Mini 686 - Chess Mafia (Done)

[EmpTyger]

Can anyone provide a reason for me to read the thread?

[EmpTyger]

Move: gxf4

IH:

move: Qe2

I think this move is relatively straightforward. The other alternate move: gxf4 invites Black to attack our right flank.

What? Qe2 *allows* Black to do fxg3 and attack the right flank. How is that better to you than an "invitation"?

[EmpTyger]

IH:

We do gxf4....

21. gxf4 Bd6 22. Ne5 Bxh1 23. Rxh1 Qh4 24. Rf1 Qxh2+.

How can you not see the attack coming?!

Because I don’t see us playing Ne5.

But, how can you not see 21. Qe2 fxg3 coming?
You say gxf4 is bad because it “breaks up the pawn structure and all Black has to do is to simply focus their attack on our right flank". How does Qe2 not do that even more so?

[EmpTyger]

IH:
Sorry, you're right.

Unmove: gxf4

.

Has there been an established convention for casting lynching moves, or should I just do it?

[EmpTyger]

I like g4, and while I don't see anything wrong with it, after 21 I'm hesitant to say so with certainty. But I think it's better to keep the f-rank closed.

TCS:
I'd like to know what the mate-in-4 you were referring to was about.

[EmpTyger]

I’m assuming that one of the things that I missed in my non-reading of the thread wasn’t TCS being exposed mafia who everyone knows to ignore, since no one is ignoring him as exposed mafia. And, yeah, I know I messed up myself on replace-in. But, all the same- huh?

---

TCS:
Why did you ignore the move that most of us are actually debating: g4?

And when I don’t see anything that remotely looks like 21) fxg4 Bd6 22) mate-in-4, it makes me question the advice you’re giving about the lines and boards we have now. So I ask.

[EmpTyger]

Okay, sorry again. Re6 isn't as bad as I thought. I probably shouldn't open my mouth again until I grow more feet

[EmpTyger]

I'm not hearing anything besides crickets, and I still like the closed f-rank, so

move: g4

[EmpTyger]

I know too well I've got practically no credibility in terms of analysis, but I just don't see a point to Re6. Whereas g4 I can see leading to a kingside pawn attack, plus it keeps the f-rank from being opened, which also keeps the bishop penned.

[EmpTyger]

<snip>
I don't want to explore all of the lines, because I'm expecting black to make a mistake in the next couple of moves. That being said, what is your countermove to Re6?

I've tried to form a response to this a couple times, but I'm honestly not quite sure how to?

[EmpTyger]

TCS:
It was your “I'm expecting black to make a mistake in the next couple of moves” that completely threw me off.

I think I cast a lynching move for Re6 now? (And by “now”, I mean, “after giving Goatrevolt a time chance to input”/“unless anyone has an objection”)

[EmpTyger]

or that... should you lower the voting threshhold since we're missing like 3 people?

Two actually. But fine. 4 votes to move/lynch.

Wait, what? Don't we have 4 voting for Re6 right now? {TCS, AA, IH, veerus}

[EmpTyger]

[I'm on V/LA until end of week.]

That wasn't the response I had been expecting. Anyone have a reason why not Ng5?

[EmpTyger]

I'm not seeing anything that looks like "a very quick draw".

I'm also not seeing veerus or Mastin advocating an alternative move to Ng5 despite their opposition.

[EmpTyger]

Move: Ng5

(move-1)

---

Mastin:
Firstly, everything you've said today has been about how bad Ng5 is. That sounds like you're opposed to Ng5. But yet, despite how you feel about Ng5- you're not suggesting any move that you feel would be better. If you think Ng5 is bad and doesn't benefit us in the short-term, then why aren't you suggesting something which you think is good, which you think does benefit us in the short-term?

[EmpTyger]

Still in one of my busiest weeks of the year. May not get another chance to post until Monday or Tuesday.

What about Qf3?

I don’t really see the point of moving the h-rook. 25. Rf1 is disastrously bad: after 25… Rh6, we can’t protect against all of 26… Qxg5, Rxe6, and Rxh2+. And I don’t see any “killer attack” after 25. Rhe1 Rf8 26. Rh6. What I do see is 26… Qxg5 27. Rxd6 (am I missing something better?) fxg3+ threatening 28…gxh2. Still looking at 25. Reh1 Rf8 26. h4, but don’t see anything obviously good here.

---

Mastin:

Rook E1 forces a trade. We're ahead; I say we take the trade.

How are we ahead?

---

IH:

I never actually argued for Rf1, but anyways...

Huh?

A draw? I see victory!

There are better moves than Rhe1. We're already covering the rook with the knight.

move: Rf1

Rf1 clears a path for the pawns to move up, and we'll easily take the knight back anyways. Besides, for those who can see a little further, check out the nasty surprise that this move holds in store for Black.

[EmpTyger]

I think I may need to actually read this game at some point.

Move: Qf3

We *don’t* have an threat the kingside. Because threatening Qxh7 ties up our queen and knight, while black can defend against it with only one rook. That’s *bad*. And I don’t see how we can effectively supplement our attack with our rooks or pawns; if we try, black has ample opportunity to counter with his pieces.

Rf1 isn’t as bad as I thought. But it doesn’t do achieve anything except preventing black from moving his f-pawn. Which Qf3 also does. But Qf3 also lets us reposition our queen to a better location. Whereas the rook can’t go anywhere from f1.

---

IH:

@Emp: Keyword in your quote is 'actually'.
<snip>

Explain? Because it definitely seems like you “actually” argued for Rf1 in [1157]:

I never actually argued for Rf1, but anyways...

A draw? I see victory!

There are better moves than Rhe1. We're already covering the rook with the knight.

move: Rf1

Rf1 clears a path for the pawns to move up, and we'll easily take the knight back anyways. Besides, for those who can see a little further, check out the nasty surprise that this move holds in store for Black.

Also, what happened to the aggression you were so gungho about when you went with Re6 over g4? How is Rf1 more aggressive than Qf3?

---

Mastin:
(Forget for a moment how you can’t seem to count to 6.)

Someone suggested that you’ve made a mistake. Or, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt- that you *might* have made a mistake. And this mistake is ridiculously easy to check.

And you don’t.

You don’t even try.

If this were a lynching game, this would voteworthy. You’re not trying for a [town] win. You’re making excuses to cover antitown play.

[EmpTyger]

Qf3 threatens Qxd5 and Qh5. Rf1 threatens nothing.
Qf3 also prevents the pawn loss if black tries to trade, unlike Rhe1.

And as I’ve already said, maintaining the pressure on h7 doesn’t help us, not when it costs us more to pressure than it costs black to defend.

[EmpTyger]

Goatrevolt:
I don’t see a response that doesn’t result in them losing at least a pawn. And I would rather not explain which lines lose more and which lose less- and I don’t have the time for anyhow, and we're too close to deadline besides. So I would like to instead make the following statement:

I am confident enough to stand behind Qf3 with my life. That is: if we lose material as a result, then if we later are forced to resort to lynching, I will offer myself as the first lynch.

Can anyone else say that about the move that they are advocating?

---

IH:
I still want to know why you tried to deny you were arguing for Rf1.

Also, deadline’s approaching now too, so how is your attitude regarding aggression any different here?

And I did already reply to this:

Also, your argument concerning Rf1 is flawed. You said that after Rf1 Rh6, Black will come out top. I think you're blind.

Rf1 Rh6? Rxh6 Qxg5 Rxd6 fxg3+ Qe3 Qxe3+ Kxe3 and does Black have anything else left? The passed pawn is all laid to waste for Black.

I'm interested in seeing how you reply to this.

<snip>
Rf1 isn’t as bad as I thought. But it doesn’t do achieve anything except preventing black from moving his f-pawn. Which Qf3 also does. But Qf3 also lets us reposition our queen to a better location. Whereas the rook can’t go anywhere from f1.
<snip>

[EmpTyger]

Zazie:
No, you wouldn’t be trusting me blindly. I’m offering collateral: my life.

<snip>
In my opinion, Qf3 will lead into a lot of destruction at the least. At most, we'll lose.

Fine. That’s your opinion. My opinion is the exact opposite: it’ll lead to material advantage at the least, and at most, we’ll win. And I’m willing to back up my opinion with my life.
If we make some other move besides Qf3, are you willing to offer yourself as the first lynch if your move fails?

We can’t wait on Qf3. The reason it works is because black can’t in one move simultaneously protect against Qxd5 and Qh5. If we wait, then black gets an extra move, and then they can protect both squares.

Also:

Meh, wasn't really paying attention. However:
1) Rhe1, Rf8
2) Qf3, Qxg5 (very likely)
3) Rxd6, ...

3…fxg3+
4. Qe3 Qxe3
5. Kxe3 Re7+
6. Kd2 Rxe1
7. Kxe1 g2
8…g1(Q)+, and white gets mated in a few.

No, you’re not really paying attention.

---

IH:
I’m not budging on Qf3 either. I’m also stated the extent to which I am willing to stand being my move. Are you that certain about yours?

Also, can you give any advantage for Rf1 over Qf3?
(The attack on the d3-h7 diagonal isn’t an advantage, because as I’ve already explained, there’s no threat to black there. We can’t exploit that without additional material, and Rf1 *prevents* us from reinforcing the attack with our rooks. Whereas Qf3 at the very least wins a pawn.)

---

ah2190:
I pointed that out 2 pages ago:

<snip>
And I don’t see any “killer attack” after 25. Rhe1 Rf8 26. Rh6. What I do see is 26… Qxg5 27. Rxd6 (am I missing something better?) fxg3+ threatening 28…gxh2.
<snip>

So, first of all, IH didn’t reveal anything.
Second of all, even if you were right, and this wasn’t an obvious countermove which had already been pointed out- well, now it is revealed. So why are you still voting Rhe1?

---

AA:
Qf3 (or even Rf1) will protect the diagonal the king is on without giving up tempo. And in the case of Qf3, we’ll win material. So what is the advantage of Kd1?

---

veerus:
Actually, I think Re6 was the mistake, but I think black didn’t see some things when they responded Rf6, so it turned out okay. We are in a good position here, unless we squander it.

[EmpTyger]

Move: Re5

[EmpTyger]

Black either completely missed something or else they're planning on being able to talk us out. Either way, let's not help them out.

[EmpTyger]

/prod received

[EmpTyger]

And, if Black doesn’t do those responses to Qd3? I’m hesitant to start citing lines, because then we give black the best possible response to whatever move we decide, and I’m not certain what that is. But I think Qd3 is only as decisive as IH makes it out to be if black blunders. I’d rather play a move that’s decisive regardless of black’s response.

Still considering Nxh7.

Unmove: Re5

while I do that, I suppose.

TCS:
Yeah, tell me about it. I’m skeptical that veerus, who supposedly thought Re5 was “terrible” and worse than Rhe1 or gxf4, now can understand the much more complicated Qd3. Especially when I’m not certain I do.

[EmpTyger]

IH:
I mean, do you want me to say the line I have a problem with for Qd3?

[EmpTyger]

Qd3 leads to Qd3 Qf8 Nxh7 Qf7 Ng5 Qf8. Unless black blunders, I didn’t see us winning more than a pawn here.

Nxh7 is harder to analyze, because I’m also looking at alternatives to Bf8 and Rf6. I’ll say that so far I’ve not seen any problem with it, but I’m not yet ready to say so definitively.

[EmpTyger]

Still looking at Nxh7, sorry. It’s been a long day and realistically I do not think I am going to get full chance to tonight.

AA:
In comparison to Nxh7 or Re5, winning only a pawn may be suboptimal.

[EmpTyger]

Okay, I'm convinced. Sorry for the delay.

Move: Qd3

[EmpTyger]

Sorry, internet disconnect + extra shifts. Also, there is no reason not to take the pawn first.

Move: Nxh7

[EmpTyger]

ZazieR:
Why do you care so much if veerus understands? We don't need unanimity, just a majority.
Also, 9 players = 2 mafia. Why would you think 3?

[EmpTyger]

ZazieR:
In this situation, burden of proof is on those wanting not-Nxh7. Unless you're really desperate to make sure your comafia doesn't bury themself hopelessly arguing for the worse move, you don't need to build an argument that risks educating black.

[EmpTyger]

ZazieR:
Take a breath and close your mouth. You're trying to argue an argument that's already been won. If someone has something to say, let them say it- until then, there's no reason to give play advice when only 2 players are objecting.

[EmpTyger]

/prod received. Content to wait until deadline.

[EmpTyger]

<snip>
I believe that gxf4 is not a good move. It's incredibly short-sighted, enough said.

Re5 isn't very good either, at least when I compare it to either Qd3 or Nxh7.

Qd3 Qf8 Nxh7 Kxh7 g4 Kh8 gxf5 Rc7 Rxa6 Bf6 Rf1 f3 and really, Black is screwed all over.

OR....

Nxh7 Bf8 Ng5 Rf6 gxf4 Rc7 Kc1 Rxc2 Kxc2 Qc8 Kb1 and Black is still screwed, but at least he goes down trading pieces.

I've yet to make up my mind, but I will. In the meantime, I beseech you to unvote and discuss the new moves first.

Your first quoted line is among the dumbest responses black has to 28. Nxh7, and the second line contains moves that aren't even legal.

Nah. If you thought so, you would have said so yesterday. When we were considering Qd3 in the first place. But instead you just quietly went along with it.

g4 is a better move by far from what I can see. The lack of response to my query regarding Nxh7 Qf7 seems to indicate to me that

we don't have one.

The lack of response to your query regarding Nxh7 Qf7 seemed to indicate to me that we don't need your vote today.

Until you guys can start considering the BEST moves that can be made against us rather than inflating your arguments with straw men, we've got no hope of winning this thing.
<snip>

We're not going to tell Black what the best move they can make is when we don't have to.

[EmpTyger]

Move: hxg5

The only advantage we got out of that move was the knowledge that the mafia are entirely within {veerus, AA, TCS, Goatrevolt, RF}.
Oh, yeah, and a pawn

---

Zazie:
I'm frustrated too- and I may owe you and apology- because I didn't believe that 2 mafia could manipulate the 3 remaining town into speedlynching a suboptimal move, not when 4 were [supposedly] aware of what the what the best move was.

But, why are you blaming the mod here? What did they do?

[EmpTyger]

Rg6 is an obviously *awful* move. It doesn't accomplish anything, doesn't threaten anything. (It isn't even the best way to make a pointless attack on the bishop. Re5 would at least threaten the d pawn, not that it's not easy for black to defend both.)

Move: Qf5

We're up material and we no longer have a mating attack. It's time to trade queens.

[EmpTyger]

Unmove: Qf5

as I reconsider something I think I overlooked.

[EmpTyger]

Sorry for the triplepost; I was right the first time.

Move: Qf6

[EmpTyger]

<sigh> Sorry for the quadruple post, typo...

Unmove: Qf6, move: Qf5

[EmpTyger]

I hate to help Black by suggesting moves, but it’s clear that White needs the help more.

If 30. Rg6, then black can choose from any number of responses to that move or protect the bishop.
30…Bd8
30…h6
30…Rg7
30…Qd8

Even if 30. Re5, black can easily protect the bishop and d pawn.
30…Qg8
30…Qd8

I don’t want to go into which of these are better or worse. But I maintain that attacking the bishop only wastes a move, and am waiting to hear otherwise.
Whereas Qf8 forces a queen trade, which heightens our material advantage.

---

IH:
Even if we coordinate our 3 attackers, (Q + R + R), Black has 3 defenders (K + Q + R). The only hope of a mating threat is for White to make suboptimal moves and hope that Black colossally blunders. Which (a) is poor strategy and (b) after the move 28 disaster I think *White* is more likely to misplay than Black.

[EmpTyger]

Hm. I hadn't looked at that.

Unmove: Qf5

while reconsidering.

[EmpTyger]

IH/RayF:
That's 3 moves that are superior to Rg6: {Re5, Qf5, Qg6}. Why are you still voting Rg6?

---

Zazie:
I'm not seeing a problem with Qg6. Does your counter cause White to lose material or let Black escape without trading? If so, say it- we have 2 other decent options so we can abandon this line if it's bad. If we win at least a pawn even with your counter, it probably is better to save it quiet.

---

AA:
Any reason why you keep ignoring the move currently under discussion? First you choose Re5 > Rg6, ignoring Qf5. Now you choose Qf5 > Re5 (while leaving your vote on Re5!), ignoring Qg6.

[EmpTyger]

ZazieR:
I think you're going to need to say it outloud, because I'm looking, I've slept on it, and I'm still not seeing a problem with Qg6. I see either a lot of piece trading and us winning a pawn, or else black losing at least a piece. I hate to help black with get those outcomes, but it seems that one of us is missing something.

[EmpTyger]

ZazieR:
I still don't really see it, but I'm okay with Qf5 enough to not want to explore further.

Move: Qf5

[EmpTyger]

Unmove Qf5

I'll take another look at Re5 when I get the chance- don't remember the position well enough and very busy today irl.

[EmpTyger]

I'm not certain the difference between Re6 and Qf6 is significant. I'm willing to go along with Re6.

[EmpTyger]

ugh That's the second time today, isn't it. Betwen Re6 and Qf5.

[EmpTyger]

Sorry, guys, I haven't had time to analyze the position. I was going to do this on ethical argument- but who is Sudo_Nym? I thought RayF replaced Mastin?

[EmpTyger]

Move: Qf5

. I've changed my mind. I don't think the is the time for larger strategy- I don't think this game is getting played out until the end. Either one side is going to get a significant enough material advantage and the other side will grant them enough intelligence to not screw it up and will concede. Or we're all going to agree on a draw. I don't see this game getting played out until the end, not with this kind of modding.

Forget the rest about the deadline problems and the lack of attention. Not telling us who's in the game, and which moves will count until after the day ends? This is not what I agreed to.

Zazie:
I really think you're missing something in your analyses- about both Re5 and Qg6.

[EmpTyger]

pb]Unmove Qf5, move Re5[/b]
I don't know what's wrong with me

[EmpTyger]

Unmove: Qf5, move: Re5

[EmpTyger]

Sorry for another quadruplepost- but to clarify, I'm not changing my mind in [1571/1572], just correcting. I had started to do Qf5, then reevaluated for the reason given and forgot that to check which move I had actually typed before posting. Sorry for the lack of attention.

[EmpTyger]

Can we get everyone to check in? I'd like to know more for certain who is still playing this game,

I'm looking at Rh5 and I don't see anything that is definitively overwhelming. Seems like it lead to black protecting or moving away the bishop. Which means that we get to take the pawn. So... why not simply just take the pawn to begin with?

(As for Rhe1: ...Rh4?)

AA:
Wasn't the point of forking the bishop and pawn to win whichever one black couldn't protect? (ie the pawn)

[EmpTyger]

Sorry, typo in my last post. I wanted to know what Goatrevolt's response to
32. Rhe1 32...

B

h4
is. And now I also want to know what veerus's response is.

[EmpTyger]

veerus/AA:
And if black doesn't do 34...f3? What if they move their rook or queen instead?

---

IH (and everyone really):
Why not Rxd5?
If 32... f3+, then we move our king out of check. (I like Ke1 personally.) I don't see any reason to spend moves to force the bishop from g5 when the worst it can do there is force us to spend 1 move.) For all those obsessing over black having a passed pawn, note that this gives us 2.

I don't see that either Rh5 nor Rhe1 are as definitely "win" as people are trying to claim. They both lead to ambiguous situations and black has a lot of responses that to me seem to repel any attack. Especially given the pacing of this game- I'd rather take another pawn [at least 1, 2 might be easily possible], and then force trades to leave us in as superior and simplified a position as possible. The other option is to wait for a magical move that has no black counter. And I'm skeptical that that will exist.

[EmpTyger]

Please note that I will be V/LA 12/20-26.
Still would like everyone to check in.

I'm coming around on Rhe1 as I look at it more, but want to look more before I vote.
(Though I still don't see a point to Rh5 that makes it better than Rxd5.)

[EmpTyger]

Move: Rhe1.

I'm convinced enough, and since I'm going V/LA and the mod won't tell us when this n+2 day deadline is, I'm not going to wait around for what looks like at least 3 playerslots to get filled.

[EmpTyger]

No ah2190 nor ZazieR. No replacement for either.
No idea whether TCS is still in this game.

Move: R1e2

[EmpTyger]

AA:
You were fine with R1e2 yesterday, it's too late to do anything else now, you don't have anything new to add or suggest or even an alternate move to propose, and 1/3 to 2/3s of the players need replacement.

...What discussion are you hoping for?

[EmpTyger]

Sudo:
Are you being unnecessarily greedy, or are you just trying to stall? We're still ahead in material, trading is still exactly want we want: simplify to a superior endgame position. And this time there's no omg-black-has-a-passed-pawn objection. You have a better move, say it; until then

move: Re8

Black:
If you're not going to play this game, could you simply concede instead of not submitting your nightmove? (That's assuming there were even any black players left before Herodotus got roped in.)

[EmpTyger]

Qxf3 is bad.:
34. Qxf3 Rxg4
35. Re8 Rxd4+
36. Kc1 Bg5+ and then we lose *our* queen.

Look, put yourselves in Black shoes. What do they want? To prolong the game with a chance for counterplay.
*Black* would love to sac a pawn for that opportunity.
*White* wants to forces trades of as much material as possible to a superior endgame.

Stop being greedy and stalling and finding ways that might prolong and lose a won game.

(Besides, if it's an extra pawn you want, I'm fairly certain we can get one after the RR/QP trade.)

[EmpTyger]

Sudo:
Okay, I didn't notice something about Ke3. But even so, it's worse than Re8:

Qxf3: Q+R+3 pawns vs Q+B+5 pawns
Re8: Q+5 pawns vs R+B+5 pawns (and at least another pawn trade)

[EmpTyger]

It's still simplifies somewhat. I guess that's worth the pawn.

Unmove: Re8, move: Qxf3

But, seriously: the goal here is to trade to a superior endgame. We don't want there to be opportunities for counterplay.

[EmpTyger]

I PMed MeMe. I felt that this was a metagame concern, and so have been reluctant to discuss it in-thread. But since it’s here…

I do not believe that MafiaSSK is competent enough to mod this game to completion. This isn’t personal, just a conclusion based on what has transpired with the game, and based on what is *still* transpiring without any sign of change. What MafiaSSK is doing is not modding.
Modding is keeping the game moving, be it by prods, deadlines, whatever.
Modding is maintain the health of the game if a significant number of playerslots become empty.
Modding is enforcing deadlines, and maintaining deadlines.
Modding is presenting information clearly, be it by updating the firstpost (and no, it *still* isn’t up-to-date!) or posting votecounts, whether regularly or upon request.
Modding is actively following the game, and proactively and reactively responding to issues.
Modding is responding to player concerns- not repeatedly ignoring them.

I apologize to the other players, but I my agreement was to xreplace into this game. I didn’t agree to babysit an incompetent mod. I feel I’ve given MafiaSSK more than enough chances to improve, and I see the modding situation only deteriorating towards unplayability. So

either MafiaSSK leaves, or I do.

If this game is to continue, it’s going to be in one of the following ways:
1) With a new mod
2) With the players maturely self-moderating the remainder of an otherwise modless game (cf “Mature Mafia”)
3) Without me

[EmpTyger]

So, do we want to try to play on? The way I see it, in order to play, we would need the following:

1) A commitment to the integrity of the game from everyone involved here.
2) Deadlines or replacements, to allow the game to progress. (Although really, I think we need deadlines regardless of whether we get replacements or not.)
3) Either a new mod, or some creative ways of handling the logistics of moderatorial duties.

I have some ideas for 2 and 3, but I’m not going to spend much time working on it if we don’t have 1. So, thoughts?

(And- I do realize there may be some alignment-bias issues at play. I’m not sure how to handle that other than through an intermediary such as MeMe, but I don’t know if that’s practical.)

---

AA:
At the risk of making a broader geopolitical point, of all the things I think MafiaSSK should be blamed for, finally deciding not to obliviously and futilely stay a deteriorated course is not one of them.

[EmpTyger]

Really don't have time to post right now, but I think at the minimum we need to establish an objectively fair deadline system, way to handle votecounts, and [optimistically] to allow a replacement. I think it's possible but I seriously have to run right now- will post more tomorrow.

[EmpTyger]

I'd rather make sure all players are playing by the same rules first, and then try to figure out an optimal move for some of us.

Integrity

All players need to agree to maintain the integrity of the game. Whatever rules we're playing by, we've all got to agree to uphold them.

Deadlines

1 week deadlines for Day, 2 day deadlines for Night.
At deadline, whichever move has the most votes. If there's a tie, Mr. Black breaks the tie.

Replacements

We all passively advertise for replacements in signatures, and in the thread title. If (optimistically) someone is interested in replacing, they indicate in the game thread. We randomly choose which inactive player they will replace, and then Black PMs them the correct alignment.

Votecounts

Whenever anyone posts a move or unmove (or vote or unvote, theoretically) they include a revised movecount.

[EmpTyger]

I suggest that all of us add the following to our signatures:

---

The players of

Chess Mafia

are self-modding the remainder of the game. We are looking for a few replacements to finish things up. No rereading necessary- just a commitment to maintain the game's integrity. If this sounds interesting, post

/in to replace

in the game thread!

[EmpTyger]

Right, 255. Okay, try this instead:

---

Chess Mafia is now being player-modded, and we need a few replacements. No rereading necessary, just integrity. "/in to replace" in the game thread if interested!

[EmpTyger]

I believe this is current:

Movecount

Re8

(Indigo Heron, Abstract Actuary, Sudo_Nym)

Qxf3

(Herodotus, veerus, EmpTyger)

Also, note that I'm going V/LA tomorrow morning, and will be until Thursday or Friday.

[EmpTyger]

[Just got back- will look at actual chessy things later tonight.]


veerus:
I mean, if there's a 4 white : 2 black setup, *any* structure is going to be challenging in that way for white. I don't think "do nothing until we convince 3 players to replace in" is reasonable. (Especially since I'm not sure it's a given that we are getting replacements.) If you have a better plan, propose it. This one lets us play, and I feel is reasonable for both sides.

[EmpTyger]

I don't think it's the only viable option- in fact, I think they're pretty equivalent, but Re8 forces more trading.

Unmove: Qxf3, move: Re8

Movecount

:

5 Re8

(Indigo Heron, Abstract Actuary, Sudo_Nym, veerus, EmpTyger)

1 Qxf3

(Herodotus)

So that's a lynch.

veerus:
Can we please get into the habit of posting a new movecount whenever anyone votes or unvotes a move?

And regardless of whether it's 4:2 or 5:1, the point is that white must not be advantaged by consensus not being reached. Setting aside the fairness issue, it removes the incentive for white to attempt to reach consensus.

[EmpTyger]

Definitely not Kd1- then it's fxe2+ instead of fxe2.

Move Kd3

Move Count

Kd3 (2):

Herodotus, EmpTyger

Thok:
This is a perfect game for us, isn't it- no lynching or nightkills to end any intense argument that might put us at each others' throats. Welcome aboard! Black will be PMing you your alignment.

[EmpTyger]

Move: Rxg8+

Move Count
Rxg8+ 4

- veerus, Sudo_Nym, Herodotus, EmpTyger

Thok:
For the record, you've read more of the game than me. And I've been in it for 8 months.

[EmpTyger]

Welcome aboard, everyone.

Move: Qxd5+

Movecount

(3) Qxd5+ (Thok, Haylen, EmpTyger)
(1) Kxe2 (Indigo Heron)

[EmpTyger]

Thok’s right in that Qxf2 is suboptimal. It forces us to trade Q for R+B sooner than we want. We could easily pick off another pawn if we wait. And I don’t see any reasons to reposition the queen before Kxe2.

However- I think Sudo is also right in that if we've already got us a victory. If we trade Q for R+B+e-pawn, we have an obviously won game with our passed pawn. No need to win more.

Move: Qf3+

[EmpTyger]

hm

Unmove: Qf3+

. Rethinking.

Sorry, forgot movecount in my last. We're back to:

Move Count
(1) Kxe2 (Thok)

[EmpTyger]

Thok/Sudo:
Take a breath you 2 and settle down. I think you're both right, because there's more than 1 way to win a chess game.

Thok:
We don't play 41.c3. We play d5 in that position.

[EmpTyger]

Thok:
Actually, come to think of it, even after your 41.c3 scenario, 43.d5 looks to still work.

[EmpTyger]

I'm fine with Kxe2.

veerus:
I'm not waiting until deadline to find a more perfect move when we already have 2 that will work and 1 that has consensus. 24 hours seems reasonable.

Haylen:
Huh?
1) You're saying that you can't fully look 1 move ahead in our current position, but you understand perfectly 4+ moves ahead in a now-moot position?
2) You're bothering to re-debate past moves when you haven't weighed in on today's move?
3) And despite delving into play history- that and only that is the only question you have?

I'm not sure which of those is more baffling. Taken together- I'm not going to dignify your accusation with a response.

[EmpTyger]

Yeah. I think those are our 3 options. Need to look further into them though.

[EmpTyger]

Not sure yet.

Thok:
I don't think that's the pawn that IH is referring to.

[EmpTyger]

Thok:
I gave IH too much credit. I was looking at the h-pawn, and assuming he had looked through further than me. Still looking at Qf5+

[EmpTyger]

Thok:
No, seems fine to me.

[EmpTyger]

I'm convinced enough and with 7 of us, not sure it's worth waiting on SK.

Move: Qf5+

Move Count:

Qf5 (5) - Indigo Heron, veerus, Abstract Actuary, Herodotus, EmpTyger
Qc5 (1) - Haylen

[EmpTyger]

The only alternative I'm seeing to d5 is Kd3, but I'm not yet finding any reason to not just play the direct d5. Will look more at tomorrow.

[EmpTyger]

I'm very sorry all. I had a crisis last week just prior to an unexpected V/LA. I'm back, but with a cold on top of lot of catchup irl.

I don't see any move as being particularly decisive, and with what admittedly incomplete analysis I've done nothing looks particularly objectionable. My inclination is that we need to be activating our king, but no one else is considering that, so that's that realistically. I'm not comfortable voting just yet. I'll be able to get online before deadline, but realistically, I'm not sure whether I'm going to be able to study the position any more.

[EmpTyger]

Move: Kd3

. We need to move our king up for any attack we will make. Don't think it matters between Ke3 and Kd3, but go for it if you want to, Thok or whoever.

Movecount

1 Kd3

(EmpTyger)

---

IH:
Why do you think so highly of "deprive Black's king of the 8-rank"? (Compared to, say, depriving the black king of the f-file?)

CSL:

Well, having a player who is here is better than a person who was on a long v/la, right?

What is this in response to?

[EmpTyger]

veerus:
I think it's more likely that our king will be needed on the leftside than reinforcing the g-pawn. However, I don't really think it matters, and certainly isn't worth the vote-splitting distraction.

Unmove: Kd3, move: Ke3

movecount:

Ke3 (2) - veerus, EmpTyger
Qe5 (1) - Haylen

[EmpTyger]

Herodotus/Sudo/Thok:
Anything you're waiting on? Or can you vote for your preferred king move? Because we need to decide on one or the other so that we're not splitting the vote at deadline.

[EmpTyger]

A reminder for everyone, but especially the recent replacements:
This game doesn’t have a mod. It is solely each player’s own responsibility to decide what an adequate level of contribution is. If you are doing less than that, no one else is going to prod you, no one is going to forcibly replace you.

If you do not feel you are sufficiently invested in this game, or if you do not think you can be responsible enough to adequately contribute without a moderator to compel you, then I suggest you consider whether this is the right game for you, and request replacement if you determine that it is not.

---

AA:
Less than 24 hours to deadline. Do you see Kd3 as feasible?

---

IH/CSL/Haylen:
Less than 24 hours to deadline, and a fair number of players are waiting to hear if you have anything further to say. Do you?

[EmpTyger]

Haylen:
Is counting to 5 too much?

Correct movecount:
Ke3 (5) - veerus, EmpTyger, Thok, Herodotus, Haylen
Kd3 (1) - Abstract Actuary

[EmpTyger]

There are a lot of interesting moves here. I'm not ready to vote yet.

IH:
What do you mean by "small game"?

[EmpTyger]

What about Qd7? Not ready to vote, but so far I'm liking it better than Qe4 or Qe5.

Thok:
Can you try to not give Black move advice? Obviously you should point out problems if there's need of persuading us to vote differently, but don't just gratuitously suggest the best response for Black. I'm not sure how much long-term analytic capability they have.

[EmpTyger]

I think I'm ready to

move: Qd7

Thok:
(Yeah, I figured. I wasn't being passive-aggressive; it was intended as genuinely constructive.)

I'm not seeing any advantages to Qe4 and one big disadvantage- we wouldn't be playing Ke4 any time soon. Is there something clever I'm missing with Qe4? (y/n)

---

veerus:
Uh, there's something after Qd7 Kf7. Moreover, there's certainly more there than after Qe5 Kf7 Qh5+. Which is either a 3-move repetition draw, or else there's something that the white queen can do something on h5 that it can't do on d7. Which I don't see at all.

[EmpTyger]

Sorry, forgot:

Movecount

1 Qc8 (Indigo Heron)
1 Qd7 (EmpTyger)

[EmpTyger]

Mr Black

, Please prod everybody.

Hold on, there. Procedural issue.

It is not Mr. Black's responsibility to prod players.

The presumption in continuing this game was that a significant number of players wanted to play it out, and were committed to playing it out. If that's not true, then this arrangement isn't going to work. And in that case, we need to be addressing it directly instead of ignoring it and hoping that a round of prods is suddenly going to resolve these fundamental issues.

(That's without getting into the conflict of interest, of making Mr. Black directly responsible for getting the white players to achieve their win condition.)

[EmpTyger]

AA:
Thinking about how I want to respond to your question without being too uselessly cryptic. Let me think on it. Will post when I get home tonight; I think I will have at least half an answer then.

---

Thok:
With 42. Qe4, do you have a response after all possible 42...? (y/n) Because I'm not seeing replies after some black moves.

[Also, without bothering with the rest of your preference list, note that "no move" is not an option.]

Re prods:
Thok, I understand the frustration. But you need to look at what's *causing* the inactivity if you want to solve it. Giving the modding situation, a massprod is only going to have effect if the inactivity is the result of well-intentioned players having innocently forgetting the game, and who needed the reminder.
I don't think that's the case here.
Rather, I think the inactivity has a variety of causes. Such as:
* players who replaced in not understanding what was required of them
* players who are weary of putting effort into this game
* players who do not think that increased discussion will have any effect on game progress
* players in whose interest depressed inactivity is (ie: Black)
* players who have no interest

Prods- especially prod that lack the usual threatened repercussion for consequence- aren't going to compel any of those players.

[EmpTyger]

Ugh. I really don't want to get into lines here, because I'm pretty certain Black doesn't realize something, because I don't think they would have played Rf6 if they did. And if Black makes the wrong move here, it makes this very easy for us. But I will if I have to, because long and complicated but certain, that's infinitely better than uncertain.

But let me try one thing first:

I am confident enough to stand behind Qd7 with my life.

I believe I have a winning response to any move Black makes after Qd7, (yes, including Kf8). By "winning", I mean more than "non-losing", I also mean "non-stalemating". And if not, and as a result we are later are forced to resort to lynching, I will offer myself as the first lynch.

Can any of you say that about Qe4 or Qg5+? Do you have a winning 43. for every possible black 42...?

[EmpTyger]

[Sorry for the doublepost, but]
AA:
The general plan is to get to a position where black either has to <something> or <something else> or <something else> and I don't want to give away what those somethings are because I don't think black realizes all of them.

And black's general plan is to either hope we make a mistake that lets them snag a piece or

force a stalemate.

[EmpTyger]

You know what, this joke has gone on long enough.

I'm black. This is a stalemate. Let's just agree to the draw and be done with this.

---

Thok:

]<snip>
Why are you offering a non-stalemating guarantee rather than a non-drawing guarantee? (These are different; all stalemates are draws,but not all draws are stalemates.)

Because I wasn't making a distinction between stalemate and other forms of draw. Sorry.

[EmpTyger]

It's poor sportsmanship to hurt your team because you're bored. Also, I and others (Abstract Actuary, at least) have made it clear that we wanted the chance to guess at who the scum were when the game ended (if it wasn't by lynchings.) Why didn't you just ask to be replaced if you feel that the game has gone on too long? Or if your team agreed, use Mr. Black to offer a draw?

Huh. You make a good point.

Request replacement

[EmpTyger]

Hold on, I just reread my role and took another look at the board and it seems I missed a few small details. Apparently, all of that stuff I claimed is only true on April 1.

Unrequest replacement

APRIL FOOLS

[EmpTyger]

Thok:
Can you make the same declaration of confidence in your move that I am in mine? Or alternatively (I don't want to get caught up in semantics of draw), what can you declare about your confidence?

Herodotus:
The problem with your proposal is while it captures the point of the game for white, it changes the point of the game for black. It gives white a huge advantage in a confirmed innocented for the chess part of the game.

[EmpTyger]

I'm sorry, everyone for my absense. I have some significant issues in real life that have been and will make participating very difficult. I'm a little leery of requesting replacement, but realistically- there will likely be some at least 7 day stretches coming up in the next few months, during which I won't be able to devote time to mafiascum. I'm honestly not sure what is the most responsible thing to do here, especially after my actions yesterday.

---

As for the immediate move- at the risk of seeming underwhelmingly anticlimatic,

move: Ke4

.

IH:
...So by "small game" you meant "long game"?

Movecount

1 Ke4 (EmpTyger)