Author: A. Steen
Date: 03:20:57 11/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 25, 2005 at 02:25:51, Swaminathan wrote: >Great Post A.Steen! Well, no. >I haven't seen your postings in the past,so are you a newbie? In this great ocean, I am, was and will be a perpetual newbie. :) >How did you come to know about Fruit? I saw its 2nd place results in the championships, looked at its games and, allowing for its hardware handicap, concluded QUALITATIVELY (for me the game moves are far more important than the game result - but the low-life bean-counters cannot understand this in their lifetimes) that Fruit could well be as strong as Zappa 2 (the winner) or even stronger. Realised Zappa is not on the market. In hunt for Fruit, found CCC, a very unripe fruit. :) >Really great game,Steen.I hope to see more of the post like this,which >unfortunately never happen here in the CCC. The game wasn't great, I just tried to make it entertaining to follow with these lovely CCC diagrams. Let me tell you what the reasonably intelligent outsider's view of CCC is. Obviously this is not _my_ view, because as you have read here various gurus say I am a fool, an idiot and unable to play chess. :) There are many people of varying chessic and logical and computer abilities here, a good mix for a club. But there may be a widespread cabal of patzers (in chess, who is not?), whose ELO rating (2100-2200-2300 and thereabouts) is one I would be embarrassed to advertise was it mine, but who have come to believe they are super-GMs or stronger and can therefore call super-GM brilliancies "nonsense" and even worse, freely without fear of contradiction. In the absence of their clear superiors who are willing to gently educate and correct them (there must be some stronger players here, but they don't waste their time correcting the fantasies of weak players), these patzers' internal problems keep increasing with time. :) Till by now they are balloons of such enormous size, intimidating valid commentary and expressing their own often-mistaken views (often based, as we all know, on what their analysis engine tells them to say) as if they were pronunciamentos from the almighty or even GM Nunn, which would be more persuasive. For historical reasons I guess the moderators can be at times jumpy, and are burdened with tons of emails from balloons who see faults everywhere than in their own gaseous emanations. :) [Approx. quote from a now-deleted post from such a balloon - "You are an idiot. I am emailing the moderators about your rudeness." - One has to wonder if they live in a house without any mirrors! :) ] Of course, I am a total newbie so all my observations may be invalid and incorrect. Don't mind me, please. >MAy I ask you about your chess tournament experience?Do you have any >ratings,FIDE etc?If so,What's it? Those are mine. I leave boasting for balloons. Alternatively, please believe Mike that I have nothing to boast about. He writes something like Steen learned chess only in the middle of 2005, is rated 1100, is a complete hopeless w.r.t. computers and technical matters and so on, and is researching for a book "How To Bluff At Computer Chess" (2006). I am not long for here, so - please judge by what you directly observe and test, not what is claimed. Be objective and orderly! Best, A.S.
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.