Vote Chess: Game 2

[paulunderwood]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I resign from the team.

Too bad. I am fairly sure you have been instrumental in some good lines of play.

So, (the remaining) Pirates -- are you going to stick with your move?

Shall we let them take move 34 again, guys?

[cheesehead]

I'm deleting the note where I kept the password for game 2, so that I'll not participate again after the last message which I'll post there now.

[pinhodecarlos]

cheesehead, please reconsider your position. Don't leave the team.

[Batalov]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I have to register a protest:

I was shocked to discover just now that LaurV had posted that move.

Our team had not yet voted on a move.

You step away from a terminal for a day, - and the whole hell breaks loose.

Teams have captains for a reason.

If I have to discuss ad infinitum different issues with every player (and if every player would like a veto option against their own captain?!), I'd have no time for real life. I made it clear before. If/when a captain posts the move, that's the move. Register your protests with him.

Just once, for this move, I would like to hear the arguments from the Pirates. What do you say? What happened?

[LaurV]

Well, that's it. Good bye cheesehead.

I am not sorry for the fact that I posted the move. There is no other better move, and it was cheesehead's move, not that it was my move and he had another one. It was the move he proposed, that he voted for it by analyzing it deeper and deeper in each post. We all VOTED for this move (including WMH, see his post when the forum will become public) either by proposing it or sustaining it with analysis. And I am still the team's captain, as I know.

[edit: it is true that we didn't explicitly voted for this move, we have a rule to explicitly vote - with points - for each move, rule which was introduce by me (as opposed to "by cheesehead") at the beginning of the game, and everybody was enthusiastic about, you will see when the forum become public. The move with a higher number of points passes and it is posted. We didn't go through this process now, but what the hack, the game is clear, even my daughter can play it from here!]

In fact, we are totally winning this game, and this is because of cheesehead, first of all. He analyzed EVERY position, and invested a lot of time into this particular game, and you (Geckos) practically played against him. The fact you lose is his merit, and I am not going to ignore or negate this. He is a very good player, and has a lot of free time, being at his retirement age, but he is quite a pitty as a person. I don't know if this is the right English word, I don't want to look too harsh, this is not my intentions, but he uses EVERY opportunity he has (like in the dispute with Ernst and other people here around) to make the people around him to show him compassion. I don't negotiate this kind of things, I don't bargain, and I don't feel compassion. If these are his feeling, and he chose to bring them up directly here, that's it.

@Xyzzy: Please change the SP subforum rights so cheesehead can't acceess it anymore, till the game ends, unless he came to better feelings.

The game continues as it is, unless WMH agreee with cheesehead here, in which case I am out of the team outvoted by the majority, as being the asshole boss.

Anyhow, I repeat, we are winning this game because of cheesehead, and I don't want to decrease his merits in this game in any way. We had to put up with his defensive style of play repeatedly, only because (for many moves) he was the only one showing a rigorous and deep analysis of the position, which analysis we had only the easier task to follow through. The game should have ended much faster if not for cheesehead, I mean, we should either win faster (we missed few better moves because they were considered "too aggressive" by his analysis) or lose faster (you never know where aggression brings you, ).

[edit2: just for recording, cheesehead also argued repeatedly to "speed up the game", by offering conditional moves, to which I was against, due to the discussion with Brian and the others at the beginning of the game, I don't like conditional moves and I got the feeling that other team also doesn't like conditional moves, but the argument from cheesehead to speed up the game still stands, so I don't see any fault of myself posting this move. There was no argument in the forum about the move, there was no alternative offered. I usually analyze the game only in weekends, rarely during weeknights, after work, and I hopped the Geckos answer fast, there is nothing to think about the next move, so we get the answer before the weekend. Call it selfish if you like]

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by LaurV

There is no other better move,

... unless, of course, in further analysis during the time we had remaining before the deadline, we had discovered that 34 Bh3+ was not the best move, after all, because it had some flaw that rendered it less desirable than some other move.

and it was cheesehead's move,

I had not yet said that 34 Bh3+ was my choice! I was in the middle of analyzing it, and I had discovered and posted two favorable continuations for us, but I had not yet posted my analysis of a third continuation which could have been very bad for us

Saying that 34 Bh3+ was my move is not proper.

(To say that 34 Bh3+ was my proposal is proper, but to say that 34 Bh3+ was my move -- implying that it was my announced conclusion -- is not proper.)

It was the move he proposed,

... just as I proposed alternatives on previous game moves that I ultimately decided, after further analysis, were not the best moves, so that I eventually voted against that particular proposal.

that he voted for it by analyzing it deeper and deeper in each post.

On previous moves, I sometimes analyzed one possibility deeper and deeper in each post, only to discover a fatal flaw in that possible move, so that I then turned my attention to different possibilities and ultimately voted for one of them.

We all VOTED for this move

No, we _never_ held a vote!

On previous moves, we always signified our votes with something like:

Vote

34 xxx - 5
34 yyy - 4
34 zzz - 2

But we had not yet done that on this move. For proof, ask LaurV to show you our numeric vote values for each move. He won't be able to show you that, because we had _NOT_ yet voted!

(including WMH, see his post when the forum will become public) either by proposing it or sustaining it with analysis.

LaurV's claim that proposing a move or "sustaining" a move is the same as making the numerical vote on a move is something we never agreed to.

And I am still the team's captain, as I know.

Yes, you are, and you've made it crystal clear that you didn't like being outvoted on our last move, where you favored 33 Nb5 instead of 33 Nxc8 -- except that when we VOTED on move 33, the numeric votes for 33 Nxc8 were more than the numeric votes for 33 Nb5,

EVEN THOUGH

you, LaurV, could have made the final vote total come out in favor of 33 Nb5 by voting 5 points for it and zero points for Nxc8. That's why I, at least, did NOT vote 5 for Nxc8 and 0 for Nb5 -- instead I gave Nc5 some votes in order to show that I was willing to be outvoted in total by someone who was so enthusiastic about Nb5 over Nxc8 that he'd vote 5-0 in favor of Nb5.

That's what we did on previous votes: register how strongly we were in favor of a move by showing how much numeric difference in vote number that we gave to a move -- precisely in order to allow one team member who felt very strongly about one move to outvote the other members who were not as committed to other moves.

LaurV, you could have made the move 33 vote total come out in favor of Nb5 if you had wanted to ... but you didn't.

Later, you told us you thought we threw away a win with 33 Nxc8. I see now how strongly you felt that, because you decided to disregard the rest of the team on move 34, and just post a move on impulse so you could blame the result on the other team members besides yourself.

- - -

Perhaps the best solution would be to revoke not only White's 34 Nh3+ move, but also White's 33 Nxc8 move, and substitute 33 Nb5 for continuing the game from there. That way, LaurV can't blame me or anyone else for throwing away the win.

If I am deemed eligible, after resigning from the Pirates team, still to make a recommendation, I recommend substituting 33 Nb5 in place of 33 Nxc8 for White's move 33, and continuing the game from there.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by LaurV

[edit: it is true that we didn't explicitly voted for this move, we have a rule to explicitly vote - with points - for each move, rule which was introduce by me (as opposed to "by cheesehead")

In order to avoid a possible mistake in interpreting that phrase, let me make clear that I was never opposed to the voting system, and that, in fact, I enthusiastically agreed with LaurV's voting proposal. I don't think LaurV intended to signify that I opposed the voting system, but I just want to avoid a potential misinterpretation here.

the game is clear, even my daughter can play it from here!]

I disagree that it is so clear that anyone could play it. Black still has strengths, and White can still make mistakes.

but he is quite a pitty as a person. I don't know if this is the right English word,

"pity" has only one "t"

I don't want to look too harsh, this is not my intentions, but he uses EVERY opportunity he has (like in the dispute with Ernst and other people here around) to make the people around him to show him compassion.

Wrong.

What I have done both here and there is to state my position as accurately as possible so as not to be misunderstood, not to wring compassion from anyone else.

If there's anything I want to wring from other people, it's a correct understanding instead of a mistaken understanding. (Compassion can then be decided on a fair and proper basis of understanding.)

In my dispute with Ernst, there is an additional factor that is NOT present here: Ernst has actively sought, over a period of more that two years, to deceive readers of his posts in regard to my judgement capability. Ernst's deception has gone so far as even to falsely convince a few unwary forum members who didn't really know me that I have a mental impairment that prevents me from perceiving reality. Ernst never expresses remorse for his deceptions when I expose them; he just mounts a campaign to ruin my reputation.

LaurV has never done anything even remotely like that. These two cases are far, far different because of that!

I regret that LaurV has flung that false accusation, and I'm willing to chalk it up as just a mistake on his part while he is emotionally reacting ... just as I have made similar mistakes in the past, on this forum and elsewhere, when I was in the midst of a strong emotional reaction to some event.

@Xyzzy: Please change the SP subforum rights so cheesehead can't acceess it anymore, till the game ends, unless he came to better feelings.

As LaurV can see when he reviews my most recent posts, I have already declared that I have erased my record of the password, so that I can no longer log in to the Game 2 discussion by Pirates even if I wanted to.

(Furthermore, I never made my browser remember that password, as it remembers other login passwords.)

The game continues as it is, unless WMH agreee with cheesehead here, in which case I am out of the team outvoted by the majority, as being the asshole boss.

Though I mentioned that a previous post could be interpreted as a complaint about LaurV's captainship. I declared that it was not to be so considered because instead I was resigning from the team.

[edit2: just for recording, cheesehead also argued repeatedly

(twice, but LaurV doesn't mention that I eventually agreed with most of his argument against conditional moves, and withdrew my proposal for that)

to "speed up the game", by offering conditional moves

... which is not the same as arguing that we should hurry up to post our move, which was something I repeatedly and consistently opposed.

I don't recall ever using the phrase "speed up the game" in connection with my proposal to use conditional moves, so that's not a quote of my words.

, to which I was against, due to the discussion with Brian and the others at the beginning of the game,

(and I eventually agreed, in the discussion, that his argument should prevail)

but the argument from cheesehead to speed up the game still stands,

No, it does NOT still stand, because I already agreed in the team discussion that LaurV's argument against conditional moves should prevail.

I regret that LaurV doesn't mention that here, and has mistakenly given the impression that I still advocate for conditional moves even now. As above, I'm willing to chalk up that error to his still being in the emotional reaction to this event.

so I don't see any fault of myself posting this move.

That disavowal is false, as I've already noted:

1) Earlier in this game, I repeatedly requested that LaurV NOT BE SO HASTY to post our moves. You can see that I've already protested the haste of posting this move, and LaurV's disregard for that request.

2) As LaurV now admits, we had not yet taken a vote on this move. Since LaurV is the one who proposed this voting scheme originally, as he's (rightly) proud to claim earlier in his post, it seems strange that he would disavow responsibility for having skipped that procedure this time.

There was no argument in the forum about the move, there was no alternative offered.

YET. But I was not yet finished with analysis.

I usually analyze the game only in weekends, rarely during weeknights, after work, and I hopped the Geckos answer fast, there is nothing to think about the next move,

On the contrary: there is plenty to think about for the next move!

so we get the answer before the weekend. Call it selfish if you like]

In this particular case that ("selfish") seems like a good call.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I consider his action to be a throwing-away of the analysis work I've done, so I'm no longer needed on the team.

This tells everything about your opinion toward us: we are just some idiots, blindly following your analysis. We can't judge for ourselves which move is good and which not. We are not. We posted the moves because we considered them being best, or because we were outvoted. Don't insult our intelligence

I suggest all the posts not containing moves of the current game (mine included) be moved in some crap folder.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by LaurV

This tells everything about your opinion toward us: we are just some idiots, blindly following your analysis.

No, LaurV. Despite your obviously anger-biased accusation, those who consider the history of this game (or read the team subforum later when it is unlocked) can see that it's wrong.

If I actually had the attitude you (falsely) accuse me of having, then I wouldn't have spent all that time praising the rest of the team for noticing what I had failed to notice because I had some "blind spot", during analysis of earlier moves.

Note that my complaint about your action is based on your own violation of the voting procedure that you introduced.

In regard to my judgement of the move, my complaint is that you didn't wait for the completion of analysis, _not_ that you didn't post the move I favored, which might be expected if I really had the attitude you falsely accuse me of having.

I've never, ever implied that you have been blindly following my analysis. I've always expected that you would examine it carefully in case I had errors or oversights.

I've never, ever implied that only my analysis was to be heeded; never, ever that any other team member's analysis ability or quality was deficient in some way; never, ever that anyone else's analysis that conflicted with mine was to be disregarded. Again, there I've never acted in the way that would be consistent with the attitude you falsely accuse me of having.

Further, there have been several occasions in which someone else on the team has spotted a flaw in my analysis -- on none of those occasions have I ever reacted in anger, as one might expect if I actually did have the attitude you accuse me of having. Instead, I've always expressed gratitude for the way that others have seen past my "blind spots".

All I expect now is not blind following of my analysis but simply respect for my analysis -- that you wait to see what the rest of my analysis indicates about the choice of moves (especially since we were/are not under time pressure because of an imminent deadline). You've usually given my analysis that respect, except only on a few previous occasions when you hastily posted a move. I'm sorry to see you fail to give it that respect on this move, when we still had four days before our deadline.

And I'm sad that you still seem to be letting your anger influence some statements about me that you're currently posting. Again, as above, I remain ready to forgive the mistakes you are now making because of letting too much anger influence your words. You're passionate, and that passion has been a force for good on some occasions earlier in this game when you advocated a more aggressive move that I did (and when you calm down, you will remember that in those cases I thanked you for persuading me to give attention to the more-aggressive moves).

We can't judge for ourselves which move is good and which not.

If that actually were my attitude (which it's not -- I consider you perfectly capable of judging whether a move is good or bad, only sometimes wanting you to wait to see further analys9is before making a final decision), why would I ever have graciously and gratefully accepted corrections where other team member pointed out mistakes I had made in analysis? You know very well that I've done the latter.

We are not. We posted the moves because we considered them being best, or because we were outvoted. Don't insult our intelligence

I'm not insulting your intelligence. I'm protesting your haste -- your disregard for the very voting procedure that _you_ proposed that we adopt, and that we did adopt because of its obvious usefulness.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

All I expect now is not blind following of my analysis but simply respect for my analysis -- that you wait to see what the rest of my analysis indicates

Why? We can do our own analysis. You are NOT expected to write interminable pages of continuous strings of moves. You did it for (almost) every move, because you had the time to do it, and because you were able to do it, and we respected this. Many times we (at least speaking in my name, but I am convinced is valid for WMH too) spotted better moves (or what we believed were better) and we kept quiet exactly from respect for your work. I repeat, I am not going to negate your contribution to the game. I should be idiot (now seriously! the previous post was more of a joke than the "anger" you saw in it) to do so, when it should be clear for everybody that you played most of the game, and we are winning the game because of this fact.

The rest of the 90% of your post, is common sense, and we agree with it.
Where do you see anger? The only divergence is that I personally didn't see a mistake in posting a move for which no alternative was viable, in spite of the fact that you didn't finish your interminable analysis. Believe it or not, I went through your posts every time for every move. Sometimes I learned interesting things from those posts.

And P.S. sorry for writing "pitty", I have this "deformation", I write also "dutty" (related to PWM filling factor), "iddle" (for MCU idle time, etc), and I do this every day (job related), and I know it is wrong, but I can't stop the fingers.

[Batalov]

The move stays. Let's carry on.