|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 201 OF 1784 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jul-29-07
 | | chancho: Reading some of these posts, (mine included) this page reminds me of one of those Wild West tavern brawls where the bottles are flying and cowboys are punching away. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | ganstaman: <patzer2> Many of the games in your links are OTB games, not CC. While they may reveal somethings about GMT as a whole, it is not quite true that his OTB play will show us his strengths/weaknesses in CC play. So, it's not bad to look at his OTB games, but anyone who does should be aware that they are doing so. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | ganstaman: <chancho: Reading some of these posts, (mine included) this page reminds me of one of those Wild West tavern brawls where the bottles are flying and cowboys are punching away.> I was trying to picture this as a real meeting instead of an online forum. Could you imagine all of us in 1 room, trying to carry out these debates? |
|
Jul-29-07
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: <Could you imagine all of us in 1 room, trying to carry out these debates?>
Unfortunately, yes. But I won't try to make any summary of what would take place. There are young members here you know. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Hugin: SwitchingQuylthulg: <You'r saying Timmerman is not prepared for this match, not gone through necessary data and taking all into consideration, facing a bunch of player performing at at least at 2700 level the last 2 games using engines etc?.How about him using engines as well and updated opening book and databases you expect no change in his play??.> I'm saying no such thing. In fact, I guess he's prepared for this match better than we have, given that we've spent more time arguing than preparing. What I am saying that we can't prepare against Timmerman by studying Topa or Radjabov, let alone good old Max Euwe. You're trying to influence our opening move by the opinions of OTB players but the only way we can prepare against Timmerman is by studying Timmerman. We can learn general ideas of playing KID by studying OTB players, perhaps, but the statistics of Radjabov, let alone Euwe, shouldn't influence our decision of what to play against Timmerman. Ruy Lopez is no better in general than KID is, or vice versa - both should be drawn with best play. All we can do is identify the main weakness of our opponent (Timmerman, not Radjabov or Euwe) and seek a position where he might go wrong. You say yourself he's well prepared, will take this game seriously and is going to put in a lot of computer power. And yet you seem to think all we have to do is create a tactical mess out of the Ruy and the game is ours. <Your assuming i have not prepared for this match???. I have, and the same has many others on this team as well, also among the e4 supporters...And that is one of the main reasons we have said some of the d4 supporters takes to much for granted based on statistic more or less alone ...And in my eyes showed to much ignorance concerning time, and how theory has developed and the team strenght and weaknesses .
The most vocal e4 supporters has not showed the same level of certainty as the most vocal d4 supporters has....Those of us among the e4 supporters has tryed to show we need to be a lot less bombastic in our analysis of statistic..Hey even one apparently skilled in that capafan has said the same..My point of showing the statistic was to show how diffrent they can be used and how many diffrent result you can get..The most vocal supporters of e4 has not failed in using statistic sofare as more or less the only base for a strategy facing Timmermnan...Sadly i can not say the same about the most vocal d4 supporters> |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Hugin: djmercury: <2. The numbers of Kid games is not as much worth, using as statistic because a lot less games is played as is the case of Ruy Lopez.> So why are you making comparisons between the two, if you are basically saying that is not possible. The pattern of the voting is getting really suspicious. Hope no one has opened new accounts to fake the vote, because every time d4 has caught a decent sized advantage in just a couple of hours there was a splash of e4 votes coming up to make the thing again equal. <Is it really so hard to understand what i show? E4 statistic shows a clearly superior as a knowledge base of Ruy LOpez as a stronger opening then KID thats not even worth discussing.. Btw i did not start this nonsense statistic facts d4 supporters has be the ones doing so...But when statistic shows the d4 supporters fact was not correct they are suddently not valid???..Ok well i agree statistic tells little and has little value but that is a view i have had the entire time...Congratulation coming too the same conclusion after 200 sites with statistic nonsense.> |
|
Jul-29-07
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <Hugin: The most vocal e4 supporters has not showed the same level of certainty as the most vocal d4 supporters has....Those of us among the e4 supporters has tryed to show we need to be a lot less bombastic in our analysis of statistic..> <Hugin: Is it really so hard to understand what i show? E4 statistic shows a clearly superior as a knowledge base of Ruy LOpez as a stronger opening then KID thats not even worth discussing..>
That's pretty self-explanatory. No comments required. |
|
Jul-29-07
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <Btw i did not start this nonsense statistic facts d4 supporters has be the ones doing so> It's a weird thing, but every time <Hugin> leaves the debate, 1.e4 voters and 1.d4 voters get along pretty well and the discussion is reasonably civilized. And every time <Hugin> joins it again, people start bashing each other and making accusations. Just a coincidence? I think not. |
|
Jul-29-07
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: By the way, I think <Hugin> has just started the angel argument. Everyone who doesn't want to take part has twenty minutes to depart. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Hugin: Rybka 2.3.2a mp 32-bit - Hiarcs 11.1.mp,20 minuts each [E76] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.f4 c5 6.d5 0-0 7.Bd3 e6 8.dxe6 fxe6 9.Nge2 Nc6 10.0-0 b6 11.h3 Ba6 12.a3 Nh5 13.Be3 Qh4 14.Nb5 Bxb5 15.cxb5 Nd4
click for larger view
16.Bc4 Nxe2+ 17.Qxe2 Rae8 18.Qd2 Ng3 19.Qe1 g5 20.fxg5 Rxf1+ 21.Bxf1 Bxb2 22.Rd1 Be5 23.Bd3 Rf8 24.a4 Rf7 25.Bc1 Kg7 26.Be3 d5 27.exd5 exd5 28.Bf2 Qxg5 29.Bc2 Bd6 30.Qc3+ d4 31.Qd3 Nf5 32.Rf1 Bf4 33.Kh1 h5 34.h4 Qg4 35.Bd1 Qg6 36.Bc2 Ng3+ 37.Bxg3 Qxg3 38.Qxg3+ Bxg3 39.Bd3 Rxf1+ 40.Bxf1 Kf6 41.Kg1 Ke5 42.Be2 Ke4 43.Kf1 d3 44.Bf3+ Kd4 45.Kg1 c4 46.Kf1 c3 47.Bd1 Ke3 48.a5 c2 49.Bxc2 dxc2 50.axb6 c1Q# 0-1 This engine game does not prove a lot, but it shows what can happen if certian type of player get's his kind of playing style going.. Actually Hiarcs as black here plays a lot along the the type of play Timmerman could do in this kind of opening, just go ahead and compare.> |
|
Jul-29-07
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <it shows what can happen if certian type of player get's his kind of playing style going> Exactly. The one thing we <don't> want to do is play into Timmerman's strength. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Hugin: SwitchingQuylthulg: <Hugin: The most vocal e4 supporters has not showed the same level of certainty as the most vocal d4 supporters has....Those of us among the e4 supporters has tryed to show we need to be a lot less bombastic in our analysis of statistic..> <Hugin: Is it really so hard to understand what i show? E4 statistic shows a clearly superior as a knowledge base of Ruy LOpez as a stronger opening then KID thats not even worth discussing..> That's pretty self-explanatory. No comments required. < True you have no arguments but silly accusation of me being involved in this debate to mess up .My arguments that statistic has a limited value in the preparation for this game still stand unchallenged, if reason is used and not personal attack and to much weigth added to using statistic as a the only truth. I urge all to read you'r earlier posts to find out who's trying to make this discussion a personal one you or me.I could say the same about some other vocal d4 supporters as well.> |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Hugin: SwitchingQuylthulg: <it shows what can happen if certian type of player get's his kind of playing style going> Exactly. The one thing we <don't> want to do is play into Timmerman's strength.<Yes and that type/kind of game happens a lot more often in Kid then Ruy Lopez...> |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | New Kasparov: yesterday it said 3 days to deadline and now it says 4 days. Something is wrong... |
|
Jul-29-07
 | | kwgurge: <<ALL> Just out of curiosity has any of this convinced anybody of anything?> I think we are all fighting over <MAUV's> vote. :-) |
|
Jul-29-07
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <My arguments that statistic has a limited value in the preparation for this game still stand unchallenged, if reason is used and not personal attack and to much weigth added to using statistic as a the only truth.> It is not us overvaluing statistics, but you twisting our words, giving impression of us as giving more value to statistics than we do. Statistics do indeed have a limited value in the preparation for this game - in fact statistics unrelated to Timmerman have no value at all. It is all to do with logical reasoning, not statistics. Timmerman is a strong tactical player with a computer and three days of calculation time per move. He's not likely to make tactical mistakes. It is positional factors that are going to decide this game, so if we want to win it, we'll play positional. Having computer power won't help him so much there, so it's possible that he will make a positional error. Having computers won't help us, either, so there's some risk involved (you see? I'm not looking at things from only one point of view the way <Hugin> does) - while positional KID will increase his chances of making an error, our chances of making an error are also increased. Statistics are only a way of seeing that this reasoning is good - the result, him losing more games in the more positional struggles, is exactly what should be expected. Luckily <Hugin>'s posts are pretty self-explanatory, it doesn't take a genius to see that <Hugin>'s talking nonsense. So I'm not really needed to explain that to people. I've got better things to do than argue with someone who can look at a fact and say with a straight face "This is not a fact". Let <Hugin> go on with his angel argument alone. He can insult empty air if he wants to. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Hugin: SwitchingQuylthulg: <My arguments that statistic has a limited value in the preparation for this game still stand unchallenged, if reason is used and not personal attack and to much weigth added to using statistic as a the only truth.> It is not us overvaluing statistics, but you twisting our words, giving impression of us as giving more value to statistics than we do. Statistics do indeed have a limited value in the preparation for this game - in fact statistics unrelated to Timmerman have no value at all. It is all to do with logical reasoning, not statistics. Timmerman is a strong tactical player with a computer and three days of calculation time per move. He's not likely to make tactical mistakes. It is positional factors that are going to decide this game, so if we want to win it, we'll play positional. Having computer power won't help him so much there, so it's possible that he will make a positional error. Having computers won't help us, either, so there's some risk involved (you see? I'm not looking at things from only one point of view the way <Hugin> does) - while positional KID will increase his chances of making an error, our chances of making an error are also increased. Statistics are only a way of seeing that this reasoning is good - the result, him losing more games in the more positional struggles, is exactly what should be expected. Luckily <Hugin>'s posts are pretty self-explanatory, it doesn't take a genius to see that <Hugin>'s talking nonsense. So I'm not really needed to explain that to people. I've got better things to do than argue with someone who can look at a fact and say with a straight face "This is not a fact". Let <Hugin> go on with his angel argument alone. He can insult empty air if he wants to. < Ok follow you'r own advice then, and not focus on the persons focus on the game and discussions of the game not another member of the team as you have done more or less the entire time.> |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | acirce: <Hugin> has succeeded in one thing, you have to give him that. His quoting style is even more confusing than it used to be. |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | Hugin: acirce: <Hugin> has succeeded in one thing, you have to give him that. His quoting style is even more confusing than it used to be.< Ah another personal focus attempt ...ok all does not agree...> |
|
Jul-29-07
| | kwgurge: <chancho: Reading some of these posts, (mine included) this page reminds me of one of those Wild West tavern brawls where the bottles are flying and cowboys are punching away.> Hopefully, we'll all end up drinking beer together after the brawl like they do in the movies :-) |
|
| Jul-29-07 | | whiteshark: acirce: <Hugin> has succeeded in one thing, you have to give him that. His quoting style is even more confusing than it used to be. <Are yxu mxcking xn style? Everybxdy shxld use his xwn xne, IMHX> |
|
Jul-29-07
| | kwgurge: <chancho: Reading some of these posts, (mine included) this page reminds me of one of those Wild West tavern brawls where the bottles are flying and cowboys are punching away.> I still have the lumps from the barstools broken over my back in the last 200 pages ;-) |
|
Jul-29-07
| | kwgurge: Asking for a conforming, easy to read style is one thing. Making fun of a non-native's attempts to communicate in another's language is another... and goes too fare. :-( |
|
Jul-29-07
 | | WannaBe: Did the date for the first move just changed? Or did I miss something? It says 4 more days?! |
|
Jul-29-07
 | | keypusher: <The stats for 1. d4 stink. 1. Nf3 at least shows white winning more than black. Out of six games white won 3 and black won 1. The one victory for black came in a CC game where white’s rating was unknown. Judging by the game I’d say he was around 1800. Probably most of us would agree that these stats really don’t mean much. This still shows that 1. Nf3 would be a better practical choice because it’s relatively untested. I find it amazing that those who claim that statistics are the most important factor are willing to go straight into an opening that is statistically bad for us. Would it not be better to play something that is at least untested? > The preference for 1. d4 is not based on blindly counting scores against 1. e4 and 1. d4. It is based on Timmerman's revealed preference for particular systems against 1. e4 and 1. d4 and his different levels of success with those systems. There is no comparable revealed preference on his part against 1. Nf3. In addition, the sample size is so small as to be meaningless. Finally, even if none of the above were true, 1. Nf3 is not going to win. So there is no point in advocating for it, unless you are trying to get people who would otherwise vote for 1. d4 to throw away their vote. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 201 OF 1784 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 