PyramidScheme I'll play you if you're interested. My FICS standard is 1956 and my old USCF is 1650 (ten years ago).

sounds close enough, I'm game.

PyramidScheme, I created a thread for our game. GL

In on thread they said: no engines, no looking at spoilers, anything else is fine. Off the top of my head I'd think no help from friends also. Anything else??


So we can look at opening books and online databases of games? I don't prefer either way, I just would like to establish the rules. Also, psuedo time control of one move per day, meaning try to get at least one move per day ?

I assumed no opening books. Otherwise my game would have lasted a bit longer, I suspect Mostly that's just because nobody will learn anything from a thought process of "The most popular move here, according to the database, is XXX, so I'll play that." Doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of the Malkovich game, imo.

ok, so no opening books and game databases. That works for me.

I think I would be interested in this silly nonsense.

I am extremely active in tournaments right now and have gained 200 points in the last year to bring my CFC rating to 2300. My FIDE rating is 2119 and USCF around 2100. My ICC blitz is always jumping from 2000-2200. I don't play on FICS much at all but it was around 1800-1900ish for blitz.

Bring it on.

A suggestion to speed up games: if the next move of your opponent is forced or really obvious, why not include that and your next move in your reply. For example,

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bb5 d6

Now white plays 4. Bxc6, so why not say "4. Bxc6, if 4... bxc6 5. 0-0".

I guess this is common practice in correspondence games.

I feel the reason opening books kinda need to be allowed for these games is because it's correspondence and people who play chess at times study it. If I'm in a stupid game here involving the French Defense am i NOT allowed for days to look at French Defense books and databases to possibly help my OTB chess? I don't do things like that anyway because I am too lazy so I agreed to no opening books, but I can see why some people might have a problem with it.

Well, none of the rules are "official", and if a pair of people who want to play a game agree to treat it as correspondence and allow opening books, then that's perfectly fine. Personally, though, I feel like it's extremely interesting to see people's thought processes during the opening and how they apply general opening principles to the position. It's less interesting when people just say "this is a line I know, the move here is XXX" and play it. Less interesting still would be for people to say "I checked the database and move XXX here is most common, and scores better than the alternatives" and play it. For that reason, I proposed "no opening books" as a default rule, to be assumed in place *unless* the players decide otherwise before-hand.

This does NOT mean that if you happen to be in a Malkovich game with the French defense that you are disallowed from studying any material that contains the French. Of course you're allowed and encouraged to pursue your studies as you see fit, and do anything you can to improve your OTB chess in general. Just try not to look up the *exact* position you have, for the specific purpose of choosing a move from your opening encyclopedia, rather than thinking your opening plan out for yourself.

I think this suggestion has been mentioned but, on the last move for example, smilingbill could write 13.Qxe7 and after Bxe7 14.Re1 to keep things moving along.

+1

I'm very much in favor of doing this in Malkovich games.

Conditional moves can sometimes create a problem if there is some sort of in-between move that one side had not seen, so in some ways it is a 'leading move' if you can stretch the legal analogy.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=52

this is a good way of doing it IMO, that's how it is done in the correspondence chess anyways. Instead of just posting the line (which like HipHop said can be not forced at all), you ask for confirmation first.

I forget where I saw this but here is the shortest recorded correspondence game:

Player A: 1. d4

Player B: 1...g6 and if anything 2...Bg7

Player A: 2. Bh6...Bg7 3. Bxg7

Player B: resigns

hahahahahaha


it's mentioned here.. http://correspondencechess.com/campb...les/art001.htm

lmao thats awesome

i'd like to play someone. i'm 1765 USCF currently but have only played 4 games in the last two years. my actual strength is probably more approximately 1900-1950. no books/bases.

I'd be interested in doing one of these; seems like a great way to learn. I am pretty consistent; multiple day lapses should be pretty rare. Didn't want to respond to other posts as they are 2+ months old.

~1930 chess.com correspondence
~1950 USCF 6ish years ago

No books/bases.

My end of year exams finish on Friday.

So I would be up for a malkovic game some time next week.

My ECF is 119 and on playchess.com I'm ~1400 - 1450.

On chesscube I'm ~1650 - 1700

people who posted itt earlier on get the first chance to start a new one.

so at the moment it's

Dynasty
Brownian_Motion
seswatha
A.Ertbjerg
Nikachu
airwave
Fistdantilus
jewbinson

I suspect the earlier posters on that list aren't interested any more, but they still should get first refusal. So if two of you arrange to start a game (and it won't start for at least a week or two, since there are three games going on) then it's on you to make sure the guys before you on the list really aren't interested.

I'm interested in this. I'm ~2100 USCF, but probably slightly overrated at the moment, and I'd probably treat this more like an OTB game than a correspondence one (both in terms of time per move and not using databases).

Although I'm not specifically interested in playing someone of my own strength, it seems A.Ertbjerg, Nikachu, airwave, Fistdantilus are all in the ballpark -- anyone interested in starting something?

Reading the commentary of strong players on the games has been very interesting, and I imagine it would be even more useful to have that for a game I had played.

I would be interested in playing.

No databases and no books would be preferable.

I'm happy with those conditions.

As per RoundTower's earlier post, are we waiting for one of the three current games to conclude?

yeah, let's wait until one of them finishes.

one of you PM Dynasty, Brownian and seswatha and make sure they're no longer interested. If they aren't, or don't get back to you, we'll cross them off the list (or bump them down it, if they prefer). You can start in two weeks or so if none of these games has finished by then.