quote: ElectricDreamsOkay, I'm terrible at chess. Apparently most of you all are not.
So I'm probably bowing out :-P
NOOOOOOOO! Why do I have to be the only one to have my ass kicked?!? ;-)
Quote: rdw4potusNOOOOOOOO! Why do I have to be the only one to have my ass kicked?!? ;-)
I can join you as chessboard fodder if you want. I don't know how to play.
Oh, I know how the pieces are set up and how each piece moves. I even know when you can move two pieces, but not what the move is called (king and castle, IIRC). But that's to playing chess what knowing the names of all notes is to music: a bare beginning.
I have played, sort of, against people as clueless as I. Sometimes I win. I've never beaten even the simplest computer games. Hey, if I forefeit I come out ahead! ;)
Quote: petro
Yahoo chess is full of 'bot' players. Players using computers to cheat.
Thats why I'm not playing. Using a computer to cheat is extremely easy and there are a few people here I don't trust at all.
Quote: rdw4potusI'm a terrible Chess player, but I'm game to be fodder for y'all.
Jerry could win some sort of Baseketball-Chess hybrid, I suppose. His defense would be great! Consider: "heeeeey, ___: I hear your sister slept with Rob Singer!" Who could concentrate?
You know there is Boxing Chess, right? 3 minutes boxing, 3 minutes of chess... win by knock out or check mate.
to devote a *guaranteed* *uninterrupted* hour or so, for me, means pre-arrangement for some early morning.
After we have all the participants.. we can determind given 'x' amount of players how we should organize the tournament.
Then... we can give each seeding say, 1 week time to complete the match.
-----
There really should be no point in anybody cheating. I think this is a fun idea. No money should be involved.
Quote: minnesotajoeAfter we have all the participants.. we can determind given 'x' amount of players how we should organize the tournament.
sounds like we have an organizer?
Quote: odiousgambitsounds like we have an organizer?
Absolutely.
Reminds me of the Simpons when you used the term "organizer"
DENTAL PLAN!
..Lisa needs braces
DENTAL PLAN!
..Lisa needs braces.
If anyone plays xiangqi though, i will give you a real fight
Would letting Black have an extra move somewhere in a game even this up?
To be fair White should choose when Black can use the extra move, thereby avoiding situations where one extra move could say for instance take a Queen down. White can thereby even it out so it's more an edge than a crippling advantage.
What do you think? Does that make the game more even than in original form?
Quote: rxwineWould letting Black have an extra move somewhere in a game even this up?
link to original post
I think that would be strongly in black's favor. If forced to give an idea, forcing white to a list of weak first moves might level the playing field. However, I have no problem with just randomizing who goes first. If I play for fun against a weaker player, I will offer to take black.
I don't believe a single game proves anything. A series of matches, alternating who moves first, will favor the stronger player.
Quote: rxwineAccording to Google, most believe White has an advantage. (as I would suspect as well). Also according to Google, in actual games White wins more often.
Would letting Black have an extra move somewhere in a game even this up?
To be fair White should choose when Black can use the extra move, thereby avoiding situations where one extra move could say for instance take a Queen down. White can thereby even it out so it's more an edge than a crippling advantage.
What do you think? Does that make the game more even than in original form?
link to original post
That's the thing about chess; getting to move twice in a row is much more powerful as, depending on the situation, it becomes more than the equivalent of just getting a turn back. If white gets the choice, then it would be prudent to allow black the extra turn early in the game, but then that just becomes almost equivalent to black having gone first.
I think something slightly more equitable would be the black player gets a card that they can use once per game, at any point, that forces white to make some move other than the move they intended to make. It wouldn't take the turn away; it would just mean white has to make a different move than the one intended.
my experience has been that the weaker player won't agree to the idea, so then you wind up never playing at all after one game where he was demolished
The pieces themselves are spectacular., although the game would be quite confusing as the only way to tell a figure's chess rank is by its height.
Quote: WizardQuote: rxwineWould letting Black have an extra move somewhere in a game even this up?
link to original post
I think that would be strongly in black's favor. If forced to give an idea, forcing white to a list of weak first moves might level the playing field. However, I have no problem with just randomizing who goes first. If I play for fun against a weaker player, I will offer to take black.
link to original post
If there is any opening White move (of 10 possible, 8 pawns, 2 knights) that two super computers always end up in stalemate at the end, that might be an option also.
Quote: Mission146<snip>I think something slightly more equitable would be the black player gets a card that they can use once per game, at any point, that forces white to make some move other than the move they intended to make. It wouldn't take the turn away; it would just mean white has to make a different move than the one intended.
link to original post
Mission146,
Your suggestion won't work, because if Black plays QxQ, he can then prevent White from recapturing.
Dog Hand
Quote: DogHandQuote: Mission146<snip>I think something slightly more equitable would be the black player gets a card that they can use once per game, at any point, that forces white to make some move other than the move they intended to make. It wouldn't take the turn away; it would just mean white has to make a different move than the one intended.
link to original post
Mission146,
Your suggestion won't work, because if Black plays QxQ, he can then prevent White from recapturing.
Dog Hand
link to original post
Excellent point; you're quite right. I'm kind of an idiot for not taking the time to consider the implications of my suggestion prior to making it.
1. d4
VETO
1. (White has to do a new opening move)
There could even be a certain kind of bluffing associated with that, where, under these rules, Black would have to decide whether or not they should veto the move or if White opens with a move that they want to have vetoed so White can make the move they really want.
ADDED: I think it would at least force the low-level (but superior to me) players on white to know at least two opening lines.
My account is "Profinite Group" on LiChess.
https://lichess.org/FheTwqBr
Quote: teliotI just played a "perfect" game according to the computer analysis after the game -- very rare for me, especially so at Bullet Chess (2' + 1"). But the moves were easy to find, nothing brilliant.
My account is "Profinite Group" on LiChess.
https://lichess.org/FheTwqBr
link to original post
I'll play a perfect game against you; regardless of my color, my first move will be to resign.
Quote: teliotI just played a "perfect" game according to the computer analysis after the game -- very rare for me, especially so at Bullet Chess (2' + 1"). But the moves were easy to find, nothing brilliant.
My account is "Profinite Group" on LiChess.
https://lichess.org/FheTwqBr
link to original post
I would play you but I prefer correspondence chess due to my schedule.
I remember an interesting story where poker player Tom Dwan bet 60k that he could beat a chess master(Greg Shahade) if the master started off -a Rook.Quote: odiousgambitthere are a lot of ways to even the contest, sometimes a piece is actually removed from the stronger player to start the game
my experience has been that the weaker player won't agree to the idea, so then you wind up never playing at all after one game where he was demolished
link to original post
I don't know what Tom's rating was at the time, but I would assume anyone who's 1870-2000 should be able to win that.
Thoughts?
I'd say at my best I was at master level. I started playing when I was about 5 years old. In high school I was on the chess team and no one could beat me that I played anyway, I was rated #1 in the county as far as school wide contests. As well, I'd play games socially and my opponents would declare that I was in trouble, and then later say something like, "This guy always thinks of a way out of everything!" By college I rarely played, but still I never ran into anyone who could beat me. After college, people I would not have expected to beat me, did beat me.
If you're a really serious chess player, and I once was, if you get up just a pawn on your opponent that means a lot. The matches between two really good players will often come down to something like that. Even today if I play someone who is good (and why bother to play anyone else), just forcing him to double up his pawns might be enough to press on to victory.
One thing a lot of people might not know, but I found out while talking to some of my classmates who worked for outfits that dealt with prisoners pro bono in law school - is that there are some of the best chess players in the world in penitentiaries. I understand that the best tend to be African American, and believe it or not, there are probably some long term inmates in there who could beat masters or maybe even grand masters. If you have an aptitude for something and practice it enough you may really master it.
Quote: AxelWolfI remember an interesting story where poker player Tom Dwan bet 60k that he could beat a chess master(Greg Shahade) if the master started off -a Rook.Quote: odiousgambitthere are a lot of ways to even the contest, sometimes a piece is actually removed from the stronger player to start the game
my experience has been that the weaker player won't agree to the idea, so then you wind up never playing at all after one game where he was demolished
link to original post
I don't know what Tom's rating was at the time, but I would assume anyone who's 1870-2000 should be able to win that.
Thoughts?
link to original post
It is not exact (and also not my working) but I would have Tom Dwan as the favorite, if the following was to be assumed as their rankings:
TD: 1650
GS; 2500***
***: I think I read somewhere that he was around 2475?
