In some ways it’s a sad time we are playing in. I’ve been playing CC since before computers existed. Way before computers, I drew a game with Reshevsky (It was a real thrill getting a post card from him saying, “I believe the game is a draw.&rdquo😉, defeated the number 3 ranked CC player in the US, played 2 pretty darn good games against a former US Championship player (despite the fact I lost both), had a game published in a national magazine and a couple games in other mags and had a few successes (and a lot of failures) against various experts and masters along the way. I’ve enjoyed every move and it was always a result of my own efforts. Sadly, if I had those results today (not likely) there would be all kinds of accusations being made. Today if I do manage a good result I often don’t even get what used to be the standard “Congratulations. Good game.” from my opponents. I often don’t get any response because my opponents probably just shrug it off as another game against an engine user. Recently I played a 1600, put a lot of effort into the game and lost. One long time 1800 (whom I’d beaten in the past) recently crushed me despite my best efforts. The 1600 is now over 2400 and the 1800 is over 2200 and both have suddenly put together long unbeaten streaks against expert and master opponents. I wonder where did their new found skills come from? Computers are here to stay and there’s nothing to be done about it and I refuse to get upset about some rating challenged person who feels the need to use an engine in our game. I’ll just keep playing the game like I have always done becasue I'm playing for no other reason than my enjoyment.
Originally posted by KorchI also didn't suspect Blackbuck, who I've played quite a few games against. In fact I currently have six outstanding games against him in three differenct competitions. I suppose they won't be finished now. Looking at his games, if he is using an engine, I don't think it will have an opening book, since his opening play doesn't seem to be particularly good for a player of his apparent strength.
Blackbuck..... I really did not suspect him. I have had with him result +4 -2 =2 and when I did check our finished games with engine he`s moves did not seem "inhuman".
Against tension84 i had finished 2 games +1 - 1
In game which I lost i missed tactic and he got decisive attack in game which I won he missed simple tactic and lost pawn in opening which I did exploit in victory. Thats the reason why I did not suspect tension84 too.
Originally posted by Northern LadI see you did win him too.
I also didn't suspect Blackbuck, who I've played quite a few games against. In fact I currently have six outstanding games against him in three differenct competitions. I suppose they won't be finished now. Looking at his games, if he is using an engine, I don't think it will have an opening book, since his opening play doesn't seem to be particularly good for a player of his apparent strength.
Game 2571900
Originally posted by KorchYes, and that game rather proves the point I was making. That opening line had all been played before; I'd found a game or two in a database. It's clearly good for white. All I had to do was concentrate on winning the resulting andgame.
I see you did win him too.
Game 2571900
Originally posted by z00tHe was player which seemed out of suspect. He did not claim himself like Jean Herbert did, but in chat during the game we have shown that he is understanding chess not so bad as many other cheaters (who does not resign even in absolute hopeless positions).
Who is/was blackbuck? cmsmaster says that he is the biggest since herbert to go. Did he claim some OTB achievements?
Originally posted by z00tI wanted to practise different caro-kann variation against higher rated players and he accepted one of my invites.
Who is/was blackbuck? cmsmaster says that he is the biggest since herbert to go. Did he claim some OTB achievements?
Didn't talk much and after the game was over he didn't help much either. It was a very positional game but some of the moves just seemed a bit odd. I did not suspect him either.
Originally posted by Northern LadGame 2571900
Yes, and that game rather proves the point I was making. That opening line had all been played before; I'd found a game or two in a database. It's clearly good for white. All I had to do was concentrate on winning the resulting andgame.
Interestingly, the same position can be reached in the Tarrasch variation 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2 cxd4 8.cxd4 f6 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Nf3 Bd6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Nc3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect Black is better off playing normal French ideas e.g. Qb6, Bd7, Rae8, Re7, Be8, etc. and that the key mistake you refer to is 12...e5.
Originally posted by YUG0slavThe cream rises to the top. So does the scum.
You know, I can understand there being a reason to cheat in a otb tournament, where money is involved, but on a free (subscription by choice) site like RHP where the only reward is an ego boost, it seems strange to use the engine...
RK
Originally posted by AlboMalapropFoozerYes, you're right that the position I reached is more normally reached via the Tarrasch Variation. Actually, it's quite an old line, probably nothing special for white objectively, but I sometimes like to try older lines out to see if I can find any improvements. However, I don't agree with your evaluation of 12...e5. It's probably black's simplest way to strive for equality and certainly seems to be the most popular choice. Black's mistake I think was 14...h6? It had been played before and gone down in flames before, which is why I made the comment above about Blackbuck's opening play.
Game 2571900
Interestingly, the same position can be reached in the Tarrasch variation 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Bd3 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.Ne2 cxd4 8.cxd4 f6 9.exf6 Nxf6 10.Nf3 Bd6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Nc3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect Black is better off playing normal French ideas e.g. Qb6, Bd7, Rae8, Re7, Be8, etc. and that the key mistake you refer to is 12...e5.
Originally posted by YUG0slavNever underestimate the power of the ego boost to the sad and lonely .
You know, I can understand there being a reason to cheat in a otb tournament, where money is involved, but on a free (subscription by choice) site like RHP where the only reward is an ego boost, it seems strange to use the engine...
😉
Originally posted by Fat LadyYou see, it is true...the game is never over until the fat lady sings....😕
I got mauled in two games by tension84 last month. The games were short and not so sweet (for me). As soon as the latest cheats get removed I should get to page three of the player tables. Not the first time I've been on Page 3, but I'm sure you don't want to hear about that.
Originally posted by masscatHats off to you sir. To play the game the way it was meant to play earns you honor. Even if you fail to get the victory, you are a winner.
In some ways it’s a sad time we are playing in. I’ve been playing CC since before computers existed. Way before computers, I drew a game with Reshevsky (It was a real thrill getting a post card from him saying, “I believe the game is a draw.&rdquo😉, defeated the number 3 ranked CC player in the US, played 2 pretty darn good games against a former US Championship ...[text shortened]... ing the game like I have always done becasue I'm playing for no other reason than my enjoyment.
I too am from the old school, but unfortunately for me, my skill level deteriorated alot more than I thought after a 20 year absence from competetive play. But I still play the game and take my lumps against the better competition. I no longer have the time or the energy to devote to the game to get to be good enough to be a good player, but I still enjoy the game. I still hate losing, but I don't mind losing to a better player if it is on the up and up, because that is the expected outcome. The moments where I snatch a win from a superior player are the moments I savor. But what is there to gain from using someone else's (or some machine's) talent to secure it?
You sir, are a winner, regardless what the scorecard might indicate.