Originally posted by thaughbaerok.. bear in mind I'm new at this..
Answer the question. Does the computer put Skeeter ahead ?
Stockfish 2.1.1 at 30 seconds on my system puts Skeeter ( black ) ahead for 1 move in the whole game !! Who is this idiot I'm defending ? Jesus wept ( I swore I'd never do that ). Unless I've done it wrong the smoking gun isn't smoking and may in fact be a banana.
08 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Paul LeggettI screwed up one of my games against caissad4 after months of patient wrangling in an advantageous if not winning endgame, by making a '5 second reflex move' around 4am. because I had been over and over every possible variation, checking thrice, checking ten times, for so long that I felt I 'knew it all already inside out'. and then I do that, move instantly after she moved, and realize in seconds that it cost me the win. a classic CC blunder.
GM Pal Benko used to intentionally sit on his hands to avoid impetuous moves. A GM! I wonder what we can make of that...
I'm still so disgusted about it I've never opened nor analyzed the game after it ended.
a post-it probably wouldn't have made any difference though. I have all that 'check list' stuff in my normal thinking process already, and when it breaks it doesn't matter one bit how many notes you have on your monitor. sometimes the brain just freezes and there's nothing you can do. not even if you're kramnik. or kasparov.
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by Paul LeggettSkeeter's explanation at the time IIRC is that the post-it was only referred to when transposing the position from physical board to computer. It was in a response to a question about the reason for a massive blunder. Hence the comment "and yet despite all of that I can still stuff it up".
I think this may be overstating the case. If I could refer to my books and notes OTB, I definitely would play better, especially if my opponent could not.
Botvinnik once stated that Reshevsky's biggest strength was that he was a true master of the "two move combination". It is the gift of the greats that they can reduce the complexity of the game i ...[text shortened]... ally sit on his hands to avoid impetuous moves. A GM! I wonder what we can make of that...
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by Paul LeggettIt is the gift of the greats that they can reduce the complexity of the game into simple, concise statements.
Yes, for a specific player or a specific position. Where is Botvinnik's simple, concise statements that he suggests can be applied to *any* position?
I figure mine has been worth 200 points since I started using it
So when you're analysing a position, do you refer to your checklist for every intermediate position in every line?
GM Pal Benko used to intentionally sit on his hands to avoid impetuous moves. A GM! I wonder what we can make of that...
Why doesn't Carlsen do likewise? Or Anand, Kramnik, etc. You only highlight a weakness in Benko's play that he couldn't automatically overcome. And if that's what he had to do, fair enough. But it doesn't imply that great players don't do things automatically - hence the majority of GMs do not sit on their hands.
08 Jan 12
This is all very nice & all.
How does a post it note on your monitor with Dan Heisman-style advice for newbies explain
{ skeeter (Games: 20) }
{ Top 1 Match: 496/809 ( 61.3% ) Opponents: 393/805 ( 48.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 635/809 ( 78.5% ) Opponents: 546/805 ( 67.8% )
{ Top 3 Match: 709/809 ( 87.6% ) Opponents: 640/805 ( 79.5% )
{ Top 4 Match: 745/809 ( 92.1% ) Opponents: 689/805 ( 85.6% )
?
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by VarenkaI use mine right before I hit "submit". The point about Botvinnik's quote is that he thought something as simple as a two move combination was worth mentioning as a distinguishing characteristic of a GM's play. To suggest that someone's use of a post it note tells you anything about their playing strength is a reach that I don't think many will follow you on.
[b]It is the gift of the greats that they can reduce the complexity of the game into simple, concise statements.
Yes, for a specific player or a specific position. Where is Botvinnik's simple, concise statements that he suggests can be applied to *any* position?
I figure mine has been worth 200 points since I started using it
So when y ...[text shortened]... ers don't do things automatically - hence the majority of GMs do not sit on their hands.[/b]
As for the rest, you've already drawn your conclusion from skeeter's post, and I doubt anything will dissuade you from it.
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by ZygalskiWas this for me? I don't think it explains the matchups at all, and I am not defending her. I am merely suggesting that a suggestion in a post about a post it note tells us nothing. Nothing more.
This is all very nice & all.
How does a post it note on your monitor with Dan Heisman-style advice for newbies explain
{ skeeter (Games: 20) }
{ Top 1 Match: 496/809 ( 61.3% ) Opponents: 393/805 ( 48.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 635/809 ( 78.5% ) Opponents: 546/805 ( 67.8% )
{ Top 3 Match: 709/809 ( 87.6% ) Opponents: 640/805 ( 79.5% )
{ Top 4 Match: 745/809 ( 92.1% ) Opponents: 689/805 ( 85.6% )
?
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20057
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by ZygalskiAgreed,
...
You can never be 100% certain that a player has used an engine. Even a confession could be claimed to be given under duress.
All you can do is ban these no-names who happen to play far, far more engine-like chess online than the Super GM's, or allow a free-for-all and ban nobody.
You take risks banning anyone for anything, but match rates will always be a crucial part of any case.
it suffices for me that the chances of dealing with a cheater are high enough. Let's say above 95%. This would mean less than 5% false positives among the players with very high matchup rates. That's why I was asking about the chances, but it seems too difficult to answer. The risks of demotivating people because of the apparence of cheaters should not be forgotten.
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by Paul LeggettIt wasn't *just* the use of a post-it note. Combine that with the fact that it's one of the few chess posts that was ever made, despite being a frequent poster.
To suggest that someone's use of a post it note tells you anything about their playing strength is a reach that I don't think many will follow you on.
Instead you mention Botvinnik who had a reputation based on verifiable play; well annotated games; lots of chess writing; etc. And you think that I should be regarding Skeeter no differently?!
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by VarenkaActually, I was comparing Botvinnik's remark to your post. Your point, if I am correct, is that really strong players are far too deep for skeeter to have had such a simple post, and Botvinnik's idea shows how simple (two move simple) a really strong player's game can be.
It wasn't *just* the use of a post-it note. Combine that with the fact that it's one of the few chess posts that was ever made, despite being a frequent poster.
Instead you mention Botvinnik who had a reputation based on verifiable play; well annotated games; lots of chess writing; etc. And you think that I should be regarding Skeeter no differently?!
My point is that we can't really draw any conclusions about the strength of a player based on generalized chess thoughts or simple suggestions in a post on a website's forum.
Zygalski's numbers are more than sufficient, and looking for subjective, circumstantial stuff doesn't really contribute anything.
People like to speculate, though, and it's a free forum, so what the heck.
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by nimzo5I believe he did.
Do you think Bot meant "the master of the two move combination" as a compliment? I have to wonder.
From Soltis' "The Inner Game of Chess", "When Mikhail Botvinnik lost on first board during the 1955 Soviet-American match, the world champion explained the result simply: 'It shows I need to perfect my play of two-move variations'".
I think Kasparov once complemented Leko in terms of his ability to calculate short variations precisely. Of course, the skill here is to avoid overlooking candidate moves (which Botvinnik was guilty of in the match mentioned above).
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by ZygalskiHi Zygalski, I appreciate all the hard work you have put into this, but as someone who has never analyzed a game by computer, the significance may be lost on me. It appears Skeeter makes the better move more often than her opponent (am I correct that she makes one of the top 4 suggested computer moves 92.1% of the time whereas her opponent does this 85.6%, or the top rated move 61.3% compared to 48.8% for her opponent?), but this only tells me she is the better player, which is clearly the case based her historical RHP rating. Are her choice percentages better than you would expect from a GM, or is it what you would expect from a good honest corresponence player rated 2300+ here, for example? I apologize if I am the only dumb one trying to follow this thread. Peter
This is all very nice & all.
How does a post it note on your monitor with Dan Heisman-style advice for newbies explain
{ skeeter (Games: 20) }
{ Top 1 Match: 496/809 ( 61.3% ) Opponents: 393/805 ( 48.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 635/809 ( 78.5% ) Opponents: 546/805 ( 67.8% )
{ Top 3 Match: 709/809 ( 87.6% ) Opponents: 640/805 ( 79.5% )
{ Top 4 Match: 745/809 ( 92.1% ) Opponents: 689/805 ( 85.6% )
?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
08 Jan 12
Originally posted by VarenkaMoreover, GP proves his chess understanding all the time with insightful forum posts and even blog entries. The entity which is the subject of this thread... not so much. Nary a word, in fact.
No, because I doubt he needs a post-it note to stress it. I know GP is a better tactician than me and it's not because of superior post-it notes.
Richard