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

Only Chess Forum

  1. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    06 May '12 14:23
    They must be all close in strength. Would be interesting to see a round robin between those 4, eh.
  2. Subscriber thaughbaer
    Duckfinder General
    06 May '12 22:41
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Do you realize you said that out loud ?
  3. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    07 May '12 01:25
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    If you look at the profiles, only one of them has the smooth top of proven engine users, the other three profiles are jagged but high numbers for sure. My guess is only one of them is an engine user. Maybe 2.
  4. 07 May '12 02:47
    I'll be watching this thread.
  5. 07 May '12 09:41
    Kaoslos and Cohonas in my opinion are definately not engine users, because their records seem perfectly normal to me. The other two are more than a bit suspect. I always look at records as most obviously do.
  6. Subscriber roma45online
    st johnstone
    07 May '12 17:49
    Originally posted by hintjul
    Kaoslos and Cohonas in my opinion are definately not engine users, because their records seem perfectly normal to me. The other two are more than a bit suspect. I always look at records as most obviously do.
    take it you still believe in santa , the easter bunny and the tooth fairy?
  7. Standard member hedonist
    peacedog's keeper
    07 May '12 18:18
    I have no doubt that ALL the players on the top table are using software to win games. If they are not, then why don't we know them? Must be FM's at least, the chess world is small.

    OR... Why does the only person I know on that list have a REAL LIFE rating less than mine?
  8. 07 May '12 18:58
    I know a few of the English players on the front page. One is clearer better than me (my ECF grade is 197, which corresponds to a FIDE rating of about 2100), and easily FM standard. Two are now about the same OTB strength as me now but both have been much better in the recent past. One of these was a correspondence chess specialist.

    I can easily believe that someone with a lower OTB rating than me can play much better correspondence chess. What I find difficult to believe is that someone graded approximately 40 ECF points lower than me (which means I should beat him nine times out of ten OTB) can have the highest rating on this site whilst playing 188 moves in 7 days. Anyone playing 25 moves a day is clearly not spending hours analysing difficult positions.

    Does anyone know how many games the great correspondence chess champions of the past had on the go at any one time, and an estimate of their move rate?
  9. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    07 May '12 19:00 / 1 edit
    I don't think you would need to be anywhere near FM strength to get on the first page here (although I like hedonist's point).

    Remember, this site is essentially a pairings free-for-all, and a person's record (and to a certain degree, rating) is almost meaningless without conducting a very deep and thorough study of who they played, when they played them, and how often they played.

    Unlike an OTB tournament situation, we get to pick our opponents, choose how often we play them, and avoid anyone we want. Clan, league, ladder, and tournament play mitigate this somewhat, but they are all voluntary, and they can also be avoided easily.

    The rating system is so easily manipulated, that it amazes me that anyone takes it all that seriously.

    Even more so, the motivations for playing on the site also vary considerably more than they do OTB. People play to win (in the pure sense) far more in OTB play, and they usually play the opening they think will give them the best chance in the tournament to be successful.

    On the site, there are plenty of people (of which I am one) who don't always make winning the absolute number 1 priority. I certainly do in clan and tourmanent games, but in casual games on the site where the outcome only matters to me or my opponent, I have experimented with all sorts of different openings to broaden my palette and deepen my exposure to new ideas.

    Some of those games have been less than successful for me, to say the least. I have also been the beneficiary of such games, including one player on the first page who told me in advance what the best move was in our game, but then played an inferior move as an experiment and lost. He crushed me in the other game, of course!

    I'll also more readily sac or play speculatively- if I lose, I just start another game.
    Re-entry opportunities in tournaments are fewer, and cost money!

    The bottom line is that we can tell very little by looking at a list, and those who read into it with only speculation of malfeasance are here merely for the entertainment of gossip.

    It makes for some fun forum reading, for sure, but there are only a handful of players on the site with the evidence and ammo to press charges, and the rest are just the internet version of the loud guy at the pub who should have stopped before the last pint.
  10. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    07 May '12 20:33
    Originally posted by Paul Leggett
    I don't think you would need to be anywhere near FM strength to get on the first page here (although I like hedonist's point).

    Remember, this site is essentially a pairings free-for-all, and a person's record (and to a certain degree, rating) is almost meaningless without conducting a very deep and thorough study of who they played, when they playe ...[text shortened]... e internet version of the loud guy at the pub who should have stopped before the last pint.
    um, "tournament", not "toumanent". Scrabble champion I am not!
  11. Standard member DerJager
    The Hunter
    07 May '12 23:12 / 1 edit
    Here are just some pertinent facts of our top 4 for your convenient viewing. 🙂 , interesting. All are from May 7th, 2012

    Kingshill
    Won-923
    Lost-7
    Drawn-48
    Highest Rating-2470
    OAR for year (Opponent Average Rating) 1620
    Win/Draw/Loss ratio-94.4%/4.91%/0.72%
    Concurrent Games-34
    Moves this month-201

    Cohonas
    Won-538
    Lost-173
    Drawn-27
    Highest Rating-2448
    OAR for year-1833
    Win/Draw/Loss ratio-72.9%/3.7%/32.2%
    Note: 96.95% of losses are timeout losses (so in theory-only 0.71% of the games are losses due to resignations or mates)
    Concurrent games-38
    Moves this month-132

    Kaoslos
    Won-715
    Lost-201
    Drawn-116
    Highest Rating-2467
    OAR for year-1852
    Win/Draw/Loss ratio-69.3%/11.2%/19.5%
    Concurrent games-12
    Moves this month-30

    Kings and Pawns
    Won-150
    Lost-5
    Drawn-36
    Highest Rating-2426
    OAR for year-2031
    Win/Draw/Loss ratio-74.4%/22.5%/3.1%
    Note-33.33% of losses due to timeout (I presume that means 2 of the 5 losses were unrated???).
    Concurrent games-32
    Moves this month-125

    They do have a history of playing each other too (some)

    Kingshill v. cohonas 3-4-1
    Kingshill v. Kaoslos 0-0-0
    Kingshill v. Kings and Pawns 0-2-0

    cohonas v. kingshill 1-4-3
    cohonas v. Kaoslos 1-0-1
    cohonas v. Kings and Pawns 0-2-0

    Kaoslos v. kingshill 0-0-0
    Kaoslos v. cohonas 1-0-1
    Kaoslso v. Kings and Pawns 0-1-1

    Kings and Pawns v. kingshill 0-2-0
    Kings and Pawns v. cohonas 0-2-0
    Kings and Pawns v. Kaoslos 1-1-0

    But I totally agree, a tournament between these 4 would be interesting!

    I also think the average time they have to move in each game would be an interesting statistic to know, but I did not bother that much lol.

    EDIT-I said it wrong for cohonas-0.71% of games are losses not that many losses a result of resignations or mates
  12. 08 May '12 07:55
    Originally posted by roma45
    take it you still believe in santa , the easter bunny and the tooth fairy?
    No need to be mean old pal.
  13. 08 May '12 08:38 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by roma45
    take it you still believe in santa , the easter bunny and the tooth fairy?
    the tooth fairy is not real? who says? evidence please!
  14. Subscriber roma45online
    st johnstone
    08 May '12 11:09
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    the tooth fairy is not real? who says? evidence please!
    lennon killed him.😀
  15. Subscriber sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    08 May '12 11:24
    Originally posted by roma45
    lennon killed him.😀
    Lennon tree very pretty and the Lennon flower is sweet but the fruit of the poor Lennon is impossible to eat....