[Event "Stanley Random Chess: Where did you leave your Stanley screwdriver?"]
[Site "SchemingMind.com"]
[Date "2010.11.08"]
[Round "-"]
[White "eandrews"]
[Black "Jesse"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Variant "stanleyrandom"]
[WhiteCountry "USA"]
[BlackCountry "ENG"]
[WhiteElo "1156"]
[WhiteRD "238"]
[BlackElo "1543"]
[BlackRD "198"]
[GameID "266366"]

1. c3
{
eandrews: (e4 - trying a standard opening) Ok, so you clearly played a better game than I did last time, which is to say there must be some way to play better or worse, the randomness just changes the strategy a bit. If you feel like talking about it, I'd be curious to hear what your strategy was. Did you have something in mind that you were able to develop, albeit more slowly, in spite of the random bits? Were you analyzing the board at each turn in a regular chess way and trying to make the best move? Or (and best of all) were you getting into some Stanley Jedi probability play? At risk of sounding annoying, I wasn't trying very hard on that last game because it just seemed silly how, at times, three out of four moves were redirected. How do you strategize around that? Well, you've got me thinking that it can be done. So I'll do my best this game, and may it be a good one!
}
{
eandrews: ok, I can live with that.
}
1... h6
{
Jesse: (d5) - attempting a reasonable response to the modest opening you made.
}
{
Jesse: I'll be happy to give you an idea of my strategy for the last game.  I was intrigued to see what was possible and it proved interesting and rewarding.  I can't write anything now though, but I'll get it down shortly.
}
{
Jesse: Here are some of the principles for my SRC strategy.  1) WEAKER PIECES ADVANCE - Push forward your pawns in order to play a close game, the pawns act as a shield to both sides pieces and a defence of your more valuable pieces.  Since we agreed not to take any pieces during the opening, I just focused on building a good tactical setup.  One of the most difficult things about SRC is the opening, since it clearly won't go well, and advantage can be lost.  Basically, you want to get your pieces out there to intercept the intruding pieces and you want to have your weaker pieces do the agressing, while conserving your stronger pieces.  In order to do this, you actually end up needing to block the lines of attack for your stronger pieces, but keep them mobile enough to avoid being stung by the other side.  2) PROTECT YOUR PIECES - Just like in normal chess, you want to ensure that your pieces are both blocking intrusion and protected so that if attacked a retaliation is theoretically possible.  3) SHIELD THE KING - just like in regular chess, the loss of tempo is critical, if you keep getting into check you'll gradually lose pieces.  (( I'll add to this soon ))
}
{
Jesse: 4) MIND THE MATERIAL LOSSES - this game seems to hinge on the material.  Although it is theoretically possible to win early by complicated pinning, it's so easy to self-unpin that this is probably not how most games succeed.  Also, placing the other person in check isn't ideal if the only safe move the person has is to eliminate your piece, since that guarantees the loss of your piece (although this could be used to force the exposure of a powerful piece - note that the only forced capture will be of the piece threatening check though).  5) THINK OF IT AS A LARGE SHIP THAT STEERS SLOWLY - even though the control you have is sometimes minimal, keep in mind achievable goals that are long term.  some moves you'll have to try repeatedly and other moves will be rendered moot, but it's good to make any of the moves you chose be ones that count and that you can live with for several moves (since you won't be able to count on having another successful move for a while).  Chose your moves carefully with a long term view.  6) PAWNS ARE SOMEWHAT PREDICTABLE - Pawns will either advance, stay put or capture (each according to the opportunity being available).  It's kind of nice to know that when a pawn is up against another pawn, the two pawns won't move anywhere unpredicted except if an opportunity to capture or be taken comes along.  That's one less thing to think about.  Even pawns in a dynamic state of potential are only going to disappear, capture pieces diagonally ahead one space or advance, so there's a predictability to their movements which isn't there with the other pieces.  The most risky pieces are the ones that can travel to the most locations (eg- queen, rook, bishop).  It was a godsend to me when my knight got wedged into a corner, since it restricted the possible squares to three, and all of them were manageable to deal with if the knight got there.  The knight was helpful since it was as predictable as a pawn at that stage.  When the game starts, you have an advantage in thinking about what to move since, no pieces can move or escape the pawn shield except the knight.  As the pawns move forward, the bishops and queen become potentially much more free and require attention, fortunately, the king often is restricted by various factors, and anyway, he won't go that far away.  7) DON'T SWEAT IT - that's the fun part of this game, you just can't fully control the pieces, so when things go wrong, you simply have to find a way to improvise something that will remedy the situation somewhat and hope that your opponent doesn't have control over their threatening piece either.  In a weird way, I imagine this is a better metaphor for battlefields than actual chess.  It's like communications go a little haywire and the outcome is a surprise.  I remember once standing behind a line of police fences at a road blockade that had been widely advertised.  the police knew what the anti-war activists intended to do, and the police were there to deter the protesters from entering the road.  We were on the side of the road behind fences, then there was a line of police standing at the edge of the road and behind them was the road where the blockade was supposed to happen.  All of the sudden as more protestors gathered, the police came around the end of the fence to stand on our side of the fence and they fanned out along the fence until they covered it fully and then they turned their backs to us and held the fences.  We asked them how this would stop us from breaching the fences by pushing on them, and the officers said "you know, that's exactly what I'm thinking!? but these were the orders, so we have to carry them out." About five minutes later the officers were ordered back around the fences and they held onto them the correct way.  That's probably how orders happen on battlefields, but on a battlefield the other side would potentially take advantage, whereas road blockaders are more polite and we waited to engage the police on more fair terms.
}
{
Jesse: 8) DON'T REVEAL YOUR GOAL - obviously not an issue here, but there's a risk that your overall aim may become apparent even though your moves are obscured by randomness, so avoid obvious strategies that require too many moves, since this may make it easy for your opponent so parry your extremely difficult effort.  9) REDUCE RANDOMNESS - it's not possible to influence the randomness much, but a well planned check can force the king or another piece into a predetermined position.  If this will help you, then you should attempt to create that check, since this will be one of the few occasions on which the opponent will have few choices and that you will know the range of potential outcomes. 10) USE PAWN WALLS - this is a principle from ordinary chess, but just remember that if you have a wall of your own pawns ahead of you they provide a kind of shield, especially in chains.  Likewise pawns that have stopped against the opposing pawns provide an even stronger shield since they cannot be breached by the opponent from their own side (as is true for you).  This can be employed to constrict the movement of your key pieces or to protect them from attack.  11) NOTICE CHANGES - pay attention to the ways that the board layout has changed since vulnerabilities and opportunities will be less anticipated than in regular chess.  Both sides may make moves that offer advantage to a single side or they may limit existing advantages.  It's worth keeping an eye on the changes, and reviewing them with an open mind.

------

That's my explanation of the principles I applied.  I think that we may have improved the game by making it a game where no aggression was ever deliberate until the move "correction" forced a capture.  I think it makes it somewhat difficult if you have to keep in mind the opportunities for capture at the initial stage.  I have a feeling there are too many variables to undertake this with much influence.  Early captures may lead to more random results in the later game since I imagine they will tend to foil one side's development
}
{
eandrews: Wow. That's a very well thought out set of guiding principles — some common sense stuff, but many things I wouldn't have thought of. I can imagine that it takes much practice to really get a handle on the randomness, but the things you talk about sound like very sound advice. I like the anecdote about the police officers holding the wrong side of the fence. How very odd. Ok, so I say we play this one to win. May lady luck smile on your shuffling rooks.
}
2. Qb3
{
eandrews: (d4) a move that would make sense in any game.
}
{
eandrews: How daft. She's got a mind of her own.
}
2... c5
{
Jesse: (D6) - with a view to early queen capture.
}
{
Jesse: That move will do as well, but puts my Queen at similar risk.
}
{
eandrews: Hmm. I'm thinking that, despite my earlier appeal for a mano a mano match, I feel like I want to talk it out a bit more, mostly because I'm intrigued by the way options are eliminated. We can still joust to the death, but I wanted to talk about this move, before and after. Clearly, I want to save my queen or at least start making plans to save her before it comes down to a coin toss. Unfortunately, she has way too many options, now that she's left the barn, so to speak. Assuming my queen weren't out, my choices would be limited to pawn and knight plays (or something like what the queen did on the last turn). My moves are further limited by the fact that c3 (one of my queen's knight's landing spaces) is occupied... This is all to say that things were shaping up well for increased predictability until the queen went for a walk, so I have no idea what to do.
}
3. Qxb7
{
eandrews: I saw a note about illegal moves being rectified to the closest legal move, so I'm going to try that. If that worked every time, it would be a whole different game. So I'm going to try c5 and see if it lands me on c4.
}
{
eandrews: Er. Nope. Funny, I'd considered entering that move as a sort of kamikaze play but thought I'd try something more tame. For the record, all of my first three moves have been randomized, and not in some sort of modest way. Which is to say, I have yet to make a move. The up side is that I must be due for a keeper. So if you can't capture my queen, my next move will definitely be with my queen, since she'll either capture something or get the heck out of there.
}
{
eandrews: By the way, I'm probably done for the night.
}
3... h5
{
Jesse: (bxb7) - a deliberately preventative measure.  Will this be the first uncorrected move?
}
{
Jesse: That's so funny!  You're queen could capture the rook, knight or pawn next and be neatly ensconsed in a very safe location indeed. Perhaps she'll nail all three and eventually end her reign by taking out my queen?
}
4. Qxa8
{
eandrews: (Qxa8) might as well try the obvious stunt here. Hoping that this is the one that flies.
}
{
eandrews: Interesting. Depending upon what you do, I'll probably leave her there since two of her three randomized directions leave her safe. Then again, you could move your bishop out and try to take her. On the same logic of my last move — that the universe now owes you one — you might be able to get your bishop in position to take my queen...
}
{
eandrews: Did you happen to look at the annotated game in the SRC help tab — a game between an SRC grandmaster and SM Webmaster Austin? I was hoping to learn something but was getting very confused since they weren't letting on whether their moves were going as planned. All the comments and kibitzing seemed along the lines of a standard chess match, with lots of references to strategies that sounded made up (caterpillars and butterfly defenses and barrel rolls ... stuff I couldn't pull up with Google as being actual chess strategies, not that I know very much about various openings, defenses and counter attacks).
}
4... Na6
{
Jesse: (Nc6) - to ensure that there will be a possibility of consequences for almost any move you make with the queen.
}
{
Jesse: Oh, well, no consequences then.  By the way, the annotated game is completely a joke.  The game itself seems to be an invention inspired by the "Mornington Crescent Game" and the idea of a strategy game with so many archaic and subtle rules that even the experts don't really know how to play it.  Hence all the move correction.  I think the idea was to invent this totally silly joke, but it turns out to be fun for people to play (hence the regular tournaments).  The attempt to keep the joke going has led to a great deal of material, and there's no analysis like the stuff we've been doing that is readily locatable, since that's not really entering into the spirit of the matter.  However, between friends, I think it's fine to refer to the game as it seems to be - a randomising engine mixed with regular chess.  By the way, exciting and good moves so far, and your move 4 was the only one that was actually what you elected.
}
{
eandrews: And you have yet to make an unmitigated move. Geez, tough crowd.
}
5. Qxc8
{
eandrews: (e4) seems unlikely that this will go through considering that my last move was the only one of the eight played so far that has stuck. Let's see what happens.
}
{
eandrews: The randomizer dude seems fixated on my queen like she was the last girl at the party. One tiny material gain but could be curtains for her at last.
}
5... Qxc8
{
Jesse: (QxC8) the equaliser or the surpriser!
}
{
Jesse: Egads!  Finally a move of my own volition!  Thie game should be called "Queen's night out".  We've equalised after a remarkable streak by your queen.  Fortunately, my queen is now safe from release from the stables for the moment (only 6 possible moves available to her and all are safe - she's in the best possible square at the moment, covering other pieces and fully blocked).  My weak pieces (unprotected) are Rook, A7 pawn, and F7 pawn (protected yes, but only by a king).
}
{
Jesse: What a relief to have the equalising of sides, but somehow I'm disappointed to see the rampage of your queen end.  I know I should be rooting for my side, but the more evocative conclusion to this bizarre narative would be to have my Rook move to H7, and your queen to take mine (ultimately your queen surrendering only when she forcing my king to capture her through this otherwise inescapable check).  The current outcome is going to make a better game, but it's not yet the stuff of dreams.
}
{
Jesse: You know the game I wish there was?  I'd like a Half Stanley variant where the rules reverted to "Standard Chess" after 10 moves.  This would force people away from the focus on openings, but allow a degree of influence at the start.  It would be exciting to be thrown into a board where things were a bit out of kilter and you had to rescue the situation as best you could.
}
6. f3
{
eandrews: (Nh3) Your suggestion of the Half-Stanley (not to be confused with the Half Nelson — a chess variant in which I occasionally find myself) sounds not unlike every game I play. Which is to say, I always think I have a plan in the opening, but by about 10 moves in the board is a mess and I'm trying to dig myself out the back side of some gun-lit foxhole.
}
{
eandrews: I think my pawn formation deserves some appropriately SRC-style mocking name. Lets call it the Highbeams Defence, named for the two nipple-like pre-episcopal pawn tents. This is the "headless" or "discorporate" variation, in which we acknowledge, ironically, that the only lady on the board has recently been nicked.
}
{
eandrews: Sorry, nothing against your queen. I meant the only lady on my team. Also it should be noted that my king's rook is merely feminine.
}
6... f5
{
Jesse: (e6) a modest display in front of the king
}
{
Jesse: I have to commend you on the success of your pawn formation.  Unbroken, and unbreachable without risk.  the only gap I can enter through is the kingside dark square diagonal- that won't be happening anytime soon, and you can easily evade me.  Also, I note that your magical highbeams formation has both symmetry and function (preventing the premature release of any of your stronger pieces and limiting the scope of your knights to mainly serve as protection to pawns.  You even have the ground laid for an excellent D4 and E4 pawn push.  I'll be lucky to get to the endgame against your post-feminine strategy.  I will have difficulty commuting your Highbeams Defence into something less defencible.
}
{
Jesse: I note with some pleasure that my powerful pieces are still hampered, though there are now 8 undefended pieces on my side if you dismiss kings as protection.  On your side, I count only 4 undefended pieces, and there's few ways through your pawn barrier anyway.
}
7. Nh3
{
eandrews: (Nh3) I hesitate to considering giving up what you've identified as a pretty unbreachable (from either side) pawn structure.
}
7... e5
{
Jesse: (e5) - reckless abandon, and also seizing the center.
}
{
Jesse: My second move which was executed correctly. now my strong pieces are slowed, but my weak pieces are forward.  Sadly, they are not really protected, but none are threatened yet, so... we'll get to that eventually.
}
8. f4
{
eandrews: (f4) a play for the center.

}
{
eandrews: I'm impressed that you can see strategically through the haze of randomized moves. I clearly need to pay attention.
}
8... exf4
{
Jesse: (e5xd4) - seeking material rather than building a pawn chain.
}
{
Jesse: I find it interesting to look at longer the knowable in this maze of randomness.  I think it comes from this being my fourth game though.
}
{
eandrews: (Nxf4) This would be a nice move indeed if it went through, which it won't. It can't.
}
9. Nxf4
{
eandrews: (Nxf4) this would be a nice move if it went through, which it won't. It can't. Can it?
}
{
eandrews: Have mercy. 
}
{
eandrews: By the way, your (note) on your intended last move doesn't seem to make sense (there was nothing to capture on d4). Did it go through as you had planned?
}
{
eandrews: I've made three successful moves in a row now. Statistically speaking, should I anticipate that the next move will be randomized, or is the nature of randomness such that there's no point in trying to predict it? I guess if it's truly random, there's no guessing, but I think your suspicion that more moves go uncorrected later in the game may be true.
}
{
Jesse: Yes it did go as planned.  I could have gone to E4 in order to avoid capture and to start a potential pawn chain.  The randomness is truely random as far as I can tell, so that means that you are just as likely to have a randomised move as not regardless of how many previously random moves.  With a larger sample size there would be a statistically predictable level of randomness, and it's my impression that the game randomness decreases as the game progresses (perhaps with number of moves and perhaps just with number of pieces captured).  We'll see - I could be wrong.
}
9... Rh7
{
Jesse: (g5)- to threatent the capture of the knight
}
10. c4
{
eandrews: (e3) to protect the knight an let out the bishop.
}
{
eandrews: Given what happened at the beginning of the game, I'm surprised my knight on f4 didn't make some sort of break for it. Looks like this move is a pretty good one as second moves by pawns during the opening go. There's a good potential to bring another pawn into the third rank, which stands a decent chance of letting out one of my bishops, both still inexplicably hemmed in. This also opens another square for my queen's knight. Your last move, though apparently a dud, could prove interesting if you are able to finally move your g-pawn. You'd then have half a board's breadth on the 7th rank on which to slide your rook around. That kind of strategy always seemed like a natural fit for Makruk, where there's a built in lateral corridor, or Shatranj, where developing a pawn structure takes so long that a player could be forgiven for wanting to bust a rook out to have some play on the third rank, but rarely comes up in chess where the rooks typically do their sliding along the backline.
}
10... Nb4
{
Jesse: (Nb4)- what the hell. it's worth a shot now that the queen's not there.
}
11. Kd1
{
eandrews: (Kd1) Well, I'm going to play under the assumption that you're going for a rook/king fork and that randomness won't intervene.
}
11... g5
{
Jesse: (g5) - you thought correctly.
}
12. e4
{
eandrews: (g4) ok, this whole undeveloped backline thing is starting to creep me out, especially with your pawn wall bearing down on me. Be careful out there horsey.
}
{
eandrews: somehow I'm going to trap my own white bishop, both in his starting place and later on d3?  It wouldn't have been my first choice, but it's nice to get those pawns moving.
}
12... fxe4
{
Jesse: (f5xe4) a capture with a view of seizing the centre
}
{
Jesse: yeah I see what you mean, I think that putting the pawns forward is really important.  It's a delicate balance between trapping your powerful pieces and protecting the advancing pawns.
}
13. Ke1
{
eandrews: (Nc3) getting a knight out into the mix?
}
{
eandrews: goodbye tempo, hello fochetta.
}
13... Bg7
{
Jesse: (Nc2) - the rewards of patience
}
{
Jesse: That's hilarious!  I love how the game just pulls you away from all your expectations and intentions.  If we weren't sharing our intentions, you'd have to wonder if this move was actually part of a careful combo.
}
14. Be2
{
eandrews: (Kd1) all I can do is try.
}
{
eandrews: Great, now I can castle ... oh, wait...
}
{
eandrews: That comment a few moves ago should have said "forchetta," which is Italian for fork, not "fochetta," which I believe is a processed cheese product.
}
14... Nc2+
{
Jesse: (Nc2) - If at first you succeed...  try and try again
}
{
Jesse: ...uh... I'm stunned!  I've forked you!  Sorry about the castle thing dude.
}
15. Kd1
{
eandrews: (Kd1) I'm going to reserve comment here. Clearly there's a range of ways this could go, from some obtuse move by my king that further exposes me, to a succession in which I'm able to snatch your knight before you get my rook. SRC ... I say, who friggin' knows?
}
{
eandrews: Can I say, so far so good?
}
15... Nxa1
{
Jesse: (Nxa1) - Inevitably altered or a totally successful and safe knight
}
{
Jesse: Wow, that's great!  I've got a good situation here as long as I can keep my key players boxed in till the board is mostly safe. It always feels like you're rolling the dice when you move in this game.  If SRC had decided to correct something, I probably would have been down a knight and your rook would be safe. 
}
16. Ng6
{
eandrews: (Nd5) I'll have to see if I can catch you on the way out.
}
{
eandrews: Well, a temporarily safe square.
}
{
eandrews: I'm ready for the part where a larger percentage of our moves go through uncorrected.
}
16... h4
{
Jesse: (Rh6) - safety and attack
}
{
Jesse: Oh no! My rook is nearly out the stable!
}
17. Rf1
{
eandrews: (Rf1) seizing a file, or something.
}
17... Qa6
{
Jesse: (Nf6) - knight saves the file
}
{
Jesse: Oh no! the queen is out!
}
{
Jesse: I'm away this weekend and won't get much moves in for a bit.  Also, since Wednesday my sister has been visiting, so my chess time is unpredictable till next Friday.  all the best!
}
18. Nc3
{
eandrews: (Nc3) moving knight into play.
}
18... Qxg6
{
Jesse: (Qxg6) - The queen takes a horse and seeks cover.
}
{
Jesse: whew! The queen is safe for the time being!  You are placing a lot of pressure on the D5 square - I wonder what you're intentions are.
}
19. g4
{
eandrews: (g5) to attack a couple squares on your side of the board, gridlock my pawn and also prevent my bishop from being randomly sucked over to h5, which seems like just the move SRC would cook up for me.
}
{
eandrews: You mentioned this game being more like actual war (as you imagine) because of the element of total unpredictability. I find it's also a bit like life in that you can't really count on your move going right or your opponent's going wrong. I'd considered making a crazy move, like directly attacking your queen, on the off chance that your next move would be randomized, but it wouldn't and you'd take me the way lottery organizers take millions of dreamers a buck at a time every day. Yeah, it might happen, but actually it won't.
}
19... Ne7
{
Jesse: (Ne7) - Throwing caution to the wind - I'll hope the queen won't make a foolish move.
}
{
Jesse: I agree about your last comment.  It's really interesting the way the game works like that.
}
20. Re1
{
eandrews: (d3) your e4 pawn must go. one way or another.
}
{
eandrews: Not terrible, though a smothered mate on account of this would suck.
}
{
eandrews: Which is to say, maybe your e4 pawn isn't so bad after all.
}
20... Qf7
{
Jesse: (e3) - taking risks and bringing the queen into play.
}
{
Jesse: Oh the madness!
}
{
Jesse: Don't worry about the smothered mate, it's not going to happen now (though it was on my menu previously).
}
{
Jesse: That's my last move of the night.
}
21. Bf3
{
eandrews: (b3) shoring up defenses and liberating bishop.
}
{
eandrews: Not exactly the bishop "liberation" I was hoping for.
}
{
eandrews: Though, if I can survive that junk move, I might end up in a decent position.
}
21... exf3
{
Jesse: (e4xf3) - letting go of the middle for bishop capture and a passed pawn opportunity.
}
{
Jesse: Man, my luck always seems to go well when it really counts! I'm really gaining ground materially.  I agree with you that your bishop could have managed quite a challenging combo if it had lasted long enough to seize e4.
}
22. Na4
{
eandrews: (e4) arriving late to the party but hoping to guard against the passed pawn and hold some of the center.
}
{
eandrews: Really.
}
{
eandrews: I wasn't meant for the e4 square is all.
}
22... f2
{
Jesse: (f2) - at the moment, this seems like a good move, seizing the momentum
}
{
Jesse: I think you are long overdue for a move that you requested.  Last uncorrected move for you was 18, but I've had 4 in that time.
}
{
eandrews: Er, yeah.
}
23. Rg1
{
eandrews: (Rf2) anything else should be regarded as a kamikaze move at this point.
}
{
eandrews: The icing on the friggin' cake! I couldn't have planned a more inept move. This is payback for when my queen waltzed into your endzone and swept up two of your pieces. Oh, wait, I've already had payback for that.
}
23... fxg1=Q+
{
Jesse: (fxg1) - surplus payback
}
{
Jesse: This is just ridiculous! I can't believe the game's been so irregular with you, and so reasonable with me.  Even your queen's early foray was not your own doing.  I think this game puts paid to the simple idea that the moves get progressivly less random.
}
{
Jesse: Although I did use my strategies for this game, the current outcome does appear to be strongly a result of the levels of randomised moves.  I'll be interested to see if the analysis bears this out.
}
24. Ke2
{
eandrews: I think that's my move. Yes, you've certainly played well, but as you say, we are where we are because you've had some thing like one out of your last six moves randomized, and even that one correction (move 20) was pretty benign. Meanwhile, I've had the complete inverse — just one of my previous six moves (before this one, in which I only had one legal move) went the way I'd planned. Meanwhile, the randomizer seemed bent on imperiling my pieces. So, my question would be: is this the result of a coin-toss decision around each move (i.e. will this be randomized? yes or no?), followed by either the chosen move or a move subject to a second randomization algorithm that choses from the available legal moves? Anyway, it gets me thinking. I bet there's a really good variant that could evolve from this game, but it would have to be something you could actually play, since this game seems to leave both players too much at the mercy of the underlying equation. Yes, it's entertaining, but the games threaten to be decided by the deus ex machina of the thing. I liked your suggestion of the randomness being a factor early on, then stopping. Another version could hit each player with a fixed number of corrected moves during the first, say, 20 moves of the game, after which the randomization would cease. Maybe if six of the each player's first 20 moves were randomized...  There would still be that fun element of uncertainty, but one could plan around it. This is just sort of nuts.
}
24... Qe6+
{
Jesse: (Qxc1) - the game is ridiculous, but I'm still trying to play it safe - still believing that material is the way the win will happen
}
{
Jesse: Uncanny!  It's like there's actually a chess computer hooked up to my side.
}
25. Kd3
{
eandrews: (Kd3) At least my choice of short-lived escape routes is panning out. Geez, yeah, if this were a high stakes match, I'd be crying foul.
}
25... Ng6
{
Jesse: (Qxc1) - inevitably pursuing material
}
{
Jesse: So benign.  Whew!  To tell the truth, the material imbalance means that There are only a few moves that would be a problem - Qd5, Qc4, Qe2, Q(e6)e3, Qe4, Qg3, Q(g1)e3, Qd4, Bd4, Bc3.  I suppose this is another example of the benefits of gaining material in SRC - more harmless moves for the side that has more material.
}
{
Jesse: Ten risky random moves, but probably 100 safe moves available to me.  You've only got 6 non-king moves left available. None are clearly ruinous, but few are advantageous.
}
{
Jesse: That's all from me tonight.
}
26. Nxc5
{
eandrews: (Nxc5) escape seems unlikely here. I think you have mate in one move. This is my last ditch effort to take out a defender and make you choose between going for mate or saving your queen. Though there are lots of other options by which you could bleed me at this point.
}
{
eandrews: That should have been "saving one of your queens." Heh.
}
26... Nf8
{
Jesse: (Qe3++) Checkmate or just some random move further putting my queen at risk
}
{
Jesse: Now we're talking.  I think it's probably payback payback time for a little while.
}
27. Nxe6
{
eandrews: (Nxe6) one queen less?
}
{
eandrews: Ok, but will it matter?
}
27... Nxe6
{
Jesse: (Ne6) - protecting my position.
}
{
Jesse: I think you only have 7 legal moves now, and I have 40.
}
28. Ke4
{
eandrews: (b4)
}
{
eandrews: Ah, a welcome return to "??" Did you really count all the moves? I love how I've moved out of some imaginary check. It's like my pieces are under the influence of Cordyceps fungus.
}
28... Nd8
{
Jesse: (Qc1) - capturing material in order to aim for a gradual but certain success.
}
{
Jesse: Now that's a SRC move.  I did count all the legal moves (just out of curiousity).  It wasn't that hard since you only have movable king and pawns, and my pieces weren't set for maximum expression. Now my legal moves seem to be around 34, and yours are 13.  My count for you in the last round was off by 2, I forgot your pawns could double jump.
}
29. Kf3
{
eandrews: (Kf5) I'm going on the assumption here that my bishop on c2 is lost and that only a wild king rampage followed by a passed pawn blitz can save the game.
}
{
eandrews: Or not. ... Man, this game really has a mind of its own.
}
{
eandrews: About the number of legal moves: Under one possible SRC formula, having fewer moves, as I do, could make for a higher probability of executing the desired move, though I don't think it's the case here (where it seems that the randomness is random and the only thing a limited number of moves does is limit the number of possible outcomes resulting from a move correction).
}
{
eandrews: So, I'm still a little unclear. What is the underlying structure of SRC? Do we know? Is there some complex rule structure or is that part of the goofy, faux history of the game?
}
{
Jesse: It's entirely goofy, faux history.  The engine appears to be random moves some of the time, but randomly non-random.
}
29... Qxc1
{
Jesse: (Qxc1) - take the bishop and steady as she goes.
}
{
Jesse: Whew, finally my queen is safe from a dumb move like queen to g2, g3, f2, f3.
}
30. b3
{
eandrews: (b3) protecting one of two passed pawns.
}
30... Qxd2
{
Jesse: (Qxd2) - pursuit of safer squares and material.
}
{
Jesse: In my previous games, very few moves were random after move 30 - perhaps there is a change in the degree of random after this point (perhaps what the faux rules refer to as the "sudden death" phase).
}
31. a3
{
eandrews: (c5) moving my king out of danger (at this point, I'm resorting to randomizing my commentary, as well).
}
31... Nxb3
{
Jesse: (Nxb3) as before, taking material and addressing potential of advancing pawn chain.
}
{
Jesse: (the randomness here seems somewhat unfair to white, and arbitrarily favorable to black)
}
{
Jesse: I think you only have 4 legal moves now, and I have something like 48.
}
{
Jesse: Sorry if the running commentary on number of legal moves is irritating.  I find the fact of it very interesting since it narrows down the randomable moves to 1 of 4.  In my case there are countless random possibilities, but the computer seems disinclined to random me.
}
32. c5
{
eandrews: (c5) I think this is my only chance, but I'll have to dodge at least two potential captures.
}
{
eandrews: Ok, so I went through and tallied up the number of corrected and uncorrected moves we each logged, up to move 30. I had 17 corrected and you had 16. These were distributed in fairly regular patterns. The longest stretches of corrected moves were five in a row (Jesse – moves 1-5, Ethan – moves 19-23). The longest stretch of uncorrected moves were my moves 24-27, thought the first move in that sequence was a case where I was in check and only had one legal move (I believe that is the only such situation in the game so far where the move goes through because there’s no other option). I had one other stretch of three in a row and you had two stretches like that, so those episodes were distributed fairly evenly.

I didn’t look too deeply into how we were perceiving the distribution of moves during the game (from our comments) as compared with what was actually happening, but I’ll admit that I was sort of surprised to find that I’d only had one more corrected move than you. So, how did I get so woefully behind? I think moves 19-23 were pivotal in that my bad fortune aligned with a good streak for you. On the other hand, the tables were nearly reversed in the next five moves when I had one corrected move and you had four. I captured one of your queens during that run, but you had played the previous five moves so well that I was pretty much running for my life and wasn't able to gain any significant ground.

On a less scientific note, I seem to remember three or four cases when my randomized move was not just superfluous but actually imperiled an otherwise safe piece. As you noted in the comments, your uncorrected moves seemed to occur when it really counted. This is all to say that the game, from a mathematical perspective has probably been pretty fair, but I've been unlucky (or you have been lucky). At risk of sounding like I've eaten too many of my own sour grapes, this is why I hate games of chance, because when you're up it feels great but when you're down you feel totally helpless.

}
{
eandrews: I should note that our respective 17 and 16 corrected moves leaves a balance of 15 and 14 uncorrected moves, which means we were rolling the dice more than half the time.
}
32... Nxc5
{
Jesse: (Nxc5) - dogged pursuit of material
}
{
Jesse: Man, that's weird.  I love reading your analysis as it completely goes against my perception of the game.  I really felt like your moves were much more corrected than mine.  I think some of my efforts to contain (protect) my strong pieces while pushing out the pawns really did work well, and some of the luck has been better for me than for you.  My playing practices have been highly strategic, and mainly erred on the side of caution.  My strategy has been as I described at the start of this game.  By the way, I feel very much like you with games of chance, so naturally I'm feeling pretty awesome since the luck has really played out well for me (and naturally this leads me to think that this was a consequence of my strong playing - though if I was doing poorly I'd naturally think that the random chance aspect was foiling my attempts to implement strategy).  I still find this game interesting since it feels quite like steering something big and imprecise (like commanding a unit in the civil war perhaps - poor communication and ill equipped).  This enthusiastic assessment is based partly on the fact that it's easy to feel enjoyment from a game of chance when you're up.
}
33. h3
{
eandrews: (a4) what a lame position I have here — prevented from a stalemate by the two useless moves I have at my disposal.
}
{
eandrews: Ha! Take that.
}
33... Ne4
{
Jesse: (Qc3) - avoiding the stalemate potential
}
{
Jesse: Whoops!
}
34. Kxe4
{
eandrews: (Kxe4) one last capture before the end?
}
34... Qc3
{
Jesse: (Qc3) - preventative measures for safer squares
}
{
Jesse: Nice capture!  That's all from me tonight.
}
{
Jesse: Whew, I'm glad my queen is finally in C3.
}
{
Jesse: 3 unsafe random moves available to me, and all the rest are good. No stalemate danger at the moment though you only have 3 legal moves.
}
35. Kf5
{
eandrews: (Kf5)
}
35... Qxh3
{
Jesse: (H3) - material as always
}
{
Jesse: That move did come out as planned, now you have 3 legal moves.
}
36. Kg6 Qf3
{
Jesse: (Qg4) - there's no saving the rook, but material is available for the hungry queen.
}
{
Jesse: I have a specific phrase I use on occasions like this.  "drat! foiled again."
}
{
Jesse: That's all from me tonight.
}
{
Jesse: I wonder if this game has a tendency to tip dramatically in favor of the side that is more than 5 pieces ahead.  I'm thinking of how drinking games are often oriented so they disproportionately favor the people who are ahead, so that after a certain point, the win is almost inevitable.  I might be jumping to conclusions though, since this game isn't actually over.
}
{
Jesse: again, that's all for tonight - I just wanted to share the preceeding observation.
}
37. Kxh7
{
eandrews: I think your analogy is apt, not just for drinking games but for life (i.e. those who have money, power, friends  are usually able to get more of those, while those who don't struggle to keep from going down the drain). It's probably also true of Standard Chess that the person who has tempo and/or a material advantage is more likely to win. Like you say, it's not over until it's over but it would take a serious miracle for me to come back.
}
37... h3
{
Jesse: (h3) - push out the troops for a win.
}
38. Kxg7
{
eandrews: (Kxg7) guess I'll keep on truckin' here.
}
38... Qxa3
{
Jesse: (Qxa3) - taking material and preventing the queen from going to a vulnerable square.
}
39. Kh6
{
eandrews: (Kh6)
}
39... h2
{
Jesse: (h2) - planning the end
}
{
Jesse: Note that most of the recent moves have been as intended.  By the way, were 36 or 37 as you intended?  I didn't see any note.
}
40. Kg6
{
eandrews: (Kg5)
}
{
eandrews: ooh, that's not helpful.
}
{
eandrews: Yes, I believe those moves went as intended. As you say, most seem to be going through for the time being, though my last one did get diverted.
}
40... h1=Q
{
Jesse: (h1=Q) Now to bring this to a close.
}
41. Kxg5
{
eandrews: (Kxg5?) - oh, looks like it's fast downhill from here. If you wait until you have four queens, I promised not to take any of them.
}
41... Qg1
{
Jesse: (Qg1) - sorry very uneventful move, but I don't want to waste time creating queens with the other pawns.
}
42. Kf5
{
eandrews: (Kf5)
}
{
eandrews: Waste time? it's a key rule in SRC ... a player must have a minimum of four queens to win. Better get those pawns moving.
}
42... Qag3
{
Jesse: (Qg3) - now the end process begins in earnest
}
43. Kg5
{
Jesse: (Qg4) - please let this go right.
}
43... Qxg4+ 44. Kf6
{
eandrews: Good game. Hardly any random moves at the very end. If you discover the logic that governs this game, I'd be curious to know what it is.
}
44... Q4d4+
{
Jesse: (Qd4) - the endgame starts
}
45. Kf5
{
eandrews: (Kf5) funny, I was thinking Qe4 would be mate. And it would have, but not the kind you're going for.
}
45... Qgg4#
{
Jesse: (Qg4) - attempting the quickest closure with two queens.
}
{
Jesse: I see what you mean about Qe4.  With two queens I had to really mind what I was doing to avoid accidentally offering a stale mate.
}
{
Jesse: By the way, this was an interesting game, and it seems to have borne out the hidden engine properties I thought would emerge. Mainly uncorrected moves after move 30.
}
{
Jesse: If you care to try this again, I'm happy to give it another go.  Regardless, let's look at how the game unfolded in terms of randomness and strategies relating to anticipated randomness (as opposed to simple chess strategy).
}
{
eandrews: I would play again, though I really don't think I have any more sense of how to manage the randomness than I had when we started this game. Then again, we've only played twice. Sure, I'll play again.
}
{
Jesse: This was my fourth game.  It felt a lot less random to me than the first two did.  I might be wrong, but it feels like I'm manageing the random.
}
0-1

