Only Chess
10 Jan 05
13 Jan 05
The attitude of an improving player when playing a much superior player: I'm going to play the best I can and watch his moves carefully to see what he's doing. If I lose (in all likelyhood) I'm going to examine the game, maybe put it through the computer to see where I went wrong.
the attitude of a player resigned to mediocrity: I'm afraid of him. He's a magician on the board. He's so far ahead of me I don't even see what he's doing. I'm getting my brains beat in for nothing.
13 Jan 05
1 edit
Studying ones losses is critical if you want to improve.
For example, in gameGame 501165, I played a line which was quiet simply refuted. I had played it straight from my book, but his book was clearly better.
I spend some time examining this line, not least because if I didn't I'd have to find something else to play against the Dutch Defence.
I found a better plan, and soon enough another opportunity arose to play the same line. Game 852904
If you've got the time, look over all your games. At least look over all the games where you played a stronger opponent. As soon after the game as you can, so that what you thought during the game is fresh in your mind.
It might not stop you losing, but you won't lose for the same reason each time.
Editted to correct game link...
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by RedmikeFirst game: wrong link, I get a game with adsadsa vs panterpanter
Studying ones losses is critical if you want to improve.
For example, in gameGame 510165, I played a line which was quiet simply refuted. I had played it straight from my book, but his book was clearly better.
I spend some time examining this line, not least because if I didn't I'd have to find something else to play against the Dutch Defence.
I f ...[text shortened]... in your mind.
It might not stop you losing, but you won't lose for the same reason each time.
Second game: where exactly did your book abandon you? (I'm not very familiar with the staunton 😉 )
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by TestriderI've corrected the link - it should be Game 501165.
First game: wrong link, I get a game with adsadsa vs panterpanter
Second game: where exactly did your book abandon you? (I'm not very familiar with the staunton 😉 )
Basically, my book recommends the 1st appraoch (the one I lost), but some homework found a better plan.
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by RedmikeBasicly ANYONE playing Ironman is a lost cause IMHO. He's probably the best correspondance player I have ever seen/played in all the correspondance sites over the years, and strangely enough, the dude isn't even a GM.
Studying ones losses is critical if you want to improve.
For example, in gameGame 501165, I played a line which was quiet simply refuted. I had played it straight from my book, but his book was clearly better.
I spend some time examining this line, not least because if I didn't I'd have to find something else to play against the Dutch Defence.
I f ...[text shortened]... you losing, but you won't lose for the same reason each time.
Editted to correct game link...
Ironman's first 20 moves or so are definately pretty human, his opening reperatoire kills anyone out of the gate, they simply NEVER get a chance. His endgames also have a good human element, and being a good endgame human player myself, I recognize his endgame play is definately very human. His tactics are pretty engine like, it's a killer combination to be honest, human opening, engine middlegame, and human ending, and I honestly don't know if he cheats or not, or maybe he's simply the next Kasparov/Tal, who knows. He does do a lot of human moves, but the dude keeps a very low profile so it makes it hard to analyze or understand him.
This is perhabs one of the reasons I am against databases. Ironman obviously is using a killer database, which is legal by the TOS (plz don't say he doesn't rely heavily on opening databases, he obviously does) Ironman's database simply seems to be superior then what anyone else can come up with. He brings almost any idea in the book, new and sometimes even 1000 years old, and you can never prepare/beat him in the opening. His database is simply too good, so I wouldn't feel too bad RedMike, you could be 2500 rated GM, and Ironman would still school you bad in the opening, his database is simply too good.
I'm not complaining, he's taking advantage of the TOS to win as he should if he wants to remain first in the site, it's legal, but as the discussion wages on about databases, it's pretty obvious Ironman gets a 10 meter start in every 100 meter track race of chess because he has an unknown database that is simply unbeleivably good that nobody else has. This is a part of the reason why he never loses, and nothing can really be done about it.
This is also why I suggested the RHP community play the Caro against him. Yes, it's as drawish as it comes, not the RHP posters style, but there are very few replies to the Caro, as you saw, when we were discussing our first few moves, they were pretty much forced to one possibility or at most two, on both sides. The opening essentially nutralizes Ironman's killer database, gives us a chance, but we won't be able to beat him with the Caro me thinks, not a chance, but at least that is better then geting killed the frist 20 moves because of a database.
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by mateuloseDid you actually look at the games I posted?
Basicly ANYONE playing Ironman is a lost cause IMHO. He's probably the best correspondance player I have ever seen/played in all the correspondance sites over the years, and strangely enough, the dude isn't even a GM.
Ironman's first 20 moves or so are definately pretty human, his opening reperatoire kills anyone out of the gate, they simply NEVER g ...[text shortened]... chance, but at least that is better then geting killed the frist 20 moves because of a database.
I think I did out-prepare him in the opening, and at one point I was better (though I saw a draw and went for it). But this preparation didn't use databases (there are no games with that line in mine), but simple, old fashioned, analysis.
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by mateuloseHaving a killer database dosen't take as much as you'd think. Pick up Mega Database from Chessbase, that's 2.9 million games right there. Look around and you can find a huge number of sources for recent GM tournaments and matches in pgn form that you can add to it.
Basicly ANYONE playing Ironman is a lost cause IMHO. He's probably the best correspondance player I have ever seen/played in all the correspondance sites over the years, and strangely enough, the dude isn't even a GM.
Ironman's first 20 moves or so are definately pretty human, his opening reperatoire kills anyone out of the gate, they simply NEVER g ...[text shortened]... chance, but at least that is better then geting killed the frist 20 moves because of a database.
The first time I saw Ironman accused of cheating I thought I'd take a look for myself. I got his last 20 finished games and analysed them all with Fritz. I saw no evidence of computer use. In fact I saw quite a lot of evidence of the opposite. So for my money Ironman is playing all his games himself. I too am amazed by his record and his level of play. But that doesn't mean I'm going to claim he is a cheater when all the evidence points to him just being a very good chessplayer.
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by mateuloseI thought Ironman had identified himself to Russ. I didn't know of any titled players playing on RHP but I guess you in your infinate knowledge would know better than me.
But this is the paradox, if he is not an engine, THEN WHO IS HE? Beleive me, I've had free trials on other ICS sites, I've seen IM/GM games, and I can say, Ironman is at least at their level in correspondance chess, perhabs even better, in fact, probably way better. Many agressive GM's like Judit Polgar who play a lot of Internet chess admit they have t ...[text shortened]... , and I'll continue to refute the notion of ANY miracle. Whether it's Jesus, Ironman, etc. . .
14 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by mateuloseyou say judit polgar is exactly the sort of player who is not suited to correspondence chess .... keen to move quickly, and make speculative attacks.
But this is the paradox, if he is not an engine, THEN WHO IS HE? Beleive me, I've had free trials on other ICS sites, I've seen IM/GM games, and I can say, Ironman is at least at their level in correspondance chess, perhabs even better, ...[text shortened]... the notion of ANY miracle. Whether it's Jesus, Ironman, etc. . .
if true ... then this explains why some other players, less good at o.t.b. chess, will be much better at correspondence.
i imagine she would not be too keen about others beating her ... good for business as you say 😉
14 Jan 05
Originally posted by RedmikeXanthos and RedMike, unless you are running and/or have access to a dual processor tiger with 2.8G Hz platforms on each server then you are simply pissing into the wind. Simply put you cannot detect the evidence becuse you are unable to simulate the software. I have a friend at CU who runs that gear. IM gets a 100% match on a dual processor tasked with Deep Fritz 8. But he's also saavy - he swaps over to Junior from time to time. He's a cheat, pure and simple.
There is absolutely no evidence that Ironman is using an engine, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Please don't make such accusations in public.
GrayEyes is onto him also. But I am not playing him so I could care less.
But hear me this, for all my other shortcomings I despise the engine users and will expose them to my bitter end. They are low lifes and disrespect all the other RHP players who strive to improve their chess skills and ratings. Just this girls perspective but its pretty much on the button.
Michelle ( aka skeeter )
14 Jan 05
6 edits
Originally posted by skeeterhow many games have you run? can you please show us the details?
Xanthos and RedMike, unless you are running and/or have access to a dual processor tiger with 2.8G Hz platforms on each server then you are simply pissing into the wind. Simply put you cannot detect the evidence becuse you are unable to si ...[text shortened]... but its pretty much on the button.
Michelle ( aka skeeter )
sorry i cannot just take your word for it .... in the moon landing thread you made similar statements about telescopes that can see the moon landing sites with no landing gear ... and you fizzled badly ... very badly .... http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=18152&page=7
show us the details.
i have seen stuff from grayeyes that is persuasive.
i have also seen stuff from others proving the oppposite, equally persuasive.
i have looked around...
i see no "simple" answer ... not yet.
14 Jan 05
Originally posted by skeeterCU? I'll admit I'm running Fritz 8 on a crappy computer. So if someone is using such a highpowered system it may be almost impossible for me to discover their cheating. Of course soon the cheatpolice will be up and going and it seems GreyEyes will be a member. We'll soon find out.
Xanthos and RedMike, unless you are running and/or have access to a dual processor tiger with 2.8G Hz platforms on each server then you are simply pissing into the wind. Simply put you cannot detect the evidence becuse you are unable to simulate the software. I have a friend at CU who runs that gear. IM gets a 100% match on a dual processor tasked with Deep ...[text shortened]... s. Just this girls perspective but its pretty much on the button.
Michelle ( aka skeeter )