Hi Richard, Could it be that some of the activity with the buddy chess idea is under your radar? For example, if Mike, Jerry, or Hugh let you know we're about 20 moves into a buddy game, I'm not aware of it. Could there be other buddy activity going on that just isn't being reported? As to the handicapping, I'm in ffavor of weighting points awarded to a weaker player for beating a stronger playerwithin the rating system, but only if it doesn't make the rating system too burdensome for the volunteer having to do the calculation. I'm not at all interested in giving up pawns or pieces to accommodate a handicap. One of the most difficult things about chess is that in order to learn, you've got to lose. If a stronger player handily trounces another player, I think we should encourage game reviews so that the weaker player can learn where he or she went wrong. Maybe some of this post-game analysis could be shared with the list? This would be much more helpful than playing against a stronger player with fewer pieces. I also like the report you've got now. No changes needed there. Thanks, Jeffrey From: blind-chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:blind-chess-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of R Dinger Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2011 10:10 PM To: chess Subject: [blind-chess] Some Chess Questions Good Evening Chessers, Just a few rambling questions in no particular order. Answer or ignore any of them. 1. What is happening with Carol's idea of mentor or 2on2 chess? The initial enthusiasm seemed to disappear after the first two weeks. 2. Is there any interest in trying to establish a handicapping system and then holding a tournament with odds? Something roughly along the lines of giving the weaker player odds equivalent to a pawn for every 100(?)points of rating difference. 3. I am thinking about changing the game report confirmation message. I want to make it an automatic "form letter" like the Ladder challenge confirmation. What additional information would you like it to show? Richard