Originally posted by kopatovHow do you derive this from the ToS? How can you prohibit people from analysing their own games? If such rule would indeed exist, many people wouldn't play because they are not allowed to study their own games anymore...
Using box analysis from a previous game (vs human) is not allowed and is not pre-existing research material
- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
Originally posted by kopatovFind a better example. Rf6 is perfectly natural. It threatens the very nasty Rxg6. All white has to decide is whether or not black's Nxe5 works.
...
Which database did you find 14. e5 as I would like to see which humans played that move and then 18. Rf6
I think a lot of people don't realize how good high level players are tactically. I see a lot of engine accusations on this kind of evidence. Its weak.
6...Bg4 is a gross OTBblunder.
18..Rf6 is the Skeeter way. Get plus, get Queens off and plod along.
I was using that as an example of her style.
Look at her games and not just the number 2400.
Nothing spectatular or false looking about about the lead up play.
For all I know 18.Rf6 may have been a minor blunder and she missed 18...Qxf6.
There are a few better moves than 18.Rf6 or 18.Rxf7 in that position.
How far down the scale does 18.Rf6 appear?
3rd choice, 4th choice, 5th choice.....
I spotted or smelt something was on right away.
But I look for these things first, others don't.
I found looking at her games for good combo's quite frustrating.
Pawn Riot was much easier. (not a claim PR is a user - just a better player IMO.)
On the Blog of Skeeters combo's I even had to include this one.
Macroman - Skeeter 2010 (Black to play).
A very uncharactistic move from Skeets - 1...Qc5+ is the move.
Skeets went one square further. (a mouse slip?) 1...Qd6+ and White missed 2.Kxd6
instead 2.Kf6 Rg6 mate.
(Cannot wait to see your response to that one.)
She is human after all is all I can see.
In some of her games she do show a tendancy to miss these winning
shots something which a box is good at. In other games she finds the shot.
(the above example is a plain blunder - EVERYONE on here has one.)
Is the claim is she uses a box to reach these postions then finds a move
NOT to play the trick but keep the plus?
You are howling in the wind on that one. That is going to take some proving.
You are not scraping the bottom of the barrel, you have moved the barrel
aside and started digging underneath it.
(keep going and you will eventually reach New Zealand...ask her for yourself.)
Missing a basic tactical shots in clear winning postions is common.
You yourself have a recent example. 🙂
Big Joedowski - Kopatov RHP Sept 2011
You played the natural and good 18...Re8.
I can see a Bishop going with check being held by a Queen. Kick the Queen.
18...g6 does not work. But 18...Be8! 0-1.
A below the belt shot from greenpawn!
People in glass houses etc etc...
I don't have to prove Skeeter does not use a box.
I'm offering an alternative veiw point which is not clouded by a personal vendetta
and based on the number 2400.
A woman is the No1 rated player on RHP.
She is not the best OTB player on the site - but this is not OTB.
Live with it, get over it, move on.
Originally posted by greenpawn34If you say that once more ill drive over to Edinburgh and kick yo butt! No one messes
Nah...No fun there. and besides it would be like gossiping behind a players back.
Good fun though - cheers.
Now what am I going to do?
Don't you think the KIA sucks?
with the KIA and gets away with it. Bishops are born to be fianchettoed, especially
kings bishops, they are useless on Queen three, vulnerable on Queens Bishop four, lose
tempos on Queens knight five and passive on King two! KIA is the weapon of the
gentleman who has better things to do than learn opening theory. You know its true!
Originally posted by greenpawn34i was watching a Robert Byrne game and after Korchnoi played c4 he actually
Leave them on f1 then and save oodles of opening tempo.
undeveloped his bishop from d3 and put it back on f1, with the idea to fianchetto it, why
oh why waste all those tempi. Korchnoi of course won.
Originally posted by greenpawn34very pretty!
[pgn]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Nc3 e6 5. g4 Bg6 6. Nge2 c5 7. h4 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Bc5 9. h5 Bxd4 10. Qxd4 Bxc2 11. Nb5 h6 12. Qc5 Bh7 13. Nd6+ Kd7 14.Nb5 Be4 15. Bd2 Bxh1 16. Qd6+ Kc8 17. Rc1+ Nc6 18. Rxc6+ bxc6 19. Qxc6+ Kb8 20. Bb4 Ne7 21. Bd6+ Qxd6 22. Qxd6+ Kb7 23. Qc7+ Ka6 24. Na3 {Mate with an umoved Bishop on f1!}[/pgn]
Originally posted by greenpawn34This comment really hit home with me, as I am returning home from a less-than-stellar performance in the Florida State Championship this weekend, including a draw and a loss against kids.
There is no doubt there is a bit of good player ducking going on.
All legal. On here you can pick your opponents. Not OTB.
Florida is a hotbed of scholastic chess, and if I could avoid playing kids, my rating would go up 200 points.
I actually have a pair of wins against IM Daniel Ludwig (from back when he was 8 years old), and I have a draw against GM Ray Robson (back when he was also 8 years old), but I also have a good number of games against them and others where I have been a warm-and-friendly stepping stone for their chess advancement.
Here, we can pick and choose if we decide to do so, but in an OTB swiss, you are at the mercy of the pairings, and with computers ond other great training aids, kids are learning faster than ever!
Originally posted by greenpawn34Is this really true? Another player on the site and I had a PM discussion about this, and he told me something similar, but I have been too doubtful to act on it.
She puts her games through a box 'after' a game and then uses her DB
of box analyse in future games. LEGAL!
I have 100's of OTB KIA games dating back to when I was a 1300 player in the late 80's, but I almost never play the KIA here because I have used computer analysis on many of those games, and I was afraid of the implications.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
Originally posted by Paul LeggettIf I recall correctly, kopatov is right on this one. The leadership at this site considers this (using computer analysis in future games) cheating. This seems really silly to me, as just about any analysis you find in books or on the web is likely to contain computer analysis, but I'm pretty sure that's the rule.
Is this really true? Another player on the site and I had a PM discussion about this, and he told me something similar, but I have been too doubtful to act on it.
I have 100's of OTB KIA games dating back to when I was a 1300 player in the late 80's, but I almost never play the KIA here because I have used computer analysis on many of those games, and I was afraid of the implications.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12472
Originally posted by greenpawn34That is undoubtedly true. What skeeter does seems to be all legal. What the Soviet chess federation did to fiddle the ELO system during the cold war was also legal. Directors of government-owned banks still taking million-pound bonuses is also, in fact, legal.
See it's all legal.
I would still not deign to use the Gulliver method of fire-fighting on any of the above. Not everything which is legal is moral, or above disdain.
Richard