User talk:Sj/Archive/Chess championship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User talk:Sj | Archive
You have new messages (last change).
Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on November 6th, 2006. The result of the discussion was Delete subpages and tag main page as historical.
Comments moved from main page Gkhan 12:21, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

If you are interested in signing up for the Wikipedia Chess Championship, please sign below. Only 32 positions are available.

More information to come soon.

But you can assured it will be fun. Visualisations follow that of the Chess position template. For examples, see Wikipedia Chess.

When is it? BrokenSegue

Hmmm, not too sure, but I think the timeline is rather flexible, within a reasonable amount. See here. -- Natalinasmpf 04:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Is it ok to move this to Wikipedia:Chess championship? It's a championship for goodness sake, lets not play it out of the sandbox. Gkhan 11:04, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Chess Variant Discussion

What about some chess variants? I'd be particularly interested in seeing a Chess with Different Armies tourney. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

For this go around, I think it would be wise to stick to standard chess. Perhaps we could have a suicide chess championship later? Linuxbeak 11:44, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking that if we do any variants, it would be more on the lines of Fischer Random Chess, since I think everyone agrees its it keeps a fair deal of skilled play but with more cunning and less memorsation :p (but that's just an opinion). Or maybe suicide Fischer Random Chess? ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 14:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh come one! It's got to be Go :D! There is no other! Gkhan 15:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I thiink that for the case of simplicity that we stick with standard chess. People who are going to play in the championship will know how to play chess. Let's stick with chess, please :-) Linuxbeak 16:02, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well yeah, but I meant in the future other tournaments. There is no doubt this will be a purely standard chess tournament, but what about other tournaments, perhaps? Or maybe a mixed tournament? Sort of like a triathlon, except the different events are the different board games. ;)

Oh, did anyone say Go? -- Natalinasmpf 17:16, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


Wild Goose Chase!
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
a b c d e f g h j k l m n o p q r s t


78. b7 ... c6

No offence, what kind of start is that? Joseki, people, joseki! Gkhan 19:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well I just put arbitrary seeds down as a demonstration to show off the new template ;-). Its not an actual game, mind you. So, want a game of Go? -- Natalinasmpf 19:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but how good are you? I'm not very :S Gkhan 21:04, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • coughcough*chess*cough* Linuxbeak 21:15, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry the, the tournament will still be chess, you wont have to learn a new game. And to Natalinasmpf, i'm starting a game in User:Gkhan/Go asap. I'll be black, see ya there... Gkhan 21:19, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Actually I just created Wikipedia:Sandbox/Game of Go, so would it be better there? (More particpants as such.) Also, check Template talk:Game of Go Position, I just realised a bug that deals with the invocations of the template, there should be only one space after the "-->" and the next "|". -- Natalinasmpf 22:36, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Venue

Where should the tournament games be played, in the players user-space or something like Wikipedia:Chess championship/Tournament X/Game Y? Personally, I think the latter would be much preferable. Gkhan 19:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think the games will be correlated in the player's user space (since its 1 v 1) with a correlation into a centralised page, ie. record keeping and such. -- Natalinasmpf 19:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Although I really don't care where we play it, an ICS server would be a luxury... Ghost Freeman | Talk 05:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Guys, you are overcomplicating this: It's easy. You use GNU chess and set it to play your opponent over TCP/IP. Turn the log on. Play game. after game, post log on personal page and talk page here. Project2501a 08:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wallhacking?

Is wallhacking allowed? --SPUI (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Counter-Strike gone Chess? I suppose...hmm...wait...no that isn't listed in rules of chess. Maybe an addition is in order? Gkhan 20:40, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Wikirules of chess, more like it. Linuxbeak 20:44, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you'd like to try Go, SPUI. It is all about walling off territory, anyway. -- Natalinasmpf 00:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't this for Wikicities?

Hi everyone:

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but the relevance of a chess championship to Wikipedia is rather weak. The last time I checked, Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia to which the discussion features are in support of; it is not a game or general social forum. Shouldn't this be transwikied to WikiCities?

--Coolcaesar 07:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, you have N degrees of separation et al, but a chess championship could say, procure positions to place in articles and such. -- Natalinasmpf 08:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh, so y'all think that N Degrees of separation shouldn't be here huh? Well, I see. lol j/k  ;P Jaberwocky6669 03:57, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
Good catch from Coolcaesar and clever answer from Natalinasmpf. However, note that Wikicities is GFDL as well, so there would be no problem at all taking positions from these games on Wikicities to put in Wikipedia (but we probably should not, because regardless of where they are, we can hardly attribute such games to who played them, bunch of non-notables that we are). I'm afraid I have to go with Coolcaesar here on principle—there is really no limit to the amount of playful nonsense we can put in the Wikipedia namespace otherwise, and that doesn't really benefit the encyclopedia. (All this notwithstanding that I signed up too, of course.) JRM · Talk 09:08, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Hmm yes, but the idea is for (constructive) recreation within the community, reduce wikistress et al, and the way I see it, it somehow, through interacting with Wikipedians or other, increases my effectiveness at editing articles. Yeah. If we moved this to Wikicities, the effect wouldn't be as strong. Note that its not going to be outright playful nonsense, because this gives us examples to cite in articles, still! -- Natalinasmpf 09:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, this is for the community than the encyclopedia. Let's just have some fun with it eachother, life is not just RFCs and stub-sorting! Gkhan 09:58, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Meh. You're just lucky this little project hasn't attracted the full attention of the rules lawyers yet. They'd draft new policy on you like that. :-) JRM · Talk 09:53, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Oh, you mean the infamous Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not fun rule! Fun is not allowed on wikipedia. Should anyone have fun and/or be nice to a fellow wikipedian, he will be blocked for 24 hrs. Repeated fun will result in a ban. Gkhan 10:02, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I'm completely open to the idea of a Wiki* wide open match... the more the merrier! But... let's keep the home of it on Wikipedia :-D Linuxbeak | Desk 11:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know; I think vandalizing pages can be terrific fun. You can even do it in coordination with others, being nice to them.
I agree with the general sentiment, but I'll go on record as saying that people bent on "having fun" can be a hell of a lot more annoying than the boring clods. At least the latter will allow you to go away and have fun somewhere else, while the fun crowd will insist on having fun on your front lawn. Point in case: I once tried editing "here" to make it slightly less jocular only to be told, of course, that I just have no sense of humor and want to reduce all encyclopedia articles to boring encyclopedia articles. Well exsqueeze me. I love, say, extreme ironing as much as the next person, but there are limits.
Of course, none of this is directly relevant to a chess tournament, unless someone takes particular offense to the way bishops are represented. (Diagonal moves only! It's absurd!)
Incidentally, did that rule you mention gather wide support? Should we block everyone in the Department of Fun? According to policy I cannot block myself, so if anyone else wants to do the honors? JRM · Talk 11:21, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Oh, and I still contend we shouldn't have this on Wikipedia on principle. However, I'm not very principled about my principles, per WP:IAR. I will go out and smell some roses now. JRM · Talk 11:24, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

First off, my little WP:NOTFUN was a joke for those of you who did not get it :P. But this what we are doing here is....hmm....like a company picknick! 99% of days on a company you go about your business, you know, happily engaging yourself in the tedious repetition that is your working life. And that's fine, but every once in a while you might enjoy, you know, a picknick with your fellow co-workers. Have some fun, play a little football (the european kind naturally) and just relax with the people you interact with every day. Let's just leave this alone. It's not like it's vandalism since it's not in the article space, and it's not like it's a terrible drain on resources. Let's embrace the non-policy WP:IAR is and just enjoy ourselfs! Gkhan 11:53, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
You liar. Wikipedia was just down for a considerable amount of time. Not a drain on resources, indeed. I just know this page was responsible. JRM · Talk 14:48, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Me and my insidious ways... Gkhan 16:49, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] If this is to happen..

We need to make it 16 competitors I think. It'll be hard finding 32 when its took so long to go 11>15. Hedley 13:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, I changed the number. Everyone ok with that? And also, we should have someone responsible for the game (like a person that makes the matches, and arbitrates in case of any dispute). Like a game "official". I nominate myself. Everyone ok with that aswell? Gkhan 18:02, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
I see no problem with that. I'll second that nomination. Linuxbeak | Desk 19:57, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
3rded. Natalinasmpf 21:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

We have all 16 - what now? -- Natalinasmpf

Well all right then :D Give me a little time and the games will be up and running! I feel that the games should be played in the chess championship "subspace", ie like Wikipedia:Chess championship/Tournament X/Game Y, its more official that way. I'll put a tree on the front page to show the games and also provide links to the games themselfs. Gkhan 22:41, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

One thing tho', what should the time limit for each move be? 24 hrs? 48 hrs? We can say 24 hrs now and change it later... Gkhan 22:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, preferably when I'm losing. Ahem. But on a more serious note, maybe we should figure out something for those of us with irregular access to Wikipedia. (Are there such people?) I can imagine some people will have days they just can't edit Wikipedia (or are unable to do so while logged in) but are otherwise quite available. A pool of "reserve hours" or more moves per time frame (e.g. 4 moves in 96 hours?) It's probably a lot like correspondence chess, except faster. Needless to say, server downtime will not be counted towards player time. >:-)
Oh, another thing. This probably goes without saying and there's no way to check for it anyway, but: no chess computers. Anyone who uses computer assistance please clearly indicate so. If I want to play a computer, I know where to do it. We can arrange to allow assistance for individual games if the players are both inclined—this will skew the results a bit, but hey, we're not here to determine the ultimate chess champion of Wikipedia, right? :-) Non-automated or superficially automated opening books should be fine. (Not that I have any myself. :-)
What about running commentaries? Anyone interested in those? Should the players agree not to look at them voluntarily or should we just bottle them up for the end? JRM · Talk 23:04, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
I will put a ===Comments=== at the end of each play page, where anyone can make comments (although only general ones, not like "Qa4 ya damn moron!" Those will promptly be removed and user harasses :P). And with the reserve hours, it's gonna be alot of bookeeping keeping up with the hours. Do you suggest a procedure for this? And no assistance from anyone or thing naturally! BTW, we're pitted against eachother! At the roll of a die (really a PRNG), huh.... Gkhan 23:26, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Damn, I only said no computers! Now I'll have to mail Kasparov that the deal is off... Damn, and he was really looking forward to that edible Staunton set, I can tell you.
The reserve hours might be too much work, I agree. Meh, I don't know, then. Maybe I'm making too much of it, and nobody actually has a problem. In that case I'm worrying for nothing. Let's solve it as we go along.
PS. Yeah, I'm supposed to believe it's random we go up against each other in the first round. Right. I'm so going to believe you'll not use a computer, too. :-P JRM · Talk 00:02, 2005 May 16 (UTC)
I think we can implement those multiple moves per hour - but we don't have to do anything extra - its recorded in the history - I believe its only when we have to arbitrate whether someone forfeits the game or not. -- Natalinasmpf 23:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, great and powerful official, whose boots we are not fit to spit-polish—a clearer indication of who takes white and who takes black might be preferable. I assume we're using the standard "first player listed takes white" convention? Or do we play two games with sides reversed? (Nah, I know that's not the case.) JRM · Talk 00:11, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Sigh See below. Foiled again. JRM · Talk 00:13, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Oh, come on guys, this is easy. one opponent picks color and the other one gets to start first. Example, i called black with Linuxbeak and gave him first move, because I said so and because I am a sarge and he's not :D *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA POWER TRIP* :D Project2501a 00:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double Elimination

I think we should also have a double elimination tournament, ie. if you lose in the first round you get entered into a second level of play - your chance at getting first and second place are probably over, for example, but then you could decide things like first and fourth place. Its much better IMO, as if you lose one game can keep on playing.

Oh, is the first person mentioned in the "a vs b" the first person to move?, ie. a play white b play black? -- Natalinasmpf 23:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

We're to discuss it with our opponent. Dysprosia 00:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Traditionally, "a vs b" is the same as saying "white vs black". My suggestion would be to make it as such, but only after the two users agree on sides.

I'm in favor of the double-elimination thing, incidentally, because I expect to get knocked out right quick. In any case, eight players would be eliminated in one stroke in the first round; seems a bit of a waste. JRM · Talk 09:46, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Well, ok then. Since most people seem to be in favour, should I implement it on the page? Gkhan 10:42, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. Linuxbeak | Desk 11:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still a Slight Problem

Okay, the problem here is that the people in the second and third round can still get knocked out after losing once - perhaps the second and third round losers can be added to the second and third (its not a straight half half half thing) round of the double elimination match - with the DE finals being the fourth (ie. to resolve the additional players). Or something along those lines. -- Natalinasmpf 19:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh plus, shouldn't we add identification tags to the games? Ie. like we did with FRC1 and FRC2, SC1, etc. - maybe TSG1, TSG2, TSG15, (tournament standard game), etc? -- Natalinasmpf 19:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing when I did the game tree, but it would be a strange tournament. Like this: Round 1, 8 plyrs, 4 games. Round 2, 4 plyrs + 4 "imported" plyrs, 4 games. Round 3, 4 plyrs + 2 imported plyrs, 6 games. Round 4, 6 plyrs (assuming we don't "import" the runner up", 3 games. Round 5 (note that by this time the original tournament should be over soon), 3 plyrs, 1.5 games? Maybe we shouldn't import the semifinalists (they should perhaps play a bronze-game), then it works out, but still, the quarterfinalists have played atleast two games....
As for the tags, sure go ahead, my internet is a very spotty at the moment so it would be great if you did it :D Gkhan 19:22, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
For the game tags, I would add information that is is the first tournament and that it is a chess tournament. Like TC1SG1, TC1SG2, TC1SG3, and so on. For the first Go tournament we would have TGO1SG1, etc. Eric119 02:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok I solved the problem. I looked up a bracket from a double-elimination dart tournament for 16 players and used that as a template. For reference: http://www.crowsdarts.com/brackets/tourn.html SDSUPinoy

[edit] Swiss system

I might mention that the usual way of arranging chess tournaments is the Swiss system tournament which doesn't eliminate anyone, and which does not require draws to be replayed. Perhaps next year? Sjakkalle 08:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time Limit

How is the time limit to be enforced? What happens to someone if the time limit is broken? I'm thinking along the lines of the three-strike rule; if the time limit is violated three times, then the offending party automatically resigns. Just an idea. Linuxbeak | Desk 02:21, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly how I imagined it, with the addition that if he doesn't make a move in 48 hrs he gets eliminated even if its the first time. Gkhan 10:32, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Well, maybe that's a little rough; if the player can give a valid reason why he/she didn't make a move (such as a family death), we can assume good faith and give them another shot. Linuxbeak | Desk 11:01, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
Ahh, all right then.... :P Gkhan 11:44, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

This may be an issue for me, as I often have very limited internet access on weekends, unfortunately. I hope nobody goes resigning on my behalf... :-/ Jonathan Christensen 17:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In case of a second championship

There's no freaking way, i'll ever play chess again by altering wiki text! :) My inner computer scientist says "NO FUCKING WAY! THIS IS HARD WORK!" so. this is what i'll do: I'll extend GNU Chess to edit the wiki for me (move pawns, draw the freaking text), while i have a beautiful gui on my display with the history and a histogram of the game, ok?

cuz i'm sorry yall, but playing like this is stupid. there are at least 40 chess games that are GPLed and can play over TCP/IP. since we need the "written" down record, we can have the computer do it for us.

ok, i'll get off my soap box now.

Project2501a 21:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

What on earth, I say what on earth are you talking about? You haven't even moved yet in your game. You aren't seriously arguing that it's too difficult, is it? Here is a diff of my last move: [1]. That's supposed to be hard work? You get 24 hours to do it. :-)
Also, look at the PGN header I added to that game. I can copy-paste the source of that game into any PGN-capable chess program and watch the board "properly". I really don't see your problem.
PS. I'm a computer scientist and I have to admire the clever hack that is {{chess position}}. JRM · Talk 22:12, 2005 May 16 (UTC)


oh, crap, i thought i had replied to your message. I'm sorry, i got distracted with PostNuke. No, it's not that's it's hard work, in it's own perspective. it's not that it's text. it's more like "the right tool for the right job". i appreciate the work. i just don't think it's applicable, though. I would much rather prefer write an extension to GNU Chess or X-board to connect to this page write out the output. I'm not making much sense, am i? Project2501a 20:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's just say that while I'm not stopping you, I personally believe in expending the least effort to get maximum results, which is more general than "the right tool". Wu wei and KISS joining hands. What you're suggesting is much more work before you can play even a single game. Think about how much keystrokes you expend on updating a position, then compare that to the number of keystrokes needed to write such an extension, debug it, generalize it, and keep it up to date. Killing a mosquito with a cannonball—an elegant cannonball perhaps, but still a cannonball. Do it if it makes you happy, but think not of the effort you put in—focus on the joy of development only. :-) JRM · Talk 21:00, 2005 May 18 (UTC)
I see. You're comming completely from the Software Engineering perspective. nah, my perspective for this project is purely for kicks. Project2501a 21:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by the PGN header - maybe we should adopt it as a standard practice for all games, including Go et al? Although the thing is, if you saw the FRC game in WikiChess, I'm using a nonstandard way of specifying the starting position - do you have a generator that would comply to normal FEN format (ie. instead of 1 being the standard position, it is 518)?
Also, as for Template:Chess position - take a look at the Documentation of the Template Go Board - I (along with Gkhan and Dalf) had spent some considerable effort on that, too. ;-) After all - the chess template only has static squares - we had to make images for pieces on the corners and sides and adopt a template to show that! (ie. typing "w" in the corner and "w" in the middle doesn't yield the same image). -- Natalinasmpf 06:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know any FRC generators; there must be generators out there that give FEN output and programs that support it, but I don't know them. Then again, I've never played FRC.
As for board generation, take a look at http://www.wikisophia.org. They have all sorts of neat MediaWiki extensions there, including ones for drawing chess and Go positions, without the need for image hacks. None of these are likely to be integrated in Wikipedia soon, however, as there are performance and caching issues that would have to be resolved first. JRM · Talk 13:02, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

[edit] Draws

What happens if one of the games results in a draw? Eric119 02:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I presume it gets replayed with the colours reversed. That might delay the start of the next round, but it's the only fair way to do it.-gadfium 03:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that is preciesly what will happen. I should put that in the rules.....Gkhan 12:33, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Side bets

I'd like to put my money down on Game 7 as the one likely to finish first.-gadfium 03:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Now THAT'S a pair that knows how to play chess quick! Linuxbeak | Desk 03:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Nice guys always finish last. Project2501a 08:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we should have called the championship "The First International Wikipedia Slow Chess Championship"? Gkhan 12:23, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I hope somebody took him up on the offer and stands to win good money?
Ok, so it was a fluke. Jonathan Christensen 18:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I haven't seen a fool's mate in like.....8 years! Gkhan 18:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

So much for my retirement plans.-gadfium 19:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Playing this at midnight was a bad idea. Agh! -- Natalinasmpf 19:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

OUCH! I must say that I was surprised at the outcome of that game (game 5). Linuxbeak | Desk 20:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conditional moves

I can see no problems if a player offers conditional moves to their opponent when they make their move. This is (used to be?) common in correspondence chess and can significantly speed up a game. You add a comment saying "If you reply xxx then I'll play yyy", and if the opponent does choose to play xxx, then they can add the move yyy on their opponent's behalf, and immediately reply to it. The opponent may choose not to play xxx of course, and they may even play xxx but not fill in yyy, in which case the first player is not obliged to play yyy.-gadfium 03:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear, add the move numbers when making a conditional offer. I.e. "If you play 3 ... d3, then 4 O-O.". Otherwise an opponent might think that playing ... d3 later in the game will trigger the conditional move.-gadfium 03:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not entierly happy with this idea, as it gives unneccessary (two n's? two c's? two s's? which is it?) information to one player. It could both be to a disadvantage and an advantage player recieving the conditional move, so personally I'm against it. I'm not that much against it though, so if someone wants to do it, go ahead, there will be no rule against it. Gkhan 12:28, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
It's most often used in the openings, when you can get a whole string of conditional moves offered by someone who particularly likes a specific opening. (It isn't necessarily a good idea to agree to play your opponents favourite opening, though.) It's also useful when your opponent has a forced or near forced move.-gadfium 19:55, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game 1

Shouldn't white be the automatic winner since black broke the 24h rule? User:Luigi30 (Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 20:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I say that we give Acela Express 12 more hrs, and if he still hasn't made a move, we let someone else takeover (since he hasn't made any moves yet). Everyone ok with that? If you are interested, please indicate so in this section and I'll pick someone randomly. Gkhan 20:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Second round and beyond

In an effort to keep things fair (and to discourage bottlenecking), I propose that the second round *not* be played until the first round has been completed. Just a thought. Linuxbeak | Desk 00:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good plan. And I could use a break. This has been eating up editing time. :-) JRM · Talk 00:45, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Does this include the double elimination tournament? Gkhan 17:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for Deletion

To everyone:

I heartily suggest you vote AGAINST this VFD... Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Chess_championship will bring you to the vote page. Hurry up and vote. Linuxbeak | Desk 03:23, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game tree template

I am thinking of making the game tree and the DE-game tree into a template (so people can have it on their userpages, etc). Hos does that sound? Gkhan 17:55, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Embarrassing suggestion

This is a bit embarrassing because it's so obvious, but... Why don't we put the comments on games on the talk pages?

Con: this makes them less visible. Pro: this makes them less visible. :-) The players should be able to focus on their game without being bothered by comments from outsiders, unless they choose to be bothered, and it's also rather clumsy to scroll back and forth between the board and comments when you could just open them both in separate tabs/windows.

It could be argued that if players want to communicate among themselves, they should use the game page—or do what Gkhan and I did in our last game: use the edit summaries to make short and not overly descriptive comments on each move.

Comments? I'm going to move my post mortem of game 7 to the talk page anyway, because it could really use its own space. JRM · Talk 18:06, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

One minor annoyance with using the talk pages is that I use the "What links here" feature from Wikipedia:Chess championship to follow progress on the games: Chess Championship progress. That doesn't follow talk pages, unless they're specifically linked to on that page. If we're going to make more use of talk pages, shall we add links to them so this scheme still works?-gadfium 19:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, that link I cobbled up isn't that good anyway, because it links too much (user pages of players are caught in the list too, which is silly). I went a little overboard and created clean watchlists for the whole tournament... Those are now linked to from the main page. Better? JRM · Talk 20:19, 2005 May 19 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you.-gadfium 20:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Future championships

Just curious what's been planned, if anything, for future championships. I for one think that we should have multiple championships, and possibly even multiple championships at the same time. After all, 16 people isn't very many when compared to the number of people on Wikipedia. We could even have, after the first 16 championships, a winner's championship, but that's quite distant I think. Let me know what you think, I'm curious to hear opinions on this. Sholtar 00:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Originally it was planned that 32 people should enter, but after like a week and we only had 15 or something, it was like "screw it, let's just go with 16". There will definitly be more championships (look at the adress of each game you'll see it says "Tournament 1"), but I think we should wait like a month or something, mostly because many people feel that this doesn't belong in wikipedia. However, if we keep the frequency farily low, I think most ppl will be ok with it. gkhan 00:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I did notice that... but I think this is much more known now. The VfD kind of helped it in that way, I think, as many people noticed it because of the VfD. I'd be willing to bet that there are 16 people right now who would play in a second tournament if the opportunity was there, though I obviously can't say for sure. As for the feeling that this doesn't belong in Wikipedia, I wouldn't say that is a feeling held by "many" people. Just a look at the VfD shows that the vast majority of people think it's a good thing. Sholtar 00:28, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Well, yes, most people do. But most of them said it was ok as long as it didn't become a major thing. And I forgot to say it in my previous post, but I was going to suggest that next time we do enter 32 people. Or maybe we could do a chess league, you know, everyone plays everyone once or twice. Like, throughout the summer :D (wow, really contradicting myself with the "aslong as it is no big thing", huh) gkhan 00:41, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the championship should be held less often than normal (say, quarterly?). In the meantime, we could compromise by moving to WikiCities. Just a thought :-) Linuxbeak | Desk 00:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I suppose a move could work, but I personally don't think it's neccessary. I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia could use more things like this, because the encyclopedia strength is directly related to the community strength. While there's obviously a limit to the community factor, I think it's somewhat distant. I don't know the popular opinion so that might just be me, but I feel quite strongly that Wikipedia needs a strong community and that things like this are a great way to achieve that. Sholtar 00:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
The problem with a big league would be what to do when people dropped out halfway through - we'd probably have to cancel games they'd played which would annoy the people that had played them. Maybe a few smaller leagues with promotion and relegation between them might work? CTOAGN 02:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree we should move to WikiCities. Perhaps we could keep this page as a set of links to games and a record of game outcomes, but future games themselves should be played away from Wikipedia.-gadfium 02:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Upon further thought, I like that idea. We can keep the page here as a record and link page and have the actual games on a Wikicity. Unless anyone is opposed to this, we could do that tomorrow or the next day. And also, if there are enough people we can start a second championship on the new wikicity. Sholtar 04:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the number of participants, one reason single-elimination tournaments and double-elimination tournament are not used often in chess tournaments is precisely that it requires a power of 2 number of participants (4, 8, 16, 32) and so on. The Swiss system is much more flexible and eliminates nobody and is therefore used much more often. The only trouble is that reading up on all the rules for it will take until next year. Also, it may not be quite as exciting, if one player is much stronger than the rest, he or she can have won the tournament already before the last round. Sjakkalle 14:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

But that move (and Go) would mean no template...yes I realise they have Tex on there, but its not orderly, its just one line editing, ie....there is an 8x8 board visually, but not a WYSIWYG type of editing...this is especially a problem in Go...also what about awareness of the initiative if its moved so early? -- Natalinasmpf 19:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
What's the problem with the templates? Why can't we just copy the code and reupload the images to wikicities? And what about TeX? gkhan 19:26, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
If I understand what she's saying, when you edit wikicities for the template it wouldn't be like it is now, it wouldn't be an 8 by 8 square in the edit window, it would be a row of 64. In the article it would appear as an 8 by 8 square but when you edit it would be all on one line. And I agree, that would make things really difficult. I still think the move isn't necessary, and with this drawback I'm again leaning towards keeping it here. As for the elimination vs Swiss, I vote for the Swiss system. However another option is having a ladder instead of a tournament. This would solve a couple of things. There would probably be less opposition because the games themselves could be on user pages, and the main page would just have links to ongoing matches and the ladder. Also, people could join in at any time. Any opinions on this? Sholtar 20:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Uhmm, that is not true at all. Look at [2] and it's source. gkhan 20:52, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Ok then I guess I didn't understand what she was saying. I guess we'll have to wait for her to explain it. Sholtar 23:50, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
"Missing image: Chess_qdd40.png"....plus, would anyone be bothered to load up every single image necessary for say, Go, as well as Chess? It would just be tedious, that's all, I wish we could link templates across Wikipedias, or heck, from Wikicities to Wikipedia and vice versa. Oh well. -- Natalinasmpf 00:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
It works fine for me, try realoading. As for Go [3], i just did it. gkhan 00:19, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
It still seems to say "missing image"...nice work uploading all the images again, but I suppose there's the tedious work of uploading all the documentation, or the fact that further contribution and comment is a bit strained (as uprooting it from one commmunity to another kind of discourages invitation from the older community, in this case its larger considering its the English Wikipedia)... -- Natalinasmpf 00:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
For me, Checkers and Go look great but Chess has missing image tags. I tried refreshing a couple of times and it stayed the same. Sholtar 01:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that Chess had missing images on games.wikicities.com too, but then I noticed I was logged out, and when I logged in the images worked fine. I'm not sure why being logged in would make a difference, and logging out again still shows the images even when I clear my cache. Perhaps it's an intermittent thing, nothing to do with being logged in or out.-gadfium 02:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Well anyways, apparently Wikicities is an option, and I think that since it works properly, a move there is feasible. However, yet to be decided is the tournament style. The Swiss system has been suggested, along with having a ladder. Any opinions on this? Sholtar 02:18, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to play in either. A ladder would be good at first as people could join after it started (I found out about this tournament just after it started, and would have liked to have played.) It should be easy to organise too; the only problem I can think of is if you get two players who are much better than the others they'd end up playing each other repeatedly. CTOAGN 02:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Heh, I found this just after it started as well, that's part of why I thought up having a ladder. We could potentially have a ladder and tournaments, but that would probably be overdoing it. Even a ladder is somewhat overdoing it as it's ongoing, but I don't know. Sholtar 02:29, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD done: Keep

This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chess championship. The final result was Keep. --Deathphoenix 15:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

We win! Wheee! Linuxbeak | Desk 02:22, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Heh, someone open up the champagne. Sholtar 02:29, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I want to play

Hey I want to play too... But I'd like to know if there are quicker games. If I'm allowed to join now please post me a message on my talk page.  =Nichalp (Talk)= 08:49, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I can't see you being allowed into the existing championship, but there's nothing stopping you having a friendly game against a volunteer, jguk 09:18, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone want to give up their place in this game? I will take over for you. Thanks, 205.217.105.2 15:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can set up a friendly, non tournament game at WikiChess. -- Natalinasmpf 12:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game 12

We need to get Game 12 underway. What's the holdup? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 11:56, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

It was your idea to wait, remember? See section "Second round and beyond" above. gkhan 12:13, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Granted. However, it seems like that idea at this point is moot. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 12:22, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
Care to elaborate? I think it's perfectly fine that we wait, it's not going to take too long, and who's in a rush? gkhan 12:25, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
By the time my game with SDSUPinoy is done, most of the games in the second round could be half way over. →Raul654 19:46, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but where's the rush? gkhan 19:48, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Note also this message on my talk page. And why is nobody complaining that games 9, 10 and 11 aren't seeing any activity either, beyond the occasional opening move? JRM · Talk 13:45, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

[edit] This is cool!

I just found this Chess site- and I'm excited! Didn't see it announced or anything... Anyways, would someone mind informing me when the next tournament starts? Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 17:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

I'm going to draw up some statistics, which might be interesting at the end for a presentation or for spectators, and this is so far, including all the second tier games, and this is in progress which I will try to update daily:


As of 05:22, 23 June 2005 :

[edit] Overview

There 29 scheduled games in the tournament. There have been 18 defined games so far, with 12 games completed, 2 in progress, and 4 with the players known, but yet started. 11 undefined games are left over from this.

Of the completed games, there are 291 moves - making it an average of approximately 24.25 moves per game. For total number of moves in the tournament so far, there are 305.

[edit] Openings

[edit] White's first move

There were:

7 times that players on the white side played e4.
4 times that players on the white white played d4.
1 time that players on the white side played e3.
1 time that players on the white side played d3.
1 time that players on the white side played c4.

[edit] Black's first move

There were:

4 times that players on the black side played e5.
3 times that players on the black side played d5.
1 time that players on the black side played g5.
1 time that players on the black side played e6.
2 times that players on the black side played d6.
1 time that players on the black side played g6.
1 time that players on the black side played a6.
1 time that players on the black side played Nf6.

More coming soon!

[edit] Team games

Why not allow teams? For instance, I could team up with User:Tparker393, with either of us being authorized to make moves for our side. The team concept could help avoid the problem of business getting in the way of the 24-hour-rule. 205.217.105.2 15:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That could be a good idea, but only if enough people sign up (the next time). Teams are needed for bughouse chess anyway...if we decide to do variants. A close correlation/discussion, etc. would be needed though between players. -- Natalinasmpf 23:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please join our game at User:Tparker393/Team Game 1. Nathan256 29 June 2005 19:10 (UTC)

[edit] sister projects up for deletion

Uh, I hope you know WikiChess, WikiGo et al are up for vfd. Anyone want to try saving it, seeing how the precedent has been set? Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sandbox/Chess, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sandbox/Game of Go, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sandbox/Hangman and [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sandbox/Checkers are the candidates in danger. -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 15:57 (UTC)

[edit] Game 12: update

My esteemed opponent, Jasmine, seems to have vanished from the face of the encyclopedia for now. I've left two notices on her talk page and sent out an e-mail asking for an update on whether she expects to be available at all, but nothing so far. There seem to be some indications that she still visits IRC, though I haven't been, so I wouldn't know. I'm not exactly in a hurry, mind you, but this situation can't last forever either. I'll leave it to the rest to decide what should be done. JRM · Talk 13:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Has the chess game all but dissapeared from the WP community, because I haven't heard a word about it on the IRC channel. Ghost Freeman T | E / C 15:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Chess isn't exactly a spectator sport. I don't think this tournament was ever a popular topic of the channel, except perhaps in the brief period it was on VfD. It's also not about that; it's just a bunch of editors having some extra-editorial fun. No fuss, no muss, and certainly not something we need community-wide attention about. JRM · Talk 17:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Well it may not be a spectator sport, but I confess I was a spectator of sorts, and I'm wondering what happened to it! It looks like Jasabella forfeits game 12 and so JRM should be playing Jonathan Christensen and it's about time game 13 started... Halidecyphon 07:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Then there's my game...-- Natalinasmpf 13:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, just to give note: I'm still alive, back after a break, and I see this little tournament thingy is still not over. :-) I'll play anyone who's willing, including my original opponent, if they can be found. So far I've had no luck even establishing who goes first. This is slower than correspondence chess! :-) JRM · Talk 16:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resurrecting the championship

Does anyone want to take on the role of getting this championship back up and running? I believe we had a rule that anyone not making a move within 24 hours forfeits, unless they have a good explanation, but we've been much more generous than that. I think we should ask each person due to play a game to repeat an expression of interest in the championship, and they will be declared to have forfeited if they fail to respond within a week. If someone is known to be away for a limited time (eg on holiday), perhaps we could make an allowance for that. With Christmas/New Year approaching, many people do take breaks and in the southern hemisphere, long breaks until mid-January.

User:H Padleckas would seem an obvious candidate for taking on this role. I'm not volunteering.

Alternatively, we could just mark these pages as no-longer-active and move on.

There have been some good games here; not from the perspective of being world-class chess, but some interesting postions have arisen and I've had more fun watching than I've got from chess in a long time.-gadfium 22:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, firstly, we have to get the games set up. *bump* Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chess championship 2

I think we should just get this done, and then start chess championship 2 — a lot of people have expressed interest. Since it's already taking so long, we could just do round robin - that way, we can play continuously, except for the last match where we take the players with the most scores (especially with ties) and we do elimination to create that excitement. We should also mention no one should join unless they edit pretty regularly, at least every week. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

We should also make it clear that the championship will likely take some months to complete, and thus requires a level of commitment on the part of the players. The main reason championship 1 isn't already done is that some players have vanished. The double-elimination format makes this a bottleneck. Eric119 00:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

How about modified swiss rather than round robin? SDSUPinoy 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a swiss system of some kind. That way it is less disruptive when someone drops out. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, a swiss system would require that all games be completed before the next round can begin, which is probelmatic. Maybe a round robin would be best after all. --Ryan Delaney talk 00:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/j/2F/User_talk%7ESj_Archive_Chess_championship_d04a.html"