Quote from: Foxpup on September 16, 2015, 04:32:34 AM

Quote from: abacus on September 15, 2015, 05:36:38 PM

Quote from: Foxpup on September 15, 2015, 03:26:09 PM

So far we have four votes for a4 (Timelord2067, actmyname, languagehasmeaning, and Taras) and two votes for Rfd1 (abacus and myself). There is also one vote for Rac4 (jjacob), but that is not a legal move. We will wait until everyone's done debating a4 vs. Rfd1 and for jjacob to correct his vote before deciding.

We are 3-3 until now, languagehasmeaning switched to Rfd1.

D'oh! I forgot about that. Embarrassed

So now it's five votes for Rfd1 (languagehasmeaning, jjacob, abacus, neochiny, and myself) and three for a4 (Timeloard2067, actmyname, and Taras). I hope I've got it right this time.

Quote from: letsplayagame on September 15, 2015, 07:05:32 PM

However I can deny in this case since I already provided a clue that eliminated him as a possibility (based on current ratings):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148538.msg12179763#msg12179763

I forgot about that, too.

Quote from: letsplayagame on September 15, 2015, 07:05:32 PM

I will say that the next several moves for each side will be important in deciding the direction of the game. Keep considering not just your plan but the likely plan of your opponent.

Don't worry, I know how you have the whole game planned out. A few moves from now, there will be an epic battle on the queenside, which we will only barely survive due to you being a grandmaster, then you will sacrifice the exchange to bring pressure on our castled king with your bishops, nobody will listen to me when I explain this, everyone except me votes to accept the sacrifice, we resist futilely, and get mated. Is that pretty much how it's going to go down? No, that defeatist attitude won't do. We must win the queenside battle!

Quote from: languagehasmeaning on September 16, 2015, 03:51:08 AM

Question:

Should resigning be a valid move that we can vote on?

Obviously this is not a near term concern (the current position looks about equal to me) but IF the time comes (I hope we win) we should know in advance if its a valid option or if one person can force the game to be played all the way to checkmate.

Personally I think resigning should be allowed. Aside from a large troll invasion its not a realistic "threat" to our result unless we are obviously losing.

I feel resignation should be unanimous unless our position is proved to be losing (eg, by the Nalimov tablebases), since there's no possible way it can help us. If anyone wants to play out a non-trivial losing game, I have no objections.

I do think draws should be decided by popular vote, however. I propose the following rules for draws:

* Anyone who votes for a move that allows a draw by threefold repetition or the fifty-move rule should indicate whether or not they wish to claim the draw (drawing is not mandatory in these cases, but note that our opponent may claim the draw on his move if we don't). We draw if that move is chosen and the majority of those who voted for it wish to claim.

* Anyone who wishes to offer a draw must also vote for a move, as the opponent has the right to demand a move be made before deciding whether to accept the offer, and we'll look pretty silly if those offering a draw can't agree on a move. Anyone who votes for a move without offering a draw is presumed to be voting against the draw offer (though they can of course change their vote). We make the draw offer if the majority agrees to it, even if those voting for a draw offer voted for different moves.

* If letsplayagame offers a draw after making his move, those who wish to accept the offer should say so instead of voting for a move. The vote to accept a draw will be counted as though it were a move, ie, the draw is accepted if it has more votes than the most popular real move. If he offers a draw without making a move, anyone may demand that he make one, in which case no vote on the issue is valid until he does so.

Does that sound reasonable?

I think everything you said sounds reasonable with a possible exception of the Nalimov tablebase comment (proven perfect play/result of any position with 7 pieces or less for those that are curious about the definition). For example if we somehow end up down a rook and a bishop with many pieces remaining (no Nalimov tablebase) in a dull position (no counterplay) it seems silly to play to checkmate. I am not saying that this is likely to happen, just that we may be better off resigning if it does and hoping he will agree to another game. Playing for stalemate for example seems ridiculous.

On the other hand if it ends up with king knight and bishop against king I say play to the end (even though Nalimov tablebase says we are lost)! Its not always easy to win in 50 moves and maybe we could learn something.