This was what was posted on me about cheating with Computer Engines:
Here are the results for the 20 games I analysed:
Houdini 1.5a x64 Hash:512 Time:30s Max Depth:20ply
4xAMD Phenom 2.30Ghz 4GB RAM
Game 8821710
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 26/45 ( 57.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 38/45 ( 84.4% )
{ Top 3 Match: 41/45 ( 91.1% )
{ Top 4 Match: 43/45 ( 95.6% )
{ Black: yrddraig }
{ Top 1 Match: 14/44 ( 31.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 25/44 ( 56.8% )
{ Top 3 Match: 30/44 ( 68.2% )
{ Top 4 Match: 32/44 ( 72.7% )
Game 8895566
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 26/33 ( 78.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 30/33 ( 90.9% )
{ Top 3 Match: 33/33 ( 100.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 33/33 ( 100.0% )
{ Black: Pawnb4dawn }
{ Top 1 Match: 23/32 ( 71.9% )
{ Top 2 Match: 27/32 ( 84.4% )
{ Top 3 Match: 31/32 ( 96.9% )
{ Top 4 Match: 32/32 ( 100.0% )
Game 8895571
{ White: Pawnb4dawn }
{ Top 1 Match: 24/40 ( 60.0% )
{ Top 2 Match: 35/40 ( 87.5% )
{ Top 3 Match: 38/40 ( 95.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 38/40 ( 95.0% )
{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 29/40 ( 72.5% )
{ Top 2 Match: 34/40 ( 85.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 37/40 ( 92.5% )
{ Top 4 Match: 37/40 ( 92.5% )
Game 8914482
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 19/33 ( 57.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 25/33 ( 75.8% )
{ Top 3 Match: 27/33 ( 81.8% )
{ Top 4 Match: 29/33 ( 87.9% )
{ Black: grahamhammer }
{ Top 1 Match: 19/32 ( 59.4% )
{ Top 2 Match: 21/32 ( 65.6% )
{ Top 3 Match: 25/32 ( 78.1% )
{ Top 4 Match: 27/32 ( 84.4% )
Game 8895568
{ White: kingshill }
{ Top 1 Match: 27/42 ( 64.3% )
{ Top 2 Match: 33/42 ( 78.6% )
{ Top 3 Match: 39/42 ( 92.9% )
{ Top 4 Match: 41/42 ( 97.6% )
{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 22/41 ( 53.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 31/41 ( 75.6% )
{ Top 3 Match: 36/41 ( 87.8% )
{ Top 4 Match: 39/41 ( 95.1% )
Game 8914481
{ White: grahamhammer }
{ Top 1 Match: 22/30 ( 73.3% )
{ Top 2 Match: 26/30 ( 86.7% )
{ Top 3 Match: 30/30 ( 100.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 30/30 ( 100.0% )
{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 17/30 ( 56.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 24/30 ( 80.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 26/30 ( 86.7% )
{ Top 4 Match: 28/30 ( 93.3% )
Game 8895565
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 26/33 ( 78.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 32/33 ( 97.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 32/33 ( 97.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 33/33 ( 100.0% )
{ Black: kingshill }
{ Top 1 Match: 23/34 ( 67.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 33/34 ( 97.1% )
{ Top 3 Match: 33/34 ( 97.1% )
{ Top 4 Match: 34/34 ( 100.0% )
Game 8845055
{ White: cohonas }
{ Top 1 Match: 28/37 ( 75.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 33/37 ( 89.2% )
{ Top 3 Match: 36/37 ( 97.3% )
{ Top 4 Match: 36/37 ( 97.3% )
{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 26/36 ( 72.2% )
{ Top 2 Match: 31/36 ( 86.1% )
{ Top 3 Match: 33/36 ( 91.7% )
{ Top 4 Match: 34/36 ( 94.4% )
Game 8845060
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 16/25 ( 64.0% )
{ Top 2 Match: 19/25 ( 76.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 22/25 ( 88.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 24/25 ( 96.0% )
{ Black: cohonas }
{ Top 1 Match: 23/26 ( 88.5% )
{ Top 2 Match: 24/26 ( 92.3% )
{ Top 3 Match: 25/26 ( 96.2% )
{ Top 4 Match: 26/26 ( 100.0% )
Game 8821820
{ White: PA82 }
{ Top 1 Match: 10/23 ( 43.5% )
{ Top 2 Match: 17/23 ( 73.9% )
{ Top 3 Match: 19/23 ( 82.6% )
{ Top 4 Match: 20/23 ( 87.0% )
{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 18/23 ( 78.3% )
{ Top 2 Match: 21/23 ( 91.3% )
{ Top 3 Match: 21/23 ( 91.3% )
{ Top 4 Match: 22/23 ( 95.7% )
Game 8821766
{ White: ItsYouThatIAdore }
{ Top 1 Match: 17/39 ( 43.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 23/39 ( 59.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 26/39 ( 66.7% )
{ Top 4 Match: 33/39 ( 84.6% )
{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 25/40 ( 62.5% )
{ Top 2 Match: 35/40 ( 87.5% )
{ Top 3 Match: 38/40 ( 95.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 39/40 ( 97.5% )
Game 8775723
{ White: rrlack3066 }
{ Top 1 Match: 25/43 ( 58.1% )
{ Top 2 Match: 35/43 ( 81.4% )
{ Top 3 Match: 40/43 ( 93.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 42/43 ( 97.7% )
{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 28/44 ( 63.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 39/44 ( 88.6% )
{ Top 3 Match: 41/44 ( 93.2% )
{ Top 4 Match: 43/44 ( 97.7% )
Game 8775725
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 21/32 ( 65.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 25/32 ( 78.1% )
{ Top 3 Match: 31/32 ( 96.9% )
{ Top 4 Match: 32/32 ( 100.0% )
{ Black: rrlack3066 }
{ Top 1 Match: 21/31 ( 67.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 26/31 ( 83.9% )
{ Top 3 Match: 28/31 ( 90.3% )
{ Top 4 Match: 29/31 ( 93.5% )
Game 8804595
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 25/33 ( 75.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 29/33 ( 87.9% )
{ Top 3 Match: 31/33 ( 93.9% )
{ Top 4 Match: 31/33 ( 93.9% )
{ Black: grahamhammer }
{ Top 1 Match: 23/33 ( 69.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 32/33 ( 97.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 32/33 ( 97.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 33/33 ( 100.0% )
Game 8804592
{ White: grahamhammer }
{ Top 1 Match: 21/34 ( 61.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 29/34 ( 85.3% )
{ Top 3 Match: 32/34 ( 94.1% )
{ Top 4 Match: 33/34 ( 97.1% )
{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 23/35 ( 65.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 31/35 ( 88.6% )
{ Top 3 Match: 32/35 ( 91.4% )
{ Top 4 Match: 34/35 ( 97.1% )
Game 8650789
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 21/32 ( 65.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 25/32 ( 78.1% )
{ Top 3 Match: 27/32 ( 84.4% )
{ Top 4 Match: 28/32 ( 87.5% )
{ Black: aetheon }
{ Top 1 Match: 16/31 ( 51.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 22/31 ( 71.0% )
{ Top 3 Match: 23/31 ( 74.2% )
{ Top 4 Match: 23/31 ( 74.2% )
Game 8695484
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 32/47 ( 68.1% )
{ Top 2 Match: 40/47 ( 85.1% )
{ Top 3 Match: 44/47 ( 93.6% )
{ Top 4 Match: 46/47 ( 97.9% )
{ Black: Kings and Pawns }
{ Top 1 Match: 35/47 ( 74.5% )
{ Top 2 Match: 42/47 ( 89.4% )
{ Top 3 Match: 44/47 ( 93.6% )
{ Top 4 Match: 46/47 ( 97.9% )
Game 8695491
{ White: Kings and Pawns }
{ Top 1 Match: 35/48 ( 72.9% )
{ Top 2 Match: 42/48 ( 87.5% )
{ Top 3 Match: 44/48 ( 91.7% )
{ Top 4 Match: 45/48 ( 93.8% )
{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 28/48 ( 58.3% )
{ Top 2 Match: 38/48 ( 79.2% )
{ Top 3 Match: 44/48 ( 91.7% )
{ Top 4 Match: 44/48 ( 91.7% )
Game 8653987
{ White: vkim }
{ Top 1 Match: 39/64 ( 60.9% )
{ Top 2 Match: 55/64 ( 85.9% )
{ Top 3 Match: 58/64 ( 90.6% )
{ Top 4 Match: 61/64 ( 95.3% )
{ Black: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 52/64 ( 81.3% )
{ Top 2 Match: 60/64 ( 93.8% )
{ Top 3 Match: 64/64 ( 100.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 64/64 ( 100.0% )
Game 8653988
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 30/53 ( 56.6% )
{ Top 2 Match: 38/53 ( 71.7% )
{ Top 3 Match: 44/53 ( 83.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 45/53 ( 84.9% )
{ Black: vkim }
{ Top 1 Match: 42/54 ( 77.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 52/54 ( 96.3% )
{ Top 3 Match: 53/54 ( 98.1% )
{ Top 4 Match: 54/54 ( 100.0% )
Batch Summary
RJHinds (Games: 20)
Top 1 Match: 510/767 ( 66.5% )
Top 2 Match: 645/767 ( 84.1% )
Top 3 Match: 704/767 ( 91.8% )
Top 4 Match: 728/767 ( 94.9% )
It does not seem to matter if I made a blunder that caused me to lose the game. It only matters that I matched enough of the computers moves to put me over some imaginary threshhold that someone claims is humanly impossible to acheive. Perhaps the claim is I was not using the computer engine on all games but just certain ones that I won. But how about those games on the list that my opponent had higher matchup rates than me and would also put them over this humanly impossible matchup rate?
P.S. After all, this is not timed over-the-board chess.
I still think it all started because I claimed to be a Christian, who does not believe in the theory of evolution. For the accusation first came from one on the Spirituality Forum where I was debating Atheism and Evolution. I had not even come on the Chess Forum at that time.
Originally posted by RJHindsLet's have a look at this shall we, here's your 20 game analysis -
This was what was posted on me about cheating with Computer Engines:
Here are the results for the 20 games I analysed:
Houdini 1.5a x64 Hash:512 Time:30s Max Depth:20ply
4xAMD Phenom 2.30Ghz 4GB RAM
Game 8821710
{ White: RJHinds }
{ Top 1 Match: 26/45 ( 57.8% )
{ Top 2 Match: 38/45 ( 84.4% )
{ Top 3 Match: 41/45 ( 91.1% )
{ Top 4 Match ...[text shortened]... Top 2 Match: 645/767 ( 84.1% )
Top 3 Match: 704/767 ( 91.8% )
Top 4 Match: 728/767 ( 94.9% )
RJHinds (Games: 20)
Top 1 Match: 510/767 ( 66.5% )
Top 2 Match: 645/767 ( 84.1% )
Top 3 Match: 704/767 ( 91.8% )
Top 4 Match: 728/767 ( 94.9% )
and now gambit05 who sits 6 places below you on the rating tables -
gambit05 (Games: 20)
Top 1 match: 318/642 ( 49.5% )
Top 2 match: 455/642 ( 70.9% )
Top 3 match: 537/642 ( 83.6% )
and now Magnus Carlsen -
Magnus Carlsen (Games: 20)
Top 1 Match: 484/842 ( 57.5% )
Top 2 Match: 628/842 ( 74.6% )
Top 3 Match: 698/842 ( 82.9% )
Top 4 Match: 733/842 ( 87.1% )
and now GM Duncan Suttles playing CC in the late 70's.
Duncan Suttles (Games: 10)
{ Top 1 Match: 160/274 ( 58.4% )
{ Top 2 Match: 205/274 ( 74.8% )
{ Top 3 Match: 233/274 ( 85.0% )
{ Top 4 Match: 251/274 ( 91.6% )
and his opponents in those games who were world class CC players -
Opponents (Games: 10)
{ Top 1 Match: 152/273 ( 55.7% )
{ Top 2 Match: 198/273 ( 72.5% )
{ Top 3 Match: 227/273 ( 83.1% )
{ Top 4 Match: 240/273 ( 87.9% )
You have far higher matchups than everyone listed, what would you put that down to Ron?
Originally posted by Proper KnobPerhaps you picked the wrong games to check; and some of the players I played against on RHP had higher matchup rates than me too. What would you put that down to Knobby?
Let's have a look at this shall we, here's your 20 game analysis -
RJHinds (Games: 20)
Top 1 Match: 510/767 ( 66.5% )
Top 2 Match: 645/767 ( 84.1% )
Top 3 Match: 704/767 ( 91.8% )
Top 4 Match: 728/767 ( 94.9% )
and now gambit05 who sits 6 places below you on the rating tables -
gambit05 (Games: 20)
Top 1 match: 318/642 ( 49.5% )
Top )
You have far higher matchups than everyone listed, what would you put that down to Ron?
Originally posted by RJHindsThe wrong games? Three people have ran a 20 game analysis of your games and have all come to the same results bar a percentage or two. Have we all chosen the 'wrong games'?
Perhaps you picked the wrong games to check; and some of the players I played against on RHP had higher matchup rates than me too. What would you put that down to Knobby?
Originally posted by Proper KnobI only remember you, who started it all with your three top moves and the other guy that I just posted his results of the top 4 moves. I do not remember a third guy. However, doesn't it stand to reason, if I have three or four top computer moves to choose from that the probability of picking one of those becomes greater than if I always was picking the number one top computer move. That is, unless I am playing complete duffer moves. If I use logic behind my moves, like a computer is programmed to do, I should find the best move at least 50% of the time, don't you think?
The wrong games? Three people have ran a 20 game analysis of your games and have all come to the same results bar a percentage or two. Have we all chosen the 'wrong games'?
The post that was quoted here has been removedOf course I'm speculating. It's not like there any facts on Anand's intelligence lying around. I also never said someone with "average talent" will become a GM.
It is also unfair to use Josh Waitzkin as an example of lots of talent not succeeding in spite of hard work. The man ditched chess in favor of martial arts. You knew that it was very difficult to become a GM if you ditch chess(impossible, actually). You think he realized he would not become a GM because he's not good enough. In my opinion, this is not the case. He realized he would not be a GM because he liked martial arts more. If it was the former, I think he would be unhappy. I assume he's happier now?
I mean, it's questionable logic really: You quit chess because you think you're not gonna become a GM. Of course this is gonna make it impossible to be a GM, you just quit!
I still think his potential was overrated. This is my assumption. After years of studying chess, he does not become a GM. This tells me, personally, he lacks the talent.
How many people do you see going "Man, I studied chess for years and still couldn't become a GM. I have GM-level talent."? This is never the case, people always assume if they studied for years and cannot achieve what they want to achieve, that they lack the talent.
If you want, I can give you a theory on why I think Anand's IQ is in the 120's range.
Originally posted by hamworldMagnus Carlsen became a Grandmaster at the age of 13. I would say he has the talent and he also has played simultaneous blindfold chess indicating he has the required vision of the board to become a great chessplayer if he is not already. He lacks the title of World Champion of Chess at this point, however.
Of course I'm speculating. It's not like there any facts on Anand's intelligence lying around. I also never said someone with "average talent" will become a GM.
It is also unfair to use Josh Waitzkin as an example of lots of talent not succeeding in spite of hard work. The man ditched chess in favor of martial arts. You knew that it was very difficult t ...[text shortened]... you want, I can give you a theory on why I think Anand's IQ is in the 120's range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Carlsen
The post that was quoted here has been removeddear Dutchess if you will allow me a brief interlude, I would appreciate your
thoughts, it is rather painfully obvious to me that I really have no talent for the
game, yet i am somewhat addicted to it, herein belies the paradox. I really enjoy
tactical problems do scores of them everyday with limited success, I bathe in chess
theory as Cleopatra did milk, I am well acquainted with pawn structures and the
relevant plans which accompany them, be it a Caro kann formation or a Kings
Indian, a Benoni or a Stonewall Dutch, yet i am prone to defeat by players who
know absolutely little about chess. How do I know, i can tell when I play them, they
make the most fundamental errors, premature attacks, pawn pushes which result in
bad pieces, they for the most part are opportunists, eager to capitalise on some
oversight, they play a kind of one move attacking chess. Why am i telling you this?
Well I really wonder if I should not give it up for sheer lack of talent, for I doubt I
will ever see the line that's drawn between good and bad.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieGive it up when it's not fun anymore.
dear Dutchess if you will allow me a brief interlude, I would appreciate your
thoughts, it is rather painfully obvious to me that I really have no talent for the
game, yet i am somewhat addicted to it, herein belies the paradox. I really enjoy
tactical problems do scores of them everyday with limited success, I bathe in chess
theory as Cleop ...[text shortened]... sheer lack of talent, for I doubt I
will ever see the line that's drawn between good and bad.
This is a game, where people all over the world act as mutual enablers for our collective mental illness. If we're not having fun, we are missing out on the whole rest of the world and what it has to offer.
The post that was quoted here has been removedIt was a tongue in cheek comment. Learning chess builds up on itself from childhood. Take away the TV, that's less brain-rotting(I love TV, but it's not stimulating in a good way) That's 5 IQ points there. Take away sports, that's another 5 IQ points. Add chess, that's 5 more IQ points. 15 IQ points extra. That's as a child. Now, you already have the mental skills(or talent?) needed to become a grandmaster. Get tactical solving problem skills up to par(70 percent) and you're basically rock solid in the tactical area.
From there, it's studying lots. Improvement is linear and there's no such things as barriers. Before you know it, you're already a GM. Even the lazy guys(or very distracted) in this scenario will become a GM before they're 30. For these guys, it's just like soccer with kids who are destined to become professional soccer players: They just practice. Serious training programs just get them to go where they want to go faster.
Like a great chess player accumulating small advantages to get the win, these guys build up their skills and become pretty good. You see talent, I see a great environment for those guys. There's usually always external support.
I was more or less speculating Anand's IQ for the sake of breaking down what it takes to be a World Champion in chess. Anand is not some random person from India whose IQ I just randomly decided to guess.
Originally posted by hamworldWell, an IQ of 125 is still above average. If I remember correctly, mine was 129 when I entered the US Army.
It was a tongue in cheek comment. Learning chess builds up on itself from childhood. Take away the TV, that's less brain-rotting(I love TV, but it's not stimulating in a good way) That's 5 IQ points there. Take away sports, that's another 5 IQ points. Add chess, that's 5 more IQ points. 15 IQ points extra. That's as a child. Now, you already have the mental nd is not some random person from India whose IQ I just randomly decided to guess.
Originally posted by ChessPraxisI used to be able to see my dreams in colors until I was about 13 years old. I wonder if it could have anything to do with all that beer I drinked at an early age. Anyway, I have no ability to visualize a chessboard and pieces, I have to think very hard about where the pieces are in my head and I loose track with just a very few moves. Sometimes people try to explain to me how they moved in one of their games without using the board to show me. I usually just pretend I understand it all, since I was embarrassed to tell them I needed them to set up the the pieces for me to see it. I am not like Magnus Carlsen, who says you don't need the board and pieces to play chess.
Spatial perception: 35%
Intelligence: 10%
Chess knowledge: 25%
Problem solving: 20%
Confidence: 10%
Math knowledge of percentages: 15%
It helps having the board and pieces in front of me, but I still loose track of where I have planned to move a piece and sometimes forget that it is no longer guarding another piece, until I realize it when the position materializes by my making the actual moves in an OTB game. Then it is too late. However, RHP suits me well, for I can take all the time I need to move the actual pieces around and see how the positions actually appears many moves deep into the game. Then if I don't like it, I can try out something else until I get one that looks good. Then and only then do I have to move. That is why I think good visualization is necessary to become a great OTB chess player. I can become good, but never great in OTB play. I will miss too many things due to no visualization.