wrote:
Note that in such a case, the "best play", even in chess, has become
probabilistic and psychological. The best move against a Karpov may
be different from the best move against a Fischer or a Kasparov or a
Kramnik.

Best play against Karpov and Kasparov: arrange to play one as White
and the other as Black and copy the moves between the two games.
Best play against Fischer: put a TV camera next to the board and hope
to win by forfeit.
Best play against Kramnik: make lots of mate threats and hope he falls
for one of them.

As such, you should be able to score at least 2/4 against these guys;
3/4 if Kramnik has a bad day.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Indelible Love Newspaper (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a daily broadsheet that you can
share with someone special but it
can't be erased!

"Good Moves Aren't worth BEANS!" wrote in message
news:ryRDh.1111541$1T2.693092@pd7urf2no...
Even a master such as myself.....

ROFL!!

Innes, you senile jackass, how can you keep telling lies like this when
everyone knows that you are nowhere near being a master. You never were
one. And you're no longer worth the 2044 rating you used to have 12 years
ago.

Its all true.

My real Name is Horace Uralz Hussein Gandalf Innes, my rating has never
exceeded 1333 [provisional], I slept out of the ship, kept false musters,
and fell asleep during the second dog.

I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy, no. The moon landings
were a hoax by the international society of undertakers, drunkards and
crematorialists. There is also no proof that Canada exists, and I defy
/anyone/ to prove it.

The best way to learn chess as ani ful no is with one foot in a bucket of
water, while silently singing Dixie wearing a coon hat, and squinting
through your left eye. All mathematicians are crooks and should be forced to
read Rilke. The best sandwich is peanut butter jelly, banana and salami,
with chess-melt on rye. [The Wilkes-Barre variation.]

I was one of the nuns in the Sound of Music, where I also learned to yodel
and later yodelled chess moves across the great glens of Scotland playing
against distance shepards.

All the above is true and recorded in the Galactic Wikipedia, page 6^6, line
6.

Cordially, 'call me H.U.G.H.' Innes

On Feb 26, 12:35 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Even a master such as myself.....

ROFL!!

Innes, you senile jackass, how can you keep telling lies like this when
everyone knows that you are nowhere near being a master. You never were
one. And you're no longer worth the 2044 rating you used to have 12 years
ago.

Its all true.

My real Name is Horace Uralz Hussein Gandalf Innes, my rating has never
exceeded 1333 [provisional], I slept out of the ship, kept false musters,
and fell asleep during the second dog.

-------------

What is the term master, but a general descriptor suggesting
a certain (limited) "mastery" of the game -- at least such as may
be achieved by we lowly humans?
The real challenge is in refuting the other charges, those of
senility
and being a jackass, IMO. Ho, ho!

Suppose one were to look to the official record of the creature
itself, of Jason Rowe? Would the record, I wonder, indicate a
skill so vast as the creature has laid claim, or some, perhaps small
disappointment? Is there truth in numbers? What about all those
blitz tourneys in which I partook, netting quarters and sometimes
a few dollars here and there, but leaving behind no record whatsoever
-- do these not count, because they were never recorded for posterity?
And what if I happened to invest the proceeds wisely, and the sum
grew and grew until it eventually reached the moon? Should this
fact be ignored, on account of ignorance of whence the capital had
originated? Would I therefore be labeled a thief or a charlatan,
whose
vast wealth could not be fully retraced back to its original square?

The thoughts on chess strength and skill, as considered by children
whose own abilities lie in quickness of hand and rapidity of tactical
execution, is a shallow pool, betraying the inherent lack of depth
and subtlety evinced by the true master of the royal game. But alas
--
I was once young and quick-of-hand and sharp of sight! I, too, was
once adept at movement to and fro, up and down the board with haste
and clumsy -- yet very effective -- threats. Though my heyday came
before the advent of "bullet" and joystick and mouse, it nevertheless
overlapped at the end to some small degree.

But what point is there in denigrating the aged, the slothful, the
more
*mature* chess player who may now lack brute speed, clever tricks,
and a certain skill with the mouse button? It can only serve to show
up the weaknesses of youth, the compensatory lack of depth and
subtlety which almost invariably plagues their games, and this is a
high price for bragging. No, better to remain silent, or to
respectfully
allow the ratings to paint a more general picture of the scene,
without
much specific detail, without finely-drawn crows feet, furrowed
brows,
or blissful, rosy-pink cheeks of youth and inexperience.

But, lest I be accused of being one of the ratings-mongers, I will
allow
for a different approach; one more befitting the character of our
informal
players and their less-than-stellar official numbers. Indeed, I am
all for
a careful analysis of a player's actual games in attempting to assess
their true strength -- especially my own! For I am convinced that
when
all is properly accounted for (and you computer-cheaters know what I
am talking about), my games will shine all the more, even beyond the
limits of my amazingly high ratings and near-perfect results. But
enough about me -- [blushes].

What is the verdict as to the actual play of IM Innes, or Jason
Repa,
or anyone here for that matter? Has anyone undertaken a serious
attempt at analysis, or is childish chiding and insults to remain the
standard of the day? It wouldn't surprise me -- not one iota.

-- help bot

[My previous response to Phil's article seems to have disappeared
down Google's Black Hole. -- ANW]

In article lmLDh.23$Xe1.14@trndny01, Chess One wrote:
Even though there are more chess games than atoms in the universe.
We don't know *that*. "Visible" universe perhaps?
True. My chess partner an engineer is much worried by the Special Theorum,
where is this universe with all its mass? He asks.

If this is Einstein's Special Theorum of Relativitum, then I
commend unto him and you the assorted works, popular and otherwise, of
Eddington, still a great read despite being 70 years or so out of date.
[And I'm on the lookout for a copy of Eddington's "Fundamental Theory",
but not at the ridiculous prices quoted by Amazon/Abe/etc.]

[...]
Just to interject a moment, since ordinary citizens may be confused, these
are all asides and suppositions to the 2 plain questions, no? Alternate
universe questions, not chess answers.
[...]
But neither answer, answerable, Andy?

If you're referring to the "plain" questions of whether chess is
finite and whether the proposition that Black wins is unprovable, then
you have already had the correct answers in maths, CS, logic and English
from DavidR; I have nothing to add to them. If you want answers in physics,
metaphysics, religion or Swahili, you need to ask someone else. But if
you have other questions about game theory, fire away.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.

Is this retard who goes by the name "help bitch" really 1300? I already knew
the guy had a very low IQ based on the content of his posts, but this is
hillarious!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

1. Nomorechess === Help Bot (same people)
At: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Help bot is very good player. He plays at GetClub and has top ranking.
Since the GetClub Game is new Nomorechess is having low rating.

Initially you get 1000 rating. On winning you get +5 or +10 points
depending on level you beat. He has beaten more than 100 games and
lost only 2 Which is a great Job.

If you want to test his gameplay you can play online with nomorechess
at GetClub.com. I am sure he will win most of the good players. Except
TK, Bob and a few others.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On Feb 28, 8:00 am, "Sanny" wrote:

Help bot is very good player. He plays at GetClub and has top ranking.
Since the GetClub Game is new Nomorechess is having low rating.

Initially you get 1000 rating. On winning you get +5 or +10 points
depending on level you beat. He has beaten more than 100 games and
lost only 2 Which is a great Job.

If you want to test his gameplay you can play online with nomorechess
at GetClub.com. I am sure he will win most of the good players. Except
TK, Bob and a few others.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

See? I told ya so!

From my limited readings here in the newsgroups, I believe
a few of these guys are currently disclaiming any pretense
at 2300+-dom, pointing to old age or lack of practice, or some
combination of lack of study, old age, AND lack of practice
perhaps.

Just who is "Bob", anyway? Is he a real player, or just a
computer operator that happens to have Chessmaster or Fritz?

IM Innes claims to have played several times at GetClub,
but under different guises -- to protect the innocent. I think
I once saw him talk of losing to me -- yet I have no recall
of any such game ever having been played. In fact, I seem
to recall having faced only one human opponent on that site,
and he just dropped a piece for no reason. What are the
odds that this one freak occurrence was the nearly-an-IM,
while eating a PB&J sandwich, which dropped onto his
lap and distracted him in midgame? Fairly slim.

As to my record, I will interject that Sanny has left out
any mention of my draws -- though few in number -- which
of course are considered as failures of sorts, in view of the
program's relative weakness. Those games were eradicated,
purged from the record, by virtue of the fact that his Web
site allows for no way to score them, and for this I am
grateful. But the truth remains that I did draw, as well as
lose, to Sanny's program. And, just as with Taylor Kingston,
one game had his program declaring victory by way of the
resign button (so far as can be deciphered), yet in a very
favorable position, and this fluke was corrected, put right
by Sanny, for which I am grateful.

Far from being embarrassed by these failures, I prefer to
see the positive side: the side which points to the fact that
no rational human being can accuse me of having obtained
my multitude of victories by way of cheating with a Fritz, or
a Chessmaster program. No rational being could fail to see
the lunacy in maintaining this, while noting my draws and
my losses, which are simply inconceivable had I made use
of any number of commercial programs. I try to see these
failures as proof positive of my humanity, of my mortal
weakness which cannot hope to ever grasp the cusp of
true perfection, of immortality itself. And what's more, I
see it as contrasting my achievement with those of the
many wannabes, who would try and fool the whole world by
hiding behind a Fritz, pretending to be something they are
not, something great and everlasting. I see it as...

Sorry, gotta go. Pizza's ready! ;D

-- help bot

"Jason 911" wrote in message
news:_v3Dh.1082478$5R2.386081@pd7urf3no...
I am not sure I wish to continue arguing an issue with someone who
doesn't know or doesn't care, except to say that my questions remain
unanswered.

Up to your same old tactics eh ol' geezer? Why don't you tell everyone
here why you've cowardly avoided playing rated chess for over ten years?

Kids! Lots and lots of kids. And of course living in the least populated
area of Europe and preferring alpine mountain climbing, way above the tree
line in winter. You don't meet so many chess players on the top of Ben
Macdui, though I did meet a troop of SAS up there once. We stared at each
other - didn't speak.

Your last published rating was barely over 2000. Do you think anyone
believes you're worth anything near that now?

I know lots of people admit concern, and even mock-distress over some
provisional rating. But I have considered it, and all these people seem to
be more concerned with ratings than I am. In fact, I suspect they rather
obsess about their /own/ rating.

You know, if other people ain't so good, then theirs ain't so bad!@

But back to the mountains. If you are a [highland] Scot its a
rite-of-passage to climb certain mountains, and also to confront it geist -
and MacDui is said to be haunted by the Old Man - [maybe you are
interested?] - and this character CONFRONTS you with your FEARS.

It is not quite so daft or romantic as it may seem, since to get up there
you have to walk over a shoulder 2,000 feet high, then drop 1,000 feet to
reclimb to the top - and a 5,000 foot ice climb in mid-winter [ plus
climbing out another 1,000 feet] during 6 hours of daylight while the Sun
rolls around the horizon and you can see the stars again at 3 in the
afternoon, and all above treeline is not the half of it!

Quite literally not half. Some old geezer once told me about mountains: "Its
not getting up there" he said pointing to the peak, "its getting there and
back again."

All of that, and the Old Man waiting for the Young Man when he arrives.
OTOH, these activities 'build character' and is good practice, and the right
order of things!

"First practice with sword, then practice with pen."

Phil Innes

JMR