I love boolberry but I now have a new favorite thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148538.0(come join if you like chess) Back on topic..... I would love to hear feedback from those testing the new db code from github. Do we have any data about how many people have tested it and any trouble (if any) they have ran into? I thought the cointopay.com boolberry acceptance news was a good thing. Has anyone used the service yet? |
|
|
|
i vote a5.
how is consensus reached? do gavin and mike talk to various mining pools/exchanges?
I also like a5 now for 2 reasons: 1. I don't think trading on b5 or rooks afterwards on the a file will help us 2. If we wait a move by playing h3 for example (preparing Be3) then black can play Bc6. Then if we play a5 later black can respond with Qb7 which I think is a better square for the queen than c6 or a7 where he will have to move if we play a5 right away. About consensus, hashing power is calculated with 1 vote per miner/player. Strong chess players are not given ASICs type hashing advantages over beginners. With 1 vote per player the power of persuasion (and showing up to the polls) is probably most important |
|
|
|
Why don't you play on a board?  |♖|♘|♗|♔|♕|♗|♘|♖|
|♙|♙|♙|♙|♙|♙|♙|—|
|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|♙|
|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|
|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|
|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|
|♟|♟|♟|♟|♟|♟|♟|♟|
|♜|♞|♝|♚|♛|♝|♞|♜|this is pretty neat, i'll go ahead and make the first move! I guess you are free to do whatever you want in a thread that is not moderated. Having two game running at once won't confuse or the other people who have been following the thread a while. It will probably confuse some new people who visit the thread and cant understand why two games are running at once (after reading the OP). As far as I know never OP agreed to play a second game so the new board you are starting would be strictly PvP among other community members. ah ok my bad, ill post my own thread with the chess board cakir had posted sorry for the inconvenience... No worries. Feel free to stick around and join the existing game if you wish. |
|
|
|
Why don't you play on a board? |♖|♘|♗|♔|♕|♗|♘|♖|
|♙|♙|♙|♙|♙|♙|♙|—|
|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|♙|
|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|
|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|
|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|
|♟|♟|♟|♟|♟|♟|♟|♟|
|♜|♞|♝|♚|♛|♝|♞|♜|this is pretty neat, i'll go ahead and make the first move! I guess you are free to do whatever you want in a thread that is not moderated. Having two game running at once won't confuse or the other people who have been following the thread a while. It will probably confuse some new people who visit the thread and cant understand why two games are running at once (after reading the OP). As far as I know never OP agreed to play a second game so the new board you are starting would be strictly PvP among other community members. |
|
|
|
I like the idea of Be3 but based on the reasoning of my prior post I don't think we are ready for it now.
13. Be3 Ng4 is very annoying
We may need to play h3 first.
Jeez... you're perfectly right! After reading your prior post I had the impression we could postpone h3 after the Ng4... I didn't pay attention to the fact that our Bishop will already be on e3 and so under the attack of Ng4. As you said, this will be very annoying, we would be forced to move again the Bishop. On the other side, starting with the pawn and only then the Bishop, looks maybe a bit too long to me. Ok, a4 for me too, please. In short 13. a4 is a simpler plan we can play right away, but what is our follow up?
This obviously can vary, but the options clear to me are: 13. a4 bxa4 ---> 14. Nxa4 (check to the Queen) 13. a4 [Black doesn't swap] ---> 14. axb4 or a5 or wathever based on what Black moved It seems like 13. a4 is well ahead in the voting at the moment. It looks like a good move. You are right that our next move will depend on what black does. My guess is still that he ignores our pawn and develops a rook. |
|
|
|
Some of you guys also follow the World Chess Cup?
There are some very nice games already be played an there will also be a lot of nice games. I follow the games by Chessbomb.
I am watching it. OP is playing in it! We don't know who he is but he has provided a few clues |
|
|
|
In short 13. a4 is a simpler plan we can play right away, but what is our follow up?
Continue putting pressure on the queenside until we can break open the c- or d-file. Exactly how we do that depends on how Black responds. Black may well want to open up the position immediately with 13... c4 to open up the diagonal for his queen, so we should maintain the threat of a5 just in case his queen becomes a problem. @abacus, have you decided yet? 13. Be3 Thanks for waiting me! I was still trying to look at the conseguences of a Be3 played now, but I know my time is over (I could never play a real match with a game clock, lol). Let's do so: considering I see the consensus going for a4, my vote here is for Be3, to get some opinions from you all (in case this move is worth it). If there is an oversight in Be3 or some draw to break then I'll go with a4 without doubt. I like the idea of Be3 but based on the reasoning of my prior post I don't think we are ready for it now. 13. Be3 Ng4 is very annoying We may need to play h3 first. |
|
|
|
I'm leaning towards d4 to make the Rook earn its keep.
No good! It makes the Black rook earn its keep! After 13... cxd4 14. Nxd4 (14. Rxd4?? Bxf3 loses the exchange one way or another) 14... Rac8 (or 14... Bxg2 15. Kxg2 Rac8, same difference), we'll have to give up the c-file to unpin the knight. I was looking to d4 too, but this analysis has made me change my mind.  My vote for Rac1. I'm the third who thought d4 was a good move... Now I'm looking better at a4 but I would like to wait a few hours before my decision. Rac1 and a4 both look reasonable to me (I mentioned them last move despite choosing Rfd1 as my choice). If we still want to play d4 instead of a4 we can but it will take a few more moves to prepare. For example: 13. Rac1 (pressure on c file) 14. h3 (to stop Ng4) 15. Be3 (defend d4 and put pressure on diagonal) 16. d4 13. e3 preparing 14. d4 is another option but it does weaken our pawn structure 13. a4 can be played right away. Black is unlikely to capture on a4 or move to b4 for reasons foxpup said before. I bet he just develops his rook (Rfd8) or something. What do we play to do next? 14. a5 (black will move queen) seems to weaken our pawn long term while blocking the position 14. axb5 will be met by axb5. Has opening the a file helped us? I don't think so. In short 13. a4 is a simpler plan we can play right away, but what is our follow up? |
|
|
|
Definitely add BBR to the OP. It is absolutely worthy |
|
|
|
We all know DASH is trash (and their new model of increased mining rewards going to masternode owners discourages adoption by new small users) buts its decline does not have a direct impact on Monero.
Why would new small users care what % of the block reward goes to miners, and what % goes to masternodes (except that miners are known to autodump on the exchanges causing downward pressure on the new small user's freshly acquired holdings)? They might care what % goes to blockchain governed development projects though (which is 10% currently) as those funds will ensure the development won't grind to a standstill while waiting on individuals' donations or some other uncertain sources. If I wanted to start mining DASH (or any coin) I would want to receive as much as possible of the block reward and not be forced to give a lot (miners only get to keep of block rewards 45%.... WTF) of it to someone else against my will. https://dashpay.atlassian.net/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=858524045% Mining Reward 45% Masternode Reward for Proof-of-service 10% Decentralized Governance Budget The fact that most masternodes are owned by small number of early adopters who were in on the insta mine (and subsequent maximum xcoin/dark/dash supply reduction which increased their percentage ownership of all coins to exist in the future) adds insult to injury. I think the majority of the DASH community (which was not in on the instamine and therefore being rewarded by this madness) has an IQ lower than most of the crypto community. Donations for development are important. that we can agree on. Monero has a voluntary system that is not forced on all miners. Miners are free to donate as much or as little as they like without a huge % of their mining reward being taken away |
|
|
|
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).
6 pieces. I just gave that as an example. A forced checkmate or conversion would also work. I wouldn't want to allow resignation if there's a realistic chance of drawing, put it that way. Sounds good. We are basically in agreement. Its not a big deal but it does look like 7 is now the correct answer. I do remember when it was 6: http://chessok.com/?page_id=27966Endgame tablebases are computer databases of chess endings with precise calculations for optimal play in any position, provided the number of pieces on the board does nor exceed a certain limit. With Lomonosov Tablebases, this limit has gone up from 6 pieces to 7! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebaseBy August 2012, tablebases had solved chess for every position with up to seven pieces (the positions with a lone king versus a king and five pieces were omitted because they were considered uninteresting).[1][2] |
|
|
|
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.  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. I forgot about that, too. 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! 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. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
any good chess gaming sites?
Try to be more specific if you want advice other than what any search engine will reveal. Chess.com and ChessClub.com are nice places to play Chess24.com is good for live tournament analysis and commentary There are many more. It depends on if you want to play, study openings, tactics, endgames, etc |
|
|
|
hehe... voting for Rfd1... it is the best move i can see... a4 is useless for me... even if i am black..i can crash white when white do it... by the way is fine to use fritz here?  just asking. He already said that some computer programs are already better than the best humans. So if you use a computer to beat him you have proven nothing and just wasted your time. |
|
|
|
12. Rfd1 is best. 12. a4 is premature, I think. Should we be discussing our future plans or just our next move?
I think having a plan is important but if we discuss it openly, it will be impossible to surprise our opponent. Essentially he will always know what we are planning while we can only guess what he is planning.
I think it's obvious to both sides that the battle will take place on the queenside, with the half-open c- and d-files and Black's queenside pawns being key. A well-timed breakthrough here will be decisive, and neither side will be terribly surprised when it happens. At first I liked 12. a4 the best to induce weaknesses if black plays 12..... b4. However as foxpup pointed out when we were discussing 10. Nc3 this is unlikely to happen. Instead black may just defend by developing his queen to b6 in which case I am not sure what we have accomplished.
Correct. We shouldn't put the question to b-pawn just yet. We should get our rooks in position first. I would go with a4. After Qb6 I would recommend b3.
Why? There's no progress to be made with b3. Rac4.
I would like to utilize the open c file immediately, rather than try opening the a file and then controlling it.
Don't you mean Rac1? Also, the c-file is only half-open (there's a black pawn on c5), and we can't open it by force. We should get behind the d-file with Rfd1. I would like to change my vote from a4 to Rfd1. It sounds like you agree with me that a4 does not accomplish much if black just responds with Qb6 |
|
|
|
Is the other instance you refer to if the saved blockchain is more recent that the lmdb database (which I'm not sure how that would happen in practice unless you copied a newer blockchain.bin where there's an older db), or are you talking about something else?
Just in general that the process isn't transnational the way an ACID database commit normally would be so things can go wrong in various ways. Without carefully auditing the ordering of events and the behavior of various operating systems it is hard to be 100% sure what failure modes are possible. For example, another failure that occasionally happens on Windows (for all cryptonotes) is the blockchain.bin file gets corrupted during save since there isn't a really good way to replace a file atomically (on Linux you can rename-replace, which mostly works). This would leave you with a valid database but an invalid blockchain.bin. Of course this would probably be no worse than the previous (no db) case, but would be worse than the full db case. This is fixable, but somewhat annoying to fix, especially if all the data is going to end up in a database eventually anyway (I have no idea as to your plans). BTW, in case my comments were not clear I do think this is nice work by crypto_zoidberg and clintar. Ok, thanks for the input. Just wondered if there was something I should be looking into I hadn't thought of. I don't really know the plans, either. Just was contributing what I came up with as a work-around. I agree having everything in the database does take care if these issues, too. Pretty slick how cz implemented the db, though, huh? At least I thought so. Anyone have any suggestions for things they want to see in the codebase? I would love to see support for multisig transactions! Is that a realistic goal? |
|
|
|
Question:
Should we be discussing our future plans or just our next move?
I think having a plan is important but if we discuss it openly, it will be impossible to surprise our opponent. Essentially he will always know what we are planning while we can only guess what he is planning.
On the other hand if we only talk about our next move and noting else we may not end up with the best plan and our moves may end up being more reactive than proactive.
For the 12th move I still trying to decide between
12. a4 (attacking b5)
12. Rac1 (taking more control of the file)
12. Rfd1 (preparing d4)
At first I liked 12. a4 the best to induce weaknesses if black plays 12..... b4. However as foxpup pointed out when we were discussing 10. Nc3 this is unlikely to happen. Instead black may just defend by developing his queen to b6 in which case I am not sure what we have accomplished.
I would go with a4. After Qb6 I would recommend b3. I will still vote for 12. a4 but I am curious about the reason for planning b3 after Qb6. I could understand if our bishop was still on c1 and wanted to go to b2. Now that our bishop is on f4 what is the purpose of b3? Is your plan to move Nd1 if black plays b4 and then move the knight to b2 and c4? If so what is wrong with the same idea but moving the knight to b1, d2 and then c4 instead without needing to spend time with b3? Even if black eventually captures on a4 I think we would prefer to take back with a piece instead of our b3 pawn anyway so that we can use the a file. |
|
|
|
|
Question:
Should we be discussing our future plans or just our next move?
I think having a plan is important but if we discuss it openly, it will be impossible to surprise our opponent. Essentially he will always know what we are planning while we can only guess what he is planning.
On the other hand if we only talk about our next move and noting else we may not end up with the best plan and our moves may end up being more reactive than proactive.
For the 12th move I still trying to decide between
12. a4 (attacking b5)
12. Rac1 (taking more control of the file)
12. Rfd1 (preparing d4)
At first I liked 12. a4 the best to induce weaknesses if black plays 12..... b4. However as foxpup pointed out when we were discussing 10. Nc3 this is unlikely to happen. Instead black may just defend by developing his queen to b6 in which case I am not sure what we have accomplished.
|
|
|
|
Our oponent wouldn't move his bishop unless he were plning to move past his Knight, so he'd have to move his knight eg f6-g4-f2-d3
Will have a think about where I'd like to suggest we move.
I am not so sure. While Bd6 seems more aggressive than Be7 it also is more open to attack. For example by us playing Ne4 at some point or moving our pawn to e4 and threatening to fork him by moving our pawn to e5 at some point. He might just be getting ready to castle. Be7 also defends his f6 knight which could be helpful for black in some situations. So I disagree his plan with Be7 was to "move past his Knight" on f6. Its hard to imagine how Bg5 or Bh4 would be a realistic move for him anytime soon. He could play Ng4 if he wanted (as you mention) but I don't see what it would help. Moving from g4 to f2 and d3 is never going to happen at least in the next 10 or 15 moves. We have f2 and d3 well defended. Frankly if he moves his f6 knight I think it is more likely he goes to d5 than g4. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
