[blind-chess] Re: Mentor or Collaborative Chess

Hi Richard,
  I like Lewis's suggestion the name "Buddy Chess". 

----- Original Message -----
From: Lewis <adatewithmate@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: blind-chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:35:59 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: [blind-chess] Re: Mentor or Collaborative Chess

Just a few names.

Buddy Chess
Companion's Chess
Chess Companions 
Chess Buds (buds evolve   into full grown flowers)




  Lewis
"'Knightrider"

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Benson 
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:21 PM
To: blind-chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-chess] Re: Mentor or Collaborative Chess

Hello Richard and all, 

I think the initial 9 points are a good frame from which to start. A flexible 
approach in the light of experience will slowly evolve a satisfactory system. 

As for the name, "Consultation Game", is already well established for this 
concept. 

I am having a few thoughts on how the system could work, but they are not as 
complete as I would like them to be.  

Perhaps a public experiment could take place over the list first. The idea is 
to find out at what level assistance is useful. 

It does not need to be a full game, just enough moves so that the consultation 
process can become refined. If using the list in this way is thought 
undesirable, then the experiment could be performed with members choosing to 
receive the emails off-list. This would of course, mean that both teams can 
observe the consultation within the other team, and since learning how to 
consult efficiently is the point, and not the result, then knowing what the 
other team is thinking is not important. This does not mean all consultation in 
the future must take place by email, but email is an easy way for many to 
initially observe consultation in action. 

As one of the initial 9 points  states, games are not for rating. So, if 
someone recommends a move or idea, and it turns out to be a losing one, so 
what? This is a mutual gain concept. 

Lastly, a thought to ponder. A little more than 18 years ago, my rating was 
hovering around the same level for about 10 years. Then one year I gained 80 
Elo points. Then the next year, a further gain of another 72 points. Quite a 
lot for someone in their late 30s. This started a conversation roughly as 
follows:
Q: How do you account for this improvement? 
A: Regular coaching sessions. 
Q: Who with? 
A: Name given in reply. 
Q: I do not know of him. How strong is he? 
A: Rating given, which was about 500 Elo  points lower than my rating. 

This produced puzzlement in all those listening. How can someone 500 points 
lower help me to improve? I then went on to explain, that the person who I was 
coaching, was getting me to explain concepts as I understood them. Initially, I 
was not too good at expressing my thoughts. With time, the process of having to 
explain my thinking to him, taught me how to understand what is happening in a 
chess game better than previously.

Conclusion: The process of trying to explain something to someone else, in turn 
increases one's own understanding. Well, that is my best explanation of my 
improvement. 

Paul Benson. 


-----Original Message-----
From: jubieq@xxxxxxxxxxx - Email Address: jubieq@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent On: 12/08/2011 00:53
Sent To: blind-chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Email Address: blind-chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-chess] Re: Team Chess as Name? was ... Re: Re: Mentor or 
Collaborative Chess

Hi Richard,
  Keep in mind that names and titles are not copyrighted. That means no one can 
claim exclusive right to use  the term "team chess". I think it is highly 
unlikely we would end up in any conflict.I suppose you could call it Blind 
Teams Chess.

Connie

----- Original Message -----
From: R Dinger <RRDINGER@xxxxxxxxxx 
To: blind-chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 23:35:05 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: [blind-chess] Team Chess as Name? was ... Re: Re: Mentor or 
Collaborative Chess
Hello Edward and Greg,

I was concerned that using the term "Team Chess" may cause 

some confusion with a team style tournament where players are organized into 

teams and the two teams play each other.

I think team is most likely the correct term, but I don't know 

if it will cause problems if we ever get involved in a team tournament say 

against another chess group or within this group.

Richard
----- Original Message ----- 
From:gregmason
To:blind-chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:14 PM
Subject: [blind-chess] Re: Mentor or Collaborative Chess

I like the name "team chess:.  

----- Original Message ----- 
From:Eddyz69@xxxxxxx
To:blind-chess@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 2:11 PM
Subject: [blind-chess] Re: Mentor or Collaborative Chess
Hello Richard and all,
The concept is wonderful.  Please, sign me up to play.  I suggest 

another name that makes more sense.  How about we call this "Team Chess" 

instead.
Edward

Hello Players,
I am uncertain how to organize the Mentor or 

Collaborative chess concept that Carol proposed earlier this month.  Since 

some may be uncomfortable calling
themselves "mentors", I am proposing that 

we consider a name such as "Collaborative Chess" as an alternative.
The 

general idea is that a team of two players collaborates while playing either 

another team of two or an individual player.  The collaborating 

players
discuss their position and agree on a move and hopefully why.  

While calling this Collaborative Chess gives a less formal feel to Carol's 
idea, 

I think
any such discussion will help both players even if they are of 

similar ratings.
The following are a few proposed rules and ideas (in no 

particular order), please post any comments or propose changes and additions 
you 

think appropriate.
1. A list of collaborating players will be maintained and 

sent out periodically.
2. To avoid confusion, one player is designated as the 

official contact for sending and receiving moves.
3. Games are not 

rated.
4. The higher rated player will act as the mentor.
5. Some sort of 

tournament could be arranged if there is interest.
6. A team of two can play 

an individual.
7. Maybe some games could be annotated and posted 

afterwards.
8. Time controls may have to be lengthened to 48 hours a 

move.
9. Other?
As regards mentoring in general, I suspect the mentoring 

process should be organized in some fashion.  Since I am not an educator, I 

am uncertain how we
should do that.  Could some of the list's 

professional educators suggest some approaches of how the mentoring process 

could be done effectively, what to
focus on and so 

forth.
Richard

==========
The blind-chess mailing list
View list information and change your settings: 
http://www.freelists.org/list/blind-chess
List archives: http://www.freelists.org/archives/blind-chess
========

Other related posts: