Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 30 Dec '05 22:28
    Okay, I know it's been discussed before, but what if I played my true strength, playing the King's Gambit and win against the computer on the highest level? What would this say about my strength Here's my game against Excalibur Electronic e-chess and checkers on the highest level (Level 72). Model 410-3-CS-RS. I beat it in 76 moves. And, I always beat it with different openings. What would the following game say about my true rating strength? You be the judge.


    Game 1
    King's Gambit Declined
    White: POWERSHAKER (RHP rating 1509 at present)
    Black: E-chess & Checkers (estimated 1700 rating)

    1.) e4! c5 2.)f5 d5 3.)exd5 Qxd5 4.)Nc3 Qe6+ 5.)Be2 Nf6 6.)Nf3 Nc6 7.)d3 Nd5 8.)Ne4 Qg4 9.)g3 b6 10.)Ne5 Qe6 11.) Bg4 f5 12.)Ng5 Qg8 13.)Nxc6 fxg4 14.)Ne5 h6 15.)Ng7! Rh7 16.)c4 Nf6 17.)Qa4+ Bd7 18.)Nxd7 Nxd7 19.)Ne5! Qe6 20.)O-O a5 21.)Bd2 O-O-O 22.)Rfe1 Nxe5 23.) Rxe5 Qd7 24.)Qxd7 Rxd7 25.)Re3 g5 26.)fxg5 hxg5 27.)Bc3 Kd8 28.)Rf1 Bh6 29.)Rd1 Rf7 30.)Re6 Rd6 31.)Rde1 Kd7 32.)Rxd6 Kxd7 33.)d4 Bg7 34.)Re4 b5 35.)cxb5 Bxd4? 36.)Bxd4 cxd4 37.)Rxd4 Rf5 38.)a4 Rc5 39.)b4 Rc1+ 40.)Kf2 Rc2+ 41.)Ke3 axb4 42.)Rxb4 Rxh2 43.)Rxg4 Ra2 44.)Rb4 Ra3+ 45.)Kf2 Ra2+ 46.)Kf3 Ra3+ 47.)Kg4 Kc8 48.)Kxg5 Rxg3+ 49.) Kf4 Rh3 50.)Kg4 Rh2 51.)Kf5 Rh5 52.)Ke6 Rh6+ 53.)Kd5 Kd7 54.)Rg4 Rh5+ 55.)Kc4 Rc5+ 56.)Kb4 Ke6 57.)a5 Kf5+ 58.)Rc4 Rd5 59.)b6 Rd2 60.)Kb5 Rd5+ 61.)Ka6 Rd3 62.)Ka7! d5+ 63.)Rc5 Rg3 64.)Rxd5+ Ke4 65.)Rd8 Rg5 66.)a6 Rg3 67.) b7 Rg7 68.) Ka8 Rxb7? 69.)axb7 Ke5 70.)b8=Q+ Kf5 71.)Rd6 Ke5 72.)Qd8 Kf4 73.)Qe7 Kg4 74.)Rf6 Kh5 75.)Qg7 Kh4 76.)Rhg# sucker!

    p.s. That's for all you humans out there.
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    30 Dec '05 22:30
    Originally posted by powershaker
    Okay, I know it's been discussed before, but what if I played my true strength, playing the King's Gambit and win against the computer on the highest level? What would this say about my strength Here's my game against Excalibur Electronic e-chess and checkers on the highest level (Level 72). Model 410-3-CS-RS. I beat it in 76 moves. And, I always bea ...[text shortened]... g4 74.)Rf6 Kh5 75.)Qg7 Kh4 76.)Rhg# sucker!

    p.s. That's for all you humans out there.
    If you're soooooooooooooo curious about your "real" rating, play some OTB tournies against human beings.
  3. 30 Dec '05 22:33
    Why don't you stop "estimating" and instead just play your "true strength"? Excuses are empty. The "I just don't try" is only a way to rationalize one's mediocrity.
  4. 30 Dec '05 22:36 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Chesswick
    Why don't you stop "estimating" and instead just play your "true strength"? Excuses are empty. The "I just don't try" is only a way to rationalize one's mediocrity.
    Well, unlike you, I don't have a computer at home, so I can sit there for hours on end and find the best move of all my candidate moves. I play basically quick chess on here and still have a 1509 rating. Oh, and that's not using any outside sources or materials. Definitely not chessbase or one of the other opening database programs. So, it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about. Happy New Years to you, too!

    p.s. Aheemmm... 1390 Chesswick? I'd make you suffer even when I play as quick as on RHP. I think you're just jealous. LOL!
  5. 30 Dec '05 22:46 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by powershaker
    Well, unlike you, I don't have a computer at home, so I can sit there for hours on end and find the best move of all my candidate moves. I play basically quick chess on here and still have a 1509 rating. Oh, and that's not using any outside sources or materials. Definitely not chessbase or one of the other opening database programs. So, it's you who d make you suffer even when I play as quick as on RHP. I think you're just jealous. LOL!
    His point is still valid. What does rating have to do with it. I agree, if you're curious about rating, why don;t you just play in some tournaments? Electronic chess (whether against a human or not) is not a realistic estimate. Computers play differently to humans. It's quite simple, I am told, to beat a computer by emplying an anti-computer strategy.

    BTW, I love how you give your first move an '!'. Well done on your original and brilliant thought of playing 1.e4(!) God, I wish I was good enough to think of playing 1.e4!
  6. 30 Dec '05 22:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by powershaker
    Well, unlike you, I don't have a computer at home, so I can sit there for hours on end and find the best move of all my candidate moves. I play basically quick chess on here and still have a 1509 rating. Oh, and that's not using any outside sources or materials. Definitely not chessbase or one of the other opening database programs. So, it's you who d make you suffer even when I play as quick as on RHP. I think you're just jealous. LOL!
    Indeed, I am 1390, but I don't make excuses. I've played less than half the games you have as well.

    [edit]Actually, I'm 1403 [/edit]
  7. Standard member Wulebgr
    Angler
    30 Dec '05 23:34
    Originally posted by powershaker
    Okay, I know it's been discussed before, but what if I played my true strength, playing the King's Gambit and win against the computer on the highest level? What would this say about my strength Here's my game against Excalibur Electronic e-chess and checkers on the highest level (Level 72). Model 410-3-CS-RS. I beat it in 76 moves. And, I always bea ...[text shortened]... g4 74.)Rf6 Kh5 75.)Qg7 Kh4 76.)Rhg# sucker!

    p.s. That's for all you humans out there.
    Two things:

    1. Learn PGN. If I must retype your game, I won't play through it. When I pasted your game score into my database program, it ended at move 11.

    1.e4 e5 2.f4 etc. Lose the )s.

    2. If you can beat Excaliber on a consistent basis, I'd say your ELO is not substantially lower than 1425.

    However, one opponent at any strength cannot give you a fair estimate. There are players 200 below me that I struggle against, and others 200 above me that see their rating drop the minute they sit across 64 squares from me. On balance, however, their ratings are higher or lower because of consistent performance better or worse than mine.
  8. 31 Dec '05 03:57
    Originally posted by Wulebgr
    Two things:

    1. Learn PGN. If I must retype your game, I won't play through it. When I pasted your game score into my database program, it ended at move 11.

    1.e4 e5 2.f4 etc. Lose the )s.

    2. If you can beat Excaliber on a consistent basis, I'd say your ELO is not substantially lower than 1425.

    However, one opponent at any strength cannot give you ...[text shortened]... their ratings are higher or lower because of consistent performance better or worse than mine.
    PGN!

    This is what I got when I pasted the game:

    [Event "Blitz:5'+3""]
    [Site "Edmonton"]
    [Date "????.??.??"]
    [Round "?"]
    [White "New game"]
    [Black "Deep Fritz 8"]
    [Result "*"]
    [PlyCount "21"]
    [TimeControl "300+3"]

    {76MB, DFritz8.ctg, OEM} 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d3 Nd5 5. g3 b6 6.
    Ne5 f5 7. Nxc6 h6 8. Ne5 a5 9. Bd2 g5 10. d4 Bg7 11. a4 *


    Notice It ends at move 11 as Wulebgr said, but the moves are all wrong. Get a Pgn and i'll look at it.
  9. 31 Dec '05 09:02
    This is pgn without the player info and I fixed up your notation mistakes:

    [Event "Blitz:5'+3""]
    [Site "Edmonton"]
    [Date "????.??.??"]
    [Round "?"]
    [White "New game"]
    [Black "Deep Fritz 8"]
    [Result "1-0"]
    [PlyCount "151"]
    [TimeControl "300+3"]

    {76MB, DFritz8.ctg, OEM} 1. e4 c5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qe6+ 5. Be2 Nf6
    6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d3 Nd5 8. Ne4 Qg4 9. g3 b6 10. Ne5 Qe6 11. Bg4 f5 12. Ng5 Qg8 13.
    Nxc6 fxg4 14. Ne5 h6 15. Ngf7 Rh7 16. c4 Nf6 17. Qa4+ Bd7 18. Nxd7 Nxd7 19. Ne5
    Qe6 20. O-O a5 21. Bd2 O-O-O 22. Rfe1 Nxe5 23. Rxe5 Qd7 24. Qxd7+ Rxd7 25. Re3
    g5 26. fxg5 hxg5 27. Bc3 Kd8 28. Rf1 Bh6 29. Rd1 Rf7 30. Re6 Rd6 31. Rde1 Kd7
    32. Rxd6+ exd6 33. d4 Bg7 34. Re4 b5 35. cxb5 Bxd4+ 36. Bxd4 cxd4 37. Rxd4 Rf5
    38. a4 Rc5 39. b4 Rc1+ 40. Kf2 Rc2+ 41. Ke3 axb4 42. Rxb4 Rxh2 43. Rxg4 Ra2 44.
    Rb4 Ra3+ 45. Kf2 Ra2+ 46. Kf3 Ra3+ 47. Kg4 Kc8 48. Kxg5 Rxg3+ 49. Kf4 Rh3 50.
    Kg4 Rh2 51. Kf5 Rh5+ 52. Ke6 Rh6+ 53. Kd5 Kd7 54. Rg4 Rh5+ 55. Kc4 Rc5+ 56. Kb4
    Ke6 57. a5 Kf5 58. Rc4 Rd5 59. b6 Rd2 60. Kb5 Rd5+ 61. Ka6 Rd3 62. Ka7 d5 63.
    Rc5 Rg3 64. Rxd5+ Ke4 65. Rd8 Rg5 66. a6 Rg3 67. b7 Rg7 68. Ka8 Rxb7 69. axb7
    Ke5 70. b8=Q+ Kf5 71. Rd6 Ke5 72. Qd8 Kf4 73. Qe7 Kg4 74. Rf6 Kh5 75. Qg7 Kh4
    76. Rh6# 1-0

    Ugly game!!

    7..Nd5? 8...Qg4? and then all those useless knight moves. Even you moved your knights over and over again. There's a saying which goes move each piece onces in the opening. Generally speaking, it should be followed most of the time. 28...Bh6?? 34...b5?

    Opening play disappointing by the computer and yours also but not as much.
    Middlegame awful, all those wasted moves. Computer clearly had nothing.
    Endgame not bad on your part.

    After looking at the computer moves, I would rank this computer as 1400 OTB maximum. I recall playing 1300 during normal time controls several times and never seen them play this bad. So maximum 1400 for the computer but i'm saying 1350ish is more adequate. Judging by your moves and how long it took you to defeat the program I would say your rating would be 1500 maximum OTB in CFC. Therefore, Uscf would be around 1450ish.

    Well I guess me and Wul. agreed on your rating, so there you have it. 1450 Uscf for you about. Stick with chessmaster. It will help your chess more then playing this computer thing you got. A beating every now and then is always good.
  10. 31 Dec '05 11:14
    Originally posted by powershaker
    Okay, I know it's been discussed before, but what if I played my true strength, playing the King's Gambit and win against the computer on the highest level? What would this say about my strength Here's my game against Excalibur Electronic e-chess and checkers on the highest level (Level 72). Model 410-3-CS-RS. I beat it in 76 moves. And, I always bea ...[text shortened]... nings. What would the following game say about my true rating strength? You be the judge.
    my opinion: you are starting to sound pathetic.
  11. Standard member Ravello
    The RudeĀ©
    31 Dec '05 13:49
    Originally posted by powershaker
    Okay, I know it's been discussed before, but what if I played my true strength, playing the King's Gambit and win against the computer on the highest level? What would this say about my strength Here's my game against Excalibur Electronic e-chess and checkers on the highest level (Level 72). Model 410-3-CS-RS. I beat it in 76 moves. And, I always bea ...[text shortened]... g4 74.)Rf6 Kh5 75.)Qg7 Kh4 76.)Rhg# sucker!

    p.s. That's for all you humans out there.
    Once for all stop trying to appear cool by telling us you're stronger than your rating says.
    Play at your "real strength" and demonstrate it,otherwise shut up.
  12. Standard member Amaurote
    No Name Maddox
    31 Dec '05 13:53
    I don't even have a computer at work, all my moves are made by psychic projection. I calculate that this makes my actual OTB rating over three billion. Unfortunately, you try telling that to all the non-psychic numpties who regularly kick my ass on this site.
  13. Standard member Wulebgr
    Angler
    31 Dec '05 13:56
    Originally posted by Amaurote
    I don't even have a computer at work, all my moves are made by psychic projection. I calculate that this makes my actual OTB rating over three billion. Unfortunately, you try telling that to all the non-psychic numpties who regularly kick my ass on this site.
    I believe it!
  14. Standard member ark13
    Enola Straight
    31 Dec '05 14:56
    Originally posted by powershaker
    Okay, I know it's been discussed before, but what if I played my true strength, playing the King's Gambit and win against the computer on the highest level? What would this say about my strength Here's my game against Excalibur Electronic e-chess and checkers on the highest level (Level 72). Model 410-3-CS-RS. I beat it in 76 moves. And, I always bea ...[text shortened]... g4 74.)Rf6 Kh5 75.)Qg7 Kh4 76.)Rhg# sucker!

    p.s. That's for all you humans out there.
    1. That's not the king's gambit. It's the Smith-Morra.
    2. 1. e4 definetely doesn't deserve an exclaimation point. Not only isn't it original, creative, or brilliant, it's only a really stupid move to play against a computer.
    3. You're clearly a better player than the computer. However, your computer's rating is much overestimated.
  15. Standard member Wulebgr
    Angler
    31 Dec '05 19:43
    Originally posted by ark13
    1. That's not the king's gambit. It's the Smith-Morra.
    Looks like the Grand Prix Attack to me.

    The Smith-Morra begins 1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3

    The King's Gambit begins 1.e4 e5 2.f4

    I agree that 1.e4 is a poor choice against most software, although Excaliber seems pretty weak tactically.