WoV Chess Tournament

Quote: Mission146

Actually, what if Black can veto White's opening move once? Black couldn't choose White's opening move because they could either force White into something ridiculous or something they know they are good against, but what if it went:

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.
link to original post

If you're going to do that, why not use the "Pie rule": after White's first move (and only after White's first move), Black can either (a) move normally, or (b) have the players change colors, so the player who was Black is now playing White, and is considered to have made that move as their first move.

Quote: ksdjdj

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: odiousgambit

there 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 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.

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?
link to original post

Tom lost the bet.

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: ksdjdj

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: odiousgambit

there 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 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.

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?
link to original post

Tom lost the bet.
link to original post

I only just read somewhere that "...Greg Shahade completely annilihates him..." 3 times.

" Slow to normal" games: 1 pt is worth ~200, so a Rook is worth about 1000.
"Blitz" games: is generally considered "easier for the person giving up the piece" (so, in other words a Rook is worth less than 1000 Elo in a Blitz game).

Note 1: I haven't searched very hard, but I don't know if it was blitz or a more standard game.
Note 2: I don't know what TD or GS had as their ELO at the time, the figures I posted were just an example to show who should have been favorite (if those amounts (or similar) were the differences).

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Quote: Mission146

Actually, what if Black can veto White's opening move once? Black couldn't choose White's opening move because they could either force White into something ridiculous or something they know they are good against, but what if it went:

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.
link to original post

If you're going to do that, why not use the "Pie rule": after White's first move (and only after White's first move), Black can either (a) move normally, or (b) have the players change colors, so the player who was Black is now playing White, and is considered to have made that move as their first move.
link to original post

Makes sense; I never knew such a rule exists.

Quote: Mission146

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Quote: Mission146

Actually, what if Black can veto White's opening move once? Black couldn't choose White's opening move because they could either force White into something ridiculous or something they know they are good against, but what if it went:

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.
link to original post

If you're going to do that, why not use the "Pie rule": after White's first move (and only after White's first move), Black can either (a) move normally, or (b) have the players change colors, so the player who was Black is now playing White, and is considered to have made that move as their first move.
link to original post

Makes sense; I never knew such a rule exists.
link to original post

I've never heard of this rule, but if it exists-why, wouldn't almost everyone use it? Black gets to see the move and then decides to play it or not? I see what Black gets from this, but what does White get?
I'd suggest we work on improving our game, not the game.

Quote: billryan

Quote: Mission146

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Quote: Mission146

Actually, what if Black can veto White's opening move once? Black couldn't choose White's opening move because they could either force White into something ridiculous or something they know they are good against, but what if it went:

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.
link to original post

If you're going to do that, why not use the "Pie rule": after White's first move (and only after White's first move), Black can either (a) move normally, or (b) have the players change colors, so the player who was Black is now playing White, and is considered to have made that move as their first move.
link to original post

Makes sense; I never knew such a rule exists.
link to original post

I've never heard of this rule, but if it exists-why, wouldn't almost everyone use it? Black gets to see the move and then decides to play it or not? I see what Black gets from this, but what does White get?
I'd suggest we work on improving our game, not the game.
link to original post

Very clever idea.

White's opening advantage would instantly disappear and white would instead make any number of moves that are 0.00 on a computer so as to not allow black an edge by switching. White might open 1. c3 for example with this rule.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Quote: teliot

Quote: billryan

Quote: Mission146

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Quote: Mission146

Actually, what if Black can veto White's opening move once? Black couldn't choose White's opening move because they could either force White into something ridiculous or something they know they are good against, but what if it went:

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.
link to original post

If you're going to do that, why not use the "Pie rule": after White's first move (and only after White's first move), Black can either (a) move normally, or (b) have the players change colors, so the player who was Black is now playing White, and is considered to have made that move as their first move.
link to original post

Makes sense; I never knew such a rule exists.
link to original post

I've never heard of this rule, but if it exists-why, wouldn't almost everyone use it? Black gets to see the move and then decides to play it or not? I see what Black gets from this, but what does White get?
I'd suggest we work on improving our game, not the game.
link to original post

Very clever idea.

White's opening advantage would instantly disappear and white would instead make any number of moves that are 0.00 on a computer so as to not allow black an edge by switching. White might open 1. c3 for example with this rule.
link to original post

Exactly. The point is for the first player (in this case, White) to make a move that is not particularly advantageous for either player.

Of course, the first player has to be sure they don't make an opening move that allows the second player to make a move that gives them the advantage. This is why this doesn't work in games such as Tic-Tac-Toe where every possible result has been mapped out.

Can't say I've ever recommended a chess analysis video for laughs, but this game analysis against Chatgpt gave me quite a few.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSCNW1OCk_M

That is hillarious.

I've had a couple of perfect games recently... playing under "Eliot Robbins" ...

https://lichess.org/UJb19qmZ#0

https://lichess.org/oaTEgaZF/black#51

Chess has always been my #1 love.

Here's a photo of my collection of chess books. (I may have purchased a few more after this photo was taken.)

I now have 626 of them in total. However, I haven't purchased any at all, in the past four or five years.



As proud of I am of this collection, I'm even prouder of my collection of 100+ books on backgammon.