>,because one person must 'have' the plan (the captain),and choose the better moves
It does not normally work like that, democracy rules!! the captain may want to play one move but if the 3 other team members want another move then the captain is out voted
>if each time each player choose one move,easily you wont get the correct plan for the position,and you wont pick up the better moves in the game
That maybe true as all players think differently but that for me would be part of the fun. Remember these are fun games and with engines they will more than likely be a draw still but I think it does increase the chances of a win either way ......
Anyway it is only a suggestion to get away from the norm
of course,the captain must be a smart person,with high leadership,and must take care about the subordinates (in our case about the other players of the team,and choose the better moves)
we play for fun,of course,but even if we play for fun,i will give my best,im a very competitive person,i always was,and i even increased that 'spirit' when i was military for a long years
p.s.im not the captain of my team,just to clarify
>i dont trust in democracy...i just trust in autocracy
We will have to agree to disagree on that point lmao :-)
>of course,the captain must be a smart person,with high leadership,and must take care about the subordinates
Personally I never think of people as being an inferior or below me as that is what subordinate suggests, I have known through my life many people who been in charge and yet do not have a clue, at the moment I am thinking of the British government with their latest stupid schemes
>We will have to agree to disagree on that point lmao :-)
i said when we had a team,because each team need a captain,not at real life Tony
maybe you dont understand my point of view,because i continue thinking with my ''military-poin-of-view'';i dont know if you have been military in your life,but only if you have been military in your life,can understand me Tony
about stupid schemes,we also have with our also stupid Spanish government...but even if we have a stupid government,is always better than havent that stupid governt,and havent nay government (an anarchy)
If it is vanilla chess then that is fine I was simply trying to mix it up and as our team as played before we know how democracy works hahaha and ppipper and barnard will have to learn this very fast which will be interesting ... Not even sure our team has a captain? or is that the guy who makes the moves on the forum?
i think Paul is your teaam captain...
if your team didnt agree about that point,my advice is that your team must agree to have Paul as captain,your team will have a very good captain
p.s.captain is the guy who makes the moves...appart from that,each team gives the captain the attributes that each team thinks the captain must have,or the decissions the captain must take
>i think Paul is your teaam captain...
Is he? well I think I will start a campaign to sack him then hahahaha
>if your team didnt agree about that point,my advice is that your team must agree to have Paul as captain,your team will have a very good captain
I know Paul personally and know he will make a good Captain although don`t tell him I said so
>p.s.captain is the guy who makes the moves...appart from that,each team gives the captain the attributes that each team thinks the captain must have,or the decissions the captain must take
Not sure that applies or would work with our team, it is 1 man 1 vote, we will as usual discuss and look at each others ideas but it will be democracy and not a dictatorship
>I know Paul personally and know he will make a good Captain although don`t tell him I said so
i promisse you that i wont tell him
>1 man 1 vote
and in case of tie when the team vote?dont think the team needs someone who breaks the tie?or what are you going to do in case of 2-2(or 1-1-1-1),and dont agree with the move with any reason or condition and each player want playing his move,losse on time?
So get going and invite people to join your team until one accepts.
and also ppipper tried,but also failed...so i dont know what we will do:delay the match until we will find the 4th member,or start playing the match 4 vs 3 (is just my idea)
Its all fun to me.
We have a match:
BigBen, NATIONAL12, Uly
Don Quijote Team:
Mark, Barnard, ppipper.
BUT we're allowed to ask for opening advice to turbojuice1122. That is, after the opening the game would become full 3v3. I think this is something that would be satisfactory to all parties.
now lets see if all of the members of your team accept that point,and all the members of my team accept that point,and if all the players accept that point,we can start the game as soon as posible,and we must not delay the game looking for other players
edit:you can play correspondence chess under the correspondence chess sub-forum
He wants someone to play him.
What would be the rules of that game/match? I am a bit lost in this thread.
we (both teams) play with 4 members,and we surely will have a 'secret' subforum,where only we will be able to log in,and after that the subforum will be make open to all read it
i think (im not sure about that) that we will play time control of 2 days for each move,with an accumulative time of lets say 1/day or 1 day if we give our move and we have a remaining time of our 2 days,with a maximum of 1 week of accumulated time
in general terms,that are the rules of the match
> and we surely will have a 'secret' subforum,where only we will be able to log in,and after that the subforum will be make open to all read it
This is new. Past time the forum of the other team was never opened for inspection, and we played without a subforum (just by PM.)
I also claim we don't need one, and we probably won't open one unless a member of the team wants it.
> Uly, you are slightly in error...
I can't see that forum:
So the point that it wasn't opened stands.
>i was going to suggest the opening we should play
Can you let me on in the secret lmao
> Of course,against xxx i was going to sugest xxxxxx defense and against xxx try to get into a xxxxxx defense.
One xxx must mean Nf3 and the other Nc3, as Na3 and Nh3 are clearly inferior. One of the xxxxxx's could be French (e.g. 1. Nc3 d5 2. e4 e6).
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill