Talk:Business chess

Please, do not delete this article. I know that the author of this article works on the text. If you may explain, what shall be added to the text, he will try to enter the corresponding data to fix the problem. There are several articles about this variant of business chess published in magazines. --Zara-arush (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit

I've given the article a good copy edit and I hope the English is somewhat clearer now. There are still problems with the article, it still I think could be confusing in its description of the game rules (I am pretty sure I understand it, but then I'm a computer programmer for whom this kind of stuff comes naturally).

The links to youtube are probably not admissible. The diagrams may be better to be redrawn as SVG or something so they scale well.

I hope that's a start. Si Trew (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Interactive Cognitive Scenario

The term 'Interactive Cognitive Scenario ' has the meaning of gobbledygook. Any idea how to clarify this? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Beats me. I think it's a bit of jargon specifically for this game. How about Situated_cognition#Cognitive_Apprenticeship? Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

...yeah, as if that clarified it Si Trew (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I also need to use Google Translater. I hope you will understand

For the user SimonTrew: You are all well and mostly correctly translated the text of the description of the Interactive Cognitive Scenario. It is strange that you say something is not understood. 1. Each team plays only one color of pieces, such as white. In this case, the rival team is black. 2. To better understand the selection, look again schema-figure №3 and №4. 3. Ratings denoted with red chips in the upper part of the demo board. At the beginning of the game on the board №1 - 10 such chips. When Branching they are distributed from the parent branch to the daughter branches. When Passing from one board to another moves only one chip of rating without losing points. In the usual lesion in some branch - the game on this board, be terminated, and the chips of its rating removed from the game with the loss of the same number of points. When the selection - a game on this board terminate, but the chips of the lost branch are not removed from the game, and moved to another board with a good position for this team (if any). It also lost the same number of points as number of chips of rating. If some branch in a draw - a game on this board is terminated, the chips are removed from the game, and each team is given the number of points equal to half of the number of chips of its rating.

User, SunCreator - took a wrong correction of the caption to the photo number 3: the team did not discuss with each other. Discussions are conducted only within each team. Moreover, members of one team can not and should not hear the debate the other team. Command debate (Talk plan) on the contrary kept secret for the other team (opponent, rival). But it is intended for the viewer, for example, through television. This solution to the old problem of traditional chess: a chess player to make talk during the game, to explain their actions, etc. By the way, chess players do not like to do it. But I hope like a television spectators. So that: “The game applies an Interactive Cognitive Scenario for team co-ordination and as the means of making the game enjoyable” … for the spectators, but not necessarily for the players.

Okay. I understood discussion was only within team, perhaps my caption was not good. Have amended caption again. Hopefully it makes sense now. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To better understand the game you can see almost the full video version of the party in Moscow, which played a prominent Russian grandmasters, or at least the first part of 1 (7). If you'd like to see other parts until the end - to 7 (7).

In Russian Wikipedia I am Оваким. Ovakim (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've Interwiki'd the two user pages. Si Trew (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Interactive Cognitive Scenario - this is simply the name of the Scenario, which I as the author likes. Can long to explain why. If you are interested I can try using Google. In this scenario, you can play not only in chess (Business chess), but in almost any multi-stage variant game (Go, Rendzyu, Checkers, and others). Ovakim (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ovakim, thanks for all that.

I see now that there is a distinction between the points and the chips. That is where my confusion lay, because I thought the chips just represented the points (like chips represent money in a casino) and the two meant the same thing.

Google Translate translated to "in the usual lesion in some branch", the word "lesion" here is not correct. You mean that there is an actual defeat (checkmate?) in that branch? Because I would think if someone saw a checkmate coming they would resign – though I realise they only have five demonstration boards, so they might decide just to let that branch "die" and suffer the loss instead of making a "selection" to recover back some lost ground. Would I be correct there?

"Interactive Cognitive Scenario" I think we will have to explain somehow. The words are OK on their own, but it obviously means something very particular that we must get right. Please excuse my light-heartedness above.

Do you (does anyone?) mind if I change it to use British spelling (e.g. "colour" instead of "color")? The reason is I am British and although I can use American spelling, I will still be using British grammar. So the article will end up a kind of Mid-Atlantic English between the two.

Google Translate does seem quite good for Russian/English (I can't comment on English/Russian). There is an old joke that an early American/Russian/English machine translation was given "out of sight, out of mind" (meaning "if you can't see it, you don't think about it") and, translating it to Russian then back again, returned "invisible maniac".

I did pretty much think the teams operated as you said, but I think we do well to make that explicit in the article. Similarly, it is useful to say explicitly what we both know, that the thought process "commentary" is explicit rather than inferred by an expert. I'll insert some of what you have said above.

One more small point, can we change "mother" and "daughter" to "parent" and "child"? This is the normal terminology for tree structures in English. I don't see any reason why not, the only reason I had not done so is in case a "father" came along somewhere, or some other distinction between male and female (like in a red-black tree).

Have amended Mother to parent and Daughter to Child. I think a translation or language issue. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course all of these data structures are essential parts of a computer chess engine anyway, except they're not so limited for the number of boards.

Incidentally, can you give any comments on team strategies? I was imagining, for example, that teams might sometimes agree that they will play a particular opening, and so for the first five moves (for example) they might never branch but continue with that "library" opening, and only start to consider options after the fifth move. Or they might decide always to have one very weak (low points) branch just in case it happens to develop into a winning branch. That is, whether teams might take low-risk or high-risk strategies, and how they decide which to take.

This will be some time tomorrow (Friday) as I am going to bed now. Of course, any other editor can do it instead of me...

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

For the user SunCreator. Thank you very much for your help. The team must perform the selection (ending the game on this board and transfer its red chips on the other board with a good position) for a long time before the actual mat. But she loses points equal to the number of red chips. For example, imagine that you have 2 branches. The branch № 1 with a good position for the White has a rating of 1, and branch № 2 with a good position for Black has a rating of 5.

Situation 1: If White has made the first selection, they admit defeat in the branch № 2 and carry 5 red chips on the branch № 1. Score becomes 0:5 in favor of Black, but only one branch remains № 1 with a good position for White and has rating 6. If White here win, final score will be 6:5 in favor of Whites.

Situation 2: If Black has made the first selection, they admit defeat in the branch № 1 and carry 1 red chip on the branch № 2. Score becomes 1:0 in favor of Whites, but only one branch remains № 2 with a good position for Black and already rating 6. If Black here win, final score will be 1:6 in favor of Black.

To better understand the strategies of business chess game, you can also read my article “On Business Chess, Economy, Politics, and School Education”.

In order to understand why I called the Scenario Interactive and Cognitive, and my version of chess - Business chess , can read my article, "Sports Business Games and the Third Revolution in Sport."

The terms "parent-child" translates Google. You use the terms for tree structures - this is the correct value.

For the user, Si Trew. Thank you very much for your help. Teams can begin to do branching at any point in the game. If they want they may decide not to do branching. Then the whole game will take place on one board - the branch № 1 with a rating of 10. One team will win 10: 0 or a draw will result 5: 5. But it would be boring. It will turn so-called Consultative Party, when on one board with each side playing a few participants (consultants). This form of chess is not effective. For the business chess is very important the following statement. All 5 boards (branches) are common to the whole team. Boards are not fixed for individual participants.

Why is it necessary to do branching and the selection and what strategies are effective management team in various settings the game, see my article “On Business Chess, Economy, Politics, and School Education.”

For participants of the project "chess." I believe that in the era of the Information (postindustrial) society chess has a great future, but as business chess. My arguments are set out in the article "Sports Business Games and the Third Revolution in Sport." I am very interested in your opinion. Ovakim (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See please the following sentence in Description: “With the possibility of changing one game into many, the number of its simultaneously played versions and their degree of importance, qualitatively new, tactical and strategic methods of competition appear which are inherent only in this version of chess”.[2]

Link - "Business chess rules". In this article is no information about specific tactics and strategies of business chess. Is it possible to replace this link to link to my article “On Business Chess, Economy, Politics, and School Education.” ?

The same applies to the phrase: “Ovakimyan describes this version of chess as a sports business game”.[2] Is it possible to replace this link to link to my article "Sports Business Games and the Third Revolution in Sport."  ? Ovakim (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Again on the Interactive Cognitive Scenario.

I do not really like the phrase: “The game involves an open discussion between team members known as a 'Interactive Cognitive Scenario', for the process of decision making and also as the means of making the game enjoyable”. It is not clear what is the Interactive Cognitive Scenario.

I want to clarify what is the Interactive Cognitive Scenario. Interactive Cognitive Scenario is a new form of group discussion, group (collective) decision making, which is effective for solving multi-stage, variative problems, which have the form of solutions in the form of tree structures, such as a chess game. Analogue. There is another form of group discussion, group decision making - Brainstorming, which is effective for solving problems of Single Stage - question-answer. It is proved that when solving multistage problems Brainstorming is not effective. In such circumstances, group decisions taken by Brainstorming inadequate.

Therefore, we can construct a sentence like this:

To organize effective group discussion and decision making in the Business chess used Interactive Cognitive Scenario, which assumes a free discussion among members of one team and the harmonious combination of individual and group decision making. This provides the possibility of alternative actions of each team member (branching) in combination with the possibility of rejection from them when it becomes clear for team that these actions were erroneous (selection). Another result of the use of Interactive Cognitive Scenario in chess game is to increase the attractiveness and entertainment of the business chess. Ovakim (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What is difference between a team discussion and an 'Interactive Cognitive Scenario'? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Team discussion can take different forms. For example, team discussion in the form of Brainstorming is used in Consultative chess game. This is when the two teams (called consultants) play on one board. In Consultative chess game each individual team member is not entitled to a final decision. All decisions are made only team. And in fact, only the leader makes all the decisions. Other members of team or passive, or interfere with the leader. In Business chess uses a different form of the team discussion - Interactive Cognitive Scenario. It suggests the possibility of alternative actions of each team member (using branching) in combination with the possibility of rejection from them when it becomes clear for team that these actions were erroneous (using selection). Thus, each team member can express themselves and their leadership qualities. Accordingly, all members of the team throughout the game are very active. As a result, throughout the game the spectators watching an active team discussion and friendly atmosphere in the team. Ovakim (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you do not want to disclose the essence of the Interactive Cognitive Scenario this phrase can be written as: “The game involves an open discussion between team members using the ‘Interactive Cognitive Scenario' (see below), for the process of decision making and also as the means of making the game enjoyable”. Ovakim (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Again on the Interactive Cognitive Scenario.

In the Russian Wikipedia can find a good explanation of the term "Interactivity". "Interactivity" - a principle of organization of the system in which the goal is achieved through information exchange between elements of the system. It is in this sense I have used this term in the name of "Interactive Cognitive Scenario". Ovakim (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

An attempt to clarify the article Business chess

I tried to make the article Business chess clearer. To do this, I moved some phrases and made a small clarification. All changes made before the section "Interactive Cognitive Scenario - Demonstration boards". Please see the new version of the text here. Please check the English. Make the necessary changes. Your opinion? Is this version of the article more clear? Ovakim (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Much improved. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Business chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110813124259/http://chessacademy.am/index.php?Page=BusinessChess&Lang=1%2F to http://chessacademy.am/index.php?Page=BusinessChess&Lang=1%2F

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)