29 Jan 12
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThanks, I was thinking this, but not sure enough to post it.
You keep babbling on about all this garbage, but it's all irrelevant. The numbers are clear - you've been shown to have been using an engine. Stop using it, and stop lying about it. Nobody cares about the rest.
29 Jan 12
Originally posted by ChessPraxisIs there any other master that does not require this? My understanding is
2200+ for 300 games earns a Life Master title and 2200 rating floor. Brian Wall and "Kirby" Burnette are two examples.
that you are just a candidate to be a master until you acheive the 300
games during the time your rating is over 2200. Am I wrong?
29 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobDo I KNOW what the thresholds are for human play, or do I speculate, like many others here? A lot is said about how "X% is the upper limit of human capability", etc. etc. etc. I'm just not buying it.
1. Do you have a chess engine?
2. Have you ran any of RJHinds games through it?
3. Do you know what the thresholds for human play compared to machines are?
Answer no to any of those questions and i can safely say you're talking out your arse.
Either you believe these so-called "thresholds" and that an amazing number of players on this site use engines, or you believe a witch hunt is going on.
What's amazing to me is that every top player is "proven" to be using an engine, one after the other. EVERY player who makes it to the top on this site uses an engine? Somehow I doubt it. Someone gets butt-hurt by being beat by someone their inflated ego thinks they should beat and they get their knickers in a twist and claim engine use. I've been here long enough to see it happen over and over, ad nauseam.
29 Jan 12
Originally posted by SuzianneWhy is it a witch hunt just because they have the numbers wrong? Why cant people honestly believe that a close matchup with engines is not normal for human players and be wrong?
Either you believe these so-called "thresholds" and that an amazing number of players on this site use engines, or you believe a witch hunt is going on.
What's amazing to me is that every top player is "proven" to be using an engine, one after the other.
Why is that amazing? Engines are pretty good, so its to be expected that they would get to the top.
EVERY player who makes it to the top on this site uses an engine?
Again, why not? Unless with have some grand masters on the site, it should not be possible for a human player to beat the engine users.
Somehow I doubt it.
Give a better reason why.
Someone gets butt-hurt by being beat by someone their inflated ego thinks they should beat and they get their knickers in a twist and claim engine use. I've been here long enough to see it happen over and over, ad nauseam.
Yet they have to prove it with stats. Is not just about accusations, there is statistical proof that you yourself can verify.
Do you have an alternative explanation as to why good players on RHP have better engine matchup rates than good players in publicly monitored games?
29 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsA candidate master has a rating of 2001-2199, they used to be called experts. A National Master title is also used. I'm not sure of the qualifications though.
Is there any other master that does not require this? My understanding is
that you are just a candidate to be a master until you acheive the 300
games during the time your rating is over 2200. Am I wrong?
29 Jan 12
Originally posted by SuzianneSpeculate?! LOL!!!
Do I KNOW what the thresholds are for human play, or do I speculate, like many others here? A lot is said about how "X% is the upper limit of human capability", etc. etc. etc. I'm just not buying it.
Either you believe these so-called "thresholds" and that an amazing number of players on this site use engines, or you believe a witch hunt is going on.
...[text shortened]... aim engine use. I've been here long enough to see it happen over and over, ad nauseam.
There are thresholds which the greatest players who have ever played the game do not cross, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, people have been analysing games for years and as of yet no human without the aid of a computer has crossed these thresholds. Yet players here at RHP and over at chess.com and other websites do so on a regular basis. Are we to assume that all these 'Johnny nobodies' are closet chess geniuses, or are we to assume that maybe, just maybe, they might be cheating.
Consider this, here are RJHinds (1817 OTB rating 20+ years ago) stats which i analysed -
1st choice (470/719) - 65.4%
2nd choice (594/719) - 82.6%
3rd choice (662/719) - 92.1%
4th choice (696/719) - 96.8%
Now here are Magnus Carlsen's stats, Magnus Carlsen being the worlds number 1 player with a FIDE rating of 2835. He's a professional chess player, a child prodigy and a chess genius -
1st choice (240/438) - 54.8%
2nd choice (321/438) - 73.3%
3rd choice (370/438) - 84.5%
4th choice (409/438) - 93.3%
How come Ron is playing SIGNIFICANTLY more engine like chess than the best player in the world? What would you put that down to?!
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by ChessPraxisI think there must be some way to determine when a person is gets a title
A candidate master has a rating of 2001-2199, they used to be called experts. A National Master title is also used. I'm not sure of the qualifications though.
as important as a Master. Just getting one's rating score over 2200 and
a couple games later losing and going back and forth does not seem to
me enough to give someone such a title. The idea for maintaining the
2200+ score for 300 games seems reasonable to me. There must also
be some requirement to be given the title of Grandmaster.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsDoesn't your software have a manual?
I think there must be some way to determine when a person is gets a title
as important as a Master. Just getting one's rating score over 2200 and
a couple games later losing and going back and forth does not seem to
me enough to give someone such a title. The idea for maintaining the
2200+ score for 300 games seems reasonable to me. There must also
be some requirement to be given the title of Grandmaster.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou are comparing apples to oranges. Magnus Carlsen doe not play under
Speculate?! LOL!!!
There are thresholds which the greatest players who have ever played the game do not cross, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, people have been analysing games for years and as of yet no human without the aid of a computer has crossed these thresholds. Yet players here at RHP and over at chess.com and other websites do so on a regular basis. Are w ...[text shortened]... more engine like chess than the best player in the world? What would you put that down to?!
RHP rules. He can not consult his old games are other grandmaster games
as he plays. Magnus Carlsen does not have the benefit of an analyze
board. He can not consult chess books to refresh his memory on certain
positions. He can not stop when he is tired of thinking and come back
the next day after he has had a good nights rest. He might have to play
in a tournament and get sick and not feel too good one day, but he must
play anyway or forfeit the game. He has to play a certain number of moves
in a certain time period no matter how complicated the postion gets. You
are one of the most stupid and assine persons I have ever met.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd you appear to be claiming to be a better player than Magnus Carlsen. Is that the best defence you could come up with? I think you need to treat the forum like a chess game and analyse posts a bit longer before you make stupid moves.
You are one of the most stupid and assine persons I have ever met.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not near as good a player as Magnus Carlsen. I would say, when
And you appear to be claiming to be a better player than Magnus Carlsen. Is that the best defence you could come up with? I think you need to treat the forum like a chess game and analyse posts a bit longer before you make stupid moves.
he is at his best he is better than any computer, just like Kasparov.
However nobody can play OTB at their very best all the time. But I
may be able to get a draw or even win a game against him, if I played
by RHP rules and he continued to play by FIDE OTB rules.
30 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsA human has not been the best chess player for many years now.
I am not near as good a player as Magnus Carlsen. I would say, when
he is at his best he is better than any computer, just like Kasparov.
However nobody can play OTB at their very best all the time. But I
may be able to get a draw or even win a game against him, if I played
by RHP rules and he continued to play by FIDE OTB rules.
Yet you claim not only to be able to draw or occasionally win, but to be significantly better at playing like a computer. You are also essentially claiming that when you play on RHP, you are a better chess player than Magnus Carlsen when he plays OTB. I find that somewhat hard to believe.