Exy says:
"Afro xxxxxxis a FIDE referee and the man behind the two RHP accounts Edmond Dantes and Ironman31 - or is he? That's what I want to know? Pulsatilla was his clan leader and she has met him in Italy, so either this person is a cheat pretending to be xxxxxxor he is risking his entire rep by cheating openly in game after, public game at RHP."
__________
I exchanged emails with Ironman while we played and found out he lives in xxxxxx. Q: Does Mr. xxxxxxlive in xxxxxx? If so, corroborating evidence. I also lasted 50 moves against Ironman without using an engine! So that disproves Bruto's wacky hypothesis that a mid-level player can't last more than 40 moves against a top engine when given a week to calculate a move -- if he even used one on me. He may have used it only in some games or for some moves; no one can say for sure, but I suspect it was frequent use. No one can make so many good moves in complex postions on 100 boards a day, every day. Except me, perhaps, after I study Morphy & Fischer and come back as "TinMan31."
😉
in another thread northern lad says;
"Strong players with experience of OTB chess and playing against computers can nearly always tell the difference. It's almost a stylistic thing. Engines will every now and then come up with moves a human being would hardly consider. Some times they are very strong. An example of this is my game against Ironman (Game 810608 - unfinshed though I'm objectively losing), in which he refutes a line of the Schliemann I had played numerous times OTB (including against strong players who had prepared against me) with the ugly (but very strong) computer move 11.Qe3 with the unpleasant point that the natural 11...Rf7 runs into 12.Qf3 threatening both Qxf5 and Bc4. Typical computer move! Of course I've known for a long time that the likes of Ironman and Yozzer were using powerful engines; it was obvious. "
the lad's comments seem bizarre ... ironman's Qd4-e3-f3 sequence seems sensible to a human ... i will repeat northern lad's analysis but in my own words:
after 10 ... Bxf5
black has a trapped e7 bishop and black has two undefended pieces: the b7 pawn and the f5 bishop.
ironman needs to find moves to attack these weaknesses.
on d3 whites queen can pummel into the poorly placed d7 bishop ... and so it is natural to see what squares are then available:
at f3 ironman's queen hits a natural high : it forks the undefended b pawn and f-file bishop.
this is all a natural and sensible human process.
before you come and say : but this variation or that variation ... i say ... my analysis is not to show that this is the best sequence of moves - it is to say that there is some common sense in having serious consideration of the seemingly unintuitive queen move through the e3 square which, as you say, momentarily traps the c1 bishop.
Originally posted by flexmoreTo be honest the real difficulty with this example is that it's an opening improvement. There's no reason I know of that you shouldn't use Fritz to find an opening improvement in preparing for an OTB tournament. This isn't something I'd bother to do, but we are talking about very strong players. Say it had been done for that purpose and then used here. I think this represents a tricky point, as if you've been looking at an opening and found a move with computer assistance before a game where it can be used has started I don't see a fundamental reason why it shouldn't be tryed, provided no further machine analysis is used once your opponent varies from the pre-calculated lines. A workaround would be to register machine found opening improvements with the site before trying them. Although for the majority of players on the site this would be unneccessary.
in another thread northern lad says;
"Strong players with experience of OTB chess and playing against computers can nearly always tell the difference. It's almost a stylistic thing. Engines will every now and then come up with moves a human being would hardly consider. Some times they are very strong. An example of this is my game against Ironman ([gid ...[text shortened]... he seemingly unintuitive queen move through the e3 square which momentarily traps the c1 bishop.
Originally posted by DeepThoughthmmm ... there are two sides to a coin, but i think we are seeing different coins ... i am saying that a computer is not necessary to analyse the Qd4-e3 move ... it follows a natural human style process.
To be honest the real difficulty with this example is that it's an opening improvement. There's no reason I know of that you shouldn't use Fritz to find an opening improvement in preparing for an OTB tournament. This isn't something I'd bother to do, but we are talking about very strong players. Say it had been done for that purpose and then used ...[text shortened]... efore trying them. Although for the majority of players on the site this would be unneccessary.
i am saying that russ' conviction that 3(b) has been contravened is valuable ... and that northern lad's intuition is fallible.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI agree. There's nothing at all wrong with using an engine to improve your overall opening repertoire. In fact, done properly, i.e. recognising the computer's weaknesses (excessive materialism for example) every strong OTB player should do it. However, in the case in point, the variation I played (5...Be7) is extremely obscure. Apart from my own games I can only find 2 games in a 1500000 game database with this line, so I can hardly conclude that Ironman had prepared his improvement previously. Let's just be happy we've kicked out a cheat,
To be honest the real difficulty with this example is that it's an opening improvement. There's no reason I know of that you shouldn't use Fritz to find an opening improvement in preparing for an OTB tournament. This isn't something I'd bother to do, but we are talking about very strong players. Say it had been done for that purpose and then used ...[text shortened]... efore trying them. Although for the majority of players on the site this would be unneccessary.
Originally posted by flexmoreI stand by everything I say. I had played that line numerous times against human beings (including strong ones) and no one found that idea. Just as a matter of interest, I showed the position to Fritz who of course immediately "saw" the crude tactic. The point is that it was necessary to see that tactic several moves before, otherwise the whole line would be extremely comfortable for black. You're burying your head in the sand if you think Ironman and the others weren't availing themselves of powerful engines. It would be impossible to play the sheer quantity and quality of chess that he did, unless he could somehow find 36 hours in a day. It may also be worth your while to have a look at another game of mine against Ironman, game 1096687. Here Ironman/Fritz punishes my rather fanciful opening play and achieves an objectively winning position. But computers do sometimes have a weakness in handling certain positions rather naively and materialistically, especially endgames that aren't in their book. As someone who has beaten and drawn with a number of GMs OTB, I can tell you that no genuinely strong player would have allowed me so easily to set up such a blockade.
in another thread northern lad says;
"Strong players with experience of OTB chess and playing against computers can nearly always tell the difference. It's almost a stylistic thing. Engines will every now and then come up with moves a human being would hardly consider. Some times they are very strong. An example of this is my game against Ironman ([gid ...[text shortened]... unintuitive queen move through the e3 square which, as you say, momentarily traps the c1 bishop.
Originally posted by Northern LadHi Northern Lad. I had look at your game Game 1096687. Why didn't you play 20...Re1?
I stand by everything I say. I had played that line numerous times against human beings (including strong ones) and no one found that idea. Just as a matter of interest, I showed the position to Fritz who of course immediately "saw" the crude tactic. The point is that it was necessary to see that tactic several moves before, otherwise the whole line w ...[text shortened]... l you that no genuinely strong player would have allowed me so easily to set up such a blockade.
Am I missing something here? - It looks like you should be able to win white's rook :
20... Re1+
21.Kh2 Be5+
22.Bf4 and white's rook is en prise.
(22. g3 Rh1🙄
Hopefully I haven't overlooked anything embarrassingly obvious. 🙂
Cheers,
SB
Originally posted by ShallowBluebut
Hi Northern Lad. I had look at your game Game 1096687. Why didn't you play 20...Re1?
Am I missing something here? - It looks like you should be able to win white's rook :
20... Re1+
21.Kh2 Be5+
22.Bf4 and white's rook is en prise.
(22. g3 Rh1🙄
Hopefully I haven't overlooked anything embarrassingly obvious. 🙂
Cheers,
SB
20. ... Re1+
21.Kh2 Be5+ ? (better 21. ... axb5)
22.f4 (and not Bf4)
black can try 22. ... Rxc1 but loses after 23.Rxc1 Bxf4+ 24.g3 Bxc1 25.bxc6