Originally posted by Zygalski The results of the analysis I did was inconclusive, as I told you.
Don't see a problem, to be honest. 🙂
Inconclusive, precisely the point. I have a problem discussing this player in a public forum when there is still serious doubt your conclusions are correct.
Originally posted by tvochess So Rybka vs Rybka doesn't produce the same game when it is repeated? Computers use random choices then or what?
No, what Rybka does is looks at several different moves-in the position I looked at Rybka scored 5 moves as being viable moves. It then plays 5 games based off those moves. However, after each of those 5 moves there are perhaps 3 viable moves, so then rybka plays another 15 games. You see how the math works-the more possibilities the greater the number of games played. This is somewhat similar to the Shannon number in chess.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number
P.S. the thread should be renamed, there's actually 6 currently over 2400 now. 😉
Originally posted by kbear1k "I was also over 1500 USCF within a year of playing OTB chess. In fact I was 1817 USCF rating 30 years ago. So what?"
You are a fish - pure and simple. Wait, my daughter loves fish - so you must be something lower on the evolutionary scale. Go play Mr. Tebb in that position - you probably can't see how positionally black is crushed. In fact black has been ...[text shortened]... a long time - I was just looking for my opponent to reach a little too far in some instances.
I know you, as Black, was in a bad way for awhile and the psychology of the situation became too much for you. 😏
Originally posted by Marinkatomb I think this is inherent in the elo calculations. Rating inflation has happened in real world Fide ratings, when you consider the number of games you play online compared to the number of real world games per year, it's no wonder that internet ratings inflate quicker than real World. The top players on ICC or Playchess are all over 3000. What the numbers are isn't really important, it's the order..
I don't think it's elo per se as much as it is it's application to cc chess, which is (I think) an extreme example of what you have cited with FIDE.
An expanding pool can inflate, depending on the entry point of the new players and the relative volume of games.
In the US, for a long time the elo system was deflationary because of the large influx of junior players with very low initial ratings. The US has actually gone to a modified system that has bonus points and is not "zero sum" to counteract this.
I hope that kbear1k does not take my comment on the psychology of the chess game as a dig against him. I hope he learns from this and puts up a stronger fight the next time with the optimism that he may still get a draw or win until at least the positional disadvantage turns into a material disadvantage so there is no doubt who has the win. He is obviously too strong a chess player to give up so quickly.
P.S. To kbear1k:
If you read this, I want you to beat this Davis Tebb for the USA. Don't let him rule over you. Also show sunhouse that he was rooting for the wrong person. By the way I do not think I could beat David Tebb in that position, but I still would not give up that quickly unless I was psychologically defeated. There is always a possibility of a draw even when down in material.
Originally posted by RJHinds ...the positional disadvantage turns into a material disadvantage so there is no doubt who has the win.
Do you really think that the side with a material advantage removes all doubt as to who is going to win?
Are you trying to tell us that you have NEVER seen a game where a person has won even though they had a material disadvantage? You've never seen a sacrificial attack leading to mate?
It is silly to suggest that a material advantage means that there is "no doubt" about who is winning. Even suggesting that a material advantage is somehow superior to a positional advantage is spurious.
Advantages take many forms, and none are intrinsically superior others- it all depends on what's going on at the board.
This post is no better than a newby who posts on the forum asking someone to explain why they lost. "How could I have lost by checkmate? I had more pieces left on the board!"
Originally posted by Paul Leggett Do you really think that the side with a material advantage removes all doubt as to who is going to win?
Are you trying to tell us that you have NEVER seen a game where a person has won even though they had a material disadvantage? You've never seen a sacrificial attack leading to mate?
It is silly to suggest that a material advantage means that ...[text shortened]... hy they lost. "How could I have lost by checkmate? I had more pieces left on the board!"
You are replying to my post out of spite. You are well aware that I am a good chess player, who makes mistakes under psychological pressures just like the rest. I was only pointing out why I believed kbear1k resigned early under the positional disadvantage, which presented no clear win or even gain in material at this point. David Tebb is no master or grandmaster, so there was no reason to believe he was going to play this perfect to an easily won endgame, in my opinion.
As far as I can tell, Paul isn't "well aware" that you are a good chess player. I'm not going to answer for him, but I can see that the prevalent opinion on this forum is that you are not a chess player. This is my opinion too. I'm hardly a chess player, but the stupidity of some things you say about chess is easily discernible even to me. You clearly have no idea about chess.
You are also a cheater, and this has been proven.
You are also a liar, and this is very easy to prove too.
You should just shut up already if you have any decency.
Originally posted by WanderingKing As far as I can tell, Paul isn't "well aware" that you are a good chess player. I'm not going to answer for him, but I can see that the prevalent opinion on this forum is that you are not a chess player. This is my opinion too. I'm hardly a chess player, but the stupidity of some things you say about chess is easily discernible even to me. You c ...[text shortened]... this is very easy to prove too.
You should just shut up already if you have any decency.
I have the decency to exercise my right to free speech and expression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
So, no I will not just shut up.
The fact that I finished first in a 3-way tie with no loses in the 1600 and under section of the World Open in 1982 proves I am a good chess player. That certainly does not make me a master or grandmaster, but we don't have any of those on RHP.
I bet everyone here has cheated and lied sometime in their lives. I can't prove I am any better. So you are free to judge me harshly if you wish, and I will not deny your freedom of speech or expression in doing so.
06 Nov '12 18:521 edit
David Tebb breaks into the 2400's! 5 there now.
Back to Top