Originally posted by hedonist Wow, very surprised Houdini chose those as the top 2 choices. So computer programs still play like super fast patzers?:-)
Nh5 and c4 are both moves I don't think a strong human player would consider. How would you know? I hear you ask. Cause I read it somewhere. I seem to remember a game in Logical chess- Move by Move having c4 played in a very similar position. The author gave it a big thumbs down.
Actually ...Nh5 seems pretty typical in positions like this.
Originally posted by hedonist Wow, very surprised Houdini chose those as the top 2 choices. So computer programs still play like super fast patzers?:-)
Nh5 and c4 are both moves I don't think a strong human player would consider. How would you know? I hear you ask. Cause I read it somewhere. I seem to remember a game in Logical chess- Move by Move having c4 played in a very similar position. The author gave it a big thumbs down.
He might have been influenced by Nimzo's My System.
Somewhere in the early chapter it show a similar position where black attacks the base of the pawn chain with pawn on b4 and possibly a3 (I'm not going into the tactics just the theme).
Castelling into the storm was not a good idea but he probably missed the tactical shot (Bxh7). If he'd been using a computer he would have spotted this.
Originally posted by hedonist Funny you should mention Chess Titans. That's what popped into my head when I saw the c4 move. I'm pretty sure that's what it played when I had a game with it using similar opening you played.
But Chess Titans would only be rated around 1400 I guess.
I think 1400 is too low. Players at that level still make lots of tactical mistakes, which a weak computer wouldn't fail to exploit.
I could see a weak engine breaking 1700 here just by taking advantage of our oversights. Especially because we don't avoid complex tactical positions, like we would do if we knew we were playing against a computer.
2000 is kind of depressing, though. Is our play that sloppy? 😕
One of the good additions to this site a while back was to show average opponent ratings on everyone's profile page. Der Jager's opponents averaged at 1600. So, without cheating, I think you can get to reasonably high ratings by selecting opponents carefully, or within a certain rating band. Bit boring, but for some poeple it's only one's rating that matters.
So you'd probably need to be able to play at around 1700 rating to beat up enough 1600s consistently?
Originally posted by TheGambit One of the good additions to this site a while back was to show average opponent ratings on everyone's profile page. Der Jager's opponents averaged at 1600. So, without cheating, I think you can get to reasonably high ratings by selecting opponents carefully, or within a certain rating band. Bit boring, but for some poeple it's only one's rating that ma ...[text shortened]... robably need to be able to play at around 1700 rating to beat up enough 1600s consistently?
The problem is that you also lose a lot of points if you happen to lose and only play against weak opposition. 100 point difference won't cut the mustard.
Ok, it's not an exact science but if you look at the 2000 rated players in the Player List, their average opponent rating mainly ranges from 1850 to 2000 (I only looked at a few!). Der Jager's average was 1606. So I think there is an argument that there can be quite a difference in abilities for players at a similar rating. Players can improve and may just take their time over the moves. I don't think it's enough to say someone is cheating just because their rating has risen from 1400s to 2000s. I think I could get to 2000 if I selected opponents carefully, and I'm really not very good!
Alternatively he could have been cheating of course 😵
What I see a lot is 2300+ players on this site with an opponent average of about 1600. Probably because they play in open tournaments. This always gets my spider senses tingling. That would be like me only playing against sub 800s. Its just not fun for either party with such a mismatch. I'd hate to think how primitive my games look from the view of a master. Or from an engine user.
Is it not inbuilt into the elo system to not count games with 800+ ratings difference. Something about above 800 the chance of the weaker player winning is pretty much zero.
This is all half remembered and may just be something I just made up.
My opponent average rating used to be close to my own rating, but the difference increased a lot once I became a subscriber. Tournaments, ladder games and clan leagues tend to do that, I think.
In theory, getting a 2000 rating by playing 1700 opponents should be the same thing as getting the same rating by playing 2000 opponents. At least that's how the rating system is supposed to work. You'll get more wins, sure, but the reward is smaller and the punishment for each loss is bigger.
There's no formula for consistently beating 1700 players. There's always the chance that one of them will be on a good day. You can always blunder, too - 2000 players do that quite often. And you can never know if a 1700 isn't actually a much stronger player who hasn't reached his peak rating yet.
When I played this guy, we were both 1700ish. He destroyed me. A month later, he's in the high 2100s. His play didn't improve that much in that time, but his rating is now closer to his actual level. If a 2000 player picked him in order to get easy rating points back then, he'd be in deep trouble.
Originally posted by danilop My opponent average rating used to be close to my own rating, but the difference increased a lot once I became a subscriber. Tournaments, ladder games and clan leagues tend to do that, I think.
In theory, getting a 2000 rating by playing 1700 opponents should be the same thing as getting the same rating by playing 2000 opponents. At least that's how the r ...[text shortened]... layer picked him in order to get easy rating points back then, he'd be in deep trouble.
This has been my experience as well.
I also never decline challenges from players as a rule, so I tend to end up with challenges from lower-rated players. Most of the time it's a bit like a simul, but sometimes I get caught out!
When I started out in chess, higher rated players in my town were very gracious in playing (and putting up with) me, and I learned a lot from them. I feel obligated to pay it forward when I can.
For the forum mantra "try to play higher rated players" to work, higher rated players need to be willing to play down sometimes.
Why do we care if someone is using an engine?
09 Aug '12 18:54
Back to Top