Kibbitz Listing
wrote on Thank you very much for adding my name to the previous comment, and
especially for the (incredibly swift) reply.
I certainly hope that you are right, but I have to say that I have a bad
feeling about this. Almost immediately after the series of farcical moves
from Black began, Jeremy Hook himself got the impression he was being
trolled (not getting lucky), so much so that he even said so when making
his next move. And Carlos has not responded since then, nor has he posted
any comment ANYWHERE on the site in at least a week (if not much more than
that; I'll have to check).
I have just sent an email to Carlos Cetina regarding this. In the best-case
scenario, he'll reply within a day or two and the whole thing will be
resolved.
wrote on The comment below this one (posted on 2016-01-03) was by me, Cameron Miles.
I have no idea why my name wasn't displayed next to that comment, nor have
I been able to figure out how to edit the comment (so as to give my name at
the end of it) in any way.
What matters most to me right now, though, is that someone sees these
comments of mine, and tries to contact Carlos Cetina in some way. I
STRONGLY suspect that his account has been taken over by someone else
(maybe a skilled hacker, or a thief who has stolen his computer), and that
'someone' is now making moves without his consent. It is, after all, quite
obvious at this point that Black's last 6 or 7 moves have had the sole
motivation of losing the game as quickly (and perhaps
ludicrously/comically, depending on one's sense of humor) as possible.
wrote on What sort of nonsense is this?! It looks like Carlos Cetina`s CVP account
has been hacked by someone with an immature sense of humor. I myself have
played a number of games with Carlos, and trust me - you could not PAY HIM
to play a move like 49... k b1-c2. There is absolutely NO WAY he would
intentionally do that, and I am already 100% convinced that someone else is
now making Black`s moves without permission.
Carlos, if you`re reading this, I`d strongly recommend that you change your
password for this site. And the ridiculous 49... k b1-c2 move should be
taken back. If Jeremy Hook objects to this, might there be some way to
verify that the move was indeed made by an ``impostor``?
wrote on I suppose neither player noticed or cared that the final position was not
(quite yet) a real checkmate, since in this case the outcome of the game
was not affected. The game would have ended in similar fashion after:
55. k 9h-8g G*8h (check) 56. k 8g-9f S*9e (check) 57. k 9f-8e N*7c
(checkmate)
Still, a 'false checkmate' error such as this should be a red flag that
the rule-enforcement code for Shogi presets is not quite right, and is
worth looking into. The problem is likely to plague many more games if left
unresolved.
wrote on It's worth noting that Black's 15th move was illegal, and (technically speaking) so was every single move after that, because of the fact that the kings in this game may never face each other across an open file. Personally, I think a situation like this just goes to show that some chess variants (such as Seenschach and other games that are similarly jam-packed with unusual rules and pieces) are simply too exotic to be considered legitimately playable. Not every game that is good 'on paper' is going to play well in practice.
wrote on Hello. In case you haven't found this yet (you probably have), the move to
enter here for a capture by mutual destruction would be 'h8-g7; @-g7'.
This info can be found at the following address:
http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/presets/rococo.html
wrote on You already know my next move, but for the sake of formality: 28. P g6-f7 (check)
wrote on Next move is 27. Q f5-f7 (check)
wrote on Gah - late again. And the server continues to reject my password when
attempting to edit (not sure whether it's worth trying to contact Fergus
about it, though).
In any case, my next move is 26. P d2-c3
wrote on Won't let me edit for some reason...
Next move is 25. N c3-d5
wrote on Well, I'll go ahead and declare my next move to be 24. Q d5-f5 (check)
Rather than post a new comment here every day, I'll just edit in my
intended next move every 24 hours (except on days when I don't move at
all), at this same time of 11:00 p.m. UTC. Hopefully you'll see this in
time...
wrote on Jeremy, would it help if I declared my intended move at (say) 11:00 p.m. UTC (giving you ~1 hour to come up with your move)? I only ask this because it now looks as though you'll only have ~30-45 seconds per move from here on out, which is about how long it takes to view an opponent's move and then immediately send a response. This leaves ~0 seconds to think, which seems to defeat the whole purpose of what we're doing (to ensure the game [and by extension, the tournament] is played out to a proper conclusion).
wrote on Very well, then. I'd (mistakenly) assumed you'd either forgotten about
these games or didn't have time for them, on account of the hundreds of
other games you're currently playing, analyzing, developing, playtesting,
etc. What I did NOT want was for your unparalleled, near-superhuman
contributions to the chess variant field to (potentially) cost you 1st
place in the tournament, just because of an accidental time-out. There are
certainly some who (perhaps rightly) consider a 'gifted' win on a
technicality just as deserved a victory as a truly-earned win; I definitely
wouldn't consider myself to be one of those people.
In any case, this is all irrelevant if the time situation was in fact an
intentional part of your strategy (maybe to squeeze in as much
practice/study of this particular variant as possible??). I still hope
neither of these games is decided by time, though - Carlos has conjectured
that they may very well determine the winner of the event!
wrote on Forgot to mention one thing - I'll follow exactly the same moving pattern in our other CC2 game (where I have Black) as well. This ought to be enough to prevent a 'cheap' time loss in either game.
wrote on 4... b g8-d5 is illegal, I believe. After 3... b a8-d5, the g8 bishop controls only the f8, g7, and h8 squares (as per the Bishop Conversion Rule).
wrote on The preset appears to be bugged, as 14.K-D1 is indeed a legal move. Of course, 14...q-G1 would be checkmate on the next move, so (fortunately) the outcome of the game wasn't affected.
wrote on EDIT: The last part of my comment for move 18 is now out of date. Daniil Frolov has accepted the open invitation for 'Cylindrical Cinders vs. Meticulous Mashers' referred to in that paragraph. Of course, there are plenty of other armies and match-ups for CwDA that are still unplayed, and that I would like to try out (such as the Spacious Cannoneers vs. one of the more standard armies).