Originally posted by SirLoseALotGrayeyes can i ask a Question, and everybody else feel free to post an answer to this Question, its open to all.
You can't even have a set number of games,imo.A player with 1000 games is likely to have more matching games than a player with a mere 100 games.
How many games can you play concurrently before you notice a drop in your playing standard due to the excessive workload ?
Or to put it another way, what is the maximum number of games you will take on at any given time ?, 20, 30, 40, 50 ?, how about 100+ games ?, thats a very big workload, in fact it's a massive workload, lets say for instance your a top guy, the people your playing are good, there not going to drop pawns for nothing, drop the odd knight or Bish or walk into any silly cheap 2 movers, there good.
And you have got 100+ games all needing precise, accurate and solid moves, moves of a very high standard, no mistakes :-)
That's a BIG workload, very big indeed, engine's are good at workload, there fast, dont get tired, dont complain, just get on with it, and even a bad engine move will still be a solid move, in a way engine's dont play bad moves, they just dont allways find the best move :-)
Feedback welcome, but no tantrums please.
Regards FGWE
Originally posted by forevergreenwithenvyJust out of curiosity was it mentioned that IronMan is also the top player of another site I won't mention - but appears to have over 60 games there, and heads the rating list there as well as here. (Nicknamed Cyrano). Is this link correct first of all?!
Grayeyes can i ask a Question, and everybody else feel free to post an answer to this Question, its open to all.
How many games can you play concurrently before you notice a drop in your playing standard due to the excessi ...[text shortened]... :-)
Feedback welcome, but no tantrums please.
Regards FGWE
If it is correct - I am a bit confused. I appreciate IM's are strong players in real life, but have myself beaten Crouch, Kopec, and drawn with Basman in real life otb chess. Is it really possible for an ordinary over-the-board IM to have a huge number of games on two servers, and very rarely lose - not only that, actually concurrently head both rating lists?!. Putting it another way, one can readily play IM's and GM's at places like the ICC - and at blitz time controls, they seem readily beatable at faster time controls. If such players have a huge game load, then it would be interesting to measure their reflection time per move.
If their reflection time is very small - e.g. a few seconds per move, how is it that such a player can play towards a total of 160-200 current games or more without blundering!? Could it be possibly that some players on the site do follow their own plan, but use engines as a kind of "spelling checker" to ensure that within their chosen plan and moves, there are no obvious tactical errors?! Would this also be a violation in terms of computer-abuse or not ?!
Edit: I suppose on further reflection, that actually it could be possible - if the IM in question has a winning position against a bunny, then they could speed up on those games, and just put attention into the harder games. This would be the same approach as a good chess simultaneous-display player.
Originally posted by forevergreenwithenvyI set my limit to around 10 games due to my time available. This enabled me to think pretty well in each game and I think my play was fairly good. With the advent of the leagues, this has almost trebled and if you look at my games you can clearly see my play is awful, silly mistakes and very poor positional play.
Grayeyes can i ask a Question, and everybody else feel free to post an answer to this Question, its open to all.
How many games can you play concurrently before you notice a drop in your playing standard due to the excessive workload ?
Regards FGWE
Add onto that the increased number of games lately (clan and league) has seen a large increase in my coming up against engines and I'm getting very disillusioned with the site. Anyone who thinks it isn't rife is living in cloud cuckoo land!!
Originally posted by forevergreenwithenvyIt depends on how much time people have. To play high level correspondence a lot of time is needed. We can take a guess at the time required. My OTB games take around 3 hours, admitly half of that time is the opponents but I spend it thinking about game. In nearly all of my OTB games there are either blunders or weak moves, that fritz pounces on in seconds of getting hold of the game. Now people who are playing "fritz perfect chess" (ie eliminating all glaring weak moves/mistakes) must be spending at least 4 hours per a game. That means with only 6 games thats a whole days worth of thinking time. Even with piles and piles of free time on my hand the thought time I take per moves is a lot less than the time I spend on OTB games, my rating reflects this often my graph shoots up when my games get low and I approach a longer think time, but then when my game load goes up and my rating reachs the level where im playing people who play very good chess, the amount of time I spend on a game isnt as much as them and my rating dips till iv cleared enough games and my think time goes up and my rating goes up with it. Im not sure if I could get "fritz perfect games" with 4 hours of thought time on each game (I certainly cant do it game after game with 3 hours, nor can any GM do it with 4 for that matter) For arugements sake say I could appoarch a tactically perfect game with 4 hours then at the moment it would take me with 60 games 240 hours just on chess or ten whole days. Clearly I cant spend that amount of time thinking about a whole load fun correspondence games, maybe people do iv no idea. I think my game load is higher than most but not that much higher. I guess game load by itself means nothing because people can still play good chess with a few hours thought per a game, possibly enough to break the top ranks here, but tactically perfect is quite another thing.
Grayeyes can i ask a Question, and everybody else feel free to post an answer to this Question, its open to all.
How many games can you play concurrently before you notice a drop in your playing standard due to the excessi ...[text shortened]... :-)
Feedback welcome, but no tantrums please.
Regards FGWE
I would say im not an experienced correspondence player and have only recently started to look at the games of past masters (from more than 30 years ago) even the very top rated players have the sort of mistakes in their games that fritz grabs and chew up.
Edit : Im pretty sure Ironman isnt an IM he is only an International Arbiter, there is no corresponding FM,IM,GM rating for him. However you'd have to ask him, but iv never hear him or anyone else say he was IM.
Is it possible to know how long a player spends on any one move? Because if the only "proof" is a move matching Fritz & co, do we not need to know if the level equates with the time spent. For example I would imagine that Fritz, if given enough time would recommend quite a few different moves in any position, if a player makes a move within 5 minutes, do we then limit Fritz to moving in the same timespan or do we just set it rolling until it finds a match? This must be done fairly, after all if someone is accused and banned unfairly would they have a case to sue? I don't know - the sooner the rules of the court are drawn up the better, just being on the jury will be intimidating enough
Originally posted by SirUlrichI think its best for the mods once they are picked to debate about this. Im feeling a little worn out at the moment so I dont feel like stringing out a whole load of answers and getting into a detailed arguement, ask Arrakis, since he was a member of the ICC chess mod team and can offer detailed answers based on past experience.
Is it possible to know how long a player spends on any one move? Because if the only "proof" is a move matching Fritz & co, do we not need to know if the level equates with the time spent. For example I would imagine that Fritz, if given enough time would recommend quite a few different moves in any position, if a player makes a move within 5 minutes, do ...[text shortened]... e rules of the court are drawn up the better, just being on the jury will be intimidating enough
- Joined
- 06 Dec 01
- Moves
- 77129
i just thought of a good idea. how bout making it a requirement to have everyone give some sort of credible information about what their OTB rating is. this would help so much in determining how "good" they can potentially be or not be. and if to those who claim to not have a rating, whether the claim is a lie or for real, then those people can be the ones to be "checked" up on, in edition to other people who play much higher than there rating suggests. this is definitely not a soltuion to the whole problem.. but i think it would help a huge boatload.
also, another good thing to do would be after all the ratings are gotten, make some sort of statistical analysis to where a comparison of in real life ratings and OTB chess rating. that way u can sort of get an idea how the two ratings compare and can get a general idea of when people are playing above their level and possible computer usage is suspected.
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowThat is fine - but shouldn't this be an open debate - everyone should know the criteria -surely?
I think its best for the mods once they are picked to debate about this. Im feeling a little worn out at the moment so I dont feel like stringing out a whole load of answers and getting into a detailed arguement, ask Arrakis, since he was a member of the ICC chess mod team and can offer detailed answers based on past experience.
I am not a big fan of a closed batch of mods subjectively deciding the fate of fee paying subscribers. Especially as there is every chance that at least one of the jury will be a cheat himself (What safer place to hide?)
In fact i volunteered with the main intention of keeping everything as open as is possible
- Joined
- 06 Dec 01
- Moves
- 77129
the whoel workload topic is a very important one. there is definitely a drop off of chess strength once u are playing more than some set number of games. i for one know that i am better, if by much or little, than what my rating shows, but the reason i am not able to keep that up is that with 100 games, i find myself pushing wood and just making moves without too much thought and when other players with not as many games, or players that just spend more time with the game are playing me, they will see through my mistakes whereas the wood pusher will not. the fact about ironman was brought up and how he can maintain his status on two different servers or what not. the fact is, chess experience plays a HUGE factor in this.. GM's and IM's and even just really experienced masters have the chess knowledge and a sort of RAM in their memory where they just know their positons real well and dont need time thinking, whereas other peoepl need to think about the position because they have not seen it or they do not know theory about the position. which brings up another good point. in a given position, the computer looks at a matrix basically, and just does hardcore rote analysis, whereas the player makes moves that are "sound" and in general go along with openeing theory and what not. that is the difference between very high rated and experienced players and the average joe. there is a book called GM-Ram that was made by a local IM around my city. this book had lots of endgame positions, in the hundreds, that are either wins or losses or draws, depending on whose moves and depending on very detailed piece placements. now these are not simple 1 move wins, they are very tough and hard rook and pawn v rook situations and things of that nature, meaning they require a lot of though and understanding to completely get the jist of the position.. now the reason why it is called gm-ram is because gm's have all those positions , or most of them, basically memorized to where they know if they can get to that posiition, they have a win. i bring this up because the same goes with openings and such. most peoepl make fundamental mistakes in the opening if they are not careful, and gms know how to pounce on that immediately because they have just seen it so many times and they know how to take advantage of situations like that. i am just saying that it is not entirely impossible that just because someone has 500 games out and is winnign eveyr single one fo them consistently, it is cause to sus\pect them. the thing is, they know when a mistake is made in the opening, and to a strong player , even the weakening of a square is enough to know how to win the game, and it is not rocket science, to them(although maybe to us) , how to find a clear cut way to win. for me, playing 100 games is just way too much to be playing perfect openings(as i do not have the patience to look up every single variation that i do not know) , and usually get bad positions straight from the openings, but to strong players, it is easy to exploit these inaccuracies, even the slightest. basically it is the idea of a simul. GM's and IM's give them because they know their stuff.
Originally posted by ZumdahlProvided you can get critical mass for the chess mods, this is a good idea. Personally, I don't have an OTB rating - I have only played in two tournaments (both unrated) in my life and I'm not even a part of a chess club here. RHP is pretty much the only chess I do; I don't know if other volunteers for this effort are on the same boat.
i just thought of a good idea. how bout making it a requirement to have everyone give some sort of credible information about what their OTB rating is. this would help so much in determining how "good" they can potentially be or not be. and if to those who claim to not have a rating, whether the claim is a lie or for real, then those people can be the ones ...[text shortened]... eral idea of when people are playing above their level and possible computer usage is suspected.
Originally posted by ZumdahlNo comment
... i am just saying that it is not entirely impossible that just because someone has 500 games out and is winnign eveyr single one fo them consistently, it is cause to sus\pect them. the thing is, they know when a mistake is made in the o ...[text shortened]... a simul. GM's and IM's give them because they know their stuff.
Originally posted by ZumdahlEndgames can be reduced to raw caculating ablitiy and principles. It is easy to tell which are won,drawn and lost based on a few factors. While I dont get it right 100% of the time just at a glance I can say this is won, etc. Working out the variations still takes a lot of time however.
the whoel workload topic is a very important one. there is definitely a drop off of chess strength once u are playing more than some set number of games. i for one know that i am better, if by much or little, than what my rating shows, but the reason i am not able to keep that up is that with 100 games, i find myself pushing wood and just making moves withou ...[text shortened]... . basically it is the idea of a simul. GM's and IM's give them because they know their stuff.
Originally posted by SirUlrichIts not much of a debate at all since most of the people who have a good idea about these things are being quiet, which is why I said it might be talked about when the mods are selected. Im not sure it is a good idea to tell everyone how they deicde either, as long as its fair. You dont want to provide all the details for cheaters to cheat better and not be detected.
That is fine - but shouldn't this be an open debate - everyone should know the criteria -surely?
I am not a big fan of a closed batch of mods subjectively deciding the fate of fee paying subscribers. Especially as there is every chance that at least one of the jury will be a cheat himself (What safer place to hide?)
In fact i volunteered with the main intention of keeping everything as open as is possible
Iv posted the answer to your question a number of times in much more detail than I have here. After a bit of time the variations on fritz dont jump about much so matching up is easy, however you shouldnt start jumping about on the time it takes to match. Infact forget the word time, its the number of chess moves/variations worked out by fritz that it takes to match up. This elimiates the time between computers, because while it might take 2 mins on one pc and 10 on another the number of chess variations (which is displayed) is the same on both. So long as you are hitting that area time and time again then you can be sure the moves were created in that way.
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowSo what do my games show you? I would like to know how (badly) I stack up against a top standard; and how do you fit in so much analysis work using Fritz/Shredder/CM10 while playing 60 games on RHP.
Its not much of a debate at all since most of the people who have a good idea about these things are being quiet, which is why I said it might be talked about when the mods are selected. Im not sure it is a good idea to tell everyone how they deicde either, as long as its fair. You dont want to provide all the details for cheaters to cheat better a ...[text shortened]... hitting that area time and time again then you can be sure the moves were created in that way.
Which names on the volunteer list do you have any suspicions about?