Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   'Modeling' recent debates using chess
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 70 (97543)
04-03-2004 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Eta_Carinae
04-03-2004 2:18 PM


Re: Calm down guys.
quote:
Eta_Carinae: No disrespect but really guys, people with ratings in the 1700-1800 range should not be arguing chess as though you were Kasparov, Polgar, Anand, Leko, Kramnik, Adams etc etc.
I’ve lost all of my best games (long story short, I had no computer and the games were stored on floppy: I took them to my university to create a new copy on a second floppy and left the disks in the drive and somewhere on the lab table when I had to run to my class — when I came back, the disks were gone). Of those games I still have records of, this one probably shows my true abilities best.
This is from a USCF postal tournament. The two players, in alphabetical order, were DNAunion (1040 postal rating) and Sam Botshon (1346 postal rating). The ratings are based on the old (now, really old) postal rating system the USCF used, which did not correspond with OTB ratings (trying to compare them is like comparing apples to oranges).
White:
King on g1
Queen on b1
Rooks on a1, g2
Bishops on d3, g5
Knight on e2
Pawns on a4, c3, c4, d5, e3, e4, h2
Black:
King on g8
Queen on a5
Rooks on e8, f8
Bishop on b7
Knights on d7, h5
Pawns on a6, b6, c5, d6, f7, g7
Was Black’s positional pawn sacrifice (an earlier 1. ... e4 2. fxe4) justified? It put White’s pawns in a mess, hemmed in his light-squared bishop, and his e5 square is very weak and ready to be occupied by Black's knight at some point, and it blocked up the center more — which helps elevate the value of knights relative to bishops. Black's plans for the near future include 1. ... Ne5, 2. ... Bc8, and either 3. ... Bh3, 3. ... Bg4, or 3. ... Bd7. On the other hand, Black’s queen’s mobility is extremely limited (not that White’s is extremely better), his pawn structure is less than perfect (though not at bad as White’s), and, he is down a pawn.
With White to move in this position, who is better, and why? Lines should be given to support your judgment.
PS: I did not use a computer in this game, just my own abilities. Anyone responding should do likewise.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-03-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Eta_Carinae, posted 04-03-2004 2:18 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
Amlodhi
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 70 (97546)
04-03-2004 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by DNAunion
04-03-2004 2:53 PM


Yes, I do conflate stalemate and draw. And I will probably do it again. To me a stalemate is a drawn contest, a deadlock where neither side can make headway.
For me it just doesn't make any difference whether it's perpetual check, insufficient material, draw by repetition or lone king can't move without moving into check (the precise usage). But to suggest that my loose usage of the term stalemate means I don't understand these precise situations after 35+ years of playing the game is just silly.
So yes, in the proper parlance, the computer didn't "stalemate" you, though it could have easily enough. It opted for a "draw" instead. But that was hardly the point. The point was that when it allowed the double attack it gave up its only reasonable chance for a win and from that point on a stalemate or a draw was the best it could hope for. And my general use of the term "stalemate" doesn't change that point.
If you are rated at the 2000+ level then you are certainly more proficient at the game than I. With that level of proficiency you should have no trouble understanding that the computer made a poor move. I may not be as good at chess as you are, but I'm good enough to see that.
I'm also good enough to solve your puzzle and I don't appreciate being called a liar. I did the work. Get over it.
Amlodhi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by DNAunion, posted 04-03-2004 2:53 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by DNAunion, posted 04-04-2004 9:00 PM Amlodhi has not replied
 Message 64 by DNAunion, posted 04-11-2004 3:24 PM Amlodhi has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 70 (97729)
04-04-2004 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Amlodhi
04-03-2004 4:48 PM


quote:
To me a stalemate is a drawn contest, a deadlock where neither side can make headway.
Too bad for you that's neither the definition nor usage of the term stalemate in chess. Every beginner learns what stalemate means...I guess you are just now getting to that level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Amlodhi, posted 04-03-2004 4:48 PM Amlodhi has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 70 (99279)
04-11-2004 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Amlodhi
04-03-2004 4:48 PM


quote:
Amlodhi: ... I don't appreciate being called a liar.
Where did I call you a liar? I didn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Amlodhi, posted 04-03-2004 4:48 PM Amlodhi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-11-2004 5:27 PM DNAunion has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 65 of 70 (99306)
04-11-2004 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by DNAunion
04-11-2004 3:24 PM


Why is it...
that DNAunion is getting into ugly conflicts with more that one other member?
I must SUSPECT that it is because of some bad methodology on DNAunion's part. I SUGGEST (as in official administrative warning) that you get your massive ego in check (edit: inadvertent pun there).
Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-11-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by DNAunion, posted 04-11-2004 3:24 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by DNAunion, posted 04-12-2004 9:49 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 70 (99383)
04-12-2004 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Adminnemooseus
04-11-2004 5:27 PM


Re: Why is it...
Uhm excuse me, but...he stated I called him a liar, but I didn't.
I must wonder why you would have a problem with me trying to defend myself against an unwarranted and false accusation.
****************************
Came back to add...
My point has been made. The last statement on the matter was that I had called him a liar, which is not true. I corrected the situation so that the last statement on the matter was the fact that I had not called him a liar.
I had originally let the statement slide, but now, with Crashfrog and AbbyLeever - and to some extent Black too - waging a little character assassination war against me in the abiogenesis thread, I felt I needed to make sure no misleading statements were left hanging around.
So I'm done in this thread, unless someone responds.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 04-12-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-11-2004 5:27 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by truthlover, posted 04-26-2004 2:44 AM DNAunion has not replied

  
TechnoCore
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 70 (102647)
04-25-2004 8:32 PM


I wonder how much use you have for chess in other areas ?
Do you become more intelligent by playing it, or only good at chess?
I'm not a chess player at all. I've just played a few games here and now. But when I was in high school we used to play backwards-chess alot. The aim of the game is to loose your pieces as fast as possible. And if you can "kill" you have to. Really stupid, but fun

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-26-2004 2:45 AM TechnoCore has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 68 of 70 (102727)
04-26-2004 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by DNAunion
04-12-2004 9:49 AM


DNAunion writes:
Uhm excuse me, but...he stated I called him a liar, but I didn't.
Actually, you did. In post 57, you wrote:
quote:
Nope, not true. You also claimed to have easily solved a chess puzzle that involved a non-apparent queen sac; a claim that simply doesn’t fit your original, ignorance-revealing statement DNAunion ... was fortunate enough to squeak out a defensive stalemate by repetition posture.
DNAunion writes:
I must wonder why you would have a problem with me trying to defend myself against an unwarranted and false accusation.
Even if you want to play the silly game of pointing out that you never directly used the word "liar," the idea that this is an "unwarranted" accusation is simply untenable. It is most certainly warranted based on your statement in post 57.
Check and mate.
Also, you missed the fact that Percy was not warning you about defending yourself against a true accusation, he was reprimanding you for behaving in such a way as to cause conflicts with numerous board members. In this case, the problem started when you flew off the handle, just because Amlodhi questioned the self-proclaimed brilliance of your play against your son's computer.
It would be foolish of you to think that the problem was really his overly general use of the word "stalemate." Your problem was with the stab at your ego, and complaining about his use of the word "stalemate" is more justifiable than complaining because your ego was poked at.
If that's not obvious to you, I would guess it is obvious to everyone else, and that sort of behavior is the source of Admin's warning to you.
{added by edit: It was Adminemooseus who issued the warning, not Admin Percy; my mistake.}
[This message has been edited by truthlover, 04-26-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by DNAunion, posted 04-12-2004 9:49 AM DNAunion has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 69 of 70 (102728)
04-26-2004 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by TechnoCore
04-25-2004 8:32 PM


For those that don't know...
DNAunion is under suspension, for (and there is documention of this somewhere) "pissing off" Percy, the owner of this site.
Also, you should use the "Little Red Arrow Reply Button" at the bottom of the message you are replying to, if you are replying to a specific message. Using the "LRARB" causes links to and from to be put in place.
Use the big "Post Reply" button, if you are posting a general comment, which is not a response to a specific message.
Also, if you see some "coding trick" in a message, you can click on "edit" at the bottom of the message, and thus see the raw text behind the message. You will not actually be able to submit an edit, if the message is not your own.
Please, no replies to this message, as it would be off-topic clutter, beyond what my message already is.
Thanks,
Adminnemooseus

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by TechnoCore, posted 04-25-2004 8:32 PM TechnoCore has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 70 of 70 (102730)
04-26-2004 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Percy
03-29-2004 12:58 PM


Re: Ratings
Percy writes:
My USCF rating was 1349 in 1969...I once beat a 1700!
I reckon we'd be just about the same level. I once got an exchange up on a 2207 player in a 1-hour game tournament. He thought he had an attack on my castled king, but I was pretty sure I could refute it. He underestimated me, because I was 1300 or so at the time, and I forked his Q and R with my Knight.
I got in a great position, then made the exact same blunder he did, not paying attention to a Knight in an attacking position, and I gave the exchange back and lost a tight game. Horribly disappointing.
I did beat a 1900 player the same day, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Percy, posted 03-29-2004 12:58 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024