Author: Boris Burrakowski
Date: 16:01:52 03/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 16, 2000 at 18:22:15, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >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. He played quality moves the whole game through, not just from the B-sac. >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. Yes I agree the sac wasn't very good, but two bad moves in all, by two <2000 players is VERY GOOD. I for one is used to play bad moves even when I win and I'm rated +2500 on the net. Yesterday eg I beat an IM and Fritz criticized 6 of my 35 moves. Okay I didn't recieve any dubious or bad move marks, but he made remarks. That is what makes me wonder how two <2000 rated players can play such a good game without any assistance. >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? So you must be damned strong then. > >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.