On Mar 6, 1:58 am, "Sanny" wrote:

and the like, without making quite so many of his
typical blunders. And I have made some constructive
suggestions to Sanny, though that was a while back.

Yes, I added many openings just because you played them. And also many
other things were improved in GetClub Chess by looking at your Games.

Indeed, my games at GetClub are so "awesome" that the
nearly-an-IM Innes fears to look at them, preferring instead
to pretend they do not exist, that I do not even play. :D


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

Still I feel there are many things to improve. Now, Only a good player
can find what improvements are needed as basic things are working
correctly.

For me even beginner is playing like a big monster and beating me
quite often. Today I played a game with Beginner Level the Game was
finished in 15 minutes and I was three pawns down. I overlooked my
pawns being killed.

Chess is supposedly 99% tactics. Right now I am in
a game at RedHotPawn where my opponent has "got me"
strategically. I believe I will be forced to give away at
least a pawn just to survive his attack and live to see
an endgame. Virtually all my other games there have
been decided by fairly simple tactics: my opponents
giveth, and I taketh away.

With computers, sometimes even the Beginner level
can be quite tough, in that it (presumably) never misses
a short-range tactical opportunity. The human player is
thus forced to "see" every possibility, which is not
exactly how we tend to play against each other. In
facing a human opponent of lesser strength, it is often
true that "if we can't see it, they can't either". But not
so with computers; here, even a gap of hundreds of
rating points is no guarantee of safety when it comes
to tactics. And as the saying goes, chess is 99%
tactics.

-- help bot

With computers, sometimes even the Beginner level
can be quite tough, in that it (presumably) never misses
a short-range tactical opportunity. The human player is
thus forced to "see" every possibility, which is not
exactly how we tend to play against each other. In
facing a human opponent of lesser strength, it is often
true that "if we can't see it, they can't either". But not
so with computers; here, even a gap of hundreds of
rating points is no guarantee of safety when it comes
to tactics. And as the saying goes,chessis 99%
tactics.

What do you think is the rating of Beginner Level at GetClub.com

As per me The Ratings I will give is

Beginner: 1600
Easy 1700
Normal: 1800

What do you think? As you are good player what would be your uscf
Rating?

Bye
Sanny

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

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 5, 7:19 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Of course. this is some measure of Fischer's own conditioning. Can you
imagine facing all these guys, all on your ownsome? How can ordinary
players
really appreciate that?

Well, every time I read a comment about how GM Fischer
supposedly faced off against the entire Soviet army of
state-supported players, I am reminded of two things:

1) GM Fischer himself had a near-army of supporters,
enablers, gofers, helpers, and what-have-yous without
which he would never have won the world championship
title. (Heck, without GM Evans' help, there would not
even have been a MSMG book, or if there was, it would
have been clumsily written.)

Though I don't think this much chessic help in 'the near-army'. Even in
Iceland he deployed his GM-second to fetch him drinks. period. Fischer is an
intensely private person, of the type who 'prefers his own dream', not a
collective one.

2) It is often forgotten that those in-the-know consider
GM Fischer himself to be the ultimate product of the
"Russian school of chess"!

That is the Russian view of Fischer!

But Fischer didn't 'supposedly' do anything - he actually did face down the
big State organisation of Russian chess, a seemingly impossible task for
anyone, let alone a lone wolf.

What is interestering is that he should meet the nearest Russian equivalent
to himself in Spassky - who definitely went his own way too [although in a
more limited way] - and if Spassky hadn't been such a genius at chess and
widely acknowledged as such, would have suffered the same fate as Taimanov -
even before the big cold-war face off.


So, to
suggest that in 1971 GM Fischer was regarded as an unbeatable
machine is a bit of an exaggeration,

it is a bit of a missaprehension of what Taimanov wrote since you
introduce
your own term 'unbeatable' which is not Taimanov's sense

The posting to which I replied said GM T. felt the man was
incapable of error, and this, ipso facto makes him unbeatable by
way of logic and reason (two roads little traveled here).

But you must understand these as rhetorical exclamations, rather than what
Taimanov actually thought was true.

In late 2003 I was writing him, and he agreed to annotate a lost-game as
part of a series 'lesson's learned' and it was a total surprise that he
chose his game #3 with Fischer, which we subsequently published in March
2004 /from Russian/.

http://www.chessville.com/LessonsLearned/2004Mar.htm

there is a game replay engine embedded in the text.

The commentary to early moves does not indicate any cowed player - and
indeed states that this is the favorite opening of both players - and MT is
glad to introduce the first innovation at 11 with Qb3!? the reply was 11.
...b6 and I think Taimanov's notes indicate that he felt he had caught
Fischer in something he had not previously analysed - indeed Boleslavsky and
Tal suggest two other moves 'of merit' instead of 11. ... b6.

Then the drama continues with 14. f4! 'whose value Fischer apparently
underestimated...'
Taimanov subjectively thought himself ahead at this point - and his writing
continues confidently with...

16.c5!

"But I think this blow turned out to be an unexpected and distressing
surprise for Fischer. The battery of white pieces has come into action!
However, had I been in a less martial mood, I might have contented myself
with the quiet 16.Nf3, maintaining White's doubtless positional plusses."

This is not playing against any supposedly 'invincible' player. Indeed,
/objectively' Fischer is worse, Taimanov discards safer play [though still
good play] and is 'martial!' he wants a big chunk out of Fischer !

And this sets the stage for something only great players can do - I've read
it before by GMs [playing against Kasparov eg] and is quite open comment by
Tal - and this is the peformance aspect of chess. Essentially Fischer's
subsequent play is found to be unsound - but given an average 3 minutes to
solve it, Taimanov took a huge amount of time over one move - more than any
other in his whole life - 72 minutes.

Fast-forward to the cusp of White's 20th move, and we read "I do not stint
on one more diagram as it not only reflects both the culmination and
turning-point of this game, but the match as a whole. Fischer himself later
recognized it: "It was the turning point of the match. Taimanov missed a
win by 20. Qh3."

There then follows extensive analysis of white options at 20. Taimanov
didn't solve it in that time - and no one else solved it for 25 YEARS!

And here is Taimanov's exclamation "What is this Fischer, like? Is he
invulnerable or bewitched?"

Those are genuine enough expressions of pain - but they /are/ questions.

The fascinating feature of this game is that it is entirely unclear what
Fischer saw at move 20 - or during the 72 minute wait for it to appear. Did
he see more than Taimanov? Frankly, I don't think so - but this is what I
asked Fischer in my note.

I want play out the rest of the game, since people might want to look at it
themselves - but long after the game was older Taimanov writes that he
couldn't penetrate further into the maze possibilites to improve White's
chances, THEN his student [now strong player] Sergey Klimov pointed a
resource out to him, and the investigation continued.

Frustratingly this also led to a dead-end, until Taimanov 'many years later'
re-opened the subject by inviting other to examine this amazing ENIGMA of a
variation, in his own words...

"In all cases White gains an advantage. Maybe the position is fraught with
other secrets, but I admit, after seemingly endless analyses, it causes in
me this "idiosyncrasy" or particular way of thinking. And therefore I pass
the analysis to the attention of the inquisitive reader...
The flair didn't deceive me. Many years later I found out, that in the
position of the last diagram White has one more tempting tactical
opportunity: 24.Bxh6! Bxh6 25. Qh5! and in view of the threats 26. Qf7 and
26. Nf7 White achieves real benefits."

---------

Therefore, he did not disagree with my appelation, that this was the most
complex postion achieved in the entire C20th.

Phil Innes





- in fact, when we
chose to write about his match vs Fischer as his own choice of annotating
a
lost game, he expressed a sort-of voodoo quality about the game [this is
also maintained in his public writing]

The same with Petrosian, when later discussing his
candidates' match with GM Fischer. Speculation has it
that perhaps the U.S. government "coached" our man on
psychology, on throwing the opponent off-kilter.

In the book review by Taylor Kingston, I noted that although
"any real significance" was summarily dismissed by the authors,
it remains an undisputed fact that none other than Henry
Kissinger telephoned GM Fischer before the match in question,
pleading him to uphold the honor of his country, etc.

later - maybe 2 months after publishing I wrote him and asked if, in his
opinion the position he reached [ and the Qh3 !?!? ] was the most complex
every achieved in the C20th?

Ludicrous. It hardly requires two world championship
contenders to construct mere complexity in a game.
Why do so many people think so recklessly, I wonder.

I think he was modest about it, OTOH, he did not contradict my
statement -
and even after 25 years - all through the Kasparov period, Garry never
solved it, neither did any super-computer.

Nor has anyone completely solved the disputed
positions from GM Botvinnik vs. GM Fischer -- but
so what? This tells us something about our current
status with regard to computers and chess, but
practically nothing about the position other than it
is very complex, as such positions typically are.
Any patzer can come up with "complex" positions
in mid game, just so long as wholesale trades have
not already taken place. Sheesh.


this was something of note from MT - who is absolutely no fantascist on
any
subject - straight as a die, though we used a translator, sometimes
resorted
to our only common language, Latin!

No doubt he should have taken up Andean in school, but
the KGB wouldn't allow it. Had you been more persistent,
you might have been able to communicate in your broken
English. ;D

Fischer's weaknesses. In fact, a book by David Levy took
pains in putting things into better perspective, repudiating
silly claims to the effect that GM Fischer was any sort of
perfect "chess machine". Of course, such objectivity was not
exactly welcomed in the USA, nor has its popularity gained
much ground since then.

And notably, Levy forget that chess is a performance art, rather than a
pundit's paradise. There you are, sitting opposite him, [or as Tal says,
Kasparov or even more so, Tal] and tick tick tick, what are you going to
do,
smart arse? ROFL

I don't see this as valid criticism of Levy's book. It remains
a fact that *all* chess players, not only GM Fischer, are in
this very same position. The myths created around a few
players such as Jose Capablanca and Bobby Fischer are
typically supported by deliberate "selective reporting" of
statistics or facts, by deception. When Mr. Levy rejected
such myths, he did not "forget"; he carefully reassessed.
I have little doubt that his not being an American was a
help in slicing through all the pro-Fischer hype, but in
reality, all it takes is a truly rational mind.


Of course Fischer was anything but perfect. And Tal even less than that
in
terms of analytics - What Tal said about this was that anyone could beast
his combinations the next day, or the next week or month.

This was in reaction to all the annotators who were
negative about the way in which he achieved so many
wins; they wanted brilliancy, and they wanted flash,
and they wanted Tal-style attacks, but they wanted
them to "work" perforce. In sum, they wanted a bit
too much.

Nevertheless, it remains true that many of GM Tal's
combinations were unsound against correct play,
and when GM Botvinnik famously published advice
to immediately grab a Tal sac and not waste time
(which undoubtedly would be sorely needed in finding
a defense) mulling it over, the end result was that the
great attacker's career took a downward turn, since
"time" was half the equation, and half the reason his
violent moves were so effective. It is almost as if
GM Botvinnik had screamed: "Look out! There are
*men* inside that wooden horse! Leave it on the beach
and stay inside, and whatever you do, don't open the
bloody gate until the wood itself has rotted away."


And this is the real test of Greats, since you don't have that sort of
time,
you got average 3 minutes.

And this again points to something which frequently
is overlooked: the greats are excused for certain errors
on account of having "only" around three minutes per
move, yet is it not true that most of us, the lowly patzers
I mean, are given far less than that? This is one reason
I think OTB grandmaster play is a bit over-rated. It is
correspondence chess where the "theory" is really
hashed out. One cannot get away with just tossing
out a surprise TN in a bad line at the top levels of
correspondence play, because the "badness" of it all
would be inescapable.


The truth is that even in the realm of computers, where the
USA shone the brightest, our best-of-the-best product was
given to errors. At "x" million, or billion, or trillion calculations
per minute, Deeper Blue was still subject to occasional fits of
idiocy, not unlike its human creators. The fantasy of an
opponent incapable of error remains exactly that: a fantasy,
an illusion.

So is the apprehension of this text from Taimanov.

Perhaps the nearly-an-IM should read his own
postings before commenting. If he did, he would
quite often note that what he may have *thought*
he was writing is no match for the words actually
typed out.


If you are a coach potato

In fact, I am a sort of coach; whenever possible, I
try to give pointers to Jason Repa on how he can
better perform simple tasks like posing as another
poster, or tossing about insults of another poster's IQ,
and the like, without making quite so many of his
typical blunders. And I have made some constructive
suggestions to Sanny, though that was a while back.

Potatoes I just eat. It never occurred to me that I
might be able to somehow *combine* these two. Am
I then, trapped by thinking "inside the box"?

you will know naturally know more about NFL athletes

Abso-redundant-lutely. You know, you should
never type with your mouth full. And over-eating
tends to channel one's resources to the stomach,
thus depriving the brain of much-needed oxygen.
I have frequently noticed that you suffer cronic
symptoms of a brain thusly deprived.

-- help bot

Chess One wrote:
[Incidentally, 'rationally' means to measure or proportion

No, it means `based on reason'. The OED gives no evidence of the word
ever having commonly used to mean `measure or proportion'.


from [L.]; ratio]

Yes, from the Latin `ratio', meaning `reason' or `computation'.
Subsequently, the word `ratio' in English has come to mean the
proportion of two numbers. But English is not Latin: the Latin
meaning of a word is nothing more than a hint as to the English
meaning of the same sequence of letters.

Why don't you try consulting a dictionary from time to time? Talking
with people would be so much easier if you used the same definitions
as the rest of us. As it is, you're apt to spend a great deal of time
trying to convince us that it's a good idea to eat arsenic and then
you find that we're disagreeing with you because we do not use the
word `arsenic' to refer to some variety of chocolate eclair.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Sumerian Sword (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ razor-sharp blade that's really old!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Chess One wrote:
[Incidentally, 'rationally' means to measure or proportion

No, it means `based on reason'. The OED gives no evidence of the word
ever having commonly used to mean `measure or proportion'.


from [L.]; ratio]

Yes, from the Latin `ratio', meaning `reason' or `computation'.
Subsequently, the word `ratio' in English has come to mean the
proportion of two numbers. But English is not Latin: the Latin
meaning of a word is nothing more than a hint as to the English
meaning of the same sequence of letters.

I'm sorry for this verbal entanglement, but your offer constitutes a
tautology, or circular reference; to use a word as part of its own
definition, since reason also has the same stem~ from 'ratio': Which does
have the meaning 'in relationship or inter-proportion' which is common
speech here in the States and not the slightest bit obscure, according to my
foot-thick Websters, and also I have a 2-foot thick version.

If you like you can take the, inter-alia, word RATE, [OF. /rate/, from [L.]
rata pars, thence skipping Englisc, became A. N.] which has the same, yet
more explicit, sense of the /part/ [pars] to the whole or to other part.

In fact it may amaze you to learn that it is currently English usage here in
America to use the word RATE as a proportion of part to the whole,
expecially expressed as a percentage. How is it where you are - would this
usage be understood or thought obscure, and as you suggest, laughable? Isn't
it a trope to laugh at the rates- what seems reasonable about them?

The difficulty in accepting cant, or changed meanings, is if they are less
expressive than the word they supercede, and indifferently distinguished
from, in this case, 'logic' or what is a linear sequenced, what then can
their extant stems~ such as relationship or unchanged sense as in rate,
mean? They do not mean 'reasoned', the new synonym, they still mean the same
as they ever did. How do you refer to the previous meaning of any word if
you insist on a new one?

Why don't you try consulting a dictionary from time to time? Talking
with people would be so much easier if you used the same definitions
as the rest of us.

A fair argument for Eubonics, and for gangsta-talk of teenage boys, dude! Or
should I say "mo'fa"?

Though I can't admit that measure means logical, nor part-to-whole does
either - in or out of mathematics, nor that 'relationship' has to do with
logical propositions or with reasoning grin, but between-parts. If one is
to talk cant or submit to slang as proper use, then what is the name for
words that have changed populist meanings? How do you refer to the
previously used words - since they are now taboo in case we upset the
sensibilities of teenage gangstas?

What you write may be fair enough in the mathematics world, since presumably
you accept any and all parsing of quadratic equations from 7 year olds,
because it is common practice and there are more 7 years olds than
mathematicians.

As it is, you're apt to spend a great deal of time
trying to convince us that it's a good idea to eat arsenic and then
you find that we're disagreeing with you because we do not use the
word `arsenic' to refer to some variety of chocolate eclair.

How interesting. It reminds me, to ratiocinate, of another poster here who
last year compared other posters to Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini, then
defended his choices of these fascist mass-murders, as the nearest analogy
for his disagreements with other posters that his mind was then capable of
expressing in his mother-tongue.

Phil Innes


Dave.

--
David Richerby Sumerian Sword (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ razor-sharp blade that's really
old!

Chess One wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote:
Chess One wrote:
[Incidentally, 'rationally' means to measure or proportion

No, it means `based on reason'. The OED gives no evidence of the word
ever having commonly used to mean `measure or proportion'.

from [L.]; ratio]

Yes, from the Latin `ratio', meaning `reason' or `computation'.
Subsequently, the word `ratio' in English has come to mean the
proportion of two numbers. But English is not Latin: the Latin
meaning of a word is nothing more than a hint as to the English
meaning of the same sequence of letters.

I'm sorry for this verbal entanglement, but your offer constitutes a
tautology, or circular reference;

No it does not. I define the English word `rationally' in terms of
the English word `reason'. I define the Latin word `ratio' in terms
of the English words `reason' and `computation'. I define the English
word `ratio' in terms of the English word `proportion'. There is no
circularity.


to use a word as part of its own definition, since reason also has
the same stem~ from 'ratio': Which does have the meaning 'in
relationship or inter-proportion' which is common speech here in the
States and not the slightest bit obscure, according to my foot-thick
Websters, and also I have a 2-foot thick version.

The stem of the English word `reason' is from the _Latin_ word `ratio',
not the English word `ratio'. The Latin word `ratio' and the English
word `ratio' _mean_different_things_.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Erotic Pointy-Haired Umbrella
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ (TM): it's like an umbrella that's
completely clueless but it's genuinely
erotic!

"David Richerby" wrote in message
...
Chess One wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote:
Chess One wrote:
[Incidentally, 'rationally' means to measure or proportion

No, it means `based on reason'. The OED gives no evidence of the word
ever having commonly used to mean `measure or proportion'.

from [L.]; ratio]

Yes, from the Latin `ratio', meaning `reason' or `computation'.
Subsequently, the word `ratio' in English has come to mean the
proportion of two numbers. But English is not Latin: the Latin
meaning of a word is nothing more than a hint as to the English
meaning of the same sequence of letters.

I'm sorry for this verbal entanglement, but your offer constitutes a
tautology, or circular reference;

No it does not. I define the English word `rationally' in terms of
the English word `reason'. I define the Latin word `ratio' in terms
of the English words `reason' and `computation'. I define the English
word `ratio' in terms of the English word `proportion'. There is no
circularity.

My dictionary, it seems, is thicker than yours, to which you no longer
refer!

to use a word as part of its own definition, since reason also has
the same stem~ from 'ratio': Which does have the meaning 'in
relationship or inter-proportion' which is common speech here in the
States and not the slightest bit obscure, according to my foot-thick
Websters, and also I have a 2-foot thick version.

The stem of the English word `reason' is from the _Latin_ word `ratio',
not the English word `ratio'. The Latin word `ratio' and the English
word `ratio' _mean_different_things_.

And so cutteth the lesson - though Dave is not so brave as to admit he cuts
the pecant parts.grin His is assertion only, beyond any sense of reasoning
with others. I rather doubt he will return to the cut bits since they are
too hard to answer.

PI


Dave.

--
David Richerby Erotic Pointy-Haired Umbrella
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ (TM): it's like an umbrella that's
completely clueless but it's
genuinely
erotic!

On Mar 6, 8:01 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Well, every time I read a comment about how GM Fischer
supposedly faced off against the entire Soviet army of
state-supported players, I am reminded of two things:
1) GM Fischer himself had a near-army of supporters,
enablers, gofers, helpers, and what-have-yous without
which he would never have won the world championship
title. (Heck, without GM Evans' help, there would not
even have been a MSMG book, or if there was, it would
have been clumsily written.)

Though I don't think this much chessic help in 'the near-army'. Even in
Iceland he deployed his GM-second to fetch him drinks. period.

That's not the point. The point is that this misrepresentation
is a manifestation of anti-Soviet bias, and that the tendency to
characterize any and all Soviets as strongly supported by the
entire state *while at the same time* characterizing GM Fischer
as standing all by himself is ludicrous. There was an army of
enablers behind the 1972 match victory, and pretending they
did not exist reveals nothing but the extent of this anti-Soviet,
overwhelmingly pro-Fischer bias.

On top of that, there remains the issue of how much an
army of helpers actually helps, and how much they hinder,
a given contestant. One famous case was where one of
GM Kasparov's trainers was accused of selling him out to
the GM Karpov team. Another might be the case where
poor analysis or advice is handed off to the player, who
was instructed to get some much-needed sleep and let
his seconds handle the adjourned position. And still
another example would be where a player attempts to
"cram" before the game, then gets his memorized by
rote openings preparation mixed up, playing the wrong
move or just forgetting what he was programmed to do,
ending up as a fish out of water.


Fischer is an intensely private person, of the type who 'prefers
his own dream', not a collective one.

I should expect an "intensely private person" to not give
radio interviews in which he expounds on the size of his
bodily organs, the need to rid the world of Jews, and so
forth. Those are the actions of a person who is not so
much "private", as he is self-obsessed and uncouth.
Really, IM Innes, you ought to engage your brain a bit
before taking to the keyboard. :D

2) It is often forgotten that those in-the-know consider
GM Fischer himself to be the ultimate product of the
"Russian school of chess"!

That is the Russian view of Fischer!

But Fischer didn't 'supposedly' do anything - he actually did face down the
big State organisation of Russian chess, a seemingly impossible task for
anyone, let alone a lone wolf.

Self-delusion noted. I will grant the portion regarding
RF being a "lone wolf", however.


What is interestering is that he should meet the nearest Russian equivalent
to himself in Spassky

This comment shows a good grasp on things; but it
must be noted that unlike GM Fischer, GM Spassky
never ventured into the bizarre, the wacky, the total
rejection of reality which enveloped his rival. For
instance, no Phillipino radio station I know of has
yet broadcast any shows in which is discussed the
elephantine size of GM Spassky's "organs". ;D


And this sets the stage for something only great players can do - I've read
it before by GMs [playing against Kasparov eg] and is quite open comment by
Tal - and this is the peformance aspect of chess. Essentially Fischer's
subsequent play is found to be unsound - but given an average 3 minutes to
solve it, Taimanov took a huge amount of time over one move - more than any
other in his whole life - 72 minutes.

Poor time management is not conducive to success
in world championship play. Neither is the hanging of
Rooks and whatnot.


Fast-forward to the cusp of White's 20th move, and we read "I do not stint
on one more diagram as it not only reflects both the culmination and
turning-point of this game, but the match as a whole. Fischer himself later
recognized it: "It was the turning point of the match. Taimanov missed a
win by 20. Qh3."

I will not comment since IM Innes failed to specify
whether this comment is a direct quote of GM Fischer,
or if perhaps it was lifted from a random book by GM
Adorjan. As we know, much material so lifted is not
properly qualified as to what is included, and what is
not, etc. :D


There then follows extensive analysis of white options at 20. Taimanov
didn't solve it in that time - and no one else solved it for 25 YEARS!

My view is that there should be no surprise in GM
Taimanov's obsession with this one position from
just one of his losses in that match, for it represents
the very pinnacle of his chess career.

The truth is there are myriad such positions: positions
which no one has ever solved, even if they have been
around for centuries. It only means they are complex
positions, as I pointed out before. There is nothing
special in being a complex position, nor are such things
at all rare.

In fact, there are many simpler positions which were
never solved for a very long time, and even now, with
our speedy computers and killer chess programs,
there remain plenty of *endgames* which have yet to
be solved, let alone middlegame positions.

In sum, the real significance lies not at all in the
position's complexity, but in its *being perceived* as
the turning point of the match. Of course, those of us
"in the know" are all too aware that this match required
no turning point, for one of the two contestants was
simply over-matched. Given that level of perspective, it
all seems much ado about nothing.

-- help bot

On Mar 6, 4:21 am, "Sanny" wrote:

With computers, sometimes even the Beginner level
can be quite tough, in that it (presumably) never misses
a short-range tactical opportunity. The human player is
thus forced to "see" every possibility, which is not
exactly how we tend to play against each other. In
facing a human opponent of lesser strength, it is often
true that "if we can't see it, they can't either". But not
so with computers; here, even a gap of hundreds of
rating points is no guarantee of safety when it comes
to tactics. And as the saying goes,chessis 99%
tactics.

What do you think is the rating of Beginner Level at GetClub.com

Personally, I believe the playing strength of your program
at GetClub has varied *dramatically* over time.

When I first started playing there the Beginner level was so
easy to beat that I quickly decided to try the highest levels,
to see if there would be any real resistance there. After
some improvements brought on by complaints regarding
the strength of the program, these higher levels became
so slow as to make such games exceedingly tedious.
There were times when I would say the program was a
dangerous opponent, if not completely competent. But
with some of the changes directed at speeding things up,
came serious weaknesses which were easily exploited.

In sum, due to this wide variance, and too, the program's
almost unbearable slowness on some levels, it would be
difficult for me to give an accurate estimate of strength.

The best thing would be to determine a stopping point for
the experimentation phase, and using the same program
without significant modifications, test it against actual
USCF-rated players and the take these *results* and do
the math. Results are always more objective than, say,
an informed opinion.

As per me The Ratings I will give is

Beginner: 1600
Easy 1700
Normal: 1800

What do you think?

I think these numbers might possibly begin too high
and that they are likely too closely spaced, but then, I
have not played at GetClub recently, and the peculiar
playing conditions (games often spread across
countless hours or days) tend to confuse the issue.



As you are good player what would be your uscf
Rating?

Good question. Because I am without a doubt a
natural-born chess genius, my USCF rating could
potentially be as high as a nearly-an-IM or a 2300+,
but then again, perhaps not. I have noted a certain
weakness when it comes to openings theory, in
that I am quickly out of my depth where I would
like to know the main line theory several moves
deeper, even if this might amount to an admission
of dependency to a small degree on memorization
by rote. The reason is simple: I am not afraid of
such a thing becoming an addiction, on account
of my peculiar attitude toward independent thinking.
In short, it could save time and steer me closer to
a playable middlegame, where my immense talent
would of course make itself known to the hapless
opponent. ;D

In sum, my recommendation is objective testing,
and objectively calibrating to correspond to the
chosen benchmark ratings system. (The frequent
occurrence of the term "objective" in this paragraph
is no mere coincidence.) Without objective testing,
any claims amount to speculation and guesswork.

-- help bot

Chess One wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Chess One wrote:
I'm sorry for this verbal entanglement, but your offer constitutes a
tautology, or circular reference;

No it does not. [...]

My dictionary, it seems, is thicker than yours, to which you no
longer refer!

Um. My dictionary is the online version of the OED. The paper
version runs to twenty volumes and weighs nearly 140lbs. Frankly, my
dictionary could beat your dictionary in a fight.


And so cutteth the lesson - though Dave is not so brave as to admit
he cuts the pecant parts.grin His is assertion only, beyond any
sense of reasoning with others. I rather doubt he will return to the
cut bits since they are too hard to answer.

I omitted the rest of your post because it appeared to be garbage. To
repunctuate Shakira, ``You don't even know the meaning of the words.
I'm sorry.''


Dave.

--
David Richerby Slimy Drink (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing juice beverage but it's
covered in goo!