b4: 7 votes (knightkon, boolberry, galdur, hermesesus, marcus1986, Morecoin Freeman, languagehasmeaning)
Bxe4 : 3 votes (jjacob, shanerc563, XMRpromotions)

Defending our position after Bxe4 will be difficult. We would give white a great center and lose our ability to fight for the open e file. I prefer b4. If white plays 19.c4 we can play Nf6.

One interesting plan is 19.c4 Nf6 20.Re1 Rae8 21.Be3 c5 with the idea of Rxe3

That is a common question with no easy answer.

Short answer: As many moves as is required for me to evaluate the strength of one move compared to the most promising alternatives in the current position.

Long answer: It really is situation specific. If there is a forced checkmate in 3 moves I will likely find it and my answer will be 3. In a king and pawn endgame I often may calculate 10-15 moves ahead (I will stop my calculation once it appears that one side will be able to promote a pawn while the opponent cannot or once it is clear that neither side can make progress).  In the current game if I was on the Monero team my answer might be 2 or 3 moves as that is really all that is required to reject the alternative moves as inferior to Kf2.  If I have a king and two bishops against a king I will win easily without much thought. If I have a king, bishop and knight against a king I will win but will think more carefully (more moves ahead) to ensure I win before the 50 move rule applies (some K+B+N vs K positions require over 30 moves to force checkmate with perfect play).

Early in a game there really is no answer (you may have the first 20 most popular moves of a common opening memorized but you are not "calculating" that over the board and you cannot memorize all the possible alternatives to that variation. Being able to play an entire game in your head (which I and many others can) does not mean you can calculate to the end because there are far too many possibilities for anyone to calculate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number

Of course the Shannon number discussed above includes many ridiculous moves that do not merit calculation. I seriously doubt anyone on team Monero wasted any time looking at 36.Bf7. Similarly in a game most possible moves are rejected instantly (based on the experience of the player) as not being worthy of thought. Nevertheless there will always be too many possibilities to look at every reasonable variation in most positions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=650&v=Km024eldY1A

When there are many reasonable possibilities to consider calculating one unforced line 20 moves ahead is wasteful if there were multiple promising variations that could have forked from that variation on move 5. If you see a sacrifice that will surely lose unless you can force checkmate, that would be an appropriate time to calculate as far ahead as possible. Some players do not like sacrificing material unless they can calculate a positive result. Others such as Mickal Tal have no problem doing so, frequently relying on his intuition in cases where he could not calculate everything in advance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Tal

In general it is easier to calculate many moves ahead when the line is forcing (a king is being chased around with checks, is in danger of being checkmated, or necessary captures are being made) or if there is limited material remaining than when there are many plausible options for either side. Because of the time limit in chess games, it is wasteful to calculate as far ahead as you can on every move.  

If you ask a computer to find the best moves in a game that a strong player is already winning, the computer will often find a line that wins faster. This does not prove the human was incapable of finding the optimal variation. It just means that once a human finds a forced win they will often stop thinking and play the winning variation they found instead of wasting time to find something better. Winning is good enough.

4 draws and just 1 win in round 1. Giri beat Topalov

Bf5: 7 votes (Morecoin Freeman, hermesesus, galdur, boolberry, XMRpromotions, marcus1986, languagehasmeaning)

These type of posts will likely help a lot of people. It would be nice if they could be added to a FAQ or troubleshooting section of Boolberry.com

Welcome to the game my friend. I agree it is getting more interesting but also agree with galdur that a draw is most likely if both sides avoid major mistakes.  There definitely are still some tricks in the position.

Re8

It indirectly defends e2 for our knight (and therefore indirectly defends f4). I prefer Re8 over Re7 because if the g file opens later our c7 rook can move there while our b8 rook cannot (g8 is covered by whites bishop). Our most passive piece is currently our rook on b8.

1 vote Re8 (languagehasmeaning)

Ke7+ draw offer: tifozi
Rc7: languagehasmeaning
h5 + draw offer: galdur


Based on this Ke7 + a draw offer is currently winning because it was the first vote and all three options above have 1 vote each (tiebreaker rule).

Yeah, our opponent definitely seemed faster in our last game. I don't mind really. It just means that I am less likely to miss a move even if I don't log into bitcointalk for a day or two.

He is probably just busier now for some reason. To me being able to play someone of his caliber is worth it.

If you get bored you can always join the game below. There is a strict 1 move per day pace:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1190988.0

Glad to hear it worked. The more people that run nodes the better!

I just noticed this:

"edit 11/27/2015: demo version of RingCT using the MLSAG's is coded - next up is implementing 1. Diffie helman passing of masks and 2. implement a short representation of amounts"

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3pw30d/ringct_for_monero_updated_versions/

Progress seems to be happening pretty quickly! After the next implementation step it sounds like the proof of concept should be pretty well established.  It seems to be that RingCT is a matter of WHEN instead of IF.

Lets play a few more moves but I agree a draw is likely.

Soon one side will likely open up some files by exchanging pawns. When that happens we want our rooks to be as well positioned as possible. I like Rc7 as it allows us to move to g7 or e7 and allows Rf8. If we advance our h pawn Rh7 or Rh8 are also possible. Currently we do not have easy access to the g file as g8 is covered by the bishop. Previously Rbc8 was not possible because of Bb7 winning our a6 pawn. For the above reasons Rc7 helps optimize the flexibility of both of our rooks.

Ke7 looks okay, but its only purpose seems to be defending d6 and clearing the f file for a rook. I would argue that we might to want to move our b8 rook to f8 (instead of our c8 rook), which is why I prefer Rc7 (which covers b7 and allows prevents both rooks from getting in the way of each other on the 8th rank).

If many pawns are exchanged or if the position becomes completely blockaded then a draw will become obvious. There are still chances for both sides to make mistakes. Both teams still seem to maneuvering pieces. Its not like either side is moving back and forth with no plan.

I am quoting the position from move 31 to illustrate my point:


Game PGN: [/quote]

I might have liked to play Rc8 (followed by Rc7), but 31...Rc8 would be met by 32.a5 b5 33.cxb5 axb5 creating a passed pawn for white (because 33.cxb5 Nxb5 would allow 34.Bb7 and 35.Bxa6). If our rook was on c7 instead of c8, then Bb7 is prevented allowing Nxb5 instead of axb5) It took several moves but our f6 rook going to f8, c8 and now (my vote for Rc7) has a point. Our b8 rook will be free to move to f8 (or another file depending on which pawn moves are made) without fear of Bb7. Our goal should be to maximize the mobility of our pieces while minimizing the mobility of our opponents pieces.

Ke7+ draw offer: tifozi
Rc7: languagehasmeaning

I think Qxf1 is reasonable too but I see us fighting for a draw in that endgame. Qh5 probably gives us both better winning (and losing) chances.

Kf6

Did the solution above work for you?

Rfc8: 2 votes (boolberry, languagehasmeaning)

g5: 4 votes (galdur, Hueristic, mammut, languagehasmeaning)
Nf6: 3 votes (chesthing, manis, Morecoin Freeman)

Bf5: 1 vote (Morecoin Freeman)
Qh4: 6 votes (hermesesus, galdur, marcus1986, Taras, jjacob, languagehasmeaning)

g5: 1 vote (languagehasmeaning)

I agree that b5 would be an easier way to attempt forcing a draw. That is precisely the reason why I chose b6. I hope we can keep the game interesting and avoid unnecessary simplifications. Based on some of the comments above I believe some of the Monero players feel the same way. The game may end in a draw but it won't be for a lack of effort from either side!