Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:18:34 03/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 20:01:37, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 17, 2004 at 13:56:33, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On March 17, 2004 at 08:07:54, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On March 17, 2004 at 04:29:15, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On March 17, 2004 at 03:59:16, Joachim Rang wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 16, 2004 at 18:58:46, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>See this thread: >>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?354948 >>>>> >>>>>wait, wait... >>>>> >>>>>The continuation Rxf6 Qxf6 Re1 Qf5 Qxf5 gxf5 Bxd5 leads to a better endgame for >>>>>white. If a GM tells me, that this endgame is won for white I believe him right >>>>>away. >>>> >>>>I do not. >>>>This is the mistake of trusting authority. >>>> >>>>GM got their rating because of games otb and not because of being better in >>>>analysis with the help of computers. >>>> >>>>We have no evidence that they know better that somebody who analyzed the >>>>position with computers. >>>> >>>>In case that I analyze the position for many hours(something that I did not do) >>>>I believe that white is winning only if I see some wins against the engines in >>>>this endgame. >>>> >>>>This endgame is also not forced and there are other lines that black can choose >>>>that lead to a similiar endgames. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>This let's me believe that even with a computer you'll never be able to conclude >>>the same thing like a GM could in this position without computer. >> >>Uri has been a national correspondence chess champion. Israel is one of the >>strongest nations for chess. If anyone knows what he is talking about as far as >>computer analysis is concerned, certainly it is Uri Blass. >>He does not always use the computer and also has good chess abilities as well. >>Perhaps not as well as some OTB GM's, but good enough to be truly excellent. > >I complained against Vincent third time. >His reply to your post is a personal attack against me. > >I am not going to respond to his post. >I only can say that he claimed wrong things about me. > >I admit that I did not use a lot of time to analyze the position(I have other >things to do and it is better if I use computer time for other things but it was >clear to me without deep analysis that Vincent's claims are nonsense). > >I will only say that the fact that I gave Crafty to analyze to 11 plies does not >say nothing about the depth of analysis that I do in correspondence games >and I only did it to show that programs have no problem to see some line that he >posted when he complained that nobody analyzed the position and programs cannot >see the tactics. > >I did not post the line in analysis that I gave previously simply because it is >too easy for chess programs to see it and I posted a small tree when I used more >computer time without the bad line that vincent posted in another post when I >showed that Yace can learn the move Rxe6 with +1.21 score. > >I did not claim nothing about the right move and I did not claim to know if Rxe6 >is better than Qh3 or the opposite but only that Vincent did not give convicing >evidence that Rxe6 is better. > >My record in correspondence games in the games that were considered for ICCF >rating is 10 wins and 5 draws. > >I already have another win since then and I expect to have record of +12 =6 or >+13 =5(I already have +11 =5) > >Unlike other correspondence players I take my games seriously and I never played >more than one tournament at the same time in order to be able to use more >computer time for my games. > >I think that it is one of the reasons for my success. >I simply do not play much correspondence chess. > >I also think that rating is misleading and my performance is clearly better than >my rating. >I simply did not play enough games to get high rating. > >Usually players with high rating have clearly more games than 15 correspondence >games for ICCF rating. Both of you [Uri & Vincent] are very good chess players (better than I can ever hope to become) and also excellent programmers. I have sincere respect for both of you. Vincent comes off more harshly than I think he really means to be. I have also been told that in person he is one of the nicest people you will ever meet. At any rate, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Either you know how to analyze a chess position or you don't. I think your correspondence wins show that when you have plenty of time to think, your chess decisions are among the best in the world. You cannot win a championship of a country with a chess tradition and ability like Israel without being very, very good at what you are doing. And either my guess as to the position being equally good after Qh3 is right or it is wrong. I still think I am right, but so far I don't really know what to argue against since those that say I am wrong will only say something like: "It is clearly better after the rook sac." or something like that. If they do not qualify it with why it is better, I do not know how to respond to it. It is (of course) possible that I am totally wrong. I have made ridiculous arguments for wrong guesses on more than one occasion. But I am never convinced I am wrong until someone shows me the reasons.
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.