- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by DiophantusBobbie Fischer showed nothing but contempt for lesser chess players, but he played world champions and people who could become world champions.
Sounds like one Robert James Fischer. People who are good at something are often unpleasant people. We celebrate their achievements but don't necessarily want to spend an evening in their company. I have no doubt I'd enjoy a game of chess with Skeeter but probably wouldn't want to spend too long going over the game with her afterwards.
Skeeter shows nothing but contempt for lower-rated players, but he plays nobody else.
I have never been a great fan of Fischer, as should be obvious from previous posts of mine, but he did at least have the balls to punch his own weight. Skeeter does not.
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow Bluei think you are really right about the distinction of 'accurate' vs 'good' annotations. but if it would be for the purpose of hiding some computer use, suddenly comes out a reasonable annotation (maybe even with the help of friends or the local chess club?). quite good, but maybe missing something. what does that say? nothing about the players possible computer use. many annotations of great players have mistakes or overlooked mates and all you get is arguments like: thats a very good annotation - no, this is really crappy! - no, it certainly proves, he/she is not a cheater! - no, it certainly prooves, he/she is a cheater!
I doubt that. Accurate annotations, yes; but good ones? Engines will help you spot the right move, but a good annotation explains why it is the right move, not just which moves could follow it. The distinction is often overlooked these days, when so many games get published where the comments boil down to little more than "Rybka does not like thi ...[text shortened]... of the great teachers of yesteryear, like Euwe or Reti, and taste the difference.
Richard
Hi SB.
I agree the notes of the pre-computer age are clearer and crisper and honest.
Not sure about:
"Bobbie Fischer showed nothing but contempt for lesser chess players..."
I've never seen any proof of this.
True he slagged off Russian GM's for cheating (which as turns out was true).
And if in a tourment he would say his game plan was to beat the 'weakies'
IM's and draw with the good guys (GM's).
But to the general chess public he was very tolerant and understanding.
If you can, read the articles he wrote for Boys Life you will see a new side of Bobby.
(it's Bobby not Bobbie...) 😉
Non chess players of course he totally hated.
Regarding Skeeter not punching at her weight.
First of all I say again, she is doing nothing illegal. She is playing the system.
Secondly, you are correct. She's good but not that good.
There is no doubt there is a bit of good player ducking going on.
All legal. On here you can pick your opponents. Not OTB.
When she plays another good player. And she does play 2000+ players
if she is positive they do not cheat. She can come unstuck.
David Tebb has 6-0 score v her. (8-0 including defaults).
They were due to play again in 2009. Skeeter pulled the plug on move one.
There is no way DT uses a box and she knows it.
This was either fear, something DT said in a post, (the lady never forgives)
or perhaps a fall out with the club STAIND for which she no longer plays- she's a complicated lady.
Hi kopatov
My actual quote was:
"She often resigns on move 1 if faced with 2000+ player...."
Not always, those she thinks are not using a box she plays.
In the game you posted, Skeeter has played kes29 4 times.
Obviously in Skeets eyes kes29 is OK.
kes29 was part of a series of 1 move resignations in Tournament 10297
The lady does not play in a tournmant if she thinks one player is at it.
She pulls out resigning all her games on move 1.
If kes29 was the suspect then there is no way Skeeter would have played a
full game with them at a later date. So kes29, will I'm sure be relieved to hear,
is OK in Skeeters book.
BTW in that game you posted kes29 made a wrong opening choice.
Skeeter has played both sides of that postion often enough. It is part
of her narrow rep. She (and he personal DB) know it backwards.
Loads of players on here put their games through a box AFTER a game.
It is legal to store the analyse and use it at a later date. All above board.
My mate Zygalski who has did a batch analysis "with 20 non-theory moves"
has posted in his profile.
"I use books & online databases....."
See it's all legal.
(what tree is he using to get his theory from? A specialist with a personal DB
will go much further.)
Add that to the fact that Skeeter rarely comes out an opening badly.
She takes her time (boring.) does not make serious blunders and in some cases
her postions are that good the game plays itself - it's bound to match up.
A few have asked why she does not play OTB chess (maybe she does...who really knows
our Skeeter?).
Remember I went through her games looking for 6 combo's for the Blog.
I've never been so bored in all my life. She will not get her hands dirty
unless she is pushed into it.
Ahh you squeal. A computer will not try a specualtive sac.
Wrong again boys. I'm talking 100% box sound sacs, she looks for the
safe way first. and then looks no further. 🙁
Example: Game 6409587
skeeter v richardcjennigs RHP Nov 2009.
White to play. 'Get the Queen to e5 1-0.'
18.e6 (free e5 for the Queen) 18...dxe6 19.Rxf7 (whack the defender of e5) 19...Qxf7 20.Qe5
That is a crush. Black can just resign.
Put the first postion into a box and it will give you 19...e6 etc etc.
It will be top choice. It's the best move.
Skeeter. Oh No!
18.Rf6 (with the threat of Rxg6) 18...Qxf6 and Skeeter is happy.
The Queens are off and she can plod along on her merry little way.
(and then no doubt moan in the forum about players never resigning.) 😉
You guys with boxes.
Where does it place 19...e6
Where does it place 19...Rf6
And there were loads of box sound shots like this missed in favour of the more
gentle way. I think I could find 6 unplayed sound combo's quicker than I could
finding another 6 played combo's.
She only plays them if she stumbles upon them. Safety first. No blunders.
She is good at what she does.
This is box territory - mating attacks.
If some of you think she is using a box then look again.
Her dry style seeps through every game. Computers do not have a style.
How many FTP's have been raised against Skeets?
A player who is not very good at chess soon gets caught cheating.
She is a good player. Not brilliant by a long shot but good at what she does
and that includes dodging good players and others suspected of being Casey Jones.
(Engine Drivers.)
Forget that high grade it is not an OTB grade.
She is playing the system and that, in my opinion, is all she is doing.
Skeets OTB?
Can only go on what I see and sense.
Very good technique but misses shots. She would come unstuck in complicated
positions and very possibly suffer from time trouble.
Her opening rep will return to haunt her. 1.c4 (she needs to get out more.)
Skeets & Insults.
I quote:
"Skeeter is a hateful, hostile, unpleasant, and thoroughly rude person..."
Most of the time someone has said something about her or one of her friends first.
It may take minutes, it may take days, it may take months.
But suddenly from nowhere you get a flaming.
If you cannot take it.........
Non-subs always get pasted especially if they have had a pop at a sub payer
or RHP in general.
You will often see a first time poster getting 'Skeeted' here she suspects it is a
banned player returning.
The bad news is she never forgives.......she never forgets
and you lot are in her wee red book.....keep your heads down.
Originally posted by DiophantusI am convinced Fischer had a mental disorder beyond just simply being an aye hole, so in my opinion he's a bad example.
Sounds like one Robert James Fischer. People who are good at something are often unpleasant people. We celebrate their achievements but don't necessarily want to spend an evening in their company. I have no doubt I'd enjoy a game of chess with Skeeter but probably wouldn't want to spend too long going over the game with her afterwards.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo all she needs to do is annotate a few games and suddenly she will become accepted for her ability as the number 1 rated player?
Demonstrate a degree of transparency. Annotate a chess game. Many excellent players have done it, Korch, Paul Legget, Nimzo, Greenpawn, Pawn riot, Northern Lad, David Tebb, Ulyssess72 etc etc. In one instant the accusations are dispelled, you have in your hand incontrovertible proof that no one with the exception of the grossly cynical can deny, ...[text shortened]... o stamp down the impudent accuser as if he were a smouldering fire on the edge of a wheat field!
🙄
I am sure we all believe that will happen. She could analyse 500 games but because it is skeeter everyone will treat her as skeeter.
She may in reality be nothing better than a strong 1900/2000 player but because her average rated opponent is sub 1750 then she does well.
Also she has won 323 games, more than 25% of her total won games, by timeout - so easy points regardless of the opponents ability. There are not many players with such a high % of wins by timeout, certainly very few on page 1 of the highest raters.
She obvviously wants to keep her ID and personal info to herself. You of all people should respect that. I remember when you got upset because I plastered your details, which were so easy to find, on here.
Originally posted by adramforallI gave reasons you may make reference to any of those, others managed to do so with
So all she needs to do is annotate a few games and suddenly she will become accepted for her ability as the number 1 rated player?
🙄
I am sure we all believe that will happen. She could analyse 500 games but because it is skeeter everyone will treat her as skeeter.
She may in reality be nothing better than a strong 1900/2000 player but becau ...[text shortened]... member when you got upset because I plastered your details, which were so easy to find, on here.
little effort. Sooo lets get this straight, annotating a chess game is synonymous (it
means the same as) with revealing personal details because. . . .?
1. your are incapable of rational thought?
2. like to talk drivel ( i too dont mind indulging in a little free form jazz now and again)
3. are confused and find it difficult to express your thoughts clearly (fair enough, meaning
is rooted in language and it can be a cumbersome vehicle at times)
three good reasons to go away and do something more constructive, and before you
ignore that fine admonition and post something equally as absurd, i shall tell you
again for the last time, i could not care less about skeety's rating nor her conduct.
Tell it to someone that cares.
you guys are wasting your time with this useless banter about personality or strategy for reaching #1. both of those things are absolutely irrelevant. it makes no difference whatsoever whether skeeter was the kindest helpful soul in the world or worst one next to hitler. it makes no difference whether she played a thousand 1200s exclusively or masters only and won every single game.
the ONLY thing that matters is the sustained engine matchup rate relative to known best players of history. the ONLY thing. nothing else.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I let Critter run for half a minute and it certainly prefers 19. ... e6, Rxf7 is a poor second. So I let it run a little while longer, a minute or so, and e6 is mate in some silly number of moves but so is Rxf7! This took about a minute and a half on my admittedly posh 12 core beast but I would expect that any reasonable engine running long enough on reasonable hardware would find this and might even place Rxf7 top of the list.
You guys with boxes.
Where does it place 19...e6
Where does it place 19...Rf6
ha, thanks gp for feeding the thread with some real chess. it is like you can bring to every argument a position that could replace the arguement.
imagine people arguing by simply exchanging FENs. 'but it is your child as well!'
besides that: skeeter is an amazing example for what dedication can achieve! (including all those discussions about her and her style, her philosophy, the cheating accusations etc....)