Originally posted by HAL 9000 XPget a life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I REPLIED
“While I appreciatte you apparent good intentions I am not sure what you are recommending I do.
Are you saying i should intentionally loose games so that it appears that i am not being 'helped' or are you accussing me of being 'helped' and advising me not .... er not to be.
In regard to statistical improbabilities, while looking at i ...[text shortened]... mundane.. bring on the wolves!!
HE REPLIED
I like your attitude.
1 edit
this isn't an accusation at all, but I was wondering if there was a clear explanation for the difference in the level of your play in these two games.
Game 1301343 July 05
and
Game 1774024 Feb 06
Originally posted by Freddie2006yep there is...
this isn't an accusation at all, but I was wondering if there was a clear explanation for the difference in the level of your play in these two games.
Game 1301343 July 05
and
Game 1774024 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Freddie2006Well,regarding the game where I was involved I must admit that I played pretty badly and careless,I guess it didn't need an engine or whatever,however it makes a very odd comparison with the game where the guy gets schoolmated ...well........it speaks for itself.......
this isn't an accusation at all, but I was wondering if there was a clear explanation for the difference in the level of your play in these two games.
Game 1301343 July 05
and
Game 1774024 Feb 06
Originally posted by RavelloPrecisely. No offence, but if he had beaten someone higher rated it would suggest something more, but it is still slightly odd that he managed to fall for scholar's mate what with being a 1500-1600 player (and still rising).
Well,regarding the game where I was involved I must admit that I played pretty badly and careless,I guess it didn't need an engine or whatever,however it makes a very odd comparison with the game where the guy gets schoolmated ...well........it speaks for itself.......
2 edits
Originally posted by Freddie2006I just took a look at the game where he was at his first rating peak and it's another rather strange game.
Precisely. No offence, but if he had beaten someone higher rated it would suggest something more, but it is still slightly odd that he managed to fall for scholar's mate what with being a 1500-1600 player (and still rising).
Game 1436086
Despite the fact that he got timeouted,it's strange how he misses a basic trap after black plays 2...f6 (Damiano's defense,a horrible move),he replies the very bad (traps his own bishop) 3.d3?? missing the classical Nxe5 (...fxe5 4.Qh5+ leaving white with a very comfortable game).......
Originally posted by Ravellothat's pretty cool... will remember that one.
I just took a look at the game where he was at his first rating peak and it's another rather strange game.
Game 1436086
Despite the fact that he got timeouted,it's strange how he misses a basic trap after black plays 2...f6 (Damiano's defense,a horrible move),he replies the very bad (traps his own bishop) 3.d3?? missing the classical Nxe5 (...fxe5 4.Qh5+ leaving white with a very comfortable game).......
Originally posted by Freddie2006So what you mean is .....
....*suspence*...care to expain...*drumroll*
I am not acusing you of anything.... BUT i am really accusing you of something.
Check out the timebank on the first game....
That right there isnt one its ALL gone.
At a guess, not remembering exactly I would say i was running on the red light on this one and probably about 10 others at the same time.
It was at this time I was just moving instinctively and not very well effectively playing RHP like blitz chess without thought or really much care.
I can not see how varying standards of play over time has much bearing on the analysis.
One week i could play like a donkey because i had zero time, another i can play well because i take my time, a lot lot more time.
Who hasn't been active on this site for many years now... I'm not sure I can figure out why you think they think you a cheat.
User 29875