chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing
 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum

al wazir
Member since Feb-20-05 · Last seen Nov-28-22
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the...
>> Click here to see al wazir's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   al wazir has kibitzed 32260 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Nov-27-22 Kenneth Rogoff (replies)
 
al wazir: <FSR: I finally gave Rogoff a real biography to replace the one-sentence bio we had.> What was wrong with the old biography (the one on this page before the Great Deletion)? <Kenneth Saul Rogoff learned chess from his father at age six, but only took up the game in earnest
 
   Nov-27-22 K Mokry vs W Zagema, 1989 (replies)
 
al wazir: A nice finish.
 
   Nov-23-22 Rublevsky vs Kalinin, 2002
 
al wazir: <Brenin: 27 ... Bf8 avoids mate, but after 28 Rd8 Qf7 29 Qxf7+ Kxf7 30 Rd7+ and 31 Rxb7 it's a clear win for White.> You're right, as usual.
 
   Nov-22-22 Agrest vs Vitiugov, 2006 (replies)
 
al wazir: My line was slightly different: 19...Nd2+ 20. Ka1 (21. Nxc2 Qc3#) Bxc2 21. Rxc2 Qxb4, and now mate with the ♕ on either b1 or b2 is unavoidable.
 
   Nov-21-22 Ivanchuk vs L Bruzon Batista, 2005
 
al wazir: <This games easy: I am wondering if it's cheating to check the prior move BEFORE working the puzzle?> Yes, it is. Suppose you looked at the *ten* prior moves, or the whole game score up to that point. Suppose you asked the player whose turn it is to move what his plan is. ...
 
   Nov-20-22 R Filguth vs C A A da Silva, 1984 (replies)
 
al wazir: I'm not sure what happens after 44...Qg4+, but I think it would have given black a better chance of getting a perpetual.
 
   Nov-17-22 V Antonov vs C Kamp, 1989 (replies)
 
al wazir: <Messiah: Terrible and tasteless pun.> Tell that to Karl Ove Knausgård.
 
   Nov-17-22 Hodgson vs Paunovic, 1976 (replies)
 
al wazir: <Cheapo by the Dozen: Good enough for an otherwise lame single-name pun, if none better can be found.> I would have suggested "Yugoslav attack defeats Yugoslav's defense." But most kibitzers apparently prefer lame name puns.
 
   Nov-15-22 A J Mestel vs Smyslov, 1982 (replies)
 
al wazir: Something awful must happen to black if he takes the ♖ by playing 26...dxe4, 27...dxe4, 28...dxe4, 29...dxe4, or 30...dxe4, but I don't see it. What is it?
 
   Nov-14-22 AlphaZero (Computer)
 
al wazir: <beatgiant: Here's a report in chessbase about that.> I found Iqbal's article disappointing. I hoped to see real chess problems composed by AI. The only composition shown (the miniature 3-mover at the top) is trivial. The examples in the earlier article he links to are ...
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

The Joy of LEX

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>
May-25-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: We're on the honor system here. We're doubly anonymous -- not only are we cloaked in our pseudonyms, but when we play World vs. GM, no one can tell what move each of us votes for. I know that all of you are as honest and trustworthy as I am myself, but what if some troll joins the game later on? What force will this rule have? How can it be binding on everyone?

I don't have any objection to forming a 1.c4 party; this is just a practical question.

May-26-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: I guess <OCF>'s rule is in now force -- though I don't see how it alters anyone's behavior until the next World vs. GM match.

Who's next, <SamAtoms1980>?

It is now 7:49 pm, EDT.

May-26-10  SamAtoms1980: 5:03 p.m. PDT

OK. I propose that starting the round after next, whoever's turn it is to make the proposal gets a vote that counts for one more than than it did on the round before. The voting weights for all others voting on the proposal remain at 1.

That is to say, if this proposal passes, then the next round, when it is <Shams>'s turn to propose, the voting will be normal. Then the round after, when it is <AgentRgent>'s turn, his vote will count for double, and all other votes will have regular weight. Then the round after that, when it is <al wazir>'s turn, his vote will count for triple, and all others will have regular weight... etc.

May-26-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  AgentRgent: <SamAtoms1980:> After a quick check of the math, it looks like your proposal would give you absolute power in a mere 5 days... nice try...

NO! ;-)

May-26-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Is it uncouth of me to ask what exactly is going on here? Does it amount to a game of Risk?
May-27-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <OCF>: You're beginning to get the idea. <AgentRgent> and <SamAtoms1980>: You too.

I vote "no."

It is now 1:43 pm, EDT.

May-27-10  Shams: "No."

Wait, let me put a finer point on that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qbR...

May-27-10  SamAtoms1980: <OhioChessFan: Is it uncouth of me to ask what exactly is going on here? Does it amount to a game of Risk?>

Hey, the game has sold a jillion copies, this fundamental flaw and all.

Though my attempt was crude and very thinly veiled, I thought there was a slim chance that it just might work. However, the much larger chance that it would flop was the reality.

May-28-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: Who's next? <Shams>? Go for it.

It is now 1:04 am, EDT.

May-28-10  Shams: It is my opinion that nothing will happen unless circumstances force our cooperation. Let's not forget, among the exigencies that compelled the ratification of the U.S. Constitution was the fact that the Colonies couldn't even get their act together to raise money to fight the damn British. People are simply far more afraid of being taken advantage of than they are hopeful of attaining non-zero sum cooperation.

I therefore propose the following: We give ourselves one week to pass a <BILL OF URGENCIES> detailing: 1.) the calamities that threaten all of us, as well as all the cg members we represent, and 2.) the steps we need to take to create a viable state that can respond to those and other threats.

Rep. Shams

May-28-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Shams> (or should I address you as <Rep. Shams>?): Is that a rule you are proposing? If not, you have lost your turn and <AgentRgent> is coming up to bat.

These are the rules of LEX:

1. Any number can play.

2. Players take turns in alphabetical order.

3. On his or her turn, a player can propose a new rule or a change or repeal of an existing rule.

4. A proposal for a new rule or for change or repeal of an existing rule is adopted if and only if it is approved by a majority of the participants.

5: A player who fails to propose a new rule or rule change or repeal in accordance with rule #3 on his or her turn within 24 hours loses that turn; and a proposed new rule or rule change or repeal is ratified if and only if it is approved by a majority of the players voting within 24 hours after it is proposed.

6. [I]n the next world game with white pieces, all LEX players vow to vote 1. c4.

It is now 3:35 pm, EDT.

May-28-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: Whether what <Shams> has proposed is a rule or not, it conflicts with rule #5. If we were to adopt it, it would bring on a constitutional crisis. I'm afraid I have to vote "no."
May-28-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: I find crises exciting, so I vote yes.
May-29-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  AgentRgent: I vote Yes
May-29-10  SamAtoms1980: I vote "no."
May-29-10  Shams: WA State Open this weekend. I'll probably just pop in here once or twice and vote yes on whatever absurdities you all are proposing.
May-29-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <Shams>: Unless I have miscounted, it's a 2-2 tie. Your bill of urgencies will have to wait for another season.

<AgentRgent>: It's up to you now.

It is now 9:39 pm, EDT.

May-30-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: It is now 9:55 pm, EDT. Since we have heard nothing from <AgentRgent>, his turn is over and my turn has begun.

By now all of you must have at least a glimmering of what LEX is about. It's a model of the democratic legislative and political processes. Or if you wish, it is a model of the British constitution. As you probably know, the U.K. doesn't have a written constitution. Their constitution consists of the entire corpus of British law since Magna Carta. Thus, every time Parliament passes a law, it is in fact amending the constitution, but it must do so within the framework of previously existing law. They do have a sort of supreme court, the "Law Lords," but their role in ruling on the constitutionality of laws is much more circumscribed than that of our Supreme Court.

As I said a few days ago, this is the first time I've tried playing LEX online, so this has been in the nature of an experiment. The conclusion I've drawn from the experiment is that in this mode LEX doesn't work very well. In my experience the game works best when everyone meets in a single room to vote or propose new legislation. (I like to use a whiteboard to keep a written record of the current status of the "constitution" and of proposed changes.) But in order to mimic the real-life legislative process, the participants should be able to get together in private to make deals and to form caucuses and conspiracies. (In a sense it is the ultimate "party game.") Because all communication here has been open, we have not been able to do that. When players are able to meet privately and join in cabals, however, that introduces an element of competition that has been lacking in the present game, and the action becomes quite cutthroat. Some individuals can acquire more power than the rest and the democracy can be replaced by a tyranny. (I think you realized that.)

Another conclusion I have drawn is that the game is far too slow when played this way. That too was a consequence of the way we communicated, since the only way to find out if someone had done something was to log into this forum, and none of us stayed logged in continuously.

But to sum it up, I think it's time to end the experiment. I therefore propose the following new rule:

6. This game is now over.

All who vote in favor are winners. I vote "yes."

May-31-10  SamAtoms1980: I vote "Yes"

From very early on I could see two things:

(1) There would likely be "pork-barrel politics" involved and that would probably be needed to get anything done

(2) A good illustration of why, in our actual Congress, it is so hard to get things done

But on an open forum, where everybody can see everything that gets proposed, it keeps the "pork-barrel politics" and backroom deals from getting going

I also propose the amendment that all winners go out for a barbecue. But, please, let's stay away from the pork barrels...

May-31-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: <SamAtoms1980: I vote "Yes"> Damn, I was hoping to be the only winner . . .

Aut Caesar aut nihil. (Maybe that should be "Et Caesar et nihil.")

May-31-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: It's 11:49 pm, EDT. Finitus est ludus.
Jun-01-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  AgentRgent: <al wazir: It is now 9:55 pm, EDT. Since we have heard nothing from <AgentRgent>, his turn is over and my turn has begun.> Was out of town for several days on vacation, hence why I voted against the silly 24hr rule... ;-P

As for ending the game.. I vote NO (mostly to be contrarian).

Jun-01-10
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Well, now that I know the point of the game......

I vote yes.

Jun-03-10  SamAtoms1980: <al wazir: Finitus est ludus.>

Ludus? Or iocus?

Dec-01-11  theodor: <<al wazir>: It's 11:49 pm, EDT. Finitus est ludus.> I think it's better to say: ''ora venientibus - ossa!''
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 3)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 3 OF 3 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific user only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
   
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC