Kibbitz Listing Game: Circular Chess Log: sissa-cvgameroom-2015-291-618 Cameron Miles wrote on 2016-01-07Thank 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.Cameron Miles wrote on 2016-01-06The 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.Cameron Miles wrote on 2016-01-03What 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``?Game: Shogi Log: tamandua-cvgameroom-2015-175-942 Cameron Miles wrote on 2015-11-23I 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.Game: Seenschach Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-149-802 Cameron Miles wrote on 2015-07-20It'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.Game: Rococo Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-148-869 Cameron Miles wrote on 2015-07-20Hello. 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.htmlGame: Cetran Chess 2 Log: shatteredglass-judgmentality-2014-237-084 Cameron Miles wrote on 2015-03-19You already know my next move, but for the sake of formality: 28. P g6-f7 (check)Cameron Miles wrote on 2015-03-18Next move is 27. Q f5-f7 (check)Cameron Miles wrote on 2015-03-17Gah - 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-c3Cameron Miles wrote on 2015-03-16Won't let me edit for some reason... Next move is 25. N c3-d5Cameron Miles wrote on 2015-03-15Well, 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...Cameron Miles wrote on 2015-03-15Jeremy, 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).Cameron Miles wrote on 2015-02-22Very 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!Cameron Miles wrote on 2015-02-20Forgot 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.Game: Cetran Chess 1 Log: sissa-cvgameroom-2014-293-280 Cameron Miles wrote on 2014-11-274... 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).Game: Alice Chess Log: rosuav-cvgameroom-2014-59-670 Cameron Miles wrote on 2014-03-09The 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. Game: Cetran Chess 2 Log: sissa-shatteredglass-2013-355-674 Cameron Miles wrote on 2014-01-08EDIT: 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).