Originally posted by jfkjmhYes, that is one possible interpretation. But there are other possibilities. For example, I'm convinced that some of us playing on RHP are actually GMs, and so they play like GMs. And then, I am also convinced that some of us here play with the aid of chess programs. There is just no way to tell, really. I mean, it would be very easy for me to get one of those programs and play against people here. Then, instead of 1600+, I'd be 2000+ by now. Not all, but some of us! You'd be very surprised how some people desperately want to win. Well, let me admit it, I want to win too, but I don't want to do it with computer programs. Total waste of time!
Just curious:
Are the numbers above the expected levels for top flight RHP players?
If they are lower it would mean that our top RHP players play better correspondence chess than the top GMs OTB, making the quality play on RHP very high.
Originally posted by GatecrasherCould you present some details regarding how you perform this analysis, and how it compares to the process Danailov appears to employ?
I've analysed games 1-7 as if Topolov and Kramnik were RHP engine abuse suspects. Both have similar match-up stats, and neither set of numbers are significantly above the expected levels for top flight GMs.
I think it is very sad that Team Topolov has made this Fritz9 accusation public. Is it just mind games? Or naivity? Maybe FIDE should have rules ...[text shortened]... ey and sport mix, maybe there is no such thing as bad publicity...
[ conspiracy theory off ]
3 edits
interesting game going on today, kramnik has evaded draw so far, and actually sacced two minor pieces for a rook just now.
edit: well, actually he didn't even take the rook yet, so even that has been pending for a while... 🙂
edit2: the rook went down, although fritz had a couple of slightly better alternatives. slight advantage for topalov now.
Originally posted by WulebgrI'm sure the RHP mods are aware of this, but this is probably a bad idea as posting this information just makes it easier for people to find ways around it.
Could you present some details regarding how you perform this analysis, and how it compares to the process Danailov appears to employ?
Originally posted by wormwoodwormwood, I've also been following the games, but only those finished ones. Can you tell me how to catch the game in progress? Thx.
interesting game going on today, kramnik has evaded draw so far, and actually sacced two minor pieces for a rook just now.
well, actually he didn't even take the rook yet, so even that has been pending for a while... 🙂
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
1 edit
Originally posted by ckoh1965I use some level of psychology when playing otb. It varies from opponent to opponent but boils down to three things the speed I play at, the moves and if im away from the board or not.
Yes, fully agreed. But where should one draw the line? We are just humans after all. We can't escape from the effects of psychology. We have all experienced being in a position where we're under a big attack. We think so hard and so long to make a single move, and then immediately after making that move, your opponent makes a quick reply. There is practical not so sure if I still feel the same way. Officially, Topalov still won that game though.
There are some opponents who will spend twenty mins over quiet positions deciding should I move this rook to the d file or the other one, if I get someone like this I will do my best to avoid playing concrete lines and try to leave as many playable options to them as possible its mad the amount of time some people will eat up in this way.
I also spend a lot of time away from the board, often by move 7-10 im already moving away from the board after each move to look at the other players play. The reason I do this is more from intrest in how the other boards are going but it does often have a psychology effect on opponents ranging from longer thinking times to iv been told showing that I appear disintrested in the game but still manage to play it. I normally only think concretely on my move so I dont really lose much think time by being away from the board for say 30-40% of the game althought it might appear as if I do to some people.
Speed of play basicly comes down to showing confidence in your own moves and adjusting your speed of play to your clock and theirs.....I dont mean move faster when they are short of time and you have piles, quite the oppsite. For example if someone is short of time I will find the most forcing varition I can and work it out as deep as I can even spending 20+ mins on the position trying to take in the line and as many varitions as possible and then start to bat out the moves as fast/deep as possible in these vartions knowing that iv had a long time to think about the line thats being played and while they might have considered it while I was thinking they probably also considered other candidate moves so I should have an edge in understanding the varition.......doing this to an opponent in time pressure can often make them crack.
1 edit
Originally posted by ckoh1965on FICS relay ("tell relay listgames" gives you the relayed games in progress), "observe 117" is the current game.
wormwood, I've also been following the games, but only those finished ones. Can you tell me how to catch the game in progress? Thx.
on the official site, you can watch it live too.
http://www.worldchess2006.com/main.asp?id=1063
world chess network also broadcasts commentary on
http://audio.worldchessnetwork.com:8000
(open the url with a mediaplayer of your choice, downloading will not work)
Originally posted by zebanoI'm not asking for game mod secrets. But claims that a player has too high, normal, or a low percentage should be accompanied by an explanation of the evaluation process.
I'm sure the RHP mods are aware of this, but this is probably a bad idea as posting this information just makes it easier for people to find ways around it.
In another thread I claimed that GMs agree with Fritz 80-90%. However, Gatecrasher called my assertion "rubbish," offering figures of 50-60% for agreement with top engines's first choice, and slightly higher for 2nd and 3rd choice.
It seems to me that it does not matter so much whether the GM plays the first choice or the fourth, unless there is a qualitative difference among the moves. Fritz's blundercheck set at 1/5 of a pawn threshhold gives us variances that could matter as to the game result. Using this method, my initial compilation of data concerning Linares 2005 shows that top GMs seem to match the 80-90% I put forth.
Gatecrasher refers to a different method of analysis.
Danailov's method of analysis has not been explained to my satisfaction (and XanthosNZ arrived at a different figure).
Anyone can throw percentages out. Let's see if we can discuss some percentages that are accurate and mean something, and explain them so others can understand the meaning.
I agree with Gatecrasher that we will not see a notable difference between Kramnik and Topalov when we do.
Danailov's endless accusations clearly resembled digested grasses.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
3 edits
Honestly you'd need the game move time to show any worth while match up from GM moves/think time to engine moves. Or if you just ran your engine for say 5 mins on each position then it wont really take into account a GM thinking for say 2 or 20 mins in a position. I suspect that if a top GM wanted to find the best move they could in each position and if you left the engine for a length of time that the top varition hadnt changed in hours that the match up would be higher but finding the best move in a time control is very different.
Originally posted by BedlamWe also need to know the relative correspondence when Kramink has visited the toilet versus when he hasn't.
Honestly you'd need the game move time to show any worth while match up from GM moves/think time to engine moves. Or if you just ran your engine for say 5 mins on each position then it wont really take into account a GM thinking for say 2 or 20 mins in a position. I suspect that if a top GM wanted to find the best move they could in each position and if yo ...[text shortened]... hat the match up would be higher but finding the best move in a time control is very different.
Back to the game: it's quite fascinating with Kramnik playing with 2 Rooks and a Bishop (+ an extra pawn) versus Rook, Bishop and Two Knights. My Fritzie gives Black a slight advantage, but I think most human players would prefer White. This game has a real chance of having a decisive result with such an imbalance.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhite seems to have the initiative for now certainly pressuring black a bit and receiving none himself, black should get back into the game a bit as time goes on......one things for sure this wont be a short game.
Back to the game: it's quite fascinating with Kramnik playing with 2 Rooks and a Bishop (+ an extra pawn) versus Rook, Bishop and Two Knights. My Fritzie gives Black a slight advantage, but I think most human players would prefer White. This game has a real chance of having a decisive result with such an imbalance.
Id probably play white too if only because rooks are easier to use than knghts 🙂