Originally posted by sergen1976The question is the same. I have proved who I am.
I invited seanbutler for the match on Yahoo because I know it is free. I don't have an acount on ICC. I used to have free introduction period with ICC now I can't use it.
seanbutler refuses to play with me. I think this conversation could be over for me.
Who the hell are you. If you are not going to give your name and prove you can play over the board I feel compelled to let every team captain in the clan's know that you have set yourself up as judge and jury but refuese to give your name or any over the board details.
It's a waste of time arguing with sergen1976:some months ago he started sayin that Ironman was a cheat without giving any evidence,he got covered of insults by half site,then shut up and formed his great clan ''We hate the cheaters'' which still now has no members but him.
Every once in a while he comes out with something stupid,it must be ''his period'' now...........
Originally posted by RavelloHis period!? Bwaaahahaahahaha har har har That's a good one! š
It's a waste of time arguing with sergen1976:some months ago he started sayin that Ironman was a cheat without giving any evidence,he got covered of insults by half site,then shut up and formed his great clan ''We hate the cheaters'' which still now has no members but him.
Every once in a while he comes out with something stupid,it must be ''his period'' now...........
Originally posted by rvugtsOh,look at the guy who needs to create another account to say things in forums because he hasn't the guts to say 'em with his account.........
He is a bit like you then ?
Originally posted by Russ:
And he is a multi account abuser too! (Incredible)
Stand up user rvugts! Well done for making yourself look very silly indeed.
Log in as fingolfin again and all site access will be lost.
-Russ
http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=16944&page=24
What have you to say now?
You'd better shut up.
Originally posted by RavelloYeah yeah, you have mentioned this several times already. It is like listening to a stuck record.
Oh,look at the guy who needs to create another account to say things in forums because he hasn't the guts to say 'em with his account....
What have you to say now? You'd better shut up.
I could say lots of things, but it is much more fun to see you make a fool of yourself. Please post some more, so we can all share in your amazing intellect and English writing skills....
Originally posted by rvugtsHaha,guess who's making a fool of himself ?
Yeah yeah, you have mentioned this several times already. It is like listening to a stuck record.
[b]What have you to say now? You'd better shut up.
I could say lots of things, but it is much more fun to see you make a fool of you ...[text shortened]... all share in your amazing intellect and English writing skills....[/b]
Several times? I posted about it only twice,the truth hurts uh?
My amazing intellect? Haha,even Russ said that you ''look very silly indeed''..........
My English skills? Maybe you need another account to log into my profile and see that I'm Italian........
Originally posted by RavelloThank you Ravello.
It's a waste of time arguing with sergen1976:some months ago he started sayin that Ironman was a cheat without giving any evidence,he got covered of insults by half site,then shut up and formed his great clan ''We hate the cheaters'' which still now has no members but him.
Every once in a while he comes out with something stupid,it must be ''his period'' now...........
I guess its time to forget this guy and move on.
Just his timing was not great and I got miffed.
Guess I should grow up a little and forget him.
Thanks for this info. Nice to know i was not the only one accused.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThis is deeply fascinating stuff!
It seems to me that there are any number of things that you can do to improve the strength of your play:
1 Put position on chess board at home and move pieces around
2 Use Analyse Board
3 Use a book (particularly for openings)
4 Use a database
5 Use a computer to analyse positions before and after the game
and also
6 Ask a friend what they ...[text shortened]... y them. But if I do, then I know I will not win or draw, but there will only be one real loser.
I would argue 6) is clearly wrong because of the named account. Consulting with other human beings would mean you are abusing your account. Consulting is NOT a valid research tool.
Now:-
"7 Put position on computer, make intended move, and see what happens"
Correspondence chess is about *research* and here I have a major problem - this seems to be a major controversial point. Where is the difference between "fundamental" and "applied" research? Where is the boundary between storage and calculation?
Example: We have a game which is 17 moves in - in a sharp Sveshnikov variation. Now, If I go and buy a book on Amazon about the Sveshnikov - and find out what the best plans and main candidate moves are, at move 17 - this would seem to be a case of "applied research", as opposed to "fundamental research" before the game began.
It would seem also that any position databases (e.g. chesslive.de, chesslab.com), where I would be able to look at the position, and see what any players (and computers) have played from that position, would also be in the spirit of research.
How do the ICCF survive in the era of Engines?! Are all games drawn?! I do not believe so - they seem to have embraced engines as a research tool.
Interesting stuff, but at the root of it, I suppose one has to look at the acceptable moral boundaries of what is understoood by "research" . The thread currently at the TCCMB board is interesting in this respect:-
http://pub11.bravenet.com/forum/924995304/fetch/396956/
John Knudsen is a highly respect Senior International Master at correspondence chess. It is interesting that the ICCF players do tend to treat engines as simply a modern research tool.
I would view going out and buying a book on an opening you are playing is fine. I have a large database that I utilise during play. For a book to show the plans in a given position it must have been reached during a game at some point. Probably quite a few times. No different to using a database really. Of course as soon as either of the players plays a novelty you are on your own. You could of course continue to use the database as a tool to see the basic plans in the setup but you still have to come up with the moves yourself.
On RHP it is clearly stated that using an engine to analyse a position in a game in progress is against the TOS. While in some Correspondance chess circles engines may find regular use this should not be the case on RHP.
How about an example. Recently I played a game in the Sicilian Dragon:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6 6. Be3 Bg7 7. f3 0-0 8. Qd2 Nc6 9. Bc4 Bd7 10. 0-0-0 Rc8 11. Bb3 Ne5
Now up to this point all the moves have followed well known opening lines. I can find them both in my opening database and in my ancient BCO. Main lines continue 12. h4 h5.
However the game continued
12. Bh6 Bxh6 13. Qxh6
This is not in my BCO however it does appear in the opening encyclopedia on my computer.
Searching through my database I find this position has occured 48 times and every single time Black has played the thematic sacrifice on c3.
13. ... Rxc3 14. bxc3
Among my database there is a Survey from 1993 on this line. The survey continues as does the game:
14. ... a5 15. a3 a4 16. Ba2 Qa5
Here my opponent plays the varient
17. Qd2
This compared to the main line of 17. Qe3. This varient however is also covered in the survey. I continue the game and it ends in a draw.
I never used an engine during the game. Since the game has finished I have used an engine to look over it. If the position occurs again in a game then I will use the knowledge I gained from looking over it with Fritz to my advantage.
Am I breaking any rules? I don't think so. However were I to start up Fritz during the game and get it to check my moves or make sure I wasn't making blunders or to find the right moves I certainly would be.
Kramnik played on near auto-pilot against Leko's Marshall because he'd used computers to prepare. No one has accussed him of cheating; rather, many have pointed out that he should have let Fritz run a minute longer. Then, he might have anticipated the combination that Leko found on his own.There is nothing wrong with preparing openings for an OTB game with computers! In fact, above a certain level, you would be doing your opponent a professional discourtesy if you had not checked your opening preparation with Fritz or similar!
Equally, in correspondence (including e-mail or server chess) games, there is nothing wrong with using analysis you have *previously* conducted of a position - I won a very nice game in an IECG tourney recently using some analysis I had done with Fritz of a line in the Archangel variation of the Lopez. But the point is, the analysis had already been done - it as not done specifically to counter what my opponent did. As soon as he went out of my prepared analysis, I was 'on my own'. Admittedly by that stage, he was lost, but that is just because my analysis was very thorough :-)
My name is nothing in chess world yet. My name won't say anything to you now. But I do hard work to imrove myself. I already have 2 best games in the real tournaments. Those game were selected by judges and its were published in the local newspapers. I am looking forward for 3 big tournaments in this year. Probably I would do well on them and my games will be publish in world known magazines. May be after that I can say my name here and you give you a reference that you can find.
So I hate cheaters in chess so what? I created my own clan with only one member. Probably only I hate the cheaters here. I guess I can have my own opinion and you couldn't do anything about this. Just relax about that. May be you will forget something from our conversation but I am pretty sure you will rember every time about my opinion when you will use chess software next time.