"for example, let's say someone is playing and their friend messages them"
Reading messages from spectators during the match is cheating. Consulting other people is worse than consulting the engine.
@Mobsteroid Fair enough, if analysing a previous game isn't allowed then viewing other people's opinion on past games should indeed not be allowed either.
Points 1, 3 and 4 still stand though - and the technical difficulties of such a script and the time needed to write it would make that I'd never start on it anyway :P
Boring 1. e3 player here: I'm very against limiting player choice of openings for a couple of reasons (mostly selfish, I admit.)
Firstly, I play 1. e3, and I've pretty much always played 1. e3 as my main opening, especially in games/tournaments I really want to win. I agree that it's boring to have to play the same opening/game over and over, with maybe a variation on move 11 or something, and I'm sorry for that. In fact, I've found myself bored of my own play at times. However, I learnt to play anti using 1. e3, and I slowly climbed and my skills grew while using 1. e3. As a result of this, it's the only opening I could say I was truly comfortable enough on to play better players in a championship such as this. Banning 1. e3 would essentially immediately eliminate me, and I want to be able to have a good go at competing. As a result of this, I'm sorry if you find our games boring. I'm aware I should learn another opening too, really, but it's too late now for this tournament. Equally, you could learn 1 or 2 unusual but still viable responses to 1. e3 to keep me on my toes and make the game more interesting for you.
Secondly, freedom of play is important. There are a few openings in anti that I don't really like playing against, even when they give black an advantage. There are few defenses I find boring to play against. There are some other tactics that I detest (looking at you, queen racers!) but I in no way support banning the option to play them. I'm sure most of us can unite against the use of certain tactics (ahem, queen racers) but it's all a matter of opinion anyway- if you're really offended by something, learn a way to prevent it, or play an opening/defense that usually avoids it. I'd never support the banning of any moves or tactics, nor would I agree to being forced to play a specific move, even if I would play that move anyway. You're entitled to your playstyle and opinion, and so am I.
Mobsteroid's suggestion of agreed upon openings isn't a bad one, though, if both players feel they don't want to have any 1. e3 games. I also think TheBigAlt's suggestion is interesting, even if I'm against it. Certainly, a real world champion should be a master of more than just a single aspect of the game. However, I think the weaker players who can only find any real success with a single opening (me included) will be filtered out anyway. There's more to anti than openings, after all.
To @ProgramFox
No-no, I just wrote 2 things in one message, so it was confusing. I meant a script with different openings, something like in thematic classical tourneys cause only words can't make everyone start their game differently. For example, if a player tries to use e3 twice, the script says "you've already played this opening, use another one". A participant must play e3, nh3, g3 (popular openings) once and 2 openings at their discretion. I understand that it can be unreal, it's just a crazy idea.
Well 1.c4 is getting popular too (MagnusXL and a few other players) Its tough to play against if you don't know counters to trick moves. (It can be a forced win for white if you take a seemingly harmless route)
Maybe the opponents can agree to something, can't hurt to ask during the match
Yes, Magnus, Kotov, Escargoon play c4 all the time. It's not too difficult though.
@TheBigAlt Ohh, I see. Disregarding that I disagree opening variety should be forced, such a script would require modifications to the server code. It would add a lot of complexity for a VERY niche use case so that's not going to happen.
@ProgramFox
Sad to hear (read) this. Anyway thanks for the reply.
@Link Challenge me 2+2, please, if you want to play. I prefer games with increment.
being honest if I had to implement @TheBigAlt idea (which can be a fun one) I'd just say "all openings have to be different". Why should I force someone to play e3? I hate e3, it's so boring :kappa:
But I much understand @Shibb 's point of view and I think it's really too late to change the rules. Maybe next year ;)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.