If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
He (Bindi Cheng) called the idea "retarded" and just left it at that. So for starters, the work "retarded" is inflammatory and insulting. And for a kicker, this is coming from someone who spends probably hours a week playing a fantasy game that has all kinds of rules that someone who doesn't play chess could call "retarded". That's the pot calling the kettle black. It exhibits narrowmindedness, and refusing to back up the claim exhibits an unwillingness or inability to back up the opinion.
And this is just weeks after he (Cheng) apologizes to everyone he's insulted on this board in the past and begs them to hire him. Most employers want people with imagination, creativity, and the ability to make logical assertions that they can back up with logic. Sorry, Bindi doesn't qualify on any of those characteristics. And he would appear to be a troublemaker to boot.
Keep in mind that all three of you -- Bindi, Jordan, Lucas -- are interjecting your typical Chesstalk venom into a subthread initiated by Louis Morin, who WAS, Lucas, debating this idea with me. I guess you failed to notice that. Duh!
All 3 of you are just total jerks. No other way to put it. Canadian chess is in a world of hurt, and we got these 3 amigos showing the general public a face that can only be described as hideous.
Jordan says I'm out of my league. No, I'm out of YOUR league, and I thank my lucky stars for that.
How exactly am I "interjecting venom" here? All I've done is state facts. Have I insulted anyone? All I've said is that nobody agrees with your idea, yet you persist with the notion that people need to debate with you if they want to disagree. You, on the other hand, have insulted people in this thread. So, how is it that I'm at fault here and you're the innocent one?
How exactly am I "interjecting venom" here? All I've done is state facts. Have I insulted anyone? All I've said is that nobody agrees with your idea, yet you persist with the notion that people need to debate with you if they want to disagree. You, on the other hand, have insulted people in this thread. So, how is it that I'm at fault here and you're the innocent one?
You are not "stating facts". You are twisting facts. You imply that I am calling Bindi narrow-minded and unwilling to support his views only because he disagrees with my idea. FALSE! I can handle anyone disagreeing with my idea(s). But when they use a word like "retarded" and don't offer any basis for it, that's narrowminded and shows an inability or unwillingness to reason logically. I call 'em as I see 'em, and I seriously would not consider hiring Bindi for any position that required creativity or logical reasoning, at least not until he shows us that he has either of those qualities.
You say I'm insulting him, yet if I had Bindi in for an interview and asked him (since he's a chess player) what he thought of BADASS chess and he responded the way he did here, I'd say exactly what I said here. It's not an insult, it's an honest assessment. Bindi better get used to it. It goes on every day in the business world. Maybe this will help him become a better person.
Then you say that no one wants to debate my idea. FALSE! Louis Morin was debating my idea and has been for some time. In doing so, he demonstrates the only open-mindedness I've seen on this site in a long, long time.
Meanwhile: troll, troll, troll, that's all you and Jordan and Bindi know how to do on this site.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Lol Paul, you're hopeless. Even if you offered me a job I wouldn't take it from you. All you do is argue endlessly with everybody no matter how awful or wrong your points are. No one agrees with you. The players who actually play chess around here don't agree with you. The only person that agrees with your idea is yourself. You're stubborn, narrow-minded and obtuse. That's not a healthy working relationship. Additionally, I called your idea retarded, because it is. Notice that I didn't insult you but this idea of zombie chess that even George A Romero wouldn't touch. Look at how many posts are attached to this "innovation." I asked you to start a poll to see who actually agrees with you. Why didn't you just do that instead of blabbing on about?
You are not "stating facts". You are twisting facts. You imply that I am calling Bindi narrow-minded and unwilling to support his views only because he disagrees with my idea. FALSE! I can handle anyone disagreeing with my idea(s). But when they use a word like "retarded" and don't offer any basis for it, that's narrowminded and shows an inability or unwillingness to reason logically. I call 'em as I see 'em, and I seriously would not consider hiring Bindi for any position that required creativity or logical reasoning, at least not until he shows us that he has either of those qualities.
The word used has absolutely nothing to do with being narrow minded or not. In your previous post you call me a total jerk, but don't offer any basis for it. Does that make you narrow minded?
You say I'm insulting him, yet if I had Bindi in for an interview and asked him (since he's a chess player) what he thought of BADASS chess and he responded the way he did here, I'd say exactly what I said here. It's not an insult, it's an honest assessment. Bindi better get used to it. It goes on every day in the business world. Maybe this will help him become a better person.
So you're allowed to insult people and it's "an honest assessment" that'll help him become a better person, but when he calls your idea retarded, he's narrow minded and a jerk? That makes a lot of sense.
Then you say that no one wants to debate my idea. FALSE! Louis Morin was debating my idea and has been for some time. In doing so, he demonstrates the only open-mindedness I've seen on this site in a long, long time.
I never said that. I said that from what I can see, nobody agrees with your idea.
Meanwhile: troll, troll, troll, that's all you and Jordan and Bindi know how to do on this site.
Yeah, we know: you're perfect and can insult others because it'll make them better people, but nobody's allowed to respond negatively to you because that's trolling.
Oh look, Paul, you called me a troll again! Well it takes one to know one :D
Actually, this entire thread is quite comical... Keep it up, Paul, I'm sure you'll gain more notariety for your humour than for your ideas on how to solve a problem that doesn't exist with an entirely absurd idea.
Oh, and check the polls... You're losing badly.
No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it.
The word used has absolutely nothing to do with being narrow minded or not. In your previous post you call me a total jerk, but don't offer any basis for it. Does that make you narrow minded?
Can you read? I DID give you a basis for calling you a total jerk. "You are not "stating facts". You are twisting facts. You imply that I am calling Bindi narrow-minded and unwilling to support his views only because he disagrees with my idea. FALSE! I can handle anyone disagreeing with my idea(s). But when they use a word like "retarded" and don't offer any basis for it, that's narrowminded and shows an inability or unwillingness to reason logically." Does that look familiar? Did you read it? No, of course not.
If Bindi is insulted by this (which he himself hasn't claimed yet), my advice to him is to learn something from it. You don't go into an interview and when the interviewer says "We're making a software version of BADASS chess", you respond "Well, I think that's retarded."
Bindi has shown himself to type before he thinks, which only makes me wonder what it must be like to hear him TALK. Then he has to look like a fool and apologize to everyone he's insulted and beg them to help him find a job.
His success in life will be limited by that characteristic if he doesn't learn to stop and think before he speaks or writes.
So you're allowed to insult people and it's "an honest assessment" that'll help him become a better person, but when he calls your idea retarded, he's narrow minded and a jerk? That makes a lot of sense.
What you refer to as me insulting Bindi is not me insulting Bindi. It is me giving an assessment of his character weaknesses to show why I wouldn't hire him, those weaknesses being narrowmindedness and inability or unwillingness to back up his own assessments, which are inflammatory and given WITHOUT EXPLANATION. That is the difference, dude, I'm sorry you can't fathom it. I guess I wouldn't hire you either.
I never said that. I said that from what I can see, nobody agrees with your idea.
You said "Maybe people don't want to debate it anymore because it's a waste of their time?". Do you even read what you write? Or maybe Louis Morin, in your mind, doesn't count as "people"? Because Louis Morin WAS debating it, that's the whole reason this thread got revived. BUSTED!
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
I am writing from the perspective that you want to make draws more rare because this will enhance the spectator appeal of the game. If that's not right, please clarify what the purpose of this rule change is.
I cannot say many games layman spectator appeal is enhanced by making the rules and strategies more complicated and difficult to understand. I do not believe this would be the exception. Adding additional layers to the decision making process (will this piece be resurrected, where will it come back, can I survive until then) will only make the game more difficult for observers to understand what is going on.
The enjoyment in spectator sports is in part taking sides, giving opinions, and being able to "put yourself in their place". This is why poker on TV took off after hole card cams; there can be any amount of money on the table, but if you don't see the cards and can't follow along, it's not interesting and people don't watch it. This is also why ESPN refuses to broadcast any kind of game other than No limit hold'em - your average casual viewer doesn't understand whether or not the guy on the screen should play KKT3 with one suit in Omaha 8, so he doesn't watch.
I can see a chance that experienced players might find this interesting as it does have some ways to change decision points during the earlier part of the game for much longer term reasons.
What you refer to as me insulting Bindi is not me insulting Bindi. It is me giving an assessment of his character weaknesses to show why I wouldn't hire him, those weaknesses being narrowmindedness and inability or unwillingness to back up his own assessments, which are inflammatory and given WITHOUT EXPLANATION. That is the difference, dude, I'm sorry you can't fathom it. I guess I wouldn't hire you either.
I wonder how much you would appreciate a character assessment. I'm thinking you wouldn't like it much.
Last edited by Tom O'Donnell; Wednesday, 26th September, 2012, 02:50 PM.
Reason: I'm a softy.
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
I wonder how much you would appreciate a character assessment. I'm thinking you wouldn't like it much.
You're thinking would be totally wrong. Go ahead, give it your best shot. I don't think I'm perfect. I could even tell YOU some of my character weaknesses, I know what they are. But maybe you can surprise me with a new one.
If you do offer something, at least try and back it up. But I recall that you left off our last conversation without replying to my last and most revealing points, which kind of left you... grasping at air. So I don't hold out hope that, if you tell me I'm something I'm not and I start debating, that you'll hang in for long. Well, at least not without resorting to the Chesstalk out, which is to just say I'm "retarded".
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Spectators not liking draws is something we SHOULD pay attention to if we care about the future of organized chess. Or I should say, if we care about the GROWTH of organized chess.
I like your idea to invent a new game. And your belief that it can become very popular, so popular in fact that many chess players would leave chess to play your game. But is it necessary to change the rules of chess itself? I don't think so.
Actually, I don't believe that spectators not liking draws is a problem in chess. Should one randomly choose 1000 persons in the street and ask them if they would like to be spectators to a chess competition, and if not, why, I can imagine some of the frequent answers:
I don't play chess, and would not understand anything of what is going on.
Chess is too slow and boring. How could I possibly find pleasure in watching two guys staring at a board for 20 minutes and not making a single move?
When I watch hockey with friends, I like to talk and shout and applaud and eat hot-dogs and drink beer. This is something you cannot do in chess.
But how many would say: "I like chess and would like to watch, but professional chess players make too many draws." In my opinion, not one in a thousand.
Concerning draws by stalemate and perpetual check, I really don't know why we should abolish them. After all, many exciting combinations lead to stalemate and perpetual check. Why abolish an exciting part of chess?
Personally, I don't like draw offers. In boxing, for example, even though both players may be afraid to lose and would like to end the match, they will never offer a draw, they need to play it out. I think it should be the same in chess, i.e. players no longer be allowed to offer draws. This alone would significantly reduce the number of draws. Still, I understand that even this very simple proposal would meet a huge resistance. So, imagine when you try to change the rules...
As I said, I hope you will invent your new game, and I hope this new game will meet success. But why not put all your efforts in this new game, instead of trying to change the rules of chess itself?
I am writing from the perspective that you want to make draws more rare because this will enhance the spectator appeal of the game. If that's not right, please clarify what the purpose of this rule change is.
I cannot say many games layman spectator appeal is enhanced by making the rules and strategies more complicated and difficult to understand. I do not believe this would be the exception. Adding additional layers to the decision making process (will this piece be resurrected, where will it come back, can I survive until then) will only make the game more difficult for observers to understand what is going on.
The enjoyment in spectator sports is in part taking sides, giving opinions, and being able to "put yourself in their place". This is why poker on TV took off after hole card cams; there can be any amount of money on the table, but if you don't see the cards and can't follow along, it's not interesting and people don't watch it. This is also why ESPN refuses to broadcast any kind of game other than No limit hold'em - your average casual viewer doesn't understand whether or not the guy on the screen should play KKT3 with one suit in Omaha 8, so he doesn't watch.
I can see a chance that experienced players might find this interesting as it does have some ways to change decision points during the earlier part of the game for much longer term reasons.
Thanks, David, for some very instructive and intuitive points.
The first purpose is of course to make draws in the organized standard chess world rarer -- much rarer. That does envision this as the new standard chess, not a variant. And of course, I do realize that the liklihood of that happening is in the neighborhood of seeing an alien mothership on the White House lawn. I present it as something to think about, not as something I am going to personally push for.
However, the purpose of making draws much rarer is not PRIMARILY to increase spectator appeal, but rather to totally eliminate agreed and non-fighting draws, which is a constant issue in organized standard chess currently, and to do it in a way that adds creativity and dynamism to the game. We could just do as the French are trying and ban agreed draws, but that doesn't stop any 2 players from just trading off all their pieces until no mating material is left.
I do believe less draws is a favorable influence on spectator appeal, but your point about adding complication is well taken. Therefore I have posted repeatedly that this change alone will NOT increase spectator appeal.
As an aside, I have spent almost 7 years studying what exactly WOULD increase spectator appeal to organized standard chess. My early conclusion that I've stuck with is that there is no way to significantly increase spectator appeal to standard chess WITHOUT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGING STANDARD CHESS. Since this will not happen, standard organized chess is doomed to the status quo at best, or maybe some marginal improvement.
My 7 years of study has produced a new game entirely of my invention that will incorporate standard chess as an element (although not without one major change). This game will come out in 2013, and it will not have the word "chess" in its name. This game will attract standard chessplayers because their skills will be very significant in determining outcomes, but also because there is a random element that makes outcomes less predictable than in chess. This in turn will result in poker-like spectator interest, TV interest, and consequentially, poker-like payoffs. The random element is nothing as simple as rolling dice or spinning a wheel to see which piece you can move. Again, I've spent 7 years going over this and determining all the elements that make up successful spectator games and sports. The rules have been tested, refined, and finalized except for one remaining question.
That's about all I can say on that for now. Getting back to BADASS chess: David, given that we can eliminate for now effects on spectator appeal, do you think this could represent a legitimate and interesting way to achieve the purpose of eliminating agreed and non-fighting draws in a way that adds creativity and dynamism to the game?
Louis Morin made some interesting points too: this would change endgame assessments altogether. If it were ever to be adopted as the new standard chess, then all references to chess history would have to notate which era, pre- or post-BADASS rules, was in effect.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
David, given that we can eliminate for now effects on spectator appeal, do you think this could represent a legitimate and interesting way to achieve the purpose of eliminating agreed and non-fighting draws in a way that adds creativity and dynamism to the game?
It's one way to do it, but there are many simpler ways; add a new piece, expand the board size, whatever. I do think, though, that if two players want to have a draw, they will find a way to do so, and if your variant allows for draws in any manner, players who want to prearrange draws will still do so.
It's one way to do it, but there are many simpler ways; add a new piece, expand the board size, whatever. I do think, though, that if two players want to have a draw, they will find a way to do so, and if your variant allows for draws in any manner, players who want to prearrange draws will still do so.
True. I should mention that I've revised the proposal to make stalemate and no mating material also trigger the reinstate pieces rule. So now the ONLY way to draw is to play 120 plies each, and the TD will examine the scoresheets to make sure there isn't any constant repeating of moves. Of course, both players COULD go so far as to prearrange all the moves or prearrange a cycle of moves that the TD might miss as a pattern. But really, if chess players are THAT desperate for a draw, it says something about their mentality and lack of chess machismo. Eventually the players would learn to play to win.
Only the rushing is heard...
Onward flies the bird.
Can you read? I DID give you a basis for calling you a total jerk. "You are not "stating facts". You are twisting facts. You imply that I am calling Bindi narrow-minded and unwilling to support his views only because he disagrees with my idea. FALSE! I can handle anyone disagreeing with my idea(s). But when they use a word like "retarded" and don't offer any basis for it, that's narrowminded and shows an inability or unwillingness to reason logically." Does that look familiar? Did you read it? No, of course not.
If Bindi is insulted by this (which he himself hasn't claimed yet), my advice to him is to learn something from it. You don't go into an interview and when the interviewer says "We're making a software version of BADASS chess", you respond "Well, I think that's retarded."
Bindi has shown himself to type before he thinks, which only makes me wonder what it must be like to hear him TALK. Then he has to look like a fool and apologize to everyone he's insulted and beg them to help him find a job.
His success in life will be limited by that characteristic if he doesn't learn to stop and think before he speaks or writes.
Hey, guess what? That's not from the post in which you called me a total jerk. You only said that after I pointed out your hypocrisy. Maybe you shouldn't ask people if they're reading what they're replying to when you can't do the same yourself?
What you refer to as me insulting Bindi is not me insulting Bindi. It is me giving an assessment of his character weaknesses to show why I wouldn't hire him, those weaknesses being narrowmindedness and inability or unwillingness to back up his own assessments, which are inflammatory and given WITHOUT EXPLANATION. That is the difference, dude, I'm sorry you can't fathom it. I guess I wouldn't hire you either.
Ok, so basically this is what you're saying:
Calling someone a total jerk = character assessment
Calling an idea retarded = being narrow minded
Nice double standard you got going on there. Once again: when you called me a total jerk, you gave NO EXPLANATION. Not very cool, dude!
You said "Maybe people don't want to debate it anymore because it's a waste of their time?". Do you even read what you write? Or maybe Louis Morin, in your mind, doesn't count as "people"? Because Louis Morin WAS debating it, that's the whole reason this thread got revived. BUSTED!
"Maybe people don't want to debate it anymore because..." does not mean "Not a single person wants to debate it with you". It's a possible explanation as to why some people don't want to.
Last edited by Lucas Davies; Wednesday, 26th September, 2012, 07:51 PM.
Comment