Only Chess
06 Mar 08
21 Mar 08
Originally posted by SquelchbelchWhat a load of nonsense.
They are the paranoid rantings of a madman.
Originally posted by Pawn Qween
😲 Should Cludi get a 3(c) for his blog entries against the players at RHP and Russ?
Need I say "Discuss"? 😀
Firstly, you can't be paranoid if they really are out to get you...
...secondly, the only person Cludi is harassing is himself. If you look carefully at the analysis from fritz, Cludi is clearly showing his own match-up, and how it compares to his opponents. This can't be harassing them as most of his stats are higher then theirs.
It never ceases to amaze me how much people post about subjects that they don't understand.
21 Mar 08
Originally posted by HindsteinExcuse me!!! There's more on his blog than Fritz analysis and stats. 😛
What a load of nonsense.
Firstly, you can't be paranoid if they really are out to get you...
...secondly, the only person Cludi is harassing is himself. If you look carefully at the analysis from fritz, Cludi is clearly showing his own match-up, and how it compares to his opponents. This can't be harassing them as most of his stats are higher then ...[text shortened]...
It never ceases to amaze me how much people post about subjects that they don't understand.
21 Mar 08
Well it was nice of him to post my only win against him. I am quite proud of that game. I'm not sure what his motive was for doing so, however; his annotations show I missed several better (in fact, immediately decisive in one case) moves. h4 was almost a novelty; I found it in only 2 database games but immediately liked the idea of sac'ing the pawn for the open files. It reminded me of some Yugoslav Attack motifs.
- Joined
- 02 Sep 04
- Moves
- 188898
21 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauder...in my opinion his motive is quiet clear...
Well it was nice of him to post my only win against him. I am quite proud of that game. I'm not sure what his motive was for doing so, however; his annotations show I missed several better (in fact, immediately decisive in one case) moves. h4 was almost a novelty; I found it in only 2 database games but immediately liked the idea of sac'ing the pawn for the open files. It reminded me of some Yugoslav Attack motifs.
Actually I expected you to be the first to catch it...
21 Mar 08
Originally posted by dooser2004If he was trying to insinuate that I was a cheat, his annotations do a poor job supporting such a thesis. Missing Nf5 on moves 17 and 19 doesn't look like an engine to me. Nor is h4 among Fritz's top 5 choices.
...in my opinion his motive is quiet clear...
Actually I expected you to be the first to catch it...
21 Mar 08
Originally posted by ludzIf I had to GUESS (and it is guessing) then I would guess that what Cludi is saying, without coming right out and saying it, is that if you cherry pick games you can make anyone's match up rate look high. I haven't spoken with him, though, so this is pure speculation on my part.
Can someone tell me what is going on in cludi's website? What are the games and then some statistics? What do they mean?
22 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderit wasn´t a polite comment by Cludi.
If he was trying to insinuate that I was a cheat, his annotations do a poor job supporting such a thesis. Missing Nf5 on moves 17 and 19 doesn't look like an engine to me. Nor is h4 among Fritz's top 5 choices.
The rook sac is not an " only-a-GM-can-find-this-move " ...
it was undoubtedly a nice game no1m ... 🙂
22 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by zintierivIt's not even a sac; I give up a rook and a pawn for two bishops - that's even in the traditional way to measure piece value and in practical terms, I'd say two bishops are almost always better.
it wasn´t a polite comment by Cludi.
The rook sac is not an " only-a-GM-can-find-this-move " ...
it was undoubtedly a nice game no1m ... 🙂
But besides that, I wind up with a rook on the 7th and two centralized knights against two completely uncoordinated rooks. That's a huge positional advantage and I don't need Fritz to tell me that!
Missing are Cludi's 5 wins against me and any verification of an OTB rating of his, while he feels free to comment on mine.
22 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderare you 1500 OTB ?
It's not even a sac; I give up a rook and a pawn for two bishops - that's even in the traditional way to measure piece value and in practical terms, I'd say two bishops are almost always better.
But besides that, I wind up with a rook on the 7th and two centralized knights against two completely uncoordinated rooks. That's a huge positiona ...[text shortened]... t me and any verification of an OTB rating of his, while he feels free to comment on mine.
22 Mar 08
Originally posted by no1marauderI've seen high rated players act pretty damn silly & paranoid when they've been beaten by weaker players, even when their mistakes have been glaringly obvious like dropping material. it seems that kind of people have this insane misconception that playing well in other games somehow earns them the right of not getting killed for their rare but occasional big mistakes. vanity, pride, stupidity, I don't know which it is, but it certainly isn't "assessing your play objectively".
It's not even a sac; I give up a rook and a pawn for two bishops - that's even in the traditional way to measure piece value and in practical terms, I'd say two bishops are almost always better.
But besides that, I wind up with a rook on the 7th and two centralized knights against two completely uncoordinated rooks. That's a huge positiona ...[text shortened]... t me and any verification of an OTB rating of his, while he feels free to comment on mine.