Mini 686 - Chess Mafia (Done)

[sirdanilot]

That seems like a reasonable idea goat, but when people can't see the long term advantage it may lead to the problem that the move doesn't get enough support.

[Indigo Heron]

Okay. I've had 12. ...g6 and 12. ...O-O analysed up to about move 20, and I can safely say that I'm still convinced that 12. Qd3 is the move to go. 12. Qb3 just means that the advantage is on Black.

I'm not done with 12. ...d5, yet, so I'll look into that.

[Goatrevolt]

That seems like a reasonable idea goat, but when people can't see the long term advantage it may lead to the problem that the move doesn't get enough support.

Aye, that's a potential pitfall. I'm trying to think of a way to alert players to the benefit of the move without actually giving it away to black. I'm not sure if there's even a possible way to accomplish that.

Where's the rest of the game?

[Lawrencelot]

Qb3 still prevents black from castling. Not that they'd castle the next move anyway, but if they want to castle again they need to move the d pawn, in which case we might be able to play Qa4. We also give our right bishop more mobility after Qb3. Qd3 just gets stopped by g6, and if they wouldn't play that they could castle, and it chokes our own right bishop.

[sirdanilot]

That seems like a reasonable idea goat, but when people can't see the long term advantage it may lead to the problem that the move doesn't get enough support.

Aye, that's a potential pitfall. I'm trying to think of a way to alert players to the benefit of the move without actually giving it away to black. I'm not sure if there's even a possible way to accomplish that.

Where's the rest of the game?

There isn't. Black is just as smart as white.

[Goatrevolt]

That seems like a reasonable idea goat, but when people can't see the long term advantage it may lead to the problem that the move doesn't get enough support.

Aye, that's a potential pitfall. I'm trying to think of a way to alert players to the benefit of the move without actually giving it away to black. I'm not sure if there's even a possible way to accomplish that.

Where's the rest of the game?

There isn't. Black is just as smart as white.

I think I have a possible solution, actually.

What I mean by this is that theoretically White's best chance of winning the chess game is to have the best chess player on White make all the moves but not elaborate on his reasoning behind it. Then the chess game is simply a battle of wits between black and the best white player, which gives white good chances of winning, depending on the distribution of skill. The reason this is the case is the nature of chess itself. There's no "strength in numbers" when it comes to chess. A single grandmaster can beat 1000 collaborating players on the opposite team. The opposing team's best chance of beating that grandmaster is to pick the best player, or best two or three players and have them solely decide on the moves to make.

Here are some problems: how do you determine who the best player is and how do you establish whether or not they are white or black? I think we should be able to rank players based on chess skill in a fairly accurate fashion. As for alignment, that's a trickier question, but I'm of the opinion that even if we screw that one up, we still give ourselves a decent leg up when it comes to lynching, because we gain a lot of insight into the alignment of the player making the moves.

Our current strategy really gives us a low chance of winning the chess game. How do you win a chess game against an opponent when you tell them your strategies every step of the way? You can only hope they screw up, but you've given them the tools to not screw up. I think our way to salvage the chess game is to pick a player and have them make the moves for us. Worst case scenario, we lose the chess game, but I think that is the way we are heading anyway with our current strategy and current board situation. Even in that worst-case scenario, we gain valuable insight into the alignment of the player making the moves. We force that player to go back and reason each move he made throughout the game, and then we decide whether or not we think he's likely to be town or scum based on that. That's a lot of chance to screw up, even if we end up choosing scum to fill that spot.

First of all, I want to hear thoughts on this idea. After that, I'll go through how I think we should begin to implement it.

[Abstract Actuary]

I think it is a decent strategy. Although I think our current strategy could work. The main reason I think this is because I think Black is made up of weak players. The move that doubled their pawns on the b file in addition to their most recent move have been very far from optimal. If we exchange a lot of pieces and get this down to the endgame, I'm confident we can win the game.

[sirdanilot]

If black is full of weak players, then the strongest player will have a higher chance of not being a black player, meaning we could use goat's strategy.

Unless this is some mastermind gambit of goat-scum?

[veerus]

I personally don't think that black has played poorly thus far.

Goat, while the idea sounds good on paper, I really don't see how we can pick one person to make THE move. At best, I would agree that such a person would be allowed to have a double/tripple vote, but I wouldn't feel comfortable unless that person's move was backed up by at least 2 other people.

[Goatrevolt]

I personally don't think that black has played poorly thus far.

Agreed. I don't know if this is a result of black having good players or being spoon fed moves, though.

Goat, while the idea sounds good on paper, I really don't see how we can pick one person to make THE move. At best, I would agree that such a person would be allowed to have a double/tripple vote, but I wouldn't feel comfortable unless that person's move was backed up by at least 2 other people.

Hm...that would provide some sort of a fail-safe, but could also create a scenario where the best player has the best move but can't enact it because no one else sees it.

Maybe have 3 people decide upon the move? I'm wondering if that defeats the purpose, though...

Actually, the triple vote idea seems solid. Maybe give one person a triple vote and another person a double vote? That way, those two players can solely decide on a move if they agree, but don't have the power to make moves by themselves. I think that sounds like a solid plan. The question then becomes: who is willing to give up their vote?

[Goatrevolt]

Also, who would the two players be?

[SensFan]

Although I feel confidant I am skilled enough to be one of the two with extra sway, I don't like the idea. Even if the guy with 3 votes sees the best move, it means shit all, since he can't explain it. I think I have a way to do it, though. We pick 1 player to make today's move. Tomorrow, we have a vote of confidance in that player. If 50%+1 trust him, he makes the next move. If not, we pick someone else. Repeat.

[veerus]

i think the people who have been the least vocal in the discussion should give up the vote...

those being sirdanilot, sensfan, pesco, tcs

then after today's move, we re-evaluate if those with more votes are leading us down the right path

speaking of which..

mod: we need a replacement for pesco.. during the last night, he posted in his other games that he had a death in the family and requested replacement

[SensFan]

Pfft, no way am I giving up my vote unless you can explain why. Just because I don't feel like spending hours arguing a move that you people obviously just didn't get doesn't mean I'm not just as good, if not better, at chess than most of you.

[veerus]

Based on my notes of your (very few) suggestions, I personally don't consider you a stronger player than some of the others who have been active in the discussion..

Plus if you don't feel like arguying about a move, why not further relieve yourself of the responsilibity? By your own argument, it would make sense that you should let your vote be used by someone who actually is willing to discuss possibilities.

[Indigo Heron]

LOL, Veerus. What do you think of me, then?

[SensFan]

Based on my notes of your (very few) suggestions, I personally don't consider you a stronger player than some of the others who have been active in the discussion..

Weren't you one of the people arguing for Be2?

Plus if you don't feel like arguying about a move, why not further relieve yourself of the responsilibity? By your own argument, it would make sense that you should let your vote be used by someone who actually is willing to discuss possibilities.

I can debate and discuss possibilities, no problem. No one else seemed willing to respond to me with anything more than "We raped that line", though.

[veerus]

LOL, Veerus. What do you think of me, then?

I had my doubts about you at first, but lately your analysis has been solid and often closely followed mine.

[veerus]

Based on my notes of your (very few) suggestions, I personally don't consider you a stronger player than some of the others who have been active in the discussion..

Weren't you one of the people arguing for Be2?

Yes and I still think it was the better move.

[Lawrencelot]

I am willing to give up my vote.

[MafiaSSK]

speaking of which..

mod: we need a replacement for pesco.. during the last night, he posted in his other games that he had a death in the family and requested replacement

Acknowledged.

[Abstract Actuary]

Do any of the players in this game play chess on mafiascum regularly? Or play on ICC? Or play over the board standard chess in tournaments regularly?

I think choosing a player shouldn't be hard. We should go with the best established mafiascum player, if there is one. Then we should go with the top ICC or real life players. The mafiascum first, because that can be verified, whereas the others we would have to take people's word. I haven't played here on mafiascum, though I do play on schemingmind.com.

[SensFan]

Or play on ICC? Or play over the board standard chess in tournaments regularly?

I play both at chess.com (the biggest and best online chess site) and I also play OTB chess in tournaments regularily.

At chess.com, I'm rated about 1400, which in the 64th percentile. My average opponent rating is also over 100 points higher than me.

[Abstract Actuary]

Or play on ICC? Or play over the board standard chess in tournaments regularly?

I play both at chess.com (the biggest and best online chess site) and I also play OTB chess in tournaments regularily.

At chess.com, I'm rated about 1400, which in the 64th percentile. My average opponent rating is also over 100 points higher than me.

Chess.com is quite possibly the best free online site, but the best place to play online by a very large margin is ICC (Internet Chess Club). It has the strongest talent by far, including many GMs.

I'm not sure how to judge your chess.com rating as I don't play there. What is your OTB rating?

[SensFan]

First of all, chess.com has several NMs, WMs, GMs. Secondly (and irrelevantly), I'm a paying member, but thirdly, and most importantly, as far as I know, ICC is only live chess. chess.com is largely online, turn-based chess, which more closely resembles this game. The fact that I didn't know if anyone else played there is why I included the percentile and stuff. Would you like me to link to my games played?

OTB Rating is 1704