Originally posted by GatecrasherThe post you recced was an excellent example of wild conjecture and flat out ignorance, it was very dull and contrite. And David Tebb debunked it, again you lie and distort even simple facts and truths.
In a thread splattered with lots of wild conjecture and ignorance, I finally read a post that had some logic and thought put into it. So I recced it. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but it was intelligent and thought-provoking. So much so, even David Tebb felt the need to enter into the debate and respond.
With a little more style, balance and effort, you might also produce a post worthy of being recced one day.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThere has been a lot more talk of an engine's 1st/2nd/3rd/etc. choices than emphasising any evaluation thresholds. Your previous posts don't mention "within 0.1" but instead only mention move rankings.
You are talking apples and oranges.
When I check my games, I considered a match up to be Fritz's 1st choice + ANY MOVE THAT WAS EVALUATED WITHIN .10 CENTIPAWNS OF FRITZ"S 1ST CHOICE. That includes move which are not only 2nd choices but might not even be in Fritz's first five choices!
Someone who 2/3 of the time in a . I don't know why these fairly obvious points are so hard for some people to understand.
A strong human player sometimes misses tactically strong moves
So why do you criticise using tactical games when using e.g. Rittner's games for comparison purposes?
Originally posted by no1marauderExcellent point, i guess this simple idea is rocket science to some.
I don't know why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp; a human being looking at a chess board with his own eyes doesn't realize that Move A is .50 centipawns better than Move B - a human being looking at his handy dandy engine analysis does.
Originally posted by GatecrasherFirst off all thanks to you and Phlabb for pointing that out to me.
In a thread splattered with lots of wild conjecture and ignorance, I finally read a post that had some logic and thought put into it. So I recced it. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but it was intelligent and thought-provoking. So much so, even David Tebb felt the need to enter into the debate and respond.
With a little more style, balance and effort, you might also produce a post worthy of being recced one day.
Secondly I would say that the odds of having any sort of rational discussion with eldragonfly are very low. I'm not saying it is impossible but you should check his forum posts and decide if he's worth the trouble.
Originally posted by VarenkaWhat part of "that's what the Game Mods told me to do" are you missing?
There has been a lot more talk of an engine's 1st/2nd/3rd/etc. choices than emphasising any evaluation thresholds. Your previous posts don't mention "within 0.1" but instead only mention move rankings.
[b]A strong human player sometimes misses tactically strong moves
So why do you criticise using tactical games when using e.g. Rittner's games for comparison purposes?[/b]
Sometimes they do, but usually they don't. I bet you are also using some types of "Rittner's best games" collection which aren't going to show the games where he missed many tactical chances. Pick out a 50 move draw like the suspect's 100% (or 95😵 match up game was.
So if you are using an atypical game, you're likely to get atypical results. The same problem in game selection was apparent in the 2nd Rittner game you cited to; for the reasons I already gave, it was a poor one for comparison purposes.
Originally posted by eldragonflyI'll indulge you this time:
ad hominem=logical fallacy.
I know you're story. I read your posts on the Puzzles forum. You were constantly shown to be wrong but all you did was insult the guys that were trying to show you you were wrong. Virtually no argument was shown by you. Then recentely you did the same thing on a thread here on the chess forum. And this thing of just pointing out logical fallacies is just another big part of your MO. I didn't want to make any kind of syllogistic reasoning I just wanted to warn a worthwhile forum poster of what he might be up to if he decides to play your little game.
That said I truely hope you can change your ways and post something significant on these forum but quite frankly I don't see that happening.
1 edit
Originally posted by David TebbWhat you say makes perfect sense. I suppose I didn't think a very strong human might deliberately go for the flashy, dangerous and quick win and I suppose thinking about it I have met many subborn players OTB who refuse to resign. I am thinking one game in particular that I played last year against an ECF 158 player where I had a forced mate in 3 and he interposed 2 pieces (giving them away) then waited for his hand to fall. After his hand fell I just waited, then got a drink and waited some more. After 5 minutes he mentioned his hand had fallen when I replied "has it? I haven't noticed!" - eventually he made his last move after 20 minutes. You are right, not everyone is rational.
Dragon Fire: Q > What moves won't a human make?
A > A few examples
1. A human will take the simple and safe line that wins in 15 moves rather than the dangerous tactical line that wins in 8 but where the slightest slip will result in defeat. The engine will take the quick dangerous line;
2. A human will take the line than loses quicker because arious strong and experienced players will have completely different ideas about this.
It only shows that it is even harder to identify some of these guys than I thought it was although there are perhaps less obvious engine type moves other than the examples I gave here.
1 edit
Originally posted by Dragon FireThe idea that MORE PROOF is needed than a consistent 90% or more match up to an engine's top three choices is just absurd. It is simply another excuse for inaction.
[/b]What you say makes perfect sense. I suppose I didn't think a very strong human might deliberately go for the flashy, dangerous and quick win and I suppose thinking about it I have met many subborn players OTB who refuse to resign. I am thinking one game in particular that I played last year against an ECF 158 player where I had a forced mate in 3 and he though there are perhaps less obvious engine type moves other than the examples I gave here.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by adam warlockagain totally irrelevant, why do you feel the need to repeat the same idiotic gutless blather again and again. ad hominem=logical fallacy. And on the puzzles forum it was a gee whiz cut and paste problem most likely from wikipedia... Thread 90807 the fact is i was right, they were wrong, read the entire thread if you must.
I'll indulge you this time:
I know you're story. I read your posts on the Puzzles forum. You were constantly shown to be wrong but all you did was insult the guys that were trying to show you you were wrong. Virtually no argument was shown by you. Then recentely you did the same thing on a thread here on the chess forum. And this thing of just pointi and post something significant on these forum but quite frankly I don't see that happening.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat part of "that's what the Game Mods told me to do" are you missing?
What part of "that's what the Game Mods told me to do" are you missing?
Sometimes they do, but usually they don't. I bet you are also using some types of "Rittner's best games" collection which aren't going to show the games where he missed many tactical chances. Pick out a 50 move draw like the suspect's 100% (or 95😵 match up game was ...[text shortened]... u cited to; for the reasons I already gave, it was a poor one for comparison purposes.
I guess the bit where you clearly and consistently explain your analysis approach. At one point it was backwards with blunder check.... then it was forwards.... then it was move ranking alone.... and then with evaluation thresholds... sometimes it's the top 3.... other times the top 5....
I bet you are also using some types of "Rittner's best games" collection
The links I used earlier show where I got the Rittner PGNs from. Go there and pick some games yourself.