Originally posted by no1marauderThe only way I am likely to leave the site, is voluntarily. You're a proven liar.
Math 101: you can't go from 1194 to 1696 in approximately 30 games without your performance in those 30 games being far above 1700 esp. when you played hundreds of game before that.
I prefer you not voluntarily leave the site. I'm in no hurry to finish our games.
All bar two of the games in question were again players rated under 1700 and most rated under 1300. Your 'argument' doesn't hold water
1 edit
Originally posted by exigentskyand the only "formula" that i use is being capable of independent thinking and being capable of rational thought. Oh and i don't overgeneralize to the Nth degree, i don't add derogatory childish insults and thoughtless commentary to prove and/or evade a simple point, and i don't play the witless unobjective fool to impress others. Simple.
He might not be stupid but I can base my opinion of him only from what he has shown on this forum. I'm not one for faith..it still follows the same formula..
Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMadWe shall see.
The only way I am likely to leave the site, is voluntarily. You're a proven liar.
All bar two of the games in question were again players rated under 1700 and most rated under 1300. Your 'argument' doesn't hold water
You hadn't shown the ability to consistently beat 1200-1300s before April 2007, never mind players like Marko Krale and MAXALF.
Originally posted by exigentskyI think eldragontwit has failed the Turing test. i can tell the difference between his largely meaningless twaddle and the posts of other users on this site.
He might not be stupid but I can base my opinion of him only from what he has shown on this forum. I'm not one for faith.
BTW: I've read expressions like "unfortunate statements are beyond redemption" and many others probably a dozen times. It is extremely predictable and context independent. Even logical fallacies, which are highly dependent on conte ...[text shortened]... lp-addiction.com/eliza/ While this may be farfetched, it is completely feasible.
The post that was quoted here has been removedEither way we shall see, but if this case doesn't present sufficient evidence to satisfy the Game Mods (assuming they still exist), then I fear that many blatant cheats will not qualify for a banning under present investigative procedures. To me, a 500 rating point jump in a month after years of a relatively static rating history (1100s-1200s) coupled with a jump in engine match ups of over 30% from previously WON games is "overwhelming evidence".
1 edit
Originally posted by SquelchbelchWe can all do badly against lower rated players.
Can I ask you a question, MacMad?
What on Earth possessed you to play like this against a -1000 in a game finished just over a year ago, when you were rated 1166?
Game 3188398
[pgn]
[Event "Open invite"]
[Site "http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com"]
[Date "2007.02.17"]
[EndDate "2007.02.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "AURORALST"]
[Black "Mad Mac their chess & your insights could be extremely helpful to them.
🙂
In Game 5149098 I am hardly winning against a player rated half of my grade after 38 moves.
Maybe I was a little too complacent expecting an easy win but he has not set a foot wrong and although with a little effort I could no doubt find some better moves I can't really find any serious mistakes there.
No comments on this game in progress please but I show it merely to indicate that defeat against much lower rated opponents is indeed possible.
Originally posted by Dragon FireBut his profile seems to contain some honest info which might explain the higher than expected playing strength:
We can all do badly against lower rated players.
In Game 5149098 I am hardly winning against a player rated half of my grade after 38 moves.
Maybe I was a little too complacent expecting an easy win but he has not set a foot wrong and although with a little effort I could no doubt find some better moves I can't really find any serious mistake ...[text shortened]... I show it merely to indicate that defeat against much lower rated opponents is indeed possible.
"Right now I think my playing strength is 1500-1699. I've made it up to 1700 a couple times but that was because of a couple timeouts.
My goal is to make it up to 1800 (although I don't see it happening any time soon).
** I will not be joining any "under 1500" banded tournaments. **"
Originally posted by MahoutTrue, he has indeed been up to 1700, 400 or so games ago. Guess I should have checked his past history carefully before assuming I was playing a patzer, but even so the results will show I drew with an 1100 if it comes to that.
But his profile seems to contain some honest info which might explain the higher than expected playing strength:
"Right now I think my playing strength is 1500-1699. I've made it up to 1700 a couple times but that was because of a couple timeouts.
My goal is to make it up to 1800 (although I don't see it happening any time soon).
** I will not be joining any "under 1500" banded tournaments. **"
1 edit
Originally posted by Dragon FireAt the time the game was played February 17-19, 2007, Auroralist wasn't rated that much lower than Mac - 920 v. 1166. Mac's dramatic rise in the ratings came two months later, after years of being an 1100-1200 rated player.
We can all do badly against lower rated players.
In Game 5149098 I am hardly winning against a player rated half of my grade after 38 moves.
Maybe I was a little too complacent expecting an easy win but he has not set a foot wrong and although with a little effort I could no doubt find some better moves I can't really find any serious mistake ...[text shortened]... I show it merely to indicate that defeat against much lower rated opponents is indeed possible.
Originally posted by Dragon FireI can think of about 30 more.
Its a no brainer really.
I won't have to read any more pointless inflamatory forum posts by User 37797.
[b]Who needs another reason?[/b]
It is too bad that mindless posting my morons ruins what is an otherwise good chess site.