Since I have been away from chess for 30 years, I haven't paid too much attention to who were the top players in the world. I was searching out information on the women in chess and came across this little bit of information that I thought was interesting.
Judit Polgár is the number one rated woman chess player and the only woman to have won a game from a current world number one player, and has defeated nine current or former world champions in either rapid or classical chess: Anatoli Karpov, Garry Kasparov, Boris Spassky, Vasily Smyslov, Veselin Topalov, Viswanathan Anand, Ruslan Ponomariov, Alexander Khalifman, and Rustam Kasimdzhanov. However, she has never bothered to compete for the Women's World Chess Championship
Originally posted by RJHindsHard to go back to the kids' table once you've got a seat with the big boys.
Since I have been away from chess for 30 years, I haven't paid too much attention to who were the top players in the world. I was searching out information on the women in chess and came across this little bit of information that I thought was interesting.
Judit Polgár is the number one rated woman chess player and the only woman to have won a game from a ...[text shortened]... imdzhanov. However, she has never bothered to compete for the Women's World Chess Championship
I think it has to do with the number of women chess players vs. male chess players. I'm not sure of the exact numbers are for each, but I believe men outnumber women by far, in the world of pro chess. So it makes sense to have a separate tournement or league for women, as long as women are also allowed to compete against the men.
Originally posted by RJHindsIMO, she got way more money and prestige from being a world top 10 player. (Think of it this way...is there any other more famous female player in chess history?)
Most people would do it just for the fame, money, and prestige of being a world champion at something.
She could not have arrived or stayed at that level if she had wasted a lot of time playing in tournaments of lesser strength.
How many women's world champs can say they beat Garry Kasparov in a game?
The following game is between two former Women's World Chess Champions. Yifan Hou is the youngest Women's World Chess Champion, gaining the title in 2010 and succesfully defending in 2011, but losing in 2012. She will be the challenger in the 2013 WWCC.
I decided to run it through my new toy Houdini 3 Aquarium to check for mistakes.
[Event "Eurocup"]
[Site "Eilat Israel"]
[Date "2012.10.11"]
[White "Hou, Yifan"]
[Black "Kosteniuk, Alexandra"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B10"]
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's good to see you citing your source now.
The following game is between two former Women's World Chess Champions. Yifan Hou is the youngest Women's World Chess Champion, gaining the title in 2010 and succesfully defending in 2011, but losing in 2012. She will be the challenger in the 2013 WWCC.
I decided to run it through my new toy Houdini 3 Aquarium to check for mistakes.
[Event "Eurocu 8 58. Rd1 {Houdini 3 gives 58.Bd5 as best} 58... Rxa8 59. Rxd3 Ne4 0-1
[/pgn]
Originally posted by Rank outsiderHeh, we could get RJ to write testimonials for them.
It's good to see you citing your source now.
I feel like a stronger player since I've been using this product. I could not recommend this software more highly.
Do you want to TRANSFORM from rank patzer/fish to a GRAND MASTER BEATER?! Only $50 stands between yourself and your destiny. BUY IT TODAY!!
🙂
RJ in another forum'
"I've just ran the theory of evolution through Houdini and found 3 mistakes."
OK Joking aside.
Hi RJ.
That game you posted, here.
You stated "Houdini 3 gives 27...Nxg2" and then left us hanging.
One reason why I never use a box to judge a position and another reason
why I very rarely do GM games.
Not good enough to see everything a GM can see and too human to understand
what a computer a thinks.
You should have elaboroted a bit more.
I can see a forced sequence after 27...Nxg2 but then what's happening?
Does the box show a big plus for Black, is there a trick I've missed?
Is it a must do sac because White has a shot somewhere.
Originally posted by greenpawn34No, it was not a big plus for Black and I did not bother to see what Houdini 3 would do after that because it was less than a point in favor of Black as I recall.
🙂
RJ in another forum'
"I've just ran the theory of evolution through Houdini and found 3 mistakes."
OK Joking aside.
Hi RJ.
That game you posted, here.
[fen]8/ppr2pk1/5n1p/6p1/3P4/3NnBqP/PP1Q1RP1/6K1 b - - 0 1[/fen]
You stated "Houdini 3 gives 27...Nxg2" and then left us hanging.
One reason why I never use a box to judge a position ...[text shortened]... ourse. What is the computers line after Nxg2. I think we should be told.}[/pgn]
Hi RJ
Already you are displaying all the symptoms of a weak player with a very strong box
and have fallen into the 'what it gives as an evaluation' trap.
What may be a +0.05 evaluation to it may be winning position in human v human
because of the difficulties hidden in the position.
To prove after Nxg2 a 0.05 a human player will have to find OTB perhaps
the next 10-15 exact Houdinin moves. This is beyond the scope of all but a
handful of the top players.
That Nxg2 is a critical game changing move.
The best move according to you and your computer.
At least let us see why?
If you are going to start polluting this forum with moves from your new toy
gives us reasons and human evaluations, try and make it interesting and
none of of this +1.75 crap.
Chess players are inquisitive, we will ask questions and we don't want fobbed
off with "the computer says 1+65." we won't know what you are talking about.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Let me just say that the commentator on the game wrote that the Nxg2 move was better, but that is all. Now does that make you happy?
Hi RJ
Already you are displaying all the symptoms of a weak player with a very strong box
and have fallen into the 'what it gives as an evaluation' trap.
What may be a +0.05 evaluation to it may be winning position in human v human
because of the difficulties hidden in the position.
To prove after Nxg2 a 0.05 a human player will have to find OTB ...[text shortened]... want fobbed
off with "the computer says 1+65." we won't know what you are talking about.
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
Evaluations by computers can be meaningless in many positions. A .35+ evaluation in many instances is not enough to win a game and could be a forced draw. As you know it depends on the position and what phase of the game the calculation is taking place. In my caase it also depends on do I like playing the "type" of position. For instance I love open games and endgames - esp. OTB endgames. I hate close positions.
"...the commentator on the game wrote that the Nxg2 move was better.."
RJ the commentator was a machine. (you posted Houdini gave Nxg2 as better)
Already you have it with a personality by calling IT the commentator,
it's taking over your life. You will be talking to it next.
Switch it off now.
No...wait....show me what line it has after Nxg2.
It may have stumbled on a remarkable Zuggers.
My cheapo lines nearly work because White has everything in the right place.
If the White Queen can be zooged out of position one of these trick shots may be on.