GM Norblackheart - some news!

Originally posted by Varenka
And what about present GM CC players? I'm not saying I believe anyone on RHP to be a GM CC but I don't regard it as impossible in the future. And yes, it wouldn't surprise me if a present day GM CC can achieve a higher match up rate than those of over 30 years ago.

I really don't care what "wouldn't surprise you". Present some evidence supporting such a conclusion and then I'll listen.

Originally posted by Varenka
And what about present GM CC players? I'm not saying I believe anyone on RHP to be a GM CC but I don't regard it as impossible in the future. And yes, it wouldn't surprise me if a present day GM CC can achieve a higher match up rate than those of over 30 years ago.

I don't know who lied you so badly. ALL present day CC GM USE computer assistance. ALL OF THEM. ALL serious CC players use computer assistance. Do you get it now or do you need a drawing?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I really don't care what "wouldn't surprise you". Present some evidence supporting such a conclusion and then I'll listen.

I don't see evidence to the contrary either, so that leaves it very debatable... whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by cotoi
ALL present day CC GM USE computer assistance

The debate is how well a top CC player could play nowadays without computer assistance.

Originally posted by Varenka
I don't see evidence to the contrary either, so that leaves it very debatable... whether you like it or not.

So you have nothing to support your idea that maybe, just maybe present day CC GMs could perhaps have higher matchups with engines if they had to play with no engine assistance then CC GMs did 30 years ago who did play without engine assistance.

I see no reason to change the standards here based on your unsupported suppositions. Lowering standards allows more cheating beyond any doubt; why should this site accept more cheating just because you think that some present day CC GM might yield a false positive in the unlikely event he played here?

Originally posted by Varenka
The debate is how well a top CC player could play nowadays without computer assistance.

It seems to be a "debate" where one side - yours - has no evidence to offer.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It seems to be a "debate" where one side - yours - has no evidence to offer.

So if we take a top CC from over 30 years ago and...

- give them access to tools such as Chessbase; the Internet; the latest books/DVDs, etc.
- give them access to chess literature and games which has been influenced by over two decades of computer chess
- take into account that the standard of chess in general has gone up significantly in the last 30 years

and you're claiming that they would benefit in no way whatsoever? Where's your evidence?

Originally posted by Varenka
So if we take a top CC from over 30 years ago and...

- give them access to tools such as Chessbase; the Internet; the latest books/DVDs, etc.
- give them access to chess literature and games which has been influenced by over two decades of computer chess
- take into account that the standard of chess in general has gone up significantly in the last 30 y ...[text shortened]... s

and you're claiming that they would benefit in no way whatsoever? Where's your evidence?

How come OTB GMs matchup rates haven't went up with all that?

See that's evidence not guesswork.

Originally posted by no1marauder
why should this site accept more cheating just because you think that some present day CC GM might yield a false positive in the unlikely event he played here?

I never suggested that. I was responding to your hard and fast claim that if someone played above the current baselines then it was 100% sure they were cheating. Read your initial claim.

Originally posted by Varenka
I never suggested that. I was responding to your hard and fast claim that if someone played above the current baselines then it was 100% sure they were cheating. Read your initial claim.

Why don't you read it?:

The bottom line is if you're playing on RHP and you have higher engine matchup rates than the best players in the world and the best correspondence GMs of the non-computer past (which rates are very close to each other), you're cheating.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Why don't you read it?:

The bottom line is [b]if you're playing on RHP and you have higher engine matchup rates than the best players in the world and the best correspondence GMs of the non-computer past (which rates are very close to each other), you're cheating.[/b]

How does "if you're playing on RHP" exclude someone from being a top CC player (without engine assistance)?

Originally posted by Varenka
How does "if you're playing on RHP" exclude someone from being a top CC player (without engine assistance)?

There's currently no such thing as a "top CC player (without engine assistance)".

Originally posted by no1marauder
There's currently no such thing as a "top CC player (without engine assistance)".

Do you have evidence that every player on the ICCF uses computer assistance? They don't ban it; but they don't encourage it. Who's the highest rated ICCF player who chooses not to use engine assistance? Of course, your evidence isn't fast coming either...

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Cotoi

It was difficult with Weyerstrass, he was a known C.C. IM.
(not, apparently, like this joker Norblackheart who should be gone pretty soon).

As I said in a previous thread banning big Ron was unprecidented.
They had not used the match up system to catch and ban anyone of
this calibre before.

Ronald Weyerstrass is a Dutch chess player. ...[text shortened]... be here.
It was an unique case, not your unknown poser, but a genuine very good chess player.

sorry i took 1 or 2 years break from this website and when i realized weyerstraus was banned i was quite shock.

what exactly is this "match up system" you speak of?

Originally posted by no1marauder
How come OTB GMs matchup rates haven't went up with all that?

See that's evidence not guesswork.

Chess Cafe used to host an excellent article...

http://www.chesscafe.com/zip/misha.zip

Interview with Alexander Riazantsev (misha37)

Alexander Riazantsev. Born on September 12, 1985 in Moscow.
International grandmaster. 2006 Moscow champion. Current FIDE
rating – 2622.

MS: Has chess become more computer-like?

AR: With many strong GMs spending 4-6 hours with the computer, it has
some influence. I sometimes get the feeling during a game that something
looks like a computer move! Especially when playing against the Chinese
and Indians – they have a very special way of thinking. They are practical,
quick, and a bit cheeky. They are also very well prepared psychologically –
it is difficult to read what they think about the position.

--------------


Interview with Anatoly Bykhovsky (misha45)

Anatoly Bykhovsky. Born in 1934. International Master and International
Arbiter. Current FIDE rating – 2364. Renowned chess trainer and organizer.
Chairman of the Trainers’ Council of the Russian Chess Federation since 2003.

AB: No, no, in real sound games. The game itself has changed, too. It has become more concrete and tough, and contains fewer abstract ideas. Suspicious-looking but deeply analyzed positions are played, and we see that there’s something wrong with our perception, because they are completely playable. You know, when you play against the computer, it often seems that its pieces are badly coordinated and lacking protection, but then it turns out that they interact splendidly, only at some higher level of perception. And young players are learning this kind of chess.

----------

Do you know better than these guys?