Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Ok, there was Kasparov vs The World:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_The_World

Maybe CV site could have its own.

I like the idea - the only thing. 

How do you decide what games to play? Do the players on the internet
choose the games? 

Of course if it was Gary Kasparov - then we might have to let him choose
any game except std chess of course. 

How do we promote chessvariants.org Gary so that people outside of this
site  would want to play him?

Brilliant. I remember well the analysis led by Irina Krush to determine
each day's move against Gary. And it was close to the end in all aspects,
often regarding what move to make, and also who had advantage, the World or Kasparov. What excitement to rush to Computer to see what the last move had been overnight!  I am of opinion that Gary Gifford would defeat even most top-20 Grandmasters, for example, in CV of his choice with say 48-72 hours preparation for GM, or whoever, to learn Rules. And against the ''World'' is actually marginally easier opponent, it was speculated during the weeks of Kasparov Against the World, because of slight ''least common denominator factor'' for one consideration. So Gifford, or Fourriere, or Stockman would become slight favourite.

I was not aware that anyone on this site  is GM level chess rating - is
this true? 

Because if not, this is grossly misleading to anyone. Unless the games 
chosen are completely unlike chess, any top 20 GM can defeat anyone on
this site with ease - any game even remotely similar to chess. They dont
even need 48 hrs - just a few minutes to learn the rules. 


To be GM requires high level of tactical skill and strategical 
understanding. In fact this translates even to playing GO - though this IS
an example of a game very unlike chess that they may have difficulty with.


The only hope of beating a GM (or IM too), a game very unlike chess like
GO. 

 
It would be interesting though to challenge a GM in chess variants.

I disagree, having seen evidence of set ways in trying new things among
purported experts in different fields, including Chess. Chess GMs have their comfort zones and few the flexibility of Kasparov to have tried Shogi. (Actually Kasparov did not do that well at Shogi.) Daniel's is so much propaganda, without supporting evidence, another silly, jejune negative Comment. Anyway, this Hutnik thread is constructively to advance CVs not quibble about expected rankings within games you would be hard-pressed to find  a GM even to try.  Lasker, Capablanca, Kasparov have been the open-minded exceptions over the years. Between Leko and Gifford at say Rococo, which Gifford says he has not even played yet, I would bet on Gifford, who has experience in CVs. No big deal, just considered opinion of one working on CVs continually for twenty years since 1987. Other debating points would be as follows. Top-flight skill at Bridge may translate to Chess skill an extent, but probably not overwhelmingly. A Nuclear Physicist or Cardiologist may have slight advantage over general public at CVs but it would not necessarily be immediately noticeable. The argument would go that CVs, having matured somewhat, take more time to master now. For example, blunders would not be tolerated for winning chances. And do not rule out one blunder a game by your chosen ELO2600 at Altair or even Centennial. It takes acclimatization. Again, bet on Fourriere over Susan Polger at Chess Different Armies for the immediate future.

If we want to do something like this, there needs to be an interface to be
able to capture and track people's moves.  Ideas also for picking the
game is important.

Anyway, that aside, for a CV event it would likely be best to take one who appears to be the best at a given game and have them play in the event. Certain games are not easy for me at all. Alice Chess is one example. Joe Joyce's very large games would be another. For me to attempt to play those games against a large group (or even an individual) would likely prove embarrassing.

As for needing to be a GM, I'd have to agree with George Duke that it is not that important in long duration events where there is a lot of time to analyze. Purdy, the former world champion postal chess player makes that point clear in his writings. In fact, when he began postal play he was losing postal games to a much weaker player; then he realized that deep correspondence analysis was much different than that seen quickly over-the-board.

When one individual plays a large group of people [where each member submits a move each turn - there is a resulting bell curve with middle-of-the road moves being played by the group.

With advisers suggesting moves we have a different scenario entirely. For instance, with three advisers, each is likely to continually submit very good moves. In that scenario the group has a relatively good chance of beating the individual.

Yes, but we are talking about GMs playing much weaker opponents one on one
here. 

Do you really believe Leko will lose say Rococo to anyone on this site
(currently)? It cant happen unless he wants to lose.  

We are comparing apples to oranges here. 
As long as the game requires chess skill GMs will prevail. Give them a
totally different type of game and then maybe they can lose.

2) a GM vs an individual CVer

I think in scenario one, that most of us here would defeat a large group that all submitted moves with the most common move being used. This being due to the bell curve principle which would weed out terrible moves and brilliant moves... leaving the CVer to face average moves.

In scenario 2, a CVer may do well against a GM. It depends on the game. The further away from chess the better the CVer's chances. The GM can't count on his memorized ECO lines, his tactical pattern recognition... and, the CVer will be likely not to blunder. Would the GM win? I honestly don't know. But I would not think it to be a sure thing.

Fascinating idea. There are some 1800-2000 FIDE players here, I know that.
I suspect we have lurkers and very occasional players 2200-2300 or higher;
others could say. Give Gary G a game he's comfortable with and good at,
and I could not tell you who would win a game between him and a GM. 

Gary's right about 'postal chess'... And it's a couple hours later,
and comments have marched on. Postal chess - given some time to look at
the position, and a chance for a little analysis, in the 'right' games,
I think there are several players here that could do quite well against
almost anyone. 

The 'right' game? Well, Matt Montchalin is an expert Ultima player; the
only one who has beaten him here is Roberto Lavieri. Okay, this is not
'chess', but I think almost anyone would agree it's a chess variant.
Yes, I think Leko would have some trouble there. 

The chess experts do not use short range leapers except the knight. They
do use, almost exclusively, 'infinite sliders'. Playing Capa variants
against a GM is foolish, unless you want the experience of being
dismantled by a vastly superior player. This is clearly because the pieces
and setup in Capa are instantly obvious, and recognizable as being
FIDE-like. This plays to the GM's strengths. I'd play anybody in my
large Chieftain Chess variants [that's one that Gary was specifically
thinking of in his comment], and would play 6-8 people simultaneously on
the same gameboard in a live game. That game very specifically trades the
strategic depth of standard FIDE for 'strategic width', in that the
entire gameboard sees movement each turn. Heck, I might even win some. And
there are people here who enjoy and often play specific games, and play
them very well. This site could probably field a team of players that
could take on a group of masters or better, and do well. But the team
would have to avoid the Omega and Grand Chess type of games as much as
possible to give themselves the edge.

Hey Joe, you may be on another approach.  Perhaps the CV site could take on
a noted chess grandmaster at a game, at chess and other games.  Maybe we
can have one site vs another (CV vs SchemingMind?) and have a top player
at one game take on a team from the other site, and mix up the games.

By the way the Internet vs Gary approach I see would be as follows:
The way I see the idea here is, that anyone over the Internet votes (well,

those registered).  The first moved suggested is the first move up there.

Then people propose alternatives.  The moment a move with the more votes 
than the prior vote getter, that becomes the new move.  At all times, the

move is displayed.  People can change their vote also to vote for an 
alternative.  You have it done over a period of time, rather than 
simultaneous, to prevent draws.  Allow moves to be queued. by this method.


You will have something resembling a stock market board, where the top
option exists.  You can also consider the following here: the fact it is
open to the Internet could result in people consulting computers to get
the move.  The masses have more resources but face the politics of getting
their best move recommended.

Yes, this isn't exactly pure, but is meant to bring up intrigue.  It
would be interesting if you have people actually speaking on this move and
that and lobbying for moves, to see what would happen.  Leaders could come
up.  Communicating is one way to have people lobby.  Maybe you don't
provide it.

You can also have it so a challenger proposes any sort of game, and then
takes on the Internet as a whole, with people coming in and voting on
moves.  We might be able to do this as a contest or Internet game.  It
could prove to be an interesting study in interpersonal reactions and
skills, and problem solving.

I found this site, per discussions on Usenet:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/challenge?gid=1464744

Here is an idea for a mob playing itself at a game:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=VoxPopuliChess

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/challenge?help=1

goes to a page that shows how their voting for moves works. Also note that they have two methods.

In regard to Rich's comment below, quote:

'4. After both teams have made their moves, players have a set time to decide whether to switch teams. This is done in secret and simultaneously.'

Personally, I do not like the concept of switching teams.

Hello Gary.
Vox Populi is meant to be a large scale game, with large numbers of
people, that tests group dynamics and makes a game more accessible to
people to be able to have a metagame they follow.  There is definite room
for the team chess version, along with the Player vs The World.  Vox
Populi is meant to offer a chance for large numbers to compete against one
another at a game, that test their mind and other things also.  It won't
be for everyone, but I think it is good to give it thought.

Let's say that some company wants to sponsor an event involving large
numbers playing a game like chess or checkers.  Vox Populi allows you to
have a very large number compete at a game, without the need for a
grandmaster involved.  It also works as a side thing to use in game
shows.

As for the CV site, Vox could prove to be an interesting way for the entire site to play one game together.  It could be a way also to test uneven armies.  The main thing here is to see where it can be used.  Like a tool set, it isn't meant to be used everywhere and at all times.

(a) The World vs. Mr. (or Mrs. X) and

(b) Team Canada vs. Team Brazil; Joyce's Juggernauts vs. IAGO Intellects; CV Alfaerie Lovers vs. CV Stompers (for examples).

In regard to switching, I do not like people switching teams, in example 'b', players from the Canadian Team moving over to the Brazil Team (or visa versa)once they thought their team was losing.

I vote for Individual vs. World approach, matching that extravaganza in
1999. Irina Krush and Etienne Bacrat were the most vocal recommenders, as
Gifford describes them, and kept the World's play high. The player should
pick the game, his best game, but weigh that the World, many outsiders,
will be judging Chess Variants by the choice. Later could come obvious
individual matches by challenges. You should rule out only 8x8 CVs in Gary
Gifford's or other's choice of the game to play. 
For slight precedent on miniature scale, we had Open Kibitz games December
2003 in new Game Courier. I played Tony Quintanilla Rococo, and two others
played Berolina I think. There were ongoing comments about moves before
and after the fact.

Maybe we can do a Team Kibitz as an option.  Player has two teams, and
these teams suggest moves.  The player can ONLY use the choices provided
by their team for the move.

Anyhow, there are a LOT of options here.  Maybe people can pick up and go
with one, try it out, and see how it goes.  Then make tweaks accordingly for future events.

If Joe is going to have a group, I vote 'MJ the 3rd! Brigade' for Joe's
team. Muhahahaha!  I know that nickname irked Joe (hello Joe!) :-P

I am proposing this as a simplified way to handle side switching, for an
elimination game:
A simple way to do this is to only allow people on winning side to advance
on to a future round.  Everyone on winning side up until last turn advances
on to next round.  If playing multiple rounds and using elimination, these
are varions conditions by which someone is eliminated (player leaves the
game with as many points as they would of scored had they not been knocked
out, but they can no longer score).  These conditions would be:
1. The side player is on loses the game while they are on it.  Player is
done with series of games/tournament, and score what they would of
normally scored and weren't eliminated.
2. If, when a player switches sides (during switch side phase), no players
are left on the other side.  When that happens, all players switching sides
from losing side to winning side, are out of the game/tournament (series of
games).

Vox Populi is now a variant on here:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSvoxpopulichess