Conservapedia talk:RationalWiki versus Conservapedia in chess

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Experts[edit]

I think there should be a restriction that no one from CP's editorial staff be eligible to discuss or vote on moves if he or she is "an expert." That is, plays professional or is rated by any chess organization. It's not "the best of the public AND experts" but "the best of the public AGAINST experts." --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability[edit]

How can you establish that a computer is not assisting in the game? MDB (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It will be difficult. But CP is filled with Christians, and Christians don't lie. *wink* So you see, if they agree not to use computers, then it would be lying to use computers. Right? Besides, I issued the challenge mostly because I realized CP won't bother to accept it. Too many rules, too much openness and too much trouble to allow anyone to participate. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Best of the public[edit]

I think the rules do not reflect what Conservapedia calls 'Best of the Public'. Right now, they describe a democratic process, which CP would call the 'mob mentality' of WP. In order to properly reflect what's happening at CP, the rules should state that everyone at CP can vote for moves, and then the sysops do whatever they feel like. --Ireon (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait--shouldn't the tourney work like this:[edit]

CP playing as a "public" vs. ONE "expert" RW chess player--or a series of matched in that format. We want to prove that "experts" can beat the "best of the public," not that our "best of the public" can beat their "best of the public," no? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ours isn't a best of the public. It's a group of experts. Like a consensus of scientists. Or a panel of judges. Or so forth. Only those who have played in sanctioned tournaments and studied chess properly. Not the public at all. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Namespace[edit]

Please move this out of the mainspace. Conservapedia:RationalWiki versus Conservapedia in chess would probably be a better home. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You're always a party pooper, Human. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Simplee iz not a "rashunulwiki artikl". Haz nise hoam nao. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ratings[edit]

I had an ELO a long time ago. I haven't played in a sanctioned tournament in nearly fifteen years. On Yahoo I had a rating. Perhaps I can locate that one, if they retain them after all this time. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not planning to sign up for Team Vandal, but any of you play on FICS (or another site)? I'm always up for a match if there's anyone around my level. --TheRealMarkGall (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I have sworn off competitive chess for various reasons. I still play casually on the Internet, just rarely. I prefer wikichess, much more fun. A game then, Mr. MarkGall? --User:Theautocrat/Sig 02:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I just registered there. Send me an email and we can set up the game. Disclaimer: I haven't really played much in a few years, so this could be pretty ugly -- I was never that good in the first place (~1600 USCF). --TheRealMarkGall (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand. I will be perfectly willing to play you here. I had a disagreement (yes, an italics disagreement. That kind.) with FIDE. I no longer associate with them any longer. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 03:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Haha, sorry, misunderstood... I just registered at some site called wikichess which looks to have correspondence games. But you'll crush me if you were FIDE 2100+... you ought to find someone better to play (: --TheRealMarkGall (talk) 03:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have had a couple of games with User:Javascap over here, they are in my talkpage archives. I'm not so sure, I hardly play much, just dabble- read a few books here and there, and sometimes show off to people who suck with simo skills. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 03:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Panel Consideration[edit]

I think the format is a good idea, so maybe it's time to decide who is on the group of experts. How will it be decided, do experienced players just sign up? If not then here's my Resume: CFC rating 1850 or so, but out of date. Not a lot of oppurtunities to play around where I live. Chess.com correspondance rating, 2097 (2200 at its peak). Free Time: Lots.MertonVsHislop (talk)

FIDE 2115, no longer active (nearly a decade now, in fact). I have shittons of free time now thanks to the Holidays (tm). --User:Theautocrat/Sig 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
You both rank higher than I last did. So that should be good for our side, if CP even bothers to challenge their ideology. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 06:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Computers[edit]

What do you think the rules with regards to computers should be. Schlafly seemed to suggest the public should get them, but not the experts (Overloooking that the public made wide use of chess computers in Kasparov vs The World. I would highly recomend the wikipedia article on the game. Surprisingly inspirational). I would be OK with this actually.MertonVsHislop (talk)

Indeed, I think this kind of defeats the purpose of the match though. The "best of the public" will just be going with Rybka or Fritz every time. In the end the only knowledge you have is how you played against a computer program (which gets quite some time calculating each move at that). In correspondence chess both parties get to use computers, I don't think it is possible to get a fair game going if one of the two players gets assistance/analysis and the other doesn't. You're playing correspondence chess if you go ahead with this, and that is very different from OTB. Internetmoniker (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)