WoV Chess Tourney Pairings
January 11th, 2011 at 11:47:07 AM
permalink
It looks like these are the only entrants
1. minnesotajoe
2. Wizard
3. SOOPOO
4. rdw4potus
5. TheNightfly
6. AZDuffman
7. mkl654321
8. ElectricDreams
9. odiousgambit
10. petro
11. Nareed
12. gog
There was some talk about people using robot players on Yahoo Chess and such. Unless the games are played live, then there is no way to 100% stop cheating... all I can say is that this is a tournament for fun. There no money involved. Just play for pride.
---
I assume we all have jobs and other obligations here.. so setting up a time to play could be an issue. My recommendation would be using private messages amongst each other to set up a date and time.
Rules for play.
1. 60 minute time limit each.
2. You may play through any place of your choice.. however I highly recommend Yahoo! Chess because it is very simple to access.. and the set up is easy for setting time limit, etc. It also has a feature where you can save the game and finish later (if time is a huge constraint).
3. There are 12 entrants. I plan on seeding players in four, three person divisions.
TWO points for a win. ONE point for a stalemate.
The highest two in each divsion makes it to an 8 team playoff.
It will be single elimination from there until the Championship which will be best 2 of 3.
I'll make it World Cup style where 1s play 2s.. and seperate groups so people play different opponents
---------
4. I got the twelve entrants listed above.. I'll use a deck of cards.. well Ace - Queen and draw them to determine pairings... Then I will use a red and black card to determind which player is to play as 'white' and which to play as black
1. minnesotajoe
2. Wizard
3. SOOPOO
4. rdw4potus
5. TheNightfly
6. AZDuffman
7. mkl654321
8. ElectricDreams
9. odiousgambit
10. petro
11. Nareed
12. gog
There was some talk about people using robot players on Yahoo Chess and such. Unless the games are played live, then there is no way to 100% stop cheating... all I can say is that this is a tournament for fun. There no money involved. Just play for pride.
---
I assume we all have jobs and other obligations here.. so setting up a time to play could be an issue. My recommendation would be using private messages amongst each other to set up a date and time.
Rules for play.
1. 60 minute time limit each.
2. You may play through any place of your choice.. however I highly recommend Yahoo! Chess because it is very simple to access.. and the set up is easy for setting time limit, etc. It also has a feature where you can save the game and finish later (if time is a huge constraint).
3. There are 12 entrants. I plan on seeding players in four, three person divisions.
TWO points for a win. ONE point for a stalemate.
The highest two in each divsion makes it to an 8 team playoff.
It will be single elimination from there until the Championship which will be best 2 of 3.
I'll make it World Cup style where 1s play 2s.. and seperate groups so people play different opponents
---------
4. I got the twelve entrants listed above.. I'll use a deck of cards.. well Ace - Queen and draw them to determine pairings... Then I will use a red and black card to determind which player is to play as 'white' and which to play as black
January 11th, 2011 at 11:55:20 AM
permalink
7-8-4
6-9-2
3-12-10
1-5-11
Group A
4. rdw4potus
7. mkl654321
8. ElectricDreams
Group B
2. Wizard
6. AZDuffman
9. odiousgambit
Group C
3. SOOPOO
10. petro
12. gog
Group D
1. minnesotajoe
5. TheNightfly
11. Nareed
--------------------
After Group Play is finished these will be the tournament seedings:
1. A1 vs D2
2. B1 v C2
3. C1 v A2
4. D1 v B2
5. Winner of 1 v Winner of 2
6. Winner of 3 v Winner of 4
7. Winner of 5 v Winner of 6 in Best of Three for WoV Chess Tournament Championship
6-9-2
3-12-10
1-5-11
Group A
4. rdw4potus
7. mkl654321
8. ElectricDreams
Group B
2. Wizard
6. AZDuffman
9. odiousgambit
Group C
3. SOOPOO
10. petro
12. gog
Group D
1. minnesotajoe
5. TheNightfly
11. Nareed
--------------------
After Group Play is finished these will be the tournament seedings:
1. A1 vs D2
2. B1 v C2
3. C1 v A2
4. D1 v B2
5. Winner of 1 v Winner of 2
6. Winner of 3 v Winner of 4
7. Winner of 5 v Winner of 6 in Best of Three for WoV Chess Tournament Championship
January 11th, 2011 at 12:38:32 PM
permalink
displaying unbelievable density once more no doubt, I have to ask how to go about eliminating one person from each group?
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
January 11th, 2011 at 12:43:10 PM
permalink
Ideally...
Player X
Player Y
Player Z
Player X will beat Player Y and Player Z ... giving Player X 4 points
Player Y will beat Player Z... giving player Y 2 point
Player Z.. without a win.. will have 0 points.
Player X will win that Group and play a '2' seed from different group
Player Y will get '2' seed in that group and play a '1' seed from a different group.
Player X
Player Y
Player Z
Player X will beat Player Y and Player Z ... giving Player X 4 points
Player Y will beat Player Z... giving player Y 2 point
Player Z.. without a win.. will have 0 points.
Player X will win that Group and play a '2' seed from different group
Player Y will get '2' seed in that group and play a '1' seed from a different group.
January 11th, 2011 at 2:15:19 PM
permalink
This is getting too complicated. Just tell me whom I'm supposed to lose against and when :)
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
January 11th, 2011 at 2:32:44 PM
permalink
well, you are actually in same group as me... Do you have a Yahoo! Account?
January 11th, 2011 at 2:38:30 PM
permalink
Yes, and it still works. If you want to get started today, I may be home by 9 pm Central time.
Just don't expect much of a game.
Just don't expect much of a game.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
January 11th, 2011 at 2:56:01 PM
permalink
I've initiated some private messages to get some games going in my group. Seems that if each person wins one game, rematches continue until someone has won two in a set, correct?
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
January 11th, 2011 at 3:03:42 PM
permalink
Quote: minnesotajoewell, you are actually in same group as me... Do you have a Yahoo! Account?
I'm in your group but don't have a Yahoo account. I'll PM you and Nareed when I'm up and running.
Happiness is underrated
January 11th, 2011 at 3:15:03 PM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitI've initiated some private messages to get some games going in my group. Seems that if each person wins one game, rematches continue until someone has won two in a set, correct?
I fear that:
X beats Y whom beats Z whom beats X
If that occurs... then... re-run the group as if you all never played.
January 11th, 2011 at 3:24:00 PM
permalink
www.chess.com has a pretty solid interface. I like it buckets better than yahoo
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
January 11th, 2011 at 4:52:18 PM
permalink
I am also interested in playing free chess tournament, late entery accepted?
January 11th, 2011 at 7:31:58 PM
permalink
Why are you not using a "Swiss system" for pairings? Hmmm ... that is the standard way pairings are made in chess tournaments.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
January 11th, 2011 at 7:35:44 PM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGaleWhy are you not using a "Swiss system" for pairings? Hmmm ... that is the standard way pairings are made in chess tournaments.
Pairing is always done on ability, anything else is too unbalanced.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
January 11th, 2011 at 7:43:22 PM
permalink
Nightstalker.. yea, you can be in.. I am sure that somebody won't be able to make it.
I don't know everybody's ability.. so the round robin format semed to be best bet.
I don't know everybody's ability.. so the round robin format semed to be best bet.
January 11th, 2011 at 7:44:25 PM
permalink
Swiss systems are designed to quickly filter players to similar levels of ability, no matter how poor the initial rounds are lined up. Here, read about it ...
Swiss System Pairings...
Or just Google "Swiss system" and "Chess" to see a zillion reasons why it is the most common pairing algorithm for chess.
Swiss System Pairings...
Or just Google "Swiss system" and "Chess" to see a zillion reasons why it is the most common pairing algorithm for chess.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
January 11th, 2011 at 7:51:22 PM
permalink
k i will look into it
January 11th, 2011 at 7:54:48 PM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGaleSwiss systems are designed to quickly filter players to similar levels of ability, no matter how poor the initial rounds are lined up. Here, read about it ...
Swiss System Pairings...
Or just Google "Swiss system" and "Chess" to see a zillion reasons why it is the most common pairing algorithm for chess.
Swiss Systems are only as accurate as the early results are reflective of the players' true abilities. On the other hand, a "knockout" format penalizes those who were randomly assigned to play with stronger players. I think that the two-out-of-three survivor method proposed is the best compromise. If two of the strongest players wind up in the same initial bracket, they should both survive. I realize that if two of the weakest players are fortunate enough to wind up in the same bracket, one of them will survive when he otherwise wouldn't, but I don't see any way around that, not without doing something unwieldy like a complete round robin.
Another obstacle to a Swiss is that we have no player rankings, so the first round pairings would be arbitrary. Two strong players accidentally meeting in the first round would result in one of them getting a zero, while two weak players meet, and one of them gets a 1. Not good. A Swiss with many rounds tends to even out this effect, but I don't think anyone has the time or patience for, say, twelve games.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 11th, 2011 at 8:01:27 PM
permalink
A Swiss system is optimal with [log(N)] + 1 rounds, where the log is base 2. So, if you have 12 people in the tourney, then you need 4 rounds in a SS, starting with arbitrary pairings, to determine a fair winner with approximately equally rated players competing for the top prize in the last round.Quote: mkl654321A Swiss with many rounds tends to even out this effect, but I don't think anyone has the time or patience for, say, twelve games.
Again, all of this is well known, and is exactly why SS is used. There is nothing better.
Here are the upcoming UCSF rated tournaments in the US ...
Click me
If it starts with SS then it is a Swiss system... find one that's not!?
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
January 11th, 2011 at 8:02:12 PM
permalink
I know that a Swiss System Pairing would be best reflection.. but seeing as this is the first one, and that we are limited on time... the World Cup style I proposed seems to work.
If this is a success.. in future we can put more thought into it if there demand for another tournament.
If this is a success.. in future we can put more thought into it if there demand for another tournament.
January 11th, 2011 at 8:28:41 PM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGaleA Swiss system is optimal with [log(N)] + 1 rounds, where the log is base 2. So, if you have 12 people in the tourney, then you need 4 rounds in a SS, starting with arbitrary pairings, to determine a fair winner with approximately equally rated players competing for the top prize in the last round.
Again, all of this is well known, and is exactly why SS is used. There is nothing better.
Here are the upcoming UCSF rated tournaments in the US ...
Click me
If it starts with SS then it is a Swiss system... find one that's not!?
+1... I did some analysis of Swiss systems back in the day (for trading card games, no less) and log N+1 rounds (or log N+2 if you have the time) is the best way to run, with random pairings to start. Ranked pairings is NOT a good idea for games where there is a large element of chance (I never ran it for a pure skill game like Chess, but I would imagine much the same effect).
Double Elimination, as I recall, works the second best format for finding a winner in a reasonable time.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
January 11th, 2011 at 8:46:04 PM
permalink
The problem with [log N] + 2 is that the top players have already met, and in the final round, the top players are playing down. It feels kind of awkward to be in a tourney with 5 rounds SS and 12 players -- the top guys have all played each other after round 4, and now the games are meaningless because the top guys are paired down and win easily.Quote: thecesspit(or log N+2 if you have the time)
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
January 11th, 2011 at 8:53:37 PM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGaleThe problem with [log N] + 2 is that the top players have already met, and in the final round, the top players are playing down. It feels kind of awkward to be in a tourney with 5 rounds SS and 12 players -- the top guys have all played each other after round 4, and now the games are meaningless because the top guys are paired down and win easily.
Correct pairing in chess is 90% of a playing. Without it you have a fiasco and the results are meaningless. I saw chess matches boycotted over improper pairing, happens all the time.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
January 11th, 2011 at 9:01:26 PM
permalink
Please, give me a recent example.Quote: EvenBobI saw chess matches boycotted over improper pairing, happens all the time.
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
January 11th, 2011 at 9:02:08 PM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGaleThe problem with [log N] + 2 is that the top players have already met, and in the final round, the top players are playing down. It feels kind of awkward to be in a tourney with 5 rounds SS and 12 players -- the top guys have all played each other after round 4, and now the games are meaningless because the top guys are paired down and win easily.
IF the rankings filter quickly. Like I say, with games with some chance in the extra round allows those players with "bad" luck to get back in the mix for the top-X knock out. I always hated those players who complained about a 5-0 player having to play a 3-2... I went to play and more rounds was better than less... plus if your that good, keep winning.
For chess, I suspect the playing down means more matches are easy to predict the result of. But I think absolutely in the first round a low ranked player should play a high ranked player... you never know if their ranking is "correct" for that day.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
January 11th, 2011 at 9:07:51 PM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGalePlease, give me a recent example.
Happened all the time I should have said. When I played in tournaments in the late 60's, we constantly argued about pairing problems. I just assumed it hasn't gotten any better. Chess players who do it for more than fun have huge ego's and they don't like to lose. Getting paired with somebody of lessor ability is always something to strive for.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
January 11th, 2011 at 9:22:58 PM
permalink
Quote: TheNightflyI'm in your group but don't have a Yahoo account. I'll PM you and Nareed when I'm up and running.
Sure. I'll be on the lookout.
If you prefer a different site, I wouldn't mind it at all.
I love your sig, BTW.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
January 11th, 2011 at 9:29:47 PM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGaleA Swiss system is optimal with [log(N)] + 1 rounds, where the log is base 2. So, if you have 12 people in the tourney, then you need 4 rounds in a SS, starting with arbitrary pairings, to determine a fair winner with approximately equally rated players competing for the top prize in the last round.
Again, all of this is well known, and is exactly why SS is used. There is nothing better.
Even if that is true, it would only be so if you had a way to rank the players beforehand--and we don't.
I've played in maybe 200 Swiss System tourneys, but in all of them, the first round pairings were dictated by rankings (ratings). I've never played in one where everyone was just thrown into the hopper.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 11th, 2011 at 9:45:25 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321Quote: DorothyGaleA Swiss system is optimal with [log(N)] + 1 rounds, where the log is base 2. So, if you have 12 people in the tourney, then you need 4 rounds in a SS, starting with arbitrary pairings, to determine a fair winner with approximately equally rated players competing for the top prize in the last round.
Again, all of this is well known, and is exactly why SS is used. There is nothing better.
Even if that is true, it would only be so if you had a way to rank the players beforehand--and we don't.
I've played in maybe 200 Swiss System tourneys, but in all of them, the first round pairings were dictated by rankings (ratings). I've never played in one where everyone was just thrown into the hopper.
This is not so true. It may you've never played a Swiss tournament that way, but it doesn't mean it doesn't work when you just randomly pick pairings.
Swiss works well (actually the best of all systems apart from Round Robin) even if you don't know the strengths of players a piori to find the relative strengths of the players after the tournaments. It may work even better if you do know the relative strengths and order them before hand.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
January 11th, 2011 at 9:48:51 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitThis is not so true. It may you've never played a Swiss tournament that way, but it doesn't mean it doesn't work when you just randomly pick pairings.
Swiss works well (actually the best of all systems apart from Round Robin) even if you don't know the strengths of players a piori to find the relative strengths of the players after the tournaments. It may work even better if you do know the relative strengths and order them before hand.
I didn't say that it "doesn't work", only that the calculation of optimal number of rounds presumes a ranking system of some sort in place before the tourney begins. In the absence of that, it takes several preliminary rounds to establish an approximate ranking, so the optimal number of rounds would be somewhat higher.
And "works" is a relative term.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 12th, 2011 at 2:54:44 AM
permalink
regarding chess dot com, I got disappointed with them and cancelled membership. Mostly this was over the fact they set up payments to be automatically renewing every year without telling me. Once I figured that out, they were on the chopping block, but I was also disappointed that the computer would just abandon the games, and I wanted to warn anyone wanting to use them I don't know what would happen if you tried to play another person. As far as I could tell, it was unrelated to connection quality.
another bad part: very inventive training drills made me want to join, but these were undeveloped for the most part.
good part: Playing against the computer was fascinating in that it seemed to vary as an opponent. You could pick "easy" and it would play at a medium level or so most of the game, it seemed to me. Even selecting "silly" this would happen. You didnt want to get behind at any level. Note, though, you can play the computer without joining.
another bad part: very inventive training drills made me want to join, but these were undeveloped for the most part.
good part: Playing against the computer was fascinating in that it seemed to vary as an opponent. You could pick "easy" and it would play at a medium level or so most of the game, it seemed to me. Even selecting "silly" this would happen. You didnt want to get behind at any level. Note, though, you can play the computer without joining.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
January 12th, 2011 at 4:57:26 AM
permalink
You can play live games by registering for free. There are little ads asking you to upgrade, but it's a pretty comprehensive site, even for the free player.
Wisdom is the quality that keeps you out of situations where you would otherwise need it
January 12th, 2011 at 8:20:06 AM
permalink
So I meant to back out of this tournament, partially because I'm awful at chess, but also because my personal life is pretty busy right now. Is it too much to remove me? I might be able to find time to play if it's easier to keep me in, but I probably wouldn't be able to play until after next week.
Yeah, my apologies about not being more clear.
Yeah, my apologies about not being more clear.
January 12th, 2011 at 8:32:35 AM
permalink
I used to run swiss system tournaments at school. Some of the software offer a free month trial, I can look into it if that's what we're going with.
If pairing is an issue then why dont everyone just post their current or best fide rating, which we can use to seed? Personally I haven't played a rated game before, and am just here to beef up the roster
If pairing is an issue then why dont everyone just post their current or best fide rating, which we can use to seed? Personally I haven't played a rated game before, and am just here to beef up the roster
January 12th, 2011 at 9:00:49 AM
permalink
Quote: gog
Personally I haven't played a rated game before, and am just here to beef up the roster
Ditto. and I don't think I've played at all in about 10 years...
"So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened." - Maurice Clarett
January 12th, 2011 at 12:03:39 PM
permalink
ElectricDreams messages that he is too busy for tournament.. so NightStalker will talk his place.
7-8-4
6-9-2
3-12-10
1-5-11
Group A
4. rdw4potus
7. mkl654321
8. ElectricDreams----->> now NightStalker
Group B
2. Wizard
6. AZDuffman
9. odiousgambit
Group C
3. SOOPOO
10. petro
12. gog
Group D
1. minnesotajoe
5. TheNightfly
11. Nareed
--------------------
After Group Play is finished these will be the tournament seedings:
1. A1 vs D2
2. B1 v C2
3. C1 v A2
4. D1 v B2
5. Winner of 1 v Winner of 2
6. Winner of 3 v Winner of 4
7. Winner of 5 v Winner of 6 in Best of Three for WoV Chess Tournament Championship
7-8-4
6-9-2
3-12-10
1-5-11
Group A
4. rdw4potus
7. mkl654321
8. ElectricDreams----->> now NightStalker
Group B
2. Wizard
6. AZDuffman
9. odiousgambit
Group C
3. SOOPOO
10. petro
12. gog
Group D
1. minnesotajoe
5. TheNightfly
11. Nareed
--------------------
After Group Play is finished these will be the tournament seedings:
1. A1 vs D2
2. B1 v C2
3. C1 v A2
4. D1 v B2
5. Winner of 1 v Winner of 2
6. Winner of 3 v Winner of 4
7. Winner of 5 v Winner of 6 in Best of Three for WoV Chess Tournament Championship
January 12th, 2011 at 12:55:17 PM
permalink
Allright, game on.. rdw/mkl suggested timing?
January 12th, 2011 at 3:16:10 PM
permalink
What do you do if there is a draw in the later rounds? Do they play over and over until there is a loss?
What if all the games in a group are a draw?
Why do you have 1-game matches in rounds after the group-rounds, I mean, having white is a 50-FIDE point advantage, or more.
Why do you have, under #7, a best of 3? Someone will get two whites.
So many issues ... a SS would have been so much easier and so much fairer ...
What if all the games in a group are a draw?
Why do you have 1-game matches in rounds after the group-rounds, I mean, having white is a 50-FIDE point advantage, or more.
Why do you have, under #7, a best of 3? Someone will get two whites.
So many issues ... a SS would have been so much easier and so much fairer ...
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
January 13th, 2011 at 4:12:55 AM
permalink
Quote: DorothyGaleSo many issues ...
two things are jumping out at me here, for one I think the players are not taking the whole tournament so seriously as to worry about fairness. Most of us have actually said we are doing it for a lark and aren't good enough to expect to beat anybody worth a shit.
for another, why all this carping from folks who aren't playing?
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
January 13th, 2011 at 7:32:20 AM
permalink
Well, I was quite an avid, addicted and obsessed tournament and postal player in my day -- I was a certified TD and ran tournaments, I ran a club, I coached a 12 year old to a tie for first in his age group in the junior nationals, and I have a hard time not playing, so ... it's just a way to be involved while sticking to my promise to myself to never ever play a human again ... most days I still play over an hour a day against online computer opponents, and have played or studied chess almost every day for the last 28 years ... my favorite game is 1-2 blitz ...Quote: odiousgambitwhy all this carping from folks who aren't playing?
I'll butt out ... I've obviously got a problem ...
Yikes!!!
--Dorothy
"Who would have thought a good little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness!"
January 13th, 2011 at 7:45:52 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambittwo things are jumping out at me here, for one I think the players are not taking the whole tournament so seriously as to worry about fairness.
I said right off the bat I'm chess board fodder. Ask Minnesotajoe whether I was serious about it. I think at one point I might have threatened one of his pawns, then again I might have gotten the wrong impression. For sure I never threatened anything worth threatening. So take it seriously? Me? Well, yes, if by serious you mean showing up for an appointed match and doing the best I know how.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
January 13th, 2011 at 10:24:30 AM
permalink
Quote: NightStalkerAllright, game on.. rdw/mkl suggested timing?
After 5 PM on any day except M/W, which would be after 7:30 PM. Both times Pacific.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 13th, 2011 at 2:24:59 PM
permalink
<deleted>
January 13th, 2011 at 2:25:16 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321After 5 PM on any day except M/W, which would be after 7:30 PM. Both times Pacific.
830pm friday 1/14 PST sounds good to me, what say?
yahoo chess? share your yahoo id and get ready on messenger for some chat..
good luck..
January 13th, 2011 at 2:35:17 PM
permalink
odiusgambit beats Wizard
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
January 13th, 2011 at 3:32:41 PM
permalink
Quote: Wizardodiusgambit beats Wizard
How about an executive summary of the action?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
January 13th, 2011 at 4:02:02 PM
permalink
Quote: Wizardodiusgambit beats Wizard
Aw! take heart. maybe next time you'll be up against me :)
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
January 13th, 2011 at 4:25:54 PM
permalink
Quote: NightStalker830pm friday 1/14 PST sounds good to me, what say?
yahoo chess? share your yahoo id and get ready on messenger for some chat..
good luck..
Sounds good, I'll PM you with my Yahoo! ID.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 13th, 2011 at 4:39:37 PM
permalink
Here's my guess:Quote: AyecarumbaHow about an executive summary of the action?Quote: Wizardodiusgambit beats Wizard
(1) Some sorta-random, near-the-center, white pawn moves two spaces forward.
(2) A bunch of other moves.
(3) Checkmate!
Or were you perhaps looking for details?
January 13th, 2011 at 5:22:01 PM
permalink
Quote: DocHere's my guess:
(1) Some sorta-random, near-the-center, white pawn moves two spaces forward.
(2) A bunch of other moves.
(3) Checkmate!
Or were you perhaps looking for details?
How about a "keys to victory" chalk talk...
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
