06 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderi can picture it now -- IM's house, with 100 chessboards, set up over 5 different floors. in the sitting room, his computer
Skeeter once told me she has something like 20 sideboards set up around her house. Setting up a 100 sideboards and moving at IM's pace would have been quite an accomplishment.
PING
oh no, a game on the 4th floor
IM leaps up and shimmies up the pole than runs all the way through his house. pieces fly in every direction before he sees the winning move, then down the pipe WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEE to move
PING PING PING three more games, two in the basement and one in the garage.
ARGHHHH shouts IM as he slips down the pole into the basement ....
etc
- Joined
- 21 Aug 03
- Moves
- 621754
06 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderIf it is this simple, then there is no excuse for such a statement to be made. I do not doubt that the game mods (and yourself, amongst others) are convinced - but a useful informative statement should have been made, which would give the rest of us confidence that due diligence has been paid.
I would prefer if they did too, but just from my own analyses I'm completely satisfied he used an engine in his games against me. Grayeyesofsorrow told anybody who would listen last December that IM was running Junior in his games; that's why GEOS was excluded from the Game Mods. If he had been allowed on, IM wouldn't have gotten an opportunity to che ...[text shortened]... id 80% in other games. These matchup rates are impossible in game after game without engine use.
By your implication, any games that patzers such as myself played against the list of 5 - these too will match up? (I think Ragnarok suggested this, but...) The fact that we are relatively crap will not influence the percentage matchups - or will they rise (i'd expect so, as blundering a piece is somewhat blatent)?
06 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakLet anyone read through the thread and make up their own minds. Arrakis' only analyzed up to move 42 and missed my game losing blunder on game 58, a whopping 5.67 difference from the correct move. No engine user would have that much of a difference. Also I showed you that the game was completely database up until move 21 AND that two moves you are regarding as matches because they were Fritz's second choice, the 23rd and 26th, were markedly inferior and would never have been chosen by someone using an engine. You remain a lying sack of s**t and a defender of blatant cheats.
Yes, indeed that was his conclusion, but look at his analysis. He analysed both colours and you ended up not matching up on [b]2 moves...32 and 33. 13 db moves, and that leaves u matching up 96%.
I'm sure Arrakis won't mind me pasting our pm conversation as it states nothing that he didn't state in the thread (less clearly) ...
ArrakisP ...[text shortened]... t you seem to have some gullible, easily led fans. Ever thought of running for president?
D[/b]
EDIT: Again folks it's at http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=27838&page=12
Look over the next few pages too if you really want to see how much of a liar Ragnorak is.
06 Sep 05
Originally posted by pineapple42INTERESTING
100% - but with what, and what settings, and what hardware?
If I try to duplicate it, will I succeed?
and the word "almost" that's quite a lot of leeway.
Howevre, In which case, the Game mods should be quite happy to publish this information. Unless i've missed it, they have not.
edit: i can't type any more accurately than I play chess.
06 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderBut no idiot would use the computer 100% of the time....they're not that stupid...so who knows!
[b]Let anyone read through the thread and make up their own minds. Arrakis' only analyzed up to move 42 and missed my game losing blunder on game 58, a whopping 5.67 difference from the correct move. No engine user would have that much of a difference.
06 Sep 05
Originally posted by pineapple42In games ACTUAL HUMAN PLAYERS play against weaker opponents, it stands to reason that engine matchups would increase. More tactical opportunities are available, they are usually more obvious and strong players will usually find them. Ragnorak, of course, wants to assume IM is a legit 2500 player and preclude virtually all his games from analysis because he is playing "weaker" competition (like me). Of course, this is a circular argument as it assumes IM is a legit 2500 and from there assumes he is far stronger than all but a few players here. I did run one of his games against Fernando JP Vazquez and got an 86% match with Fritz at my low levels of computing power; again at higher levels and with Junior I'm sure the matchups would increase.
If it is this simple, then there is no excuse for such a statement to be made. I do not doubt that the game mods (and yourself, amongst others) are convinced - but a useful informative statement should have been made, which would give the rest of us confidence that due diligence has been paid.
By your implication, any games that patzers such as myself ...[text shortened]... entage matchups - or will they rise (i'd expect so, as blundering a piece is somewhat blatent)?
06 Sep 05
Originally posted by RagnorakYes, I would make a game losing blunder to deflect suspicion; that is also why I've lost 134 games. How clever of me!! The most revealing part of that endgame was that IM did not know the winning technique in a Queen v. Rook and Pawn ending and I had to blunder to give him a win when the technique is in most endgame books and would presumably be known to a super strong player.
Relax old man, you'll rupture something...
I've just had my sh*ts and giggles... and this is what I found at...
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=27838&page=14
[b]Arrakis: "The difference of ony 3 moves is significant BECAUSE they were played in the middle game and WERE NOT forced moves! The evidence therefore SUGGESTS ...[text shortened]... minutes ago: Some A Hole" Nobody matches up 100%; it would be tooooooo obvious".
D[/b]