According Blackjack, there are a select few from tl.net who are \"very good\" chess players. I\'m here for such that of a selection.
I played BW fanatically for seven years (I\'m sure most of you remember me), and quit playing last year. Chess is where I\'ve been ever since (likewise during the BW era, but not quite as assiduously and intensely). If there is anyone intellectually capable of putting up a decent fight for the unfortunate futility bound by the fate of opposition, I\'m a 1900+ on Yahoo. I play every day. It\'d be wonderful to find some good chess competition from BW players; so far no good.
Apparently, my IP's been banned from this forum. This says a lot about the chess players here, including the administrative idiot who did the deed on these forums. But what's said even more about the chess players are the games. The only person who played a good game is ChoboCop, but I just found out he was using a program--which I honestly suspected considering his incessantly defensive and unperceivably cautious moves both games. Anyhow, here's some information you dunce jack-asses seem to want to know:
1.) I don't have a program and I've been playing chess since I was seven. I've played online for only two years and only used Yahoo (where the competition--even if such are programs--is far better than the 'lack of' found here), because Yahoo can be played from anywhere and the platform wasn't firewalled at my old job.
2.) Whatever low-life it was who searched me on Google and came across "my xanga" (which I used to use for friends I know in person, and in regard, every post has had an "inner circle" reference and is entirely satirical), it's http://www.xanga.com/l3randt , idiots-inept-to-search-engines. Feel free to visit, as dipshits that I don't know can't leave comments, furthermore, I sign on every few months. I even just made a MySpace this week for my friends (though, my ex actually made it in December so I could listen to songs she uploaded on hers) which anyone with a pulse could figure how to find that just as well.
3.) I've done nothing but subtly criticize you nescient morons with every successive reply I've made on this post... which you fools seem to take to a laughably sincere degree.
4.) I'll still play any one of you that I haven't played. My AIM and MSN is in this post. You can even have my e-mail: neo27bee@hotmail.com.
5.) I know how to play chess, along with excelling in what seems to be endless mental attributes that surely none of you possess. On top of that... actually, I don't want to put any more on top of that just to depress any of you further--I'm actually a nice guy who doesn't care to brag. The only thing that gives the impression is the fact that I'm on the internet surrounded by low-lives and no-lives who thrive on ridiculing what they don't have. So, toodles.
Ok, we can try. I have no FIDE raiting, but local (Bulgarian) 2100. I played Bereg.ru - now closed, and now I play playchess.com. Really don't like Yahoo! because of the ugly board, bad timing and lag. If you want we can play few yahoo games - my handle there is dagoeba. What about the time control? I think max is 5/0.
Edit: Define "very good"? You played in any sort of local team, league, etc? Here's my last tournament : http://www.geocities.com/mitko74/starazagora/samarskozname.htm If you don't see shit (cyrillic), I am on 15 place with 6/9, starting number - 34.
ok, I am up to it. I am able to play in the weekdays from 22.00-23.00 CET. I am pretty weak at chess, but I love playing.~1600 Yahoo rating.id - efsevenno1.
If you don't remember me then you simply don't know me and probably never 2v2'ed competitively in WGT or PGT or played NW's. However, I'm not here to discuss memories or impressions. Just looking for a challenge from those with the same video game background (i.e. BW, for those of you who seem to miss "points") as myself.
One Page Memory, mdb, and Slayer91: certainly. Any of you have AIM or MSN? I don't play speed chess though. That isn't chess and defeats the purposes of chess; inevitably creating a poorer player due to the negation of calculations by the acumen of the best moves. If you're a blitzer, I'm sorry, but you're probably not worth my time; albeit, I will play you. Ten minutes is usually enough, but I could compromise down to seven. Five minutes just isn't a long enough time for a good game.
Looking forward to playing any of you. Honestly, I'd love to be beaten by a BW player.
The problem is that people are naturally suspicious of players playing games longer than 5 minutes, because the opponents can cheat using computers. Not saying taht you do, it's just that people sometimes get that impression when they get beaten.
I personally enjoy a nice 15-20 minutes per side for a game, because you actually ahve time to think, though I realize that cheating is a problem (but even then, you learn from your mistakes). I'm not that good myself, but if you're willing to go over the game after you beat me, I'll be willing to give it a shot.
On July 12 2006 17:09 NeoTheAKA wrote: If you don't remember me then you simply don't know me and probably never 2v2'ed competitively in WGT or PGT or played NW's. However, I'm not here to discuss memories or impressions. Just looking for a challenge from those with the same video game background (i.e. BW, for those of you who seem to miss "points") as myself.
One Page Memory, mdb, and Slayer91: certainly. Any of you have AIM or MSN? I don't play speed chess though. That isn't chess and defeats the purposes of chess; inevitably creating a poorer player due to the negation of calculations by the acumen of the best moves. If you're a blitzer, I'm sorry, but you're probably not worth my time; albeit, I will play you. Ten minutes is usually enough, but I could compromise down to seven. Five minutes just isn't a long enough time for a good game.
Looking forward to playing any of you. Honestly, I'd love to be beaten by a BW player.
On July 11 2006 23:15 NeoTheAKA wrote: According Blackjack, there are a select few from tl.net who are \"very good\" chess players. I\'m here for such that of a selection.
I played BW fanatically for seven years (I\'m sure most of you remember me), and quit playing last year. Chess is where I\'ve been ever since (likewise during the BW era, but not quite as assiduously and intensely). If there is anyone intellectually capable of putting up a decent fight for the unfortunate futility bound by the fate of opposition, I\'m a 1900+ Yahoo. (The \"Yahoo\" is my noun.) I play every day. It\'d be wonderful to find some good chess competition from BW players; so far no good.
On July 12 2006 17:37 goldrush wrote: The problem is that people are naturally suspicious of players playing games longer than 5 minutes, because the opponents can cheat using computers. Not saying taht you do, it's just that people sometimes get that impression when they get beaten.
I personally enjoy a nice 15-20 minutes per side for a game, because you actually ahve time to think, though I realize that cheating is a problem (but even then, you learn from your mistakes). I'm not that good myself, but if you're willing to go over the game after you beat me, I'll be willing to give it a shot.
Yup, goldrush is absolutely right. Main reason to not play long games is computer assistance. On a side note any experienced player (I include myself here) will spot very easily such an attempt. Too bad one can use help only from time to time - i.e. not to make blunders, look out for openings, etc.. Other way is not to play the best moves given by the engine. Still I can tell with more than 95 % certainty if I play against human or program. With that said I am ready for nice, hack free games with any control between 10 and 20 minutes per game. I don't have/need MSN or AIM (even don't know what AIM means), but have ICQ and Skype. Also its good to share our own games - its good to know opponents level. If any interested - PM.
i played competitively 2 years ago and am still not too bad. i don't like yahoo though. any of you play on gameknot.com ??? the games are longer there though, cuz you get like 1 or 2 days per move. of course you could cheat but i would hope that you wouldn't.
Blitz games can be very strong, with 2300+ elo players if they are sharp they can play 1 minute better than most 1900s, and i've always hated playing long games online, I prefer a real board for long games. Try playing some tournys, here, all september to may there are weekend tounys 1 hour:45 or 1hour:30 per side with 5-6 games. But to each his own.
On July 11 2006 23:15 NeoTheAKA wrote: According Blackjack, there are a select few from tl.net who are \"very good\" chess players. I\'m here for such that of a selection.
I played BW fanatically for seven years (I\'m sure most of you remember me), and quit playing last year. Chess is where I\'ve been ever since (likewise during the BW era, but not quite as assiduously and intensely). If there is anyone intellectually capable of putting up a decent fight for the unfortunate futility bound by the fate of opposition, I\'m a 1900+ Yahoo. (The \"Yahoo\" is my noun.) I play every day. It\'d be wonderful to find some good chess competition from BW players; so far no good.
I do not know who you are. You are saying that you can beat all BW players in chess? So why are you here, asking for chess players? Are you trying to be a newb-crusher? Hahahaha. People like you are -_-;;;
To be honest after reading your initial post and then your subsequent posts where you said people were not worth your time, I'd rather run you over with my car than play you in chess.
On July 12 2006 19:11 Empyrean wrote: Why don't you play with 10/15 time control then?
If this is addressed to me, I do play with longer time controls. I'm not saying everyone should, but I play with 20 minutes per side per game. It helps me think through my decisions and calculate variations. I was merely talking about my personal preference and I don't really care about computer assistance; it's not nearly the problem that people make it out to be.
Personally, I share Neo's opinion; that fast chess is not nearly as effect as slower chess if you're looking to improve. You guys should try it; play a bunch of blitz games online for like a week/two weeks. Then play longer games for the same amount of time. You'll come back to the blitz games stronger than you were before. It's no coincidence that the best blitz players are also among the best at slow chess in the world.
I used to have an ICC (Internet Chess Club) account, and it was a blast. I should get another one. Basically ICC is where all the best players (ie professionals) play.
For anyone who is interested in watching grandmasters etc play, go to www.chessclub.com (ICC website) and you can get a free 2 week trial.
I live in Boston and I have been playing at Harvard Square for about 4 years now. I helped the Harvard Chess Club awaken from a 2 year sleep and I found them a IM ti instruct them for a year. I have many amazing accomplishments and my peak performace in Blitz used to be about USCF2200. Also, since Lary Chistiansen lives in Cambridge I play him each summer for free but not for long. Most of my skill is in Blitz but I enjoy Standard Chess as well. I am not serious like I used to be when I was trying to become an expert. Although, I still play on yahoo or at least I did. Since the have changed their interface, I can't play cuz my bad computer won't let me download the version of Flash I need. I will give you my msn to play whenever I can get actualy log on the yahoo. I suggest that players here who has not signed up for ICC do so asap. It is like the best place to play online.
wow neo your penis is so big because you are good at chess why don't you try talking normally? everyone here is better than you at something, and some people like me are better than you at everything. so how about you collect yourself and please address everyone with some attempt at respect and dignity? and if you insist on sounding intelligent at least learn how to not use so many semicolons awkwardly please, you pretentious fuck
Ok, here's my last tourney. Time control was 60 min + 10 sec., and I am Viktor Vasilev. If any wants this games in .pgn format for easy watching - PM me. As I said I am ready to play on playchess.com on any control between 3/0 to 15/10
No, I didn't lost on time. At about five minutes you can stop writing the moves. So almost all of the games have more moves that aren't written down. That specifik game I lost playing to win. All my friends told me afterwards that I somehow found the only way to loose it. T_T Edit: I have two more games with this chessplayer - one loss and one draw. You interested?
I see. After Nd3 it looks "easy" won (instead of 16. ... Ne5 just 16. ... Nf6 -> 17. ... 0-0), and also after 24. g4 you have the better Position (Penetration over the c-file and the sqaure d5 for the knight) -> playing for the win. Please show the other games. P.S. are you looking for comments to the games, or you just want to show them. Analysing and playing chessgames was my life, before somebody showed me broodwar
I assume you're from former Yugoslavia because you name Knight with S on notation. Just I am curious. You played competitive chess? Show some games? Chess is just hobby for me, so I analyze too little, mostly with Fritz.
On July 13 2006 21:23 NeoTheAKA wrote: M7Execellence, that sounds great. I'd love as many games as muster-able by someone affiliated with the Harvard chess club.
With the exception of One Page Memory, mdb, and Slayers91: the rest of you sound like idiots. And Inc excepted; though, he is a mediocre chess player.
I am sorry your Highness. We shall not open our dirty mouths in your presence again. I humbly apologize and would like to add that I will willingly spill my blood at your feet. Your greatness shadows us all.
Kind regards,
Your humble slave.
Ps. Have a look in the nearest dictionary, and check the word "arrogance". Then, check your posts and see if they match the description of said word.
Pps. Also, I would like to say that I agree with you - in this little world chess is all that matters!
If u mean tournement, - yes played earlier. Now only league, dont have time for more. Hier is a game, where i am losing to GM Michal Krasenkow (White), Bad Wiessee 99: 1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Qc2 g6 5. Bf4 Bf5 6. Qb3 Qb6 7. e3 Bg7 8. Nc3 Nbd7 9. c5 Qb3 10. ab3 0-0 11. h3 Ne4 12. b4 Rfe8 13. Be2 e5 14. de5 Ne5 15. Ne5 Be5 16. Be5 Re5 17. 0-0 a6 18. Rfd1 Rae8 19. Bf1 Kg7 20. Ne2 so fare so good, the plan involving my next two moves shows, why Krasenkow is a Grandmaster and im not 20. ... g5 21. Nd4 Bg6 22. f4 Re7 23. f5 Ng3 24. fg6 hg6 25. Ra3 Re3 26. Re3 Re3 27. Ba6 gg, nice ending of a won position. After 27. ... ba6 then 28. Kf2
Versus GM Hecht (White) i won this nice game (League 2002) 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. d4 Nbd7 6. Bd3 dc 7. Bc4 b5 8. Bd3 a6 9. e4 c5 10. d5 Bb7 11. 0-0 c4 12. Bc2 Qc7 13. Re1 Bc5 14. Bg5 0-0 15. e5 (Panik in a bad Position) Nd5 16. Ne4 Bb4 17. Re2 h6 18. a3 Ba5 19. Lh6 (Panik in a lost Position) gh 20. Qd4 f5 21. Nd6 Nc5 22. Qh4 Qg7 23. Nb7 Nb7 24. Nd4 Nc5 25. Rd1 Qg5 26. gg
On July 14 2006 13:13 maoam wrote: The S is for Springer or something, right?
Right!
Ng3 makes no sense, because: if the Plan with Ng3 is Nf5, then Nd6 -> Nf5 is much better because of the control of c4, which the Knight have from d6. On g3 the Knight only looks fancy, but that doesnt count in Chess.
On July 14 2006 12:02 UT-atma wrote: If u mean tournement, - yes played earlier. Now only league, dont have time for more. Hier is a game, where i am losing to GM Michal Krasenkow (White), Bad Wiessee 99: 1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Qc2 g6 5. Bf4 Bf5 6. Qb3 Qb6 7. e3 Bg7 8. Nc3 Nbd7 9. c5 Qb3 10. ab3 0-0 11. h3 Ne4 12. b4 Rfe8 13. Be2 e5 14. de5 Ne5 15. Ne5 Be5 16. Be5 Re5 17. 0-0 a6 18. Rfd1 Rae8 19. Bf1 Kg7 20. Ne2 so fare so good, the plan involving my next two moves shows, why Krasenkow is a Grandmaster and im not 20. ... g5 21. Nd4 Bg6 22. f4 Re7 23. f5 Ng3 24. fg6 hg6 25. Ra3 Re3 26. Re3 Re3 27. Ba6 gg, nice ending of a won position. After 27. ... ba6 then 28. Kf2
Versus GM Hecht (White) i won this nice game (League 2002) 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. d4 Nbd7 6. Bd3 dc 7. Bc4 b5 8. Bd3 a6 9. e4 c5 10. d5 Bb7 11. 0-0 c4 12. Bc2 Qc7 13. Re1 Bc5 14. Rg5 0-0 15. e5 (Panik in a bad Position) Nd5 16. Ne4 Bb4 17. Re2 h6 18. a3 Ba5 19. Lh6 (Panik in a lost Position) gh 20. Qd4 f5 21. Nd6 Nc5 22. Qh4 Qg7 23. Nb7 Nb7 24. Nd4 Nc5 25. Rd1 Qg5 26. gg
PS: S is N in German
The game with Krasenkow - T_T, but thats chess - one little neglect versus strong opponent - and BANG - you're dead. Second game - first one small typo - 14. Rg5 should be 14. Bg5. Well done, Fritz himself is very pleased with your moves. I remember first time I beated the tin monster (Fritz), the chatter was on and Fritz asked : "Garry, my friend is that you?" LOL Its a shame to quit chess for a BW. But I think that noone entered too much in chess like you will quit forever. Of course I am talking about competitive chess. Interested in blitzing on chessbase?
I wonder, why would someone brag about a yahoo chess rating? And then proceed to call blitz games stupid while in the same sentence suggesting to play a 10 minute game. I feel like I'm missing some very bad joke here.
LOL Well 10 minutes and about is called Action Chess. But I do agree with you about the Yahoo thing. I mentioned before that the true rating of yahoo players are about 200 to 300 points lower than what Yahoo says. By the way, who here plays on ICC?
Well my name on Yahoo is jdrenter2005 and I can at least play on the standard version of Yahoo chess. (the old one)
You can try online for some of the freeware java versions (supported by browser...no installation). They claim to be ELO 2000 but somehow I doubt that claim >_>
I won an 13 player 4rd swiss today with a performance rating of 2100 and beat a National Master. I'm down to play anyone. AIM - harshskills. ICC - JBlaze.
Sure we can do some blitzing, but i dont have a account anywhere. We can sign up at one of the free servers and makes some games, if you want. I wont have time from Thursday to Tuesday, but tomorrow and friday.
On July 16 2006 11:50 NeoTheAKA wrote: You're all idiots and suck at chess. I'll leave it at that to avoid any confusion in wordage.
Honestly, you come off as a condescending fuck. Ok, so you are great at chess - good for you! Does this mean you have to sound like you despise the rest of the world for not being as good?
Also, most people have actually replied on topic..
I really dont get NeoTheAKA's problem. I will gladly play a showmatch versus him to show, that we are not "all idiots and suck at chess", and to show that he was rather talking about himself.
Clearly neo sucks ass at chess lol. Id like to play some games vs BW players turns into you all idiots? hes just trying to get some self respect by boasting about his imaginary ratings. What a geek.
ICC is definitely a great site for chess, the best players are there, lots of titled players. I do not enjoy playing there though, so I play at FICS (hence the name i use). FICS has a friendlier atmosphere, some decent admins, and best of all, it is free. check it out at freechess.org
ICC is also doing away with guests playing games there, which I think is a big detractor for them, a lot of people take advantage of that and play for free there, but they probably get members from that pool.
I'm thinking of picking up an account there anyway, to get in on some action, when you are +2000, it is hard sometimes to get good games on fics
and dude, no offense intended to yahoo users, but Yahoo?? yahoo is quite possibly the worst online chess server. it has rampant cheating, no timeseal built in so lag is horrible for the game, and has such a bad interface for playing. if you want to play for free, check out freechess.
ICC is by far the best server online, FICS is probably second, and there is USCL, Yahoo, Chess.net, and PlayChess.. but the last 4 are really poor environments for players, they have either abusive admins, no admins, or no good players.
What's wrong with playchess? It has good players and the admins are active in catching cheaters...
I really dont get NeoTheAKA's problem. I will gladly play a showmatch versus him to show, that we are not "all idiots and suck at chess", and to show that he was rather talking about himself.
i havent been on playchess in a few years, last time i was on I did not like and I'd heard bad stories from a friend there.. that is cool that they have good admins now
Hi tl.net I play chess every day seriously and now I want to discuss it in a forum with starcraft players. You all know me becouse I was serious with starcraft before i got serious with chess instead.
I was really good at starcraft so you are stupid if you dont know my silly name. I refuse to play blitz games becouse then there's no time for me to consult my various AI:s.
"Evolution is the the biggest oxymoron of human studies: systematic randomality; evolving through devolvement; procuring infallibility by overlooking dead-ends to manifest ends beyond.
Christianity is the biggest oxymoron of human beliefs: absolute truth in a surrounding of lies; evidence found where no one can go; procuring infallibility by overlooking dead-ends to exist beyond the ends.
It's logical to assume anything with a shred of evidence is true. It's logical to assume anything with a shred of evidence is not true. Either way, emerges an assumption.
Infinite thought in a finite world, henceforth, an impossible internalization.
Somber, it is, when an individual is maddened at the inquirer in consequence of being unable to answer a question.
On July 16 2006 14:19 woden[FICS] wrote: ICC is definitely a great site for chess, the best players are there, lots of titled players. I do not enjoy playing there though, so I play at FICS (hence the name i use). FICS has a friendlier atmosphere, some decent admins, and best of all, it is free. check it out at freechess.org
ICC is also doing away with guests playing games there, which I think is a big detractor for them, a lot of people take advantage of that and play for free there, but they probably get members from that pool.
I'm thinking of picking up an account there anyway, to get in on some action, when you are +2000, it is hard sometimes to get good games on fics
and dude, no offense intended to yahoo users, but Yahoo?? yahoo is quite possibly the worst online chess server. it has rampant cheating, no timeseal built in so lag is horrible for the game, and has such a bad interface for playing. if you want to play for free, check out freechess.
ICC is by far the best server online, FICS is probably second, and there is USCL, Yahoo, Chess.net, and PlayChess.. but the last 4 are really poor environments for players, they have either abusive admins, no admins, or no good players.
This is spot-on. I have an ICC membership because of all the things you get from Grandmaster lectures and simuls, to 30 people on hand at a time to answer a question, to non-stop tournaments... I could go on and on but if you want to approach Chess like PGTour then you should get ICC, if you want to just play on B.net then get FICS.
Interesting read. Would be interesting to know more about the Results of the investigation. In my Chess Club some of the Higherranked Player (about 5% of them) play blitz a lot stronger than they play 2h/40Move chess, - about +150 elo and beat players they would normally not win against.
There will generally not be a big difference between someones Blitz performence rating and someones standard time control performance rating. So a 2200 FIDE player will generally not lose a Blitz game to an 1800 FIDE player, even if the 1800 player is better at Blitz than he is at regular play. However, the higher the skill level the smaller the differences become at which point it is quite possible for a 2600 GM to beat a 2800 GM that rarely plays Blitz games. The difference between a 2600 GM and a top GM can be found in factors like calculation power, tournament and game stamina, thorough opening preparation and deep endgame understanding. Blitz games just cut out certain aspects of the game (calculation power mostly, but things like opening preparation aren't as important in Blitz games as they are in tournament play either) and focus on a select few aspects of the game (tactics and chess instinct/experience for Blitz basically).
It's like how every Starcraft pro is very good at microing but that doesn't mean that the best progamer is the best microer.
On July 17 2006 13:28 Sr18 wrote: There will generally not be a big difference between someones Blitz performence rating and someones standard time control performance rating. So a 2200 FIDE player will generally not lose a Blitz game to an 1800 FIDE player, even if the 1800 player is better at Blitz than he is at regular play. However, the higher the skill level the smaller the differences become at which point it is quite possible for a 2600 GM to beat a 2800 GM that rarely plays Blitz games. The difference between a 2600 GM and a top GM can be found in factors like calculation power, tournament and game stamina, thorough opening preparation and deep endgame understanding. Blitz games just cut out certain aspects of the game (calculation power mostly, but things like opening preparation aren't as important in Blitz games as they are in tournament play either) and focus on a select few aspects of the game (tactics and chess instinct/experience for Blitz basically).
It's like how every Starcraft pro is very good at microing but that doesn't mean that the best progamer is the best microer.
good post
it is really interesting breaking apart how people play at different time controls and in different conditions. the best (probably still the best) speed chess player in the world is a guy on ICC named "Hawkeye." He's a Grandmaster; however, he's been the best in the world for a really long time and during his reign he was not always a GM - he was an IM and an FM (which are steps down from Grandmaster level) He would frequently DESTROY the top people of the game at 1 minute chess games even though he was not the better player at slow games.
Sort of reminds me of B.net people playing ladder at FAST speed back in the day.
chess is a lot of fun, i've played about 1000 blitz games (speed 3-14 minutes a game) and 30,000+ lightning (1 minute games) they are so addictive
Has anyone ever played on chessanytime.com? I stumbled across it yesterday and it has a very nice interface and you can play for free as a guest. I only played one game, so I don't know about the skill level.
On July 17 2006 13:50 One Page Memory wrote: Welcome on board (TL Chess Club) maoam. Good games, I really liked first one. What software do you use?
For analysing I use Junior, I used to use Crafty.
Talking about playchess.com, does anyone remember Raffael, the mysterious player who demolished everyone? Did they ever find out who it was (I guessed Svidler)?
He's still demolishing everyone, and the latest guess (I think) is that it's Morozevich, though no one knows for certain. I personally prefer to use Fritz 9 for analyzing, but to each his own.
Hey, I have a question to all of the chess players here; isn't it discouraging to know that a computer can play better than the best humans, than the best you could possibly play? It seems very discouraging to me somehow.
On July 18 2006 18:19 FrozenArbiter wrote: Hey, I have a question to all of the chess players here; isn't it discouraging to know that a computer can play better than the best humans, than the best you could possibly play? It seems very discouraging to me somehow.
Hi Frozen,
I'm a Chess IM, and a friend mine pointed this thread to me a few days ago. I haven't posted earlier cause it's pretty obvious that some of the posts come from hack/newb players (nothing against them), however this particular comment called my attention.
It's not discouraging at all, here's why:
A human brain's size is about 5''x4'', and weights a bit more than a pound ? If my brain was sized at 1 meter width x 2 meter height, and weighted 50 pounds, and had 2 Units with a dual core 5th generation processor (something like a Pentium 10), with 10 gigas of RAM, then I would probably feel discouraged.
What I'm trying to say is, most chess players can't keep up with a machine like Deep Fritz, Deep Junior or Deep Blue. Those machines are able to crush almost every single player in the world. Now if you refer to normal Fritz or Chessmater, those are winnable games. An average player, I'm talking about a player like myself that has a solid menu and knows -and I mean KNOWS BY MEMORY a bunch of openings can easly defeat them -pretty much like I'm sure you know by memory Brood War openings to defeat PCs and even human players. I own a dual processor PC (of course a normal one like yours), which allows me to set Fritz to a very high difficulty setting and deep calculation, and I can beat him with ease.
Now back to the Deep PCs. The other element that computers have on their side -and to me the most important when talking about humans vs pcs- is the emotional part: computers don't -and won't- get scared or intimidated when their opponent attack them. They won't get excited when they have their opponent against the ropes -and normally won't make mistakes, which humans do when they're winning-. A computer won't sweat, won't feel adrenaline in their cirquits, won't get altered because someone screemed in the room. Having no emotions in chess ? That's a very very very very good advantage. If you have doubts, ask Boris Spassky, who couldn't handle Bobby Fischer's psycological pressure during their Championship in 1972. People say Fishcer's first win was the 4th game of that series, but that's a lie. His first victory was when he took Spassky to play his game with the whole scenario in the match. Another example, was Kasparov choking vs Deeper Blue in 1998. He had a winning position in game #2, and somehow the PC played a totally unexpected move -at least for PCs that's what Kasparov said- which caught him off guard and made him lose the position and the game: he underestimated the PC, and played as he was playing vs a PC. He said that it wasn't the PC playing, he said that some moves were made by a GM, he said that there was a conspiration against him, bla bla bla this, yada yada yada that. He never recoverred MENTALLY from the loss and couldn't bring himself together to win the series (you can do a google search on the match, and read it from Kasparov himself). He couldn't stand the fact that he was facing his equal (or superior). When you play against an opponent, you have to worry about your game not his. Doesn't matter if you're playing a pc, a human or an alien. Just sit down and play that's all. And while Kasparov kept thinking and thinking day after day about that game he had won and eventually lost, Computers won't think over the game they lost yesterday, and won't have a bad sleep night. See where I'm getting ?
Newb players and some club and average players will have problems defeating fritz and chessmaster, but it's just a matter of practice and learning the openings and their vatiations in order to see when the program fails or slips.
Playing chess vs a machine is like using a calculator. You don't get discouraged in your life because a calculator can give you the result of square root of 32923 in just 1 second do you?
yea FA i don't get your question, in what way would it be discouraging? the human body is itself a computer that we instruct, when you move your arm or use your eyeballs you are utilizing tools. you can not walk across the room or even see the room without tools, does this discourage you?
And the biggest problem with engines is that they do not and cannot understand chess. They have formidable tactics through deep calculation but luckily for us humans chess doesn't end with calculation.
On July 18 2006 18:19 FrozenArbiter wrote: Hey, I have a question to all of the chess players here; isn't it discouraging to know that a computer can play better than the best humans, than the best you could possibly play? It seems very discouraging to me somehow.
Hi Frozen,
I'm a Chess IM, and a friend mine pointed this thread to me a few days ago. I haven't posted earlier cause it's pretty obvious that some of the posts come from hack/newb players (nothing against them), however this particular comment called my attention.
It's not discouraging at all, here's why:
A human brain's size is about 5''x4'', and weights a bit more than a pound ? If my brain was sized at 1 meter width x 2 meter height, and weighted 50 pounds, and had 2 Units with a dual core 5th generation processor (something like a Pentium 10), with 10 gigas of RAM, then I would probably feel discouraged.
What I'm trying to say is, most chess players can't keep up with a machine like Deep Fritz, Deep Junior or Deep Blue. Those machines are able to crush almost every single player in the world. Now if you refer to normal Fritz or Chessmater, those are winnable games. An average player, I'm talking about a player like myself that has a solid menu and knows -and I mean KNOWS BY MEMORY a bunch of openings can easly defeat them -pretty much like I'm sure you know by memory Brood War openings to defeat PCs and even human players. I own a dual processor PC (of course a normal one like yours), which allows me to set Fritz to a very high difficulty setting and deep calculation, and I can beat him with ease.
Now back to the Deep PCs. The other element that computers have on their side -and to me the most important when talking about humans vs pcs- is the emotional part: computers don't -and won't- get scared or intimidated when their opponent attack them. They won't get excited when they have their opponent against the ropes -and normally won't make mistakes, which humans do when they're winning-. A computer won't sweat, won't feel adrenaline in their cirquits, won't get altered because someone screemed in the room. Having no emotions in chess ? That's a very very very very good advantage. If you have doubts, ask Boris Spassky, who couldn't handle Bobby Fischer's psycological pressure during their Championship in 1972. People say Fishcer's first win was the 4th game of that series, but that's a lie. His first victory was when he took Spassky to play his game with the whole scenario in the match. Another example, was Kasparov choking vs Deeper Blue in 1998. He had a winning position in game #2, and somehow the PC played a totally unexpected move -at least for PCs that's what Kasparov said- which caught him off guard and made him lose the position and the game: he underestimated the PC, and played as he was playing vs a PC. He said that it wasn't the PC playing, he said that some moves were made by a GM, he said that there was a conspiration against him, bla bla bla this, yada yada yada that. He never recoverred MENTALLY from the loss and couldn't bring himself together to win the series (you can do a google search on the match, and read it from Kasparov himself). He couldn't stand the fact that he was facing his equal (or superior). When you play against an opponent, you have to worry about your game not his. Doesn't matter if you're playing a pc, a human or an alien. Just sit down and play that's all. And while Kasparov kept thinking and thinking day after day about that game he had won and eventually lost, Computers won't think over the game they lost yesterday, and won't have a bad sleep night. See where I'm getting ?
Newb players and some club and average players will have problems defeating fritz and chessmaster, but it's just a matter of practice and learning the openings and their vatiations in order to see when the program fails or slips.
Playing chess vs a machine is like using a calculator. You don't get discouraged in your life because a calculator can give you the result of square root of 32923 in just 1 second do you?
Frankly i didnt read your whole post crystalis, but the introduction turned me off. What does brain size have to do with anything? First of all it has been proven that the size does not influence the potential, and besides that, human brain is something much more complex then any machine. Oh yeah, human brain weights 3 pounds rather.
On July 18 2006 20:16 a-game wrote: yea FA i don't get your question, in what way would it be discouraging? the human body is itself a computer that we instruct, when you move your arm or use your eyeballs you are utilizing tools. you can not walk across the room or even see the room without tools, does this discourage you?
I think you're missin the point. It's scary to think that in a system as closed as chess, in which there is a definite, quantifiable morality (winning > losing, at its simplest), humans are essentially obsolete and yet still devote their lives to the practice. His passion is a game at which he is universally worse than a computer is. It's disappointing (potentially) because he can never be "the best."
I haven't played chess seriously for years, but I used to be of the opinion that winning was secondary to style/elegance. I like morphy best, even if he wasn't the greatest ever, just because he made beautiful games. i think humans can still make more beautiful games than computers. for now.
yea but my point is who cares if computers can do things we cant, i don't think any humans play chess with 'beating computers' as a goal in their mind, just like runners don't aim to beat cheetahs, weightlifters dont aim to beat elephants, swimmers dont aim to beat dolphins, jumpers dont aim to beat kangaroos, etc etc.
On July 20 2006 01:51 a-game wrote: yea but my point is who cares if computers can do things we cant, i don't think any humans play chess with 'beating computers' as a goal in their mind, just like runners don't aim to beat cheetahs, weightlifters dont aim to beat elephants, swimmers dont aim to beat dolphins, jumpers dont aim to beat kangaroos, etc etc.
Yes but maybe your missing FA's point ?? (Or I misinterpreted it ) Regardless I share that sentiment, if it is indeed shared. Cheetah's and many other animals can run faster than humans, always have done and always will. There's no point in getting upset about that. Elephants and many other animals are stronger than humans, always have been and always will be. There's also no point in getting upset about that. Chess is a game of intelligence, of using pure thought to defeat your opponent. Nothing in this universe, to our knowledge, ever has/will rival our intelligence, we are unique. Nothing is smarter than we are. Oh shit, something is, a computer. And we made it. DOH!
Edit: Maybe that should be encouraging however, as the only thing better than us was made by us
On July 20 2006 01:51 a-game wrote: yea but my point is who cares if computers can do things we cant, i don't think any humans play chess with 'beating computers' as a goal in their mind, just like runners don't aim to beat cheetahs, weightlifters dont aim to beat elephants, swimmers dont aim to beat dolphins, jumpers dont aim to beat kangaroos, etc etc.
Yes but maybe your missing FA's point ?? (Or I misinterpreted it ) Regardless I share that sentiment, if it is indeed shared. Cheetah's and many other animals can run faster than humans, always have done and always will. There's no point in getting upset about that. Elephants and many other animals are stronger than humans, always have been and always will be. There's also no point in getting upset about that. Chess is a game of intelligence, of using pure thought to defeat your opponent. Nothing in this universe, to our knowledge, ever has/will rival our intelligence, we are unique. Nothing is smarter than we are. Oh shit, something is, a computer. And we made it. DOH!
Edit: Maybe that should be encouraging however, as the only thing better than us was made by us
You cant say a computer is "smarter" than us. Computers do not think. They process information. Alot of information.
On July 18 2006 18:19 FrozenArbiter wrote: Hey, I have a question to all of the chess players here; isn't it discouraging to know that a computer can play better than the best humans, than the best you could possibly play? It seems very discouraging to me somehow.
If you consider that a computer using raw calculation CANNOT beat you when you reach decent strength(1600 elo); it's not discouraging. Computers get to reference opening databases so they play the beginning of the game almost perfectly, then they have all type of programming to assess middlegame themes and this is where they shine. Though they still SUCK in closed positions. Lastly, they have tablebases which are huge files where simpler endgames have been calculated to infinity so that the computer plays them perfectly. Honestly, playing a computer is really about working on staying even tactically while positionally outmanouvering the computer.
Hawkeye WAS the most accomplished 1 minute player in the world. He was ranked like 166 in the world during that time. SMALLVILLE(icc handle), aka Hikaru Nakamura, has set damn near every ratings record on ICC, Nakamura(born in 1987) is currently ranked 4th in the USA and 80th in the World. His FIDE elo is 2632 while Vasily Topalov recently acheived an elo of 2813. These players gain appx 12-18 elo pts per win vs a like-rated opponent.
Here is a game played by Hikaru Nakamura versus a computer rated at blitz 3500+ (naka is 3300). The time control is game in 3 minutes with 1 second added after each move. Nakamura finished the game with over 2:30minutes on his clock.
These players gain appx 12-18 elo pts per win vs a like-rated opponent.
No way, not if you're talking about elo and not the ICC rating. There is no way that elo can fluctuate nearly that much for a single game.
If you consider that a computer using raw calculation CANNOT beat you when you reach decent strength(1600 elo); it's not discouraging. Computers get to reference opening databases so they play the beginning of the game almost perfectly, then they have all type of programming to assess middlegame themes and this is where they shine. Though they still SUCK in closed positions. Lastly, they have tablebases which are huge files where simpler endgames have been calculated to infinity so that the computer plays them perfectly.
Almost all computers use raw calculation; while all programs have some weight placed on certain values (ie: isolated pawn, doubled pawns, control of the center, sacrificing pawns, etc), it's almost entirely based on a move-by-move computation of the position. And let's keep in mind what we mean by a computer sucking at closed positions; top of the line computers will beat anyone not a GM and some of the GMs as well.
I personally don't really care that a computer can beat a human. It's just like a car being able to outrace an athlete; it's something that we can't really compete with.
You're mistaken. Yes elo will fluctuate 12 points from beating an opponent with the same rating. No, computers don't use almost entirely raw calculation. Lastly, I can beat Fritz (elo 2600) in a number of closed positions. Don't state your ideas as fact.
Yes elo will fluctuate 12 points from beating an opponent with the same rating.
According to: http://www.fide.com/ratings/calculator_rtd.phtml , the change will only be 5 (I used Rc:2600, W-1, N-1, Ro-2600, K - 10 as settings for one and Rc:2800, W-1, N-1, Ro-2800, K - 10 for the other). Maybe it's wrong or maybe not, but I'll take its word on it.
Lastly, I can beat Fritz (elo 2600) in a number of closed positions.
Care to share some games with Fritz 9 in which you do so (regular time controls, opening book and endgame tablebases included)? I'm sure that Kramnik would love your help in preparing for his match. It's not so easy to beat a toplevel computer...
No, computers don't use almost entirely raw calculation.
Why do you think this? AFAIK, computers calculate variations, with weight given to certain factors in the position and tactics. However, most of their candidate moves will be based on calculating a line, then thinking that at the end, that line will give the computer the most advantage or decrease the opponent's advantage the most (giving it the horizon effect, where the computer can't properly evaluate the resulting position because it lies outside its calculating ability). Sure, a program can put priority on different aspects of the position. But it doesn't have... say, the strategical depth that a human does (it doesn't play 'with a plan').
Deep Blue 200 Million moves a second. Kasparov 3 moves a second. Maybe technically true, however.
Every human has the ablility to throw out hundreds of millions of bad lines without even thinking about it. Humans just analyse a handful of canidate moves (GMs can spot these candiate moves very quickly) that help their plan. After some analysis on each canidate move, the make the move that helps them most - or the one that helps their plan while also hindering the opponents plan to a degree. Usally, they pick the double-edged one that helps them, and hinders the opponent.
FIDE uses a different elo formula than USCF and I didn't realize the K was so low for 2400+. You're right about the rating changes being less for those players. For the majority of us elo points will change more significantly with wins or losses.
I cannot beat Fritz from start to finish with opening book on because it will avoid a number of anti-computer lines. But, my point was that there are a number of closed positions that I as a only fairly decent tournament player can beat the computer in. I beat Fritz in the position in the Nakamura game above when Fritz's eval was in half a pawn in it's own favor.
I guess I didn't quite know what you were getting at with saying 'raw calculation.' You have to program more and more components into how the computer assesses a position to make it stronger, it has much less to do with pure brute calculation in determining how strong the computer is. So in that sense I don't consider it raw calculation. Furthermore, they use their opening books and tablebases. There are a number of lines that you can get Fritz or any other engine to slip into when they are without any opening book and these are just simple technical wins.
Didnt Kasparov have a rematch and eventually beat the computer at least in 1 game? And while we are on the subject, who do you guys think was the greatest chess player ever?
On July 22 2006 23:29 Slaughter)BiO wrote: Didnt Kasparov have a rematch and eventually beat the computer at least in 1 game? And while we are on the subject, who do you guys think was the greatest chess player ever?
i don't play chess and i don't pretend to understand it (but i'm interested in it =P) , and i want to ask a question to you guys that do: top starcraft pros are distinguished by their style, superior micro/macro/timing sense, etc. - do GMs and the top players of chess also have flairs and different strengths? can they win by mind games, make up 'builds,' go in with certain strategies, or is each game determined by pure stamina, memorized moves, intuition and analytical power? if given the transcript (is this what 'replays' of chess are called?) of a match, can you recognize instantly who is playing? for example one can tell ipx apart by his macro habits and godly muta control, and in_dove by his sick skterran.
in short, what makes a rank #1 player better than another GM if both have enormous amounts of practice, theory, and experience?
i don't play chess and i don't pretend to understand it (but i'm interested in it =P) , and i want to ask a question to you guys that do: top starcraft pros are distinguished by their style, superior micro/macro/timing sense, etc. - do GMs and the top players of chess also have flairs and different strengths? can they win by mind games, make up 'builds,' go in with certain strategies, or is each game determined by pure stamina, memorized moves, intuition and analytical power? if given the transcript (is this what 'replays' of chess are called?) of a match, can you recognize instantly who is playing? for example one can tell ipx apart by his macro habits and godly muta control, and in_dove by his sick skterran.
Usually, unless it's someone that has a distinctive style like Karpov, Kasparov, Tal, Capablanca, Fischer or Morphy, it isn't that easy to tell the difference. They have distinctive style that they have made their 'own'. Nowadays, you have to be a universal player (good at attack, defense, tactics, strategy and endgame technique) to succeed at a top level, which means that no one really has a distinct style of their own. The games themselves are a mixture of stamina (6 hour games can really, really tire you out physically as well as mentally- top chess players have to workout to prepare for a match), experience, intuition, analyzing and opening theory. Each player has his own little 'criteria' for subtly evaluating the position in one way or another, even if certain factors (ie: material) are usually always given the same weight.
Basically, psychology plays a much larger role in chess than something liek Starcraft, I think. In chess, doubt and other emotions can creep in, while in Starcraft, there's always action, stuff to do. But in chess, what can you do while the opponent is pondering his move? Nothing, except just look at the board and try to guess what his move will be and what you will do, or to reanalyze a certain line on the board. Psychology also has to do with opening theory; you want to try and draw the opponent into a position that he's uncomfortable and one in which you've analzed. While it is possible for a top player to beat another in a line he's worked out at home (Kramnik-Leko 0-1 in their world championship match comes to mind, along with the famous Capablance-Marshall 1-0 game in which Marshall uncorks his Marshall gambit for the first time but Capa manages to beat him, a game which is considered by many to be one of the best of all time), it's a hard way to earn your bread money.
in short, what makes a rank #1 player better than another GM if both have enormous amounts of practice, theory, and experience?
The way they evaluate the position of each candidate move. Some GMs can pick out the best lines immediately, and some GMs take some more time. The better they are at picking out the key moves in a position, the stronger they will be, as they waste less time looking at inferior prospects. Naturally, the stronger player will sometimes also 'see' a move that another GM completely misses.
You're right about the rating changes being less for those players. For the majority of us elo points will change more significantly with wins or losses.
Even for us (even taking it down to 1000), it's only 7.5 for the rating change at K=15. AFAIK, the change is always the same, even if you're a 1000 taking on a 1000, or a 2500 taking on a 2500. But yeah, most chess federations and FIDE have different formulas.
I guess I didn't quite know what you were getting at with saying 'raw calculation.'
All I'm saying is that they evaluate positions entirely based on variations, not for anything subtle like 'ideas' or 'plans' in the position. They'll look at the line and assess the end. It's a result of pure number crunching, not a 'feel' for a position.
The Elo (FIDE) development coefficient for rating change is:
25 for a player new to the rating list until he has completed events with a total of at least 30 games. 15 as long as a player`s rating remains under 2400. 10 once a player`s published rating has reached 2400, and he has also completed events with a total of at least 30 games. Thereafter it remains permanently at 10.
Which means a player with less than 30 Elorated games, gains 12,5 point winning against an opponent with the same rating.
it's cool to see there are some starcraft players that also like chess; I personally feel that getting better at chess helped my starcraft and vice-versa (to an extent). I noticed that playing oodles of chess has improved other things I do also (strategy games, sports).
sounds like we have some good chess players here from the quality of the posts
Out of the six of you I've played, winning has been about as difficult as figuring out what to do after 1.g4 e5; 2. f3.
If perhaps there is actually another Starcraft player inherently good enough at chess to beat this one, I'll still be playing often for the next two months.
On July 27 2006 20:58 NeoTheAKA wrote: Out of the six of you I've played, winning has been about as difficult as figuring out what to do after 1.g4 e5; 2. f3.
If perhaps there is actually another Starcraft player inherently good enough at chess to beat this one, I'll still be playing often for the next two months.
Me, but not on Yahoo! for obvious reasons. Playchess.com is very good IMHO, but I can install ICC if you insist.
On July 27 2006 20:58 NeoTheAKA wrote: Out of the six of you I've played, winning has been about as difficult as figuring out what to do after 1.g4 e5; 2. f3.
If perhaps there is actually another Starcraft player inherently good enough at chess to beat this one, I'll still be playing often for the next two months.
I'd sooner smash a chessboard over your head than play you on one after having seen the posts you made here.
On July 27 2006 20:58 NeoTheAKA wrote: If perhaps there is actually another Starcraft player inherently good enough at chess to beat this one, I'll still be playing often for the next two months.
I'm going to mail Kramnik my Broodwar CD, you cock.
NeotheAKA, just shut up. Back up your claims with the game scores; if not, why the hell should we believe you?
One Page Memory, if you ever manage to plan a game against the idiot (somehow, I doubt it); he's gonna dodge against everyone with a decent rating), PM me with the time/chess server you'll be playing on. I'll try my best to watch.
On July 27 2006 20:58 NeoTheAKA wrote: Out of the six of you I've played, winning has been about as difficult as figuring out what to do after 1.g4 e5; 2. f3.
Best thing I've read on this website...ever.
I laughed so hard that I actually vomited a little bit in my mouth...a little bit.
id love to play this guy 1900+ yahoo, he claims, fucking hilarious
first off, anyone saying they are 1900+ usually means they just reached 1900 and finally can call themselves "1900+". 1900 is nothing to brag about on any server, least of all YAHOO. Yahoo is far and wide known to be the weakest of all the online chess servers. a 1900 at yahoo is probably equivalent to a 1700 at FICS or ICC.
Yahoo chess is a joke. There might be a few actual decent players that play there, but most have probably long fled to the real chess servers out there. Yahoo has tons of abuse; they have no timestamp, people can abandon games they are losing and get no penalty for it, not even a loss! Every other decent server has measures in place to prevent that, saving adjourned games, etc. There is rampant computer cheating there and nothing in place to curb it or stop it in any way whatsoever.
P.S. anyone who refuses to play low time controls, (such as 5 min games online) is either a really old man, a fish, or a computer cheater. I am not saying that every good player has to be able to play fast games online, but refusing to do so is suspect of foul play. That is WHY grandmasters and other titled players play so many fast games online, BECAUSE you dont have enough time to let a computer make the moves and transcribe them into the console.
Black always makes a move symmetric to whites move. (if 1. d4 then 1. ... d5, if 2. Sc3 then 2. ... Sc6, if 3. Lf4 then 3. ... Lf5 and so on) How many moves does white need to mate black?
On July 27 2006 20:58 NeoTheAKA wrote: Out of the six of you I've played, winning has been about as difficult as figuring out what to do after 1.g4 e5; 2. f3.
If perhaps there is actually another Starcraft player inherently good enough at chess to beat this one, I'll still be playing often for the next two months.
I'd sooner smash a chessboard over your head than play you on one after having seen the posts you made here.
On July 28 2006 16:14 UT-atma wrote: For lovers of chessproblems:
Black always makes a move symmetric to whites move. (if 1. d4 then 1. ... d5, if 2. Sc3 then 2. ... Sc6, if 3. Lf4 then 3. ... Lf5 and so on) How many moves does white need to mate black?
I managed six. Can it be done faster? It seems too slow :-(.
On July 28 2006 16:14 UT-atma wrote: For lovers of chessproblems:
Black always makes a move symmetric to whites move. (if 1. d4 then 1. ... d5, if 2. Sc3 then 2. ... Sc6, if 3. Lf4 then 3. ... Lf5 and so on) How many moves does white need to mate black?
I managed six. Can it be done faster? It seems too slow :-(.
It is slow in fact. I found 2 solutions with 4 moves. + Show Spoiler +
1. c2-c4 c7-c6 2. Qd1-a4 Qd8-a5 3. Qa4-c6 Qa5-c3 4. Qc6:c8 X Other solution - use your mind!
Edit: Ok, I am sure this is the most edited opinion for this year! Here is an upgraded variant of this puzzle: Still both sides makes symmetrical moves. White must force mate to their own king. How many moves needed? Also its interesting to solve the original problem with all the pieces. Here is what I found for the mate with the mighty Rook: + Show Spoiler +
I'm undefeated against TL.net and B.net east competition. The best player I have found was wesjones86(aim) an east x17'er that doesn't post on tl.net. Kdog3682 and Frost(TE) are fun guys to play with. AIM: harshskills ICC: JBlaze NeoTheAKA is a complete jackass, he aim'd me to play and I told him to fuckoff. Shortly thereafter I got a different aim from someone asking me to play but they wouldn't tell me their tl.net handle. It was obviously Neo smurfing. Here is the game: [Event "ICC 20 0 u"] [Site "Internet Chess Club"] [Date "2006.07.27"] [Round "-"] [White "guest3451"] [Black "JBlaze"] [Result "0-1"] [ICCResult "White checkmated"] [BlackElo "1814"] [Opening "Scandinavian defense"] [ECO "B01"] [NIC "SD.03"] [Time "17:21:31"] [TimeControl "1200+0"]
On July 28 2006 16:14 UT-atma wrote: For lovers of chessproblems:
Black always makes a move symmetric to whites move. (if 1. d4 then 1. ... d5, if 2. Sc3 then 2. ... Sc6, if 3. Lf4 then 3. ... Lf5 and so on) How many moves does white need to mate black?
This Problem is very famous, so most of you probably know it:
In a insense endgame the white King falls of the board. As white wants to place the King on the board again, he dont remember where it was. The other pieces on the board are: White: Ba4 Black: Kd1, Rb5, Bd5
on which square was the King? Only one solution. (Im on vacation, but i will give you the solution in a week)
Bd5+ I guess. I mean, whites king HAS to be on b3 to block the white bishop checking blacks king. Otherwise the position is either illegal (both kings in check) or it's blacks move so he can move the king away (but then there would be more than one solution, which is not right). So Kb3 is the only possible positition as far as my feeble chess-mind is considered. So blacks last move must have been Bd5 check, somewhere from the a8-h1 diagonal.
Bd5+ I guess. I mean, whites king HAS to be on b3 to block the white bishop checking blacks king. Otherwise the position is either illegal (both kings in check) or it's blacks move so he can move the king away (but then there would be more than one solution, which is not right). So Kb3 is the only possible positition as far as my feeble chess-mind is considered. So blacks last move must have been Bd5 check, somewhere from the a8-h1 diagonal.
You do realise that this would be possible only if black Rook was on b8. Then possible move is Bb7-d5++ - all ok. BUT the Rook is on b5. So no possible move Bd5 as you suggest. It's not possible after white's moves their King still to be in check (Rb5). But with black Rook on b5 your solution don't work.
A) White last move must a have been a check. White last move cant have been a bischofmove, because then Black would already have been in check during whites move. White last moves must have been a kingmove from b3 to ??
B) White on b3 would then have been in 2xcheck, this 2xcheck can only occure, if blacks last move was pawn b4 takes white pawn c3 (going from c2 to c4) en passant. (If it was a Bischof- or Rookmove, white would have been check during Blacks move)
From the Position:
White: Kb3, Ba4, c2 Black: Kd1, Rb5, Bd5, b4
you reach the Puzzleposition by: 1. c2-c4 b4-c3ep+ 2. Kb3-c3+
On July 11 2006 23:15 NeoTheAKA wrote: According Blackjack, there are a select few from tl.net who are \"very good\" chess players. I\'m here for such that of a selection.
I played BW fanatically for seven years (I\'m sure most of you remember me), and quit playing last year. Chess is where I\'ve been ever since (likewise during the BW era, but not quite as assiduously and intensely). If there is anyone intellectually capable of putting up a decent fight for the unfortunate futility bound by the fate of opposition, I\'m a 1900+ Yahoo. (The \"Yahoo\" is my noun.) I play every day. It\'d be wonderful to find some good chess competition from BW players; so far no good.
On July 28 2006 22:32 ChoboCop wrote: I'm undefeated against TL.net and B.net east competition. The best player I have found was wesjones86(aim) an east x17'er that doesn't post on tl.net. Kdog3682 and Frost(TE) are fun guys to play with. AIM: harshskills ICC: JBlaze NeoTheAKA is a complete jackass, he aim'd me to play and I told him to fuckoff. Shortly thereafter I got a different aim from someone asking me to play but they wouldn't tell me their tl.net handle. It was obviously Neo smurfing. Here is the game: [Event "ICC 20 0 u"] [Site "Internet Chess Club"] [Date "2006.07.27"] [Round "-"] [White "guest3451"] [Black "JBlaze"] [Result "0-1"] [ICCResult "White checkmated"] [BlackElo "1814"] [Opening "Scandinavian defense"] [ECO "B01"] [NIC "SD.03"] [Time "17:21:31"] [TimeControl "1200+0"]
ChoboCup, you're an idiot. I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. "Shortly thereafter I got a different aim from someone asking me to play but they wouldn't tell me their tl.net handle. It was obviously Neo smurfing." Are you kidding me?
I've been playing a lot of BW lately, but I'm still here. l3randt is still my AIM and brandte222@hotmail.com is still my MSN. No clue how you idiots come up with this stuff, but I don't "smurf," "dodge," or "hack" in chess. l3randt is my main account on Yahoo and I'll gladly play any of you and take the wins.
This guy is by far the best player I've played from Bnet so far. The jerk made me dl the ICC program because he despises Yahoo to an unreasonable (and inconvenient) degree though.
Ok, some games? It's good that both of you respect each other. I will gladly play both of you. ChoboCop - my ICC account expired, I was looking for you several days but with no success. I am not willing to play Yahoo!, so I suggest Playchess.com. I can play everyday at about 10.00 TL Net time.
On August 17 2006 01:44 One Page Memory wrote: Ok, some games? It's good that both of you respect each other. I will gladly play both of you. ChoboCop - my ICC account expired, I was looking for you several days but with no success. I am not willing to play Yahoo!, so I suggest Playchess.com. I can play everyday at about 10.00 TL Net time.
You need to get yourself AIM or MSN. We're both on it and in the ICC game chat right now.
ICC - I have no credit card, I can't pay, and most important - I am not willing to pay. Still I live in Bulgaria. However few days ago I asked for one of our clubs players account - he is FIDE IM and he said he will give me the details, since he isn't using it. Then we can play ICC.
On August 17 2006 01:37 NeoTheAKA wrote: This guy is by far the best player I've played from Bnet so far. The jerk made me dl the ICC program because he despises Yahoo to an unreasonable (and inconvenient) degree though.
what is the best site in ur opinion for som1 starting out chess .. Yes I have played chess before and ofcourse know the rules but ive never played more than 3 games in 1 day in my entire life so ;X (ussaully not more than about 9 a year >_< )
On August 17 2006 01:37 NeoTheAKA wrote: This guy is by far the best player I've played from Bnet so far. The jerk made me dl the ICC program because he despises Yahoo to an unreasonable (and inconvenient) degree though.
@OPM yeah i was dumb enough to think that one can count acutally all the "moves"... lol 5949 moves are real big variety sure... T_T
@FA thx for the site I'll start playing as soon as getting used to the basic rules dude~_~ kinda beginning now u know-_- and it's no dumb shit, I lived 15 years in Korea to beginn SC and Baduk abroadㅡ_ㅡ sucks.
how are the Japanese ranks? I only know the Korean system...(amateur 18gp/amat. 7dan/pros 9dan)
On August 22 2006 11:55 NeVeRDiEDrOnE wrote: @OPM yeah i was dumb enough to think that one can count acutally all the "moves"... lol 5949 moves are real big variety sure... T_T
@FA thx for the site I'll start playing as soon as getting used to the basic rules dude~_~ kinda beginning now u know-_- and it's no dumb shit, I lived 15 years in Korea to beginn SC and Baduk abroadㅡ_ㅡ sucks.
how are the Japanese ranks? I only know the Korean system...(amateur 18gp/amat. 7dan/pros 9dan)
On August 22 2006 13:41 ml1710 wrote: isn't it possible to have infinite moves? since you can keep moving some pieces back and forth?
No. Why? Because there is simple rule - 50 moves without taking or moving a pawn - draw. Clear now?
Not 100% true. A game is not automatically draw after 50 moves without taking or moving a pawn. A game is only draw accordingly to to the 50-move rule, if one of the player is claiming draw. They can legally (!) continue playing until the dead of one of the players, if not a time limit stops the game.
On August 22 2006 13:41 ml1710 wrote: isn't it possible to have infinite moves? since you can keep moving some pieces back and forth?
No. Why? Because there is simple rule - 50 moves without taking or moving a pawn - draw. Clear now?
Not 100% true. A game is not automatically draw after 50 moves without taking or moving a pawn. A game is only draw accordingly to to the 50-move rule, if one of the player is claiming draw. They can legally (!) continue playing until the dead of one of the players, if not a time limit stops the game.
You're a booger.
Here is a game gents from the best blitz player on the ICC: [Event "ICC 3 0"] [Site "Internet Chess Club"] [Date "2005.09.09"] [Round "-"] [White "Smallville"] [Black "hernandez"] [Result "1-0"] [ICCResult "Black resigns"] [WhiteElo "3285"] [BlackElo "3034"] [Opening "French defense"] [ECO "C00"] [NIC "FR.01"] [Time "19:40:31"] [TimeControl "180+0"]
50 full moves. And NeoTheAKA is in mistake, UT-atma is correct. I didn't knew it too, when UT-atma wrote I researched at www.fide.com only to see that he is correct.
I would like to know: are you certain that NeoTheAKA didn't cheat you? Did you play blitz games?
Even though his "abrasiveness" ( I would use a totally different word, though...) might be facade, his behavior is a shame for chess players in general (my opinion).
Additionally, to state that skill in chess is a good measure for intelligence, is rather ridiculous....
Hey woden, I guess my estimate of 35 minutes was a bit on the short side, sorry about that. We'll play our games I'm sure of it :-).
Regarding your time-control question. I used to prefer longer time-control to prepare for tournament play, but since I don't play tournaments any more I just stick to 3-0 blitz.
I would like to know: are you certain that NeoTheAKA didn't cheat you? Did you play blitz games?
Even though his "abrasiveness" ( I would use a totally different word, though...) might be facade, his behavior is a shame for chess players in general (my opinion).
Additionally, to state that skill in chess is a good measure for intelligence, is rather ridiculous....
:-( I guess I should be honest about our encounter. NeoTheAKA made his ICC handle RapingChoboCop and I really felt that noone would be that much of a prick and that confident. My spidey-sense reaked of cheater as many people also mentioned this on the forum.
So I loaded Fritz. Neo admitted that he has not been playing very long and ONLY plays on Yahoo. He drew my Fritz 6 in the first game, and won the second game. I felt dirty afterwards because if he wasn't cheating I would have been cheating him. So to save face I just played it off like everything was honkeydorey.
Do you really feel that someone who has no experience outside of yahoo and an elo <2000 can score these results and play these games against a computer with an elo~2400-2600 with only 15 minutes to think?
Here are the games. [Event "ICC 15 0"] [Site "Internet Chess Club"] [Date "2006.08.17"] [Round "-"] [White "JBlaze"] [Black "rapingchobocop"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ICCResult "Game drawn by mutual agreement"] [WhiteElo "1814"] [BlackElo "1818"] [Opening "English: symmetrical, main line with d3"] [ECO "A38"] [NIC "EO.64"] [Time "03:16:45"] [TimeControl "900+0"]
On August 22 2006 14:11 FrozenArbiter wrote: Yeah, I've played like 50 games total (9x9 vs computer not withstanding, I used to just clickety click that for relaxation / fun).
I would like to know: are you certain that NeoTheAKA didn't cheat you? Did you play blitz games?
Even though his "abrasiveness" ( I would use a totally different word, though...) might be facade, his behavior is a shame for chess players in general (my opinion).
Additionally, to state that skill in chess is a good measure for intelligence, is rather ridiculous....
:-( I guess I should be honest about our encounter. NeoTheAKA made his ICC handle RapingChoboCop and I really felt that noone would be that much of a prick and that confident. My spidey-sense reaked of cheater as many people also mentioned this on the forum.
So I loaded Fritz. Neo admitted that he has not been playing very long and ONLY plays on Yahoo. He drew my Fritz 6 in the first game, and won the second game. I felt dirty afterwards because if he wasn't cheating I would have been cheating him. So to save face I just played it off like everything was honkeydorey.
Do you really feel that someone who has no experience outside of yahoo and an elo <2000 can score these results and play these games against a computer with an elo~2400-2600 with only 15 minutes to think?
Here are the games. [Event "ICC 15 0"] [Site "Internet Chess Club"] [Date "2006.08.17"] [Round "-"] [White "JBlaze"] [Black "rapingchobocop"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ICCResult "Game drawn by mutual agreement"] [WhiteElo "1814"] [BlackElo "1818"] [Opening "English: symmetrical, main line with d3"] [ECO "A38"] [NIC "EO.64"] [Time "03:16:45"] [TimeControl "900+0"]
On August 22 2006 14:11 FrozenArbiter wrote: Yeah, I've played like 50 games total (9x9 vs computer not withstanding, I used to just clickety click that for relaxation / fun).
I would like to know: are you certain that NeoTheAKA didn't cheat you? Did you play blitz games?
Even though his "abrasiveness" ( I would use a totally different word, though...) might be facade, his behavior is a shame for chess players in general (my opinion).
Additionally, to state that skill in chess is a good measure for intelligence, is rather ridiculous....
:-( I guess I should be honest about our encounter. NeoTheAKA made his ICC handle RapingChoboCop and I really felt that noone would be that much of a prick and that confident. My spidey-sense reaked of cheater as many people also mentioned this on the forum.
So I loaded Fritz. Neo admitted that he has not been playing very long and ONLY plays on Yahoo. He drew my Fritz 6 in the first game, and won the second game. I felt dirty afterwards because if he wasn't cheating I would have been cheating him. So to save face I just played it off like everything was honkeydorey.
Do you really feel that someone who has no experience outside of yahoo and an elo <2000 can score these results and play these games against a computer with an elo~2400-2600 with only 15 minutes to think?
Here are the games. [Event "ICC 15 0"] [Site "Internet Chess Club"] [Date "2006.08.17"] [Round "-"] [White "JBlaze"] [Black "rapingchobocop"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ICCResult "Game drawn by mutual agreement"] [WhiteElo "1814"] [BlackElo "1818"] [Opening "English: symmetrical, main line with d3"] [ECO "A38"] [NIC "EO.64"] [Time "03:16:45"] [TimeControl "900+0"]
Do you really feel that someone who has no experience outside of yahoo and an elo <2000 can score these results and play these games against a computer with an elo~2400-2600 with only 15 minutes to think?
lol Neo got nuked? what for ( i mean for curiousity's sake...i think it was pretty agreed upon that he was a dick...unless that was the sole reason o_O)?
On August 27 2006 04:45 FrozenArbiter wrote: Yep, I love that site Read it a lot before I ever played a single game, but thx :D Also bought a couple of books.
Which ones? I've been working my way through Shuko's tesuji dictionary for a while now ^_^
how did he win in a computer vs computer game? did he buy a deep blue or something? or download more RAM?
or you had fritz 2.0 and he fritz 10.0 oO?
actually I cant play chess, but Ive downloaded chessmaster 10 000 to make this program play vs NES chess and pwn the poor 1.79mhz processor with my 2,8ghz raw power
Some chess programs are better than others, just as some humans are better than others. He has Fritz 6, which should be more than sufficient for anyone up to GM level (perhaps even some GMs) . That said, there are quite a few better programs out there: Shredder, Hydra, Fritz 9, Hiarcs and the current darling of the computer chess world, Rybka (yes, I'm missing some). All of them would be able to most likely beat Fritz 6 handily in a computer versus computer match of... say... 10 games or more. Hardware also has a bit to do with it, though I'm not sure of the exact stats on the improvement in chess play as hardware also increases. What could also be a factor is if either of them decided to use the computer as guide, rather than just blindly following the #1 choice every single time. It's no secret that a human can grasp strategical plans, rather than just a series of moves in a position (though computers are also getting better in this regard as well). A competent human with computer assistance will likely fare better than a computer on its own.
15 minutes is also not a lot of time. Computers are usually able to deal with short time controls much, much better than humans are (though there are some exceptions to this) and it is generally accepted that the faster the time control, the better the computer performs in relation to mankind. Typical blitz or bullet tricks that work against humans don't work against computers; the computer will simply snap up the material and defend doggedly.
On August 27 2006 04:45 FrozenArbiter wrote: Yep, I love that site Read it a lot before I ever played a single game, but thx :D Also bought a couple of books.
Which ones? I've been working my way through Shuko's tesuji dictionary for a while now ^_^
The second book of go by Richard Bozulich and In the beginning by Ikuro Ishigure.
Not read that far yet, and now I've been sidetracked by WCG practice for some time so :D
Good lord I've read this guy's posts and his xanga and JESUS FUCKING CHRIST he uses almost every single pseudo-intellectual grammatical structure and word incorrectly. He uses all these semicolons without independent clauses and sticks in words like "albeit" and "ergo" but in such a way that he just looks like a complete dumbass. He obviously has no idea what the fuck he is talking about or doing with the English language and just thinks that using words/structures that many people don't know will let him fool everyone into thinking he's intelligent. Pathetic.
On August 28 2006 21:03 DarK]N[exuS wrote: Good lord I've read this guy's posts and his xanga and JESUS FUCKING CHRIST he uses almost every single pseudo-intellectual grammatical structure and word incorrectly. He uses all these semicolons without independent clauses and sticks in words like "albeit" and "ergo" but in such a way that he just looks like a complete dumbass. He obviously has no idea what the fuck he is talking about or doing with the English language and just thinks that using words/structures that many people don't know will let him fool everyone into thinking he's intelligent. Pathetic.
lolololloollolol i bitched at him for the same thing ten pages or so ago i hate kids like this
if he wasn't so insecure and scared of getting zero comments on every post and actually didn't go out of his way to disable the feature i would spam 'LOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOOLLOL' all over every post
I'm Maksim Grinman, USCF 2100 my bnet acct is nM-Sunset- on west and Drone-XIII on east AIM: maxchgr if you'd like to game, especially if you play on ICC My ICC ID is GoodPeople
I don't care if you are God incarnate when it comes to chess, you don't have any manners, you are arrogant beyond words and just generally unpleasant, change your behaviour or leave, please.
EPT
2 questions plz:
