Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 15:22:15 03/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2000 at 11:25:19, Boris Burrakowski wrote: >On March 15, 2000 at 20:08:51, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >>On March 15, 2000 at 19:12:51, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >> >>>On March 15, 2000 at 12:14:34, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >>> >>>>On March 15, 2000 at 06:05:14, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 14, 2000 at 21:32:46, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>White appears to have played relentlessly and flawlessly. Black made two >>>>>>mistakes. Draw your own conclusions. Personally, I don't believe you should >>>>>>convict someone for playing perfectly. However, if the game was rapid, I smell >>>>>>a rat. Maybe two rats. >>>>> >>>>>Thanks Dann. You came to the same conclusions I did. Yep, perhaps two cheats :( >>>>> >>>>>*** Djordje >>>> >>>>Hello Djordje, >>>> >>>>What was the time control? If it was something like 5/12, then why assume >>>>cheating? If it was something like Game in 3 minutes, then yes it is difficult >>>>to play a flawless game; however, it is still not impossible. >>>> >>>>I see black _giving_ white the opportunity to play an excellent game. After >>>>black sacrificed the bishop for two pawns to break-up White's kingside, White >>>>played what looked to me like fairly obvious moves. The point is did White play >>>>above his head, or did black play poorly? In my opinion, black played poorly. >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Mel >>> >>>Hello again Mel, >>> >>>Thanks for helping out. Anyway, it was a game in 5. Difficult for a 1700 guy >>>to pull off, as already said. Still, I cannot be completely sure about what >>>happened. I wouldn't like to hurt anybody, but as I was asked to unofficially >>>arbitrate I will openly state my opinion, as described above. >>> >>>*** Djordje >> >>Hello Djordje, >> >>I really don't think his rating of 1733 negates the possibility he didn't use a >>computer. What appears to be the case many times over is someone who gets >>burned, as in this game, suddenly gets the chess program fever bug and cannot >>believe he played so badly. Well, if you find it hard to believe a guy rated >>1733 could play that well, then how about the guy rated over 1900 playing that >>Bishop sacrifice? Would you call that a good move? > >You are obviously not a very strong player. Black didn't play badly as you >suggest. It is a very good game, it's more likely there are two cheaters than >none. I agree in full with Dann and Djordje. ******************************************************************* If you agree in full with what Dann said, then you'll have to agree that black made some mistakes!! I think your comment above referring to my chess ability without specifically stating what you are commenting on is evasive. The reason the game ended as abruptly as it did, in my humble opinion, began with that Bishop sacrifice. From that point on White played quality moves and forced the game to its conclusion. If you don't see that Bishop sacrifice as a bad move, then we just don't agree. There was at least one other mistake by Black that I recall by losing a pawn. The point is after that Bishop sacrifice, White played what I would call good moves that can be seen by any good player rated 1700 or better and won the game. As for your comment below concerning the highest blitz rating, that means absolutely nothing to me. I've looked at player's ratings for blitz and standard, and I've noticed a pattern showing the standard rating to be generally higher than the blitz rating for a given player. This I have observed at FICS, ICC, and Chess.net. I see you didn't respond to my last paragraph, especially the last sentence which says it all in regard to making a decision in this matter. One last thing, you mentioned that your chess program agreed with all but 2 moves from White. Well...I have played games and had them analyzed by chess programs and have received an agreement percentage over 90% on some occasions. Soooo? Regards, Mel ******************************************************************** >> >>Another thing about a blitz rating in the 1700's is that is for blitz. I think >>you'll find that a chess player's rating is generally a few hundred points >>higher at standard time controls. The point being that this 1733 rated player >>may very well be a much better player than you think. > >This is not true. If you look at the ratings on eg ICC, you will see the blitz >ratings far exceeding standard ratings. The best standard rating is 2700 and >blitz 3200. >> >>Are you absolutely certain he used a chess program? If you are not, then you owe >>to whomever you report that there is no conclusive evidence. I personally think >>it's a tragedy to accuse someone of using software without absolute proof >>indicating such was the case. If you had enough doubt to post here for opinions, >>I suspect you weren't absolutely certain he was using software. That is a very >>difficult decision without question. However, I think it's better to err on the >>wrong side than to convict (for lack of a better term) the innocent. >> >>Regards, >>Mel
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.