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
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.901 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3827 - Release Date: 08/11/11 07:34:00