10 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by SirUlrichMy 60 games on RHP are just fun games, the level of play in them is quite sad, be assured once I start to hit the 1700 opponents if my game load is still this high my graph will drop has it always has before.
So 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.
Which names on the volunteer list do you have any suspicions about?
I have a whole lot of time on my hands, I spend most of that time playing chess. I dont really look at the analysis as work, it is an intrest and I enjoy the time I spend looking at those chess games.
As for the names on the list that might be considered dodgy, well there were/are a few :-) I think everyone knows who they are, there has already been talk about them. I would be amazed if the cheat mods were not more sucitinzed than any other players on the site, since you have to be able to trust them.
10 Dec 04
1 edit
Again, thanks to all for contributing to this thread. Tryfon, good to see you in the fray here. Hopefully you will be able to learn from this experience too should you ever have the same problem anytime soon.
Work is proceeding on the code - hopefully by the mid/end of next week we can start to elect the game mods. I will be writing some tools to support them too.
-Russ
10 Dec 04
2 edits
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowLOL - are you saying I am cr*p? whatever you do don't tell my clan leaders I only got accepted after a large bribe and a kiss. (sorry Prad, but your reputation is safe in this thread)
As for what Fritz thought of your play, well it didnt like it at all. Dropping a fair amount of points off your advantage or adding a fair amount to your disadvantage on a lot of moves.
;-)
10 Dec 04
2 edits
Originally posted by SirUlrichOh no not crap. Fritz drops a lot of my best moves as being bad. Fritz thinks about chess in a different way to us which is why it sees some of our good moves as bad. For example
LOL - are you saying I am cr*p? whatever you do don't tell my clan leaders I only got accepted after a large bribe and a kiss. (sorry Prad)
;-)
Game 363333
Fritz hates my Knight sac, really hates it. Yet im sure without a doubt that is in the best 5 chess moves iv played on this site.
I just had to check that it hated it, on the off chance it didnt. It belived white already had a .80 advantage and believes that sacing the knight gives white a clear two point advantage. White certainly wasnt winning before the sac, and after id say it was unclear, black certainly has compensation for the knight. Thats the difference between fritz and us.
10 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by Grayeyesofsorrowwell it looks interesting - which in my book is better than being good/bad
Oh no not crap. Fritz drops a lot of my best moves as being bad. Fritz thinks about chess in a different way to us which is why it sees some of our good moves as bad. For example
Game 363333
Fritz hates my Knight sac ...[text shortened]... t a doubt that is in the best 5 chess moves iv played on this site
maybe it is Fritz that is crap after all - your move rocks!
10 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by SirUlrichFinding a move like that is what the cheaters miss out on. Its also pretty clear that if a player is knocking out good/great moves that fritz hates that they dont cheat. If I could find it, Tebb has a rocking knight sac in one of his games that im sure fritz would really frown up on as well :-)
well it looks interesting - which in my book is better than being good/bad
maybe it is Fritz that is crap after all - you move rocks!
Edit : That game is one I played when I had under 10 I think. It goes to show how an increased game level can effect play :-)
- Joined
- 06 Dec 01
- Moves
- 77129
10 Dec 04
Originally posted by Grayeyesofsorrowthis is why half the people on the list arnt even qualified. what you said is completely wrong. "endgames can be reduced to raw calculating ability and principles". for one thing why do you think computers are not good in endgames?? because it is not just raw calculating ability that wins them. endgames are very tricky and computers have no clue how to play them. often times the horizon affect blinds any type of positional advantag and computers fail miserably. "it is easy to tell which are won, drawn, and lost based on a few factors".... who are you kidding man, why do u think the russians strategy of learning chess is endgames first?? because it is the most tricky and precise and tedious part of the game. why do u think there are books with almost the exact same position, with the rook moved one square over and it changes teh whole outcome of the game. endgames take more than a "few" factors and u may think it is easy to tell which are won and lost and drawn, and this is not a post to be doubting ur ability of chess, but a statement like that makes me wonder. "while i dont get it right 100% of the time, just at a glance i can say this is won" ... once again i am not doubting ur chess ability, but i am not sure you are ujnderstanding the preciseness and uniqueness of endgames. in these positions i talked about, you do not need to work out variations, that is what im trying to say. they are positions that strong playewrs just know COLD. meaning they strive to get there because then it is just a matter of rattlign off moves.
Endgames 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.
as for the two no comment posts... what the heck is that supposed to mean and how does posting "no comment" help the forum at all.. come on people, this forum is getting to be a bit ridiculous
10 Dec 04
Originally posted by conticchioSo basically you are saying people on the site cheat and we should just accept it. Now that is truely the most stupid thing I'VE ever heard on this site. If you are fine with paying to play against engines and use shredder 8 to play for you I'm sure you can find a site that is all for that type of stuff but I am sure the majority of players on this site (everyone here but the 6 absent minded people who recommended your post) aren't interested in that. They want to have fun and play other people. I think I have mentioned before that cheat moderation will really change the site. Aside from people who don't fess up now before it starts I believe we will see changes and wont see new people joining the site and shooting up to the top 20 with like a 100-0 record. Or those graphs we all hate to see of an avrage player whose rating spikes up and down staying around the 1400-1500 range until, as someone else put it, they find a new toy and then shoot on up to 1900+.
Who here on this list owns and engine for checking games, and is qualified to do so? Probably someone but about these ones who is so skilled to understand the differences between a program move or a human one? And if there are some of them how can he/they SURE that he/they is/are using a program? This committee is one of the most stupid thing i've ever h ...[text shortened]... As i'm not interested if i win or lose. I prefer a guilty free that an innocent dead.
Byeeee
10 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by ZumdahlThanks for your input, its wrong but thanks anyway.
this is why half the people on the list arnt even qualified. what you said is completely wrong. "endgames can be reduced to raw calculating ability and principles". for one thing why do you think computers are not good in endgames?? becau ...[text shortened]... all.. come on people, this forum is getting to be a bit ridiculous
Firstly computers cant be beat in the endgames, they are the ultimate endgame players for a few reasons. Endgame tablebases, where the computer has every move and variation listed already hence you see forced mates in 30 worked out in under a second. If the computer enters a won endgame it will win.
Explain to me how you dont know something that simple? Infact go as far to say the oppsite!
Secondly even without tablebases computers play better with less material on the board. These are really straight forward things, how can you not know them and still want to be a chess mod who is going to spot engine users ?
Oh and humans cant workout the endgames ?
3 pawns vs 4........hm
5 pawn islands vs 2..........ermmm
king and pawn vs king oooooo ermmm
Bishops of oppsite colour endgame.....hard one
bishop vs knight endgame.....arrrgh it hurts to think this hard
Fgs if you dont even know endgame theory, how did you learn chess ?
"this is why half the people on the list arnt even qualified."
Thats rather amusing coming from someone who cant even work out endgames and clearly doesnt know the first thing about engines.
10 Dec 04
For you Zumdahl some past Master giving bullet points on endgames. I can even show you pages and pages of the endgame principles that you so clearly lack. They can be worked out from just raw caculating ability and knowing a few basic principles. Most strong players can tell you who will win the endgame after just looking at it.
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/Endings/genending.html
10 Dec 04
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowCool down guys.
For you Zumdahl some past Master giving bullet points on endgames. I can even show you pages and pages of the endgame principles that you so clearly lack. They can be worked out from just raw caculating ability and knowing a few basic principles. Most strong players can tell you who will win the endgame after just looking at it.
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/Endings/genending.html
I'd have to agree with Grayeyes - computers should be better at endgames - simply because the variations are not as endless as in the middlegame. Of course, humans probably recognise concepts like "opposition" and "triangulation" instantly, but a computer should figure it out with a depth search of, say, 20. Granted - humans can get it wrong lots of times (rook moved one square etc. etc.).
10 Dec 04
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerEndgames can be tricky to play, however almost everyone can say this endgame is won for white, this one is a draw. Converting it into a draw might be hard because you need perfect play, but you know in principle that white has a won game for example.
Cool down guys.
I'd have to agree with Grayeyes - computers should be better at endgames - simply because the variations are not as endless as in the middlegame. Of course, humans probably recognise concepts like "opposition" a ...[text shortened]... can get it wrong lots of times (rook moved one square etc. etc.).
- Joined
- 06 Dec 01
- Moves
- 77129
10 Dec 04
Originally posted by Grayeyesofsorrowit is a known fact that computers are weak in endgames becasue they cant analyze positionally.. do u know what the horizon affect is? i doubt it. it is of course obvious 5 v 4 pawns and simplistic endgames such as that. the whoel manner in which u are trying to demean me jus shows me that you do not have much chess experience yourself. ur examples that are given can infact be very complicated but i fault you not if u do not realize this.
Thanks for your input, its wrong but thanks anyway.
Firstly computers cant be beat in the endgames, they are the ultimate endgame players for a few reasons. Endgame tablebases, where the computer has every move and variation listed already hence you see forced mates in 30 worked out in under a second. If the computer enters a won endgame it wil ...[text shortened]... m someone who cant even work out endgames and clearly doesnt know the first thing about engines.
the manner in which u replied to my post just shows how naive you really are when it comes to endgames. obvisouly i know what tablebases are , but their hash size can only go so far. in complex endings it is much different and computers analyze by points, ery inaccurate for the ending.
first off, i dont even know why u tried making me look like a fool when u dont know waht u are talking about. completely uncalled for, especially in this forum. do u know all the different positiosn , very basic ones such as the lucena and philidor and loli positions? im not sure if u do or not, but if u do i dont see how u can make these claims that u are making. i think the problem here is ur lack of chess knowledge does not allow u to see past anything u know about, only simple endings.
as for telling me i cant workout endings? you are sorely mistaken and once again that comment was completely uncalled for, but i can understand that there are people like you that use attack as a valid form of defense. refrain from doing that, you are not getting any brownie points for it.
as for asking me how im going to be a mod if i dont know endings... once again mindless insults thrown around for reasons i cant see. i can tell you one thing though, i do have a good amount of experience in the matter, as i have done it before on icc. try to keep the posts civil man, this is not about me and you.