Author: Sherry Windsor
Date: 21:45:06 11/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2005 at 17:11:09, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 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.