h a l f b a k e r yI like this idea, only I think it should be run by the government.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
This is a preparatory exercise for civil disputes where mediation is agreed to (or ordered):
A game of chess is scheduled at the courthouse (or the parkette across the street). All rules of chess apply with one addition: no move can be made unless the disputants agree to it, i.e. each player is both
her own opponent and teammate throughout the game.
[link]
|
| |
People are in court *because* they can't agree, and need an arbiter to decide the case. How could this possibly work?! |
|
| |
If you can't make up your own mind about an issue could you play with yourself until you achieve the mental clarity necessary to decide? |
|
| |
Adversarial parties routinely *agree* to mediation. This is merely a half-baked warm-up exercise an arbiter can use to start the process (or keep parties busy while she's golfing). |
|
| |
Adversarial parties do sometimes agree to take part in mediation but it is highly unlikely that they will ever agree to take part in a self-helpy "warm up excercise" - mediation is just another means by which parties can attempt to get what they want. |
|
| |
Plus, our courthouses are already far too busy - clogging them up with stalled games of chess will do little to speed up the administration of justice. |
|
| |
Every game will end in a stalemate. No party will agree to a move that causes them to lose the game. |
|
| |
//Every game will end in a stalemate.//
<devilsadvocate>Unless they acknowledge that the game is not important</devilsadvocate> |
|
| |
Maybe that's the point of it. Once you've got the 'Consensus Chess' game out of the way, you're less interested in playing games and more interested in finding genuine workable solutions. Whoa. I got a bit idealistic there. Must sit down for a moment. |
|
| |
But taking that approach disregards the point of the exercise, 3f. If playing by concensus and both players reach a concensus that playing is pointless, then the concensus itself is also pointless. |
|
| |
I see your point. It demends on whether the disputants are genuinely considering the consensus as such, and playing as a team, or if they are using the 'consensus' as an excuse to defer, delay and hamper their opponent's moves. I was assuming the latter as disputants who are capable of teamwork would be less likely to require a mediator. |
|
| |
Thought this was an idea for a new TV show. People on the internet vote for the next move. Would be very interesting to see the results. |
|
| |
1.a4 e5 2.Ra3 d6 3.h3 Be6 4.d4 c5 5.Qd3 f5 6.Qg3 Be7 7.Qh2 e4 8.Rg3 Qa5+ 9.Nd2 Bb3 10.c4 Bh4 11.f3 e3 12.d5 f4 stalemate |
|
| |
That's an awfully long and tedious game you've described there, rcarty. |
|
| |
White moves King's bishop pawn forward. Agreement. |
|
| |
Black moves King's pawn forward. Agreement. |
|
| |
White moves King's knight forward (2 squares). Agreement. |
|
| |
Black moves Queen to Rook 5: Checkmate. |
|
| |
I don't know that White would want to forfeit, but I can easily imagine "1. e4 draw". |
|
| |