Originally posted by twiceaknightI tend to agree but I think this is such a great site that I try and get as many people as possible to join but judging by some of the response here when the person(s) of whom I am thinking seem to be accused of cheating before we even start I am beginning to understand their concerns.
Yes. people usually have the emotion first (ie doesn't want to join RHP) and then rationalise it to themselves and others.( ie by giving logical explanations). Ask anyone who is successful in advertising!
... and what people don't seem to realise is that strong players when given loads of time to think tend to be even better against us mere mortals than their OTB rating would imply. I wouldn't be surprised if Adams played at 3000+ here and Kasparov 3200 or greater!
Originally posted by Dragon Fire3200 or greater???? The ratings measure relative strength, not absolute. The highest possible rating anyone could achieve on this site is 600 points higher than the top player, who's rating would go down by losing. Bleh...I don't think Kasparov could break 2700 on this site; there just aren't enough really strong players to beat.
I tend to agree but I think this is such a great site that I try and get as many people as possible to join but judging by some of the response here when the person(s) of whom I am thinking seem to be accused of cheating before we even start I am beginning to understand their concerns.
... and what people don't seem to realise is that strong players w ...[text shortened]... uld imply. I wouldn't be surprised if Adams played at 3000+ here and Kasparov 3200 or greater!
Originally posted by BedlamProbably with enough games played. But he certainly couldn't get more than a few hundred points above as there is a point after which he wouldn't even gain a single point from being place 2.
You dont think Kasparov could get 250 points higher than the current number one player?
I disagree. I think that quite a lot of GMs and IMs could play nearly as well as Kasparov if they had more time to think about their moves. Besides, can you imagine how much effort they would put into their games against Kasparov! If I was playing him in a correspondence game I'd probably take a month off work and study the game for 12 hours a day.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
2 edits
Originally posted by Fat LadyIf we had GM's and IM's on this site then yes he might not get the maximin range possible between 1st and 2nd but with the people on it now Kasparov would breeze through.
I disagree. I think that quite a lot of GMs and IMs could play nearly as well as Kasparov if they had more time to think about their moves. Besides, can you imagine how much effort they would put into their games against Kasparov! If I was playing him in a correspondence game I'd probably take a month off work and study the game for 12 hours a day.
Hes just of a totally different class to anyone here. To almost anyone in the world.
While you say you would try your hardest to beat Kasparov we'd also have to suspect Kasparov would try his hardest not to be beaten by a group of people who are probably all at least 500 points under him OTB.
Originally posted by BedlamActually it would be less above 2300 as the K value is 16 rather than 32 (which gives a value around 600).
600 points is the cut off limit I think. If Kasparov played the games im pretty sure he'd make that 600.
And remember during the last 50 points he gains Kasparov would have to score 50-0.
1 edit
Originally posted by BedlamNot forgetting that his strategy would be far superior, hence requiring a supercomputer to beat him (apart from other GMs, of course).
If we had GM's and IM's on this site then yes he might not get the maximin range possible between 1st and 2nd but with the people on it now Kasparov would breeze through.
Hes just of a totally different class to anyone here. To almost anyone in the world.
While you say you would try your hardest to beat Kasparov we'd also have to suspect Kasparov would ...[text shortened]... not to be beaten by a group of people who are probably all at least 500 points under him OTB.
1 edit
Originally posted by lauseyHe wouldn't have to be beaten; Weyerstrass is undefeated but only 2400 because of draws. Yes, I highly doubt anyone on the site would beat Kasparov, but I believe enough higher rated players could manage draws against him so as to prevent him from reaching a certain level (maybe not 2700, but probably not much higher).
Not forgetting that his strategy would be far superior, hence requiring a supercomputer to beat him (apart from other GMs, of course).
2 edits
Originally posted by Dragon FireHogwash. All he would need to do is e-mail a photo copy of USCF, BCF or whatever I.D. - name some tournaments he was in? Send in some photo copies of his I.D. and tell them who he is, and he could be well on his way to being the best player on RHP. Silly wabbit! Not only that, but I don't think his 2350 rating will yield him 9 out of 10 of Fritz's moves? Not even Kramnik had that in the World Chess CHampionship, and some games - including some of mine - had yielded a large percentage of agreements because of my opponent's drastic errors.
I have been trying to convince a very strong player I know. ELO 2350 OTB with a couple of GM norms to his name and 200-300 points above that at correspondence chess to join RHP. He plays in the 4NCL here in UK which is the top national league frequented by many GMs.
He won't join because he claims he will be accused of cheating as 9 out of 10 moves he ...[text shortened]... is better!
Suggestions would be welcomed. We need players like this but he is being put off.
Originally posted by powershakerWe have already flogged this to death.
Hogwash. All he would need to do is e-mail a photo copy of USCF, BCF or whatever I.D. - name some tournaments he was in? Send in some photo copies of his I.D. and tell them who he is, and he could be well on his way to being the best player on RHP. Silly wabbit! Not only that, but I don't think his 2350 rating will yield him 9 out of 10 of Fritz's mo ...[text shortened]... mine - had yielded a large percentage of agreements because of my opponent's drastic errors.
So I repeat myself, the 9 out of 10 moves was said tongue in cheek and he has been told to provide details of his OTB rating to the mods. End of story - he knows what to do!
1 edit
Originally posted by Dragon Fire9 out of 10? Another from the outrageous boasts club? Looking at Fischer , Kamsky or even Topalov, chess players (or their managers/fathers) are usually known for paranoia and not egocentricity. Perhaps this may need to be revised?
We have already flogged this to death.
So I repeat myself, the 9 out of 10 moves was said tongue in cheek and he has been told to provide details of his OTB rating to the mods. End of story - he knows what to do!
I would presume that your friend (the 9 out of 10 one) is this user User 264880 and he would not need any further "introduction". You could not have done a better job unless you had Topalov's Manager...
Ahem enough said.
Originally posted by Dragon Firei just posted a bunch of qustions on the other form, but how does RHP know if you cheat?
I have been trying to convince a very strong player I know. ELO 2350 OTB with a couple of GM norms to his name and 200-300 points above that at correspondence chess to join RHP. He plays in the 4NCL here in UK which is the top national league frequented by many GMs.
He won't join because he claims he will be accused of cheating as 9 out of 10 moves he ...[text shortened]... is better!
Suggestions would be welcomed. We need players like this but he is being put off.