Picked up a real bargain this time. (20p).
Yet again I find myself doing the Gothenburg Triangle.
(every writer covers this at least 4 times - I have a new angle).
Smashing Bronstein game.
Talking during games in progress.
An instructive game to show beginneers and a T,Chex game/problem
I lifted from here.
http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=399
Originally posted by greenpawn34In the US we here it referred to as the "Gothenburg Trilogy", and reading it again made me think of what all the indignant people in the thread about quickie draws among higher ranked players would say about it.
Picked up a real bargain this time. (20p).
Yet again I find myself doing the Gothenburg Triangle.
(every writer covers this at least 4 times - I have a new angle).
Smashing Bronstein game.
Talking during games in progress.
An instructive game to show beginneers and a T,Chex game/problem
I lifted from here.
http://www.chessedinburgh.co.uk/chandlerarticle.php?ChandID=399
To be blunt, it was pretty obvious that to top-flight grandmasters were watching a third game, and copying what they saw (as long as it worked) right in the middle of a tournament. Geller was the "engine" they used to assist their games.
Sometimes indignance makes people blind.
Hi Paul.
It's not really the same thing is it. Geller the 'engine.' 🙂
I think it was so unique it was brilliant and anyway you are allowed to look
at games played by humans in a DB or book, they just jumped the gun
and never waited for the book to come out (it did in 1957 and I have a copy) 😉
You could not even make a small claim for outside assistance because you
are not asking the player, just watching what he does.
I think it was Street Fighter (or his brother) had the same thing.
By pure chance the postion next to him was the same as his.
SF's opponent sacced a piece and the guy on the other board waited to see
what would happen before making a move.
SF refuted the attack so the other lad played something different.
But here is the rub...
I can play you as black on here and White v someone else on Chess.com
I use their moves v you and your replies v them.
I'll win one, lose one or draw both.
But no engines involved, just humans - am I breaking the rules?
Originally posted by greenpawn34Yes.
Hi Paul.
It's not really the same thing is it. Geller the 'engine.' 🙂
I think it was so unique it was brilliant and anyway you are allowed to look
at games played by humans in a DB or book, they just jumped the gun
and never waited for the book to come out (it did in 1957 and I have a copy) 😉
You could not even make a small claim for outside ...[text shortened]... , lose one or draw both.
But no engines involved, just humans - am I breaking the rules?
Third party assistance. This isn't exclusive to computers.
P-
Originally posted by greenpawn34That's a great question, and it makes me laugh, because I have already had people do that to me in tournaments here, and I've only been playing a month and a half! It was a fast tournament, and I picked up the pattern pretty quick, so I played 3 different moves in the same position!
Hi Paul.
It's not really the same thing is it. Geller the 'engine.' 🙂
I think it was so unique it was brilliant and anyway you are allowed to look
at games played by humans in a DB or book, they just jumped the gun
and never waited for the book to come out (it did in 1957 and I have a copy) 😉
You could not even make a small claim for outside , lose one or draw both.
But no engines involved, just humans - am I breaking the rules?
Since this is CC chess, and you can refer to other games, I considered it to be an enterprising and creative approach to the tournament! I certainly don't fault my opponents, and I admire their strategy.
I personally have no issue with the other guys copying Geller, because they still had to make the decision as to whether or not his move was good or not, and they still had to also assess the responses played on the board.
This may sound like an overly simplistic approach, but I think that as long as the player is making his own independent decisions about what to move or when to draw, and isn't soliciting unique opinions from a human or engine, I'm good with it. And we all know for sure that the Argentinians were collaborating on their analysis before the game, so the Soviets were sort of leveling the playing field, in a manner of speaking!
In the case of Gothenburg, I think chess was enriched immensely. We were able to see six strong GMs play in what amounted to a thematic "mini-tournament", and were left with a great story that has stood the test of time.
Hi Phlapps.
I know. I throw it out every now and then.
I'd bet as Paul suggests it does go on.
The punchline is. You choose a cheat and get banned 'through no fault of your won' 🙂
Russian.
In the Chess was everything days I use to get Shakhmaty v SSSR
The moves are very simply to work out (easier than descriptive) and when
you see a note and look at the position, provided the guy has a moves in
there it's quite easy to work what they are saying.
Hi GP,
I remember Robbie's thread which became very hot at some point (I guess we wouldn't like it any other way) and my reference to the Vespers story. You said you were reading Najdorf's biography back then. Most obviously you've finished the book. I have one question though. How on earth after posting a David Tebb's game, a Najdorf variation, the Gothenburg Triangle and a biography, you ended up with a marvellous 11 move combination which finished at Liverpool vs. Blackburn 2-1 making your pockets full with many quids not to mention the happy wife by your side?
How did you do that?
In fact I was thinking of sending you a PM with a fictional pirate story about this bizarre outcome but I didn't manage to write it.
Great Corner,
Greetings by the dead Greek.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 16951
Originally posted by Phlabibitso lets say you get into a difficult position and are not sure what move to play. you've got it down to two possibilities but you really don't know. you decide to start 4 set piece games against people with a similar rating to that of your opponent, 2 for each move you were thinking of making. from these 4 games you conclude that move b is better than move a and you play move b. in your opinion is that 'third party assistance' and is it cheating?
Yes.
Third party assistance. This isn't exclusive to computers.
P-
Originally posted by trev33My view is once you are IN a position you can search for completed games with that position. I'm pretty sure any other Ex-mod like myself would agree with this view.
so lets say you get into a difficult position and are not sure what move to play. you've got it down to two possibilities but you really don't know. you decide to start 4 set piece games against people with a similar rating to that of your opponent, 2 for each move you were thinking of making. from these 4 games you conclude that move b is better than move a and you play move b. in your opinion is that 'third party assistance' and is it cheating?
Once you start to create situations you are gaining third party assistance through your use of an existing position.
Book and data is there for us to use. You don't create new data to research. You play the game the way you would THEN and ONLY THEN when the game is done is when you review the position in an existing game.
Researching data and book is quite different than creating it as you go... You are welcome to learn from the game AFTER it is done, but researching existing positions from a game in progress through anything outside of completed games and data is cheating.
There are more possible positions in a 40 move game of chess than molecules in the universe I once heard.... you are welcome to study each once the game is done.
To 'clone' these snow-flakes is getting outside assistance. Data and Book is finished games, not tinkering with a game in progress.
P-