|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-06-13 | | shach matov: <Jim> why do you say that? Daisuki said she is a woman, and she has been trying to prove that she is as smart as men are... I guess Bureaucrat is also a female, they are defending each other here |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | Jim Bartle: And, another own goal!! |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | shach matov: Jim, you're too old to be a troll on a chess site, aren't you? What happened in your life, how did you reach such an old age and still haven't gained any wisdom? Acting like a retarded child on internet? That's about 100 own goals!! |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | Bureaucrat: I think it's abundantly clear who is acting like a child. <matov>, by calling someone a <hysterical woman trying to prove that she can be as smart as a man>, you demonstrate to everyone that you are a juvenile fool and not a real man. You might be a male, but you are certainly not a man. I don't know how old you are, but you are acting like you are 12. Bye. |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | shach matov: <Bureaucrat>
Don't be a foolish child. If you try to read her posts here, you'll know that something is up because they are just a collection of confused words, huge claims with absolutely no bases. The individual has no real knowledge of chess but is trying to teach the rest of us how Carlsen is going to beat a 3400 engine. Look at all her silliness this week, not one argument based on facts, but endless empty words and claims. That's pure hysteria, nothing else. It's nothing personal but I don't need to read such silliness. And that's why we got the ignore feature on this site |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | rogge: You should ignore everyone, my dear featherweight chump. |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | shach matov: Welcome back, my lightweight chump ;] |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | Everyone: <rogge> You are really very, very dramatic here. |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | rogge: My apologies to everybody :) |
|
Dec-06-13
 | | perfidious: <shach: <Daisuki> Your repetitive silliness has not and will not persuade anybody... it will just persuade many people to place you on their ignore list. You're about to join mine right now, just another silly post and you're there...> Classic-now the hypocrite <shach> thinks being sent to his version of perdition is some blot of dishonour upon one's character. |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | Jim Bartle: <shach> I'm just watching you implode with ridiculous personal attacks on people who disagree with you. Daisuki isn't arguing against your ideas; she's hysterically trying to prove woman is as smart as man! Bureacrat agrees with daisuki; he must be a woman, because we all know women stick together! The claims were laughable, and not worth a lot of time. So I just made quick jokes to ridicule them. |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | solskytz: <Shach Matov> as other people pointed out, there are interesting points for and against the computer (perfect player) winning in such a scenario... I have played yesterday a 5 3 game against my 3150 rated houdini, who played without his QN. I kept my advantage well until the endgame, with N+6 against 7 pawns - but then, short of time, I made a miscalculation - and then I was done for! I took it back :-) and tried again from the position before my blunder - and of course managed to win :-) On the other hand, Houdini didn't try especially to avoid trades, and I exchanged practically the whole chessboard with very little resistance from it - it was probably rather apathetic, thinking that in any case it was going to lose badly to yours truly - indeed, a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just like Marvin, the depressive all-knowing computer from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy... I'm getting a 2000 FIDE rating in January 2014, if it's any help. I find the whole proposition and experiment highly amusing. There is absolutely no need for violence, abuse, insults or removal of vital organs in order to enjoy this discussion (in my humble opinion). |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | solskytz: By the way, in case you wanted to ask, I didn't take moves back in order to obtain the 2000 FIDE rating :-) (actually it's through a 2090 performance obtained over 10 games - but they're being careful not to have people overrated by accident) |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | shach matov: solskytz Nice experiment. Though as you said, we can't draw any conclusions; and as I mentioned our match is not against a commercial program operated on PC but a special version prepared especially for the match, operated with the most powerful possible hardware; very different from playing a program with which one had plenty of time to play before and draw the appropriate conclusions. <There is absolutely no need for violence, abuse> Again I am on your side, but when <perfi> starts with his hypocritical posts, the old boy needs to be put in his place. But it's all in good fun as always! ;] |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | kellmano: I nominate <schach matov> for most intelligent troll. |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | shach matov: Wouldn't that post prove that <kellmano> is a troll but just not as intelligent. A nice own goal there! ;] . |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | whiteshark: <k> User: intelligent
User: troll ???
You can't be serious! |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | galdur: There is intelligence everywhere
Mugger crocodiles balance sticks on their snouts to entice birds http://bit.ly/196ciws |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | Daisuki: Based on my testing (against a ponder-on, 7500-9500 kN/s Houdini 1.5a (which is freely available) that reached depths in the early 20s) it seems like positional mistakes have to be quite severe, in fact bordering on losing pawns or worse, to not be made up in a matter of a handful of moves (according to Houdini; I'm using Arena so I can see the evaluations without seeing Houdini's lines), so long as one is up the full knight. Unlike me, Carlsen won't play mediocre moves and end up passive, so he'll make <way> more progress while his errors will be smaller and thus made up <very> quickly because he also makes progress instead of mostly sucking as I do. The initiative was also not something Houdini always held against me even though I suck, so Carlsen ought to have it quite often. Trades seemed to quickly give me a boost on the order of a quarter of a pawn, so I guess Carlsen can trade his bishops for knights with no additional compensation, too. Once Carlsen has made significant progress it becomes easier to make more progress and harder to make significant mistakes, etc., so I really doubt that infinity-ply plans mean a lot when you don't have control of the board and are simply outmatched by force. I'm not sure if I'll have the time or focus for a more proper 150'+30" game, so this is based on faster games in which I suck more relative to Houdini. |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | shach matov: <Daisuki: even though I suck> Glad you finally admit it |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | Daisuki: The point is that even though my abilities are very low next to either Carlsen or Houdini, I did surprisingly well. I merely needed to stick to the plan to avoid getting eaten by tactics all the time. |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | Jim Bartle: Context for what <shach> posted out of context: <Unlike me, Carlsen won't play mediocre moves and end up passive, so he'll make <way> more progress while his errors will be smaller and thus made up <very> quickly because he also makes progress instead of mostly sucking as I do. The initiative was also not something Houdini always held against me <even though I suck,> so Carlsen ought to have it quite often.> |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | shach matov: Yes, you suck, on that we can agree.
But Carlsen will not be playing a commercial computer to which he had access, he will be facing something very new, especially prepared against a top human and operated by the most powerful hardwarre. This is very different than playing at home with the same computer over and over again until you get a feel for its weaknesses. |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | Jim Bartle: Give any 2600 a knight advantage against a computer with a 32-piece tablebase (in other words, a perfect chessplayer), and he or she could draw or win the great majority of the time. Just an opinion. |
|
| Dec-06-13 | | Daisuki: <shach matov>, why don't you try it? Since I'm a woman and you are thus smarter than me you must be able to do at least as well as me and thus realize that positional mistakes have to be grievous for them to not be made up quickly. Normal mistakes (by Carlsen's standards) thus just delay the win for Carlsen so long as he remains the full knight up. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 7 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
