Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:11:09 11/27/05
I think it's important to understand the concept of chess strength and the following behavior. We all know that chessprograms are no super GM players. They never proved it in a continual performance. What they do is they win percentage-wise from their surprise effect for the human players. Let's take the human chess field. There it's clear for all experts, that our super GM are the best what tournament performance is concerned. Now let's see, how would these super GM judge the chess ideas, theories or variants of say IM, masters or good experts? I can tell you from highest source that all super players respect the chessthinking of such lower ranked players. Although these cant perform like the best. There is a difference between best ideas in chess and best performance. It is clear that the lower levelled are respected. Now you can go lower in the whole relation. Of course a master knows that sometimes an expert player could give him valuable advice. And for a coffeehouse beginner a clubplayer is a serious instance for opening lines etc. I hope that you all could agree till now. Now someone enters the internet forum and nobody knows how strong he is in reality. How the resident members could react on such a newbie? Under the issue that the new member, the guest, sends messages on chess in computergames against humans. How could we know how good his chess is if we dont know his ranking or his name? The question is easy. We all know how strong we are ourselves! So it's easy to see if the poster is stronger or weaker. At the instant when we can no longer understand what he's talking about we know that he must be stronger and/or smarter. I know well that the internet allows fakes, so that someone could fake chess abilities if he's smart enough and avoids the questions where the judgement is more important. We here had a new poster, A. Steen, whose strength we wanted to know. Now I show you that A.S. was really strong and stronger than Uri Blass, who is VERY strong! Steen knew and understood that Rg8 was a good move while Uri thought that this was the decisive mistake. Steen indicated with precision that the move 8 moves later was the decisive mistake. Do you need more proof? The stronger Uri is in reality (related to his chess strength, not the performance) the more stronger Steen must be if he could falsify Uri so fast. Steen was stronger than almost all in CCC. But I noticed that gest players like Vincent didn't participate in the atacking against the newbie. Dont know if he had no time or if he saw that Steen was correct in what he said on chess. But the reason why Steen must be way higher ranked than Uri is this: he was able to show his knowledge in a superior style that nobody could meet here at the least. He knew what he was talking about and he did it with a verbal mastership and chessic class that he must be in my eyes either a GM or a master with highest trainer qualities. There is no other choice, no solution to our questions about him. I know from my butt feeling that this guy is extremely strong! And as I said what pleased me in special was his insight in the levels of such a net quarrel/flame. Combined with his irony and sarcasm. Smartness to be short on the point. It doesnt matter who he really was. He destroyed my own guess that he were Short. Fine. I saw enough evidence for a conflict a strong player has if he speaks with lays or motivated experts. In special on the net where they must not show a minimum of respect, in union with their computers, believing that they are almost as strong as the best players. I mean we all know these players from our experiences. Chess is tearing you in all kind of fantasies. Also because we experienced players can well re-play the games of the best. We dont care about the difference between digestion of a product and creative building of it. Already Tarta said that he would also win all the games of Alekhine if he only knew how to get these (winning) positions! Probably the wisest wording in chess which impressed me enormously. I come to the end of the message with a little Moral: Steen was so much higher equipped than almost all here that he well had the right to provoke us with his term "patzer" for all because he included himself!!!! Didn't you read that? In that regard we should have known that he doesnt want to play evil. He really liked the debates with our experts. But of course he was rejected by wordings like nonsense! loudmouth! and go see help in psychiatry! -- We should be ashamed for our misbehavior! To all a good next week, Rolf P.S. I for one think it was a British GM. But I would be surprised if magnificent and now also educated Kamsky would hide behind. Anyway this is private for the guy. Perhaps others could visit us occasionally. Hopefully we all could behave ourselves better.
This page took 0.01 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.