Originally posted by tharkeshCool story bro.
ha, thanks gp for feeding the thread with some real chess. it is like you can bring to every argument a position that could replace the arguement.
imagine people arguing by simply exchanging FENs. 'but it is your child as well!' [fen]3K4/8/8/8/7P/8/8/3q4[/fen]
besides that: skeeter is an amazing example for what dedication can achieve! (including all those discussions about her and her style, her philosophy, the cheating accusations etc....)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/000/346/969638-cool_story__bro_super.jpg?1244744838
Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi kopatov
Ahh you squeal. A computer will not try a specualtive sac.
Wrong again boys. I'm talking 100% box sound sacs, she looks for the
safe way first. and then looks no further. 🙁
This is the fen that you had given from your game above. The tactics behind 14. e5 preceded your position at move 18.
I like how GreenPawn you spew some BS about "box sound sacs" and how a computer will not do this or that. What about a centaur?
We all know a computer is not stupid enough to play 6.. Bg4 in the above game, yet a 1698 player who had just beaten masters in the preceding rounds makes that move. After-all we know boxes do not make outright blunders do they?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieKorch was constantly accused of cheating and left the site because of it
Of course you are correct, no one is under any duress to divulge any information
whatsoever and may be justified in withholding information to those to whom it
does not belong less they incriminate themselves as a consequence, the Americans
have a term for it, taking the fifth. Now this is the interesting part, while you may
be justified in ...[text shortened]... amp
down the impudent accuser as if he were a smouldering fire on the edge of a wheat
field!
Awaiting your comments Green Pawn with interest, this is the ChessaBase link http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=7481 I was talking about where some whiz produced 6 ..Bg4??
You probably spotted it: a certain Sergey Klimentiev, rated 1698, seemed to be doing rather well. A big performance jump by some super-talented youngster? That would be a reasonable explanation.
Sergey Klimentiev [photo provided by Irina Sudakova]
But no, Klimentiev was born in 1969, he is 42 years old, and his rating has remained stable between 1678 and 1711 over the past several years. In this event he was suddenly playing at a 2200 level, having beaten a series of FIDE Master level players, crushed IM Alexsej Lanin and drawn with IM Ivan Rozum. But, as the Russian Chess Federation web site writes, "players and organisers claim that after a game Klimentiev is unable to show or recall the moves he has played." Apparently he did not even know the names of the openings he played...
Quite interesting, very interesting I might add.
I can see an easy solution to furore surrounding those at the top on any chess site. Just rig the rating system so that nobody ever goes above 2000. That way the idiots who know nothing of ratings and statistics are convinced that the top echelons have reasonable ratings, good but not too good, and the rest of us are hopeless patzers.
Could this be done? Yes, it's just a matter of manipulating the way the ratings are calculated. It has already been observed that the rating system makes ratings much above 2400 difficult so it just needs to be altered slightly to make 2000 the ceiling. I suppose we should all be re-rated or maybe even go back to 1200 (800 would likely be better) and start again.
As an interesting example of this sort of thing, until a couple of years ago chess.com's rating system was "rigged" to produce very high ratings at the top. A mistake in the code was finally found, a misplaced decimal point if I remember correctly, but only after a great deal of hot air had been expended over obvious cheats with ratings higher than Rybka". Even then the complaints continued because ratings were not recalculated.
Diophantus finish "rigging the rating system" and whatever other bollocks you want to do, then come and tell us why certain people have high matchups. Let me quote from the ChessBase article:-
Now all of the above does not in any way represent irrefutable proof that an engine was used. We should mention that we have done similar experiments with the games of José Raúl Capablanca and discovered that the third World Champion occasionally used computer assistance. Just kidding, of course – but the fact is that sometimes very strong players will play an entire game where most of the moves meet will the full approval of chess engines.
Note what it says about "strong players", we have heard suggestions that X is a "strong player" with absolutely zero OTB experience.
Originally posted by NorrisBYes it was a great pity, never the less, he was open and candid, approachable and had
Korch was constantly accused of cheating and left the site because of it
a good sense of humour and contributed much to community. I recall one excellent
exchange where he and Northern Lad had a debate on the merits of the Latvian
Gambit, Korch of course being partial and somewhat biased because of his nationality.
It was a great loss to the site to be sure, although you can follow his blog if you like.
Sooo lets get this, are you saying that if our dear sister Skeety were to follow the same
tragic course because of incessant bickering and allegations of misconduct that we
would similarly be bereft of a great contributor to the community? I have to agree,
Skeety threads are awesome 😉
Originally posted by wormwoodThat does matter but are you saying it has or hasn't been done ? With over 1300 games there should be a fair amount of material for it to be done ? Strategy does matter... there's lots of things we could all do to inflate our ratings... Skeeter seems to have taken that to the n'th degree. All these comparisons about being better than DT and yet 0-6 ? What this shows is any player on this site who punches legitimately at around 2100-2200 could probably make the top 10 using the same legal methods "if they had the inclination to".
you guys are wasting your time with this useless banter about personality or strategy for reaching #1. both of those things are absolutely irrelevant.
the ONLY thing that matters is the sustained engine matchup rate relative to known best players of history. the ONLY thing. nothing else.
Hi Kopatov
Using Sergey Klimentiev as an example has nothing to do with
what is happening. (I'd better add.) what is 'allegedly' happening.
Skeets and I do not communicate.
If Sergey Klimentiev was a 2200 player and sandbagged off a load off
points to play in and win a 1700 tournment then you are 'allegedly' closer
to the Skeeter situation. Sandbagging is the only OTB way to play a bunch
of players weaker than yourself.
Skeeter 'allegedly' (last of the 'allegedly' I'm trying keep my name out
of the wee red book.) is doing it without sandbagging.
Which on here is perfectly legal and all above board. Live with it.
greenpawn - nickbaby RHP June, 2010. White to play.
I was actually writing my first or second Blog and playing games at the
same time. A pathetic excuse.
If only we could practise what we preach.
Intending 25.Qh4+ I played 25.Qh3+ (Check all Checks!!!) and resigned after 25...Qxh3!!
By your cock-eyed logic all my previous moves were played by a box.
I switched off the box then hung my Queen.
I suspect every player on here can point out a one move blunder.
So everyone who blunders is at it.
I get it, you want us all banned and have the whole site to yourself...is that the plan?
I'm just trying to look at a bigger picture. The case against her appears to be.
She is 2400, nobody knows who she is, she never posts chess stuff in
the forum and she is rude. (and female).
Have a look at all the other chess playing site.
Their No1 players are way over 2400. By net standards 2400 is low.
So by a twist of coincidence - Skeeter cherry picks opponents some people
have cherry picked games and run them through a box.
In some cases the computer program was written after the game was played. 😕
(Skeets has a time machine...she jumps forward 2 years buys up all the
software, jumps back and uses it....Skeets PM me next week's lottery numbers.)
Consider this.
She puts her games through a box 'after' a game and then uses her DB
of box analyse in future games. LEGAL!
I'll remind you of TOS.
...but you may [use] reference books, databases consisting of previously played
games between human players, and other pre-existing research materials.
So Skeets take her own human v human games. Runs them through a box and
stores and uses the analysis as 'pre-existing research materials.'
She has such a narrow rep. There will be a match up in some cases as
her DB analysis is made up of box analysis. It's all allowed.
I'm not stating that is what she does, I've no idea. But do consider it
before looking at the number 2400 and then furninshing your post with OTB examples.
The claim Skeeter uses a box to reach tactically won games then switches off
the box not to play the tactic is unsound and risky play.
If the box is heading for a position it can obvioulsy 'see' the winning tactic coming.
Not playing it could well drop you into a totally lost position.
Again using the Sergey Klimentiev game as an example is wrong and misleading.
6...Bg4 is a gross tactical OTB blunder.
You rarely find such silly moves in Skeeters games.
If she is forced into a tactical melee she tends to pick her way out of it.
She takes her time and is good at what she does.
I digress for a moment.
There is possibly more behind that move in that situation than just a common
OTB blunder. Klimentiev is apparently a 1650 OTB player. that move have never
been played on here (it's that bad a move, even no one on RHP has played it) 😉
Nor can I find one OTB example on my 5 million OTB games DB.
It's an odd one.
End of digression.
I've never run a Skeeter game through a box looking for match up's.
(anyway not 100% sure I know how to do it correctly.
There are people on here whose job it is and they have on hand a lot more
info than a few selected games.
IMO She is playing system all fair and above board and is not cheating.
Finally you state the the term 'centaur' (half man - half horse.)
You are totally wrong in linking Skeeter to a centaur.
The correct term is Kentaurides (a female centaur).
If you are going to insult the lady at least get the termonology correct.
And another thing. I know of no chess playing horse.
There corrected term should be an 'Oombottess' half woman - half machine. 😉
Hi Skeets.
Always enjoy these threads. Certainly beats winding up the KIA and London System crowd.
Don't forget those lottery numbers.
Jesus Wept.
From RHP Terms of Service.
While a game is in progress you may not refer to chess engines, chess computers or be assisted by a third party. Endgame tablebases may not be consulted during play but you may reference books, databases consisting of previously played games between human players, and other pre-existing research materials.
"...and other pre-existing research materials."
Using box analysis from a previous game (vs human) is not allowed and is not pre-existing research material
For someone to make a move 14 e5 presumably seeing all the tactics
then follow it on with 18. Rf6
makes no sense at all and is like Sergey's move 6 ..Bg4??. And we all know Sergey is not a 2200 OTB player.
Which database did you find 14. e5 as I would like to see which humans played that move and then 18. Rf6
Originally posted by kopatovand you have absolutely zero evidence for or against the OTB experience of said player. Anyone know anyone called X?
Diophantus finish "rigging the rating system" and whatever other bollocks you want to do, then come and tell us why certain people have high matchups. Let me quote from the ChessBase article:-
[b]Now all of the above does not in any way represent irrefutable proof that an engine was used. We should mention that we have done similar experiments with the ga ...[text shortened]... we have heard suggestions that X is a "strong player" with absolutely zero OTB experience.
I always thought Capablanca had the look of cheaty cheat about him. I blame the Martians, they probably let him use their time machine to acquire a posh computer, matching briefcase and pen.