David Richerby wrote in
message ...
Kenneth Sloan wrote:
(Sam Sloan) writes:
What about this one you display right he
http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

That is the University of Alabama website, is it not?

It is not.

It isn't *the* University of Alabama website. However, it is a webpage
on the website of the Department of Computer and Information Scinces of
the University of Alabama at Birmingham. It is *a* University of Alabama
webpage; it is *part of* the University of Alabama website.

Let's stop playing silly buggers, everyone.

Dave, need I remind you that if everyone 'stop(ped) playing silly buggers'
in writing here, then the chess newsgroups should become much abridged? :-)

--Nick

"Angelo DePalma" wrote in
message ...
Nick, I like you less and less.

Mr DePalma, I am *not* a politician, and I am *not* attempting to compete
in a popularity contest. I do *not* write only to please any one individual
reader, even you, hard though that might be for you to understand or accept.

Mr DePalma, given the evidence of your continuing trolling here, you may
expect that your sentiments toward me shall be reciprocated.

For the record, in his initial 'response' (29 March 2004) Angelo DePalma
ridiculed me by implying that I was ignorant enough to believe that
Chessbase 'was a playing program'.

I said "almost" didn't I?

For the record, Angelo DePalma wrote (31 March 2004):
"*Perhaps* a *bit* of hyperbole on my part."

That seems to be Angelo DePalma's *minimalist conditional retraction*
of his original statement.

And I took back my blanket statement, didn't I?

Angelo DePalma did qualify his earlier 'blanket statement' to a minimal extent.

And I gave actual statistics, didn't I? Which were pretty
convincing that it's close to a win, by the way, aren't they?

*If* Angelo DePalma's sample of games is representative (which is *not* to
say that I could know that they are not), then it seems that the opening
position (after Black's move 8) is favourable for White, but that's *not*
the same as a proof that "it's close to a win", as Angelo DePalma claims.

This newsgroup is a haven for exaggerators, liars, misfits, misanthropes,
and assholes. Sam Sloan is by no means the worst in any of those categories.
ANY of them. You, on the other hand, are doing your best to win in several
categories.

Of course, following the *universal practice* of the trolls who have
been personally attacked me in the chess newsgroups, Angelo DePalma has
*not* cited any evidence to support his ludicrous allegations about me.

I expect that hardly any knowledgeable reader of the chess newsgroups would
agree with Angelo DePalma's apparent contention that Sam Sloan deserves to
be more respected than I am as a credible writer in the chess newsgroups.

I don't need my nose rubbed in my posts by the likes of you.

Mr DePalma, who exactly are 'the likes of (me)'? Neil Brennen?

If Angelo DePalma had intended to convince me that Neil Brennen seems to
be about completely right in denouncing Angelo DePalma's posts, then Angelo
DePalma already has gone a long way toward succeeding in that.

Now go blow up a train station and leave me alone.

Angelo DePalma's offensive statement (above) is evidently an allusion to
the recent terrorist bombings in Madrid, which killed hundreds of persons.

I have a friend (in real life) from Spain.
Neither she or I are amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling.

Angelo DePalma has clearly revealed himself here as an offensive troll,
and I shall treat him accordingly henceforth.

--Nick

"Nick" wrote in message
om...
"Angelo DePalma" wrote:
"Nick" wrote
Chessbase has some games by players (rated 2200+ FIDE, as Angelo
DePalma had stipulated) who did *not* win as White from the position
after Black's move 8 in his game against IM Lapshun (rated 2450 FIDE).
For example, the game Geller-Taimanov (1970 Interzonal) ended in a draw
on move 23.

For the record, Angelo DePalma made this original claim about that position:
"If you put this position into your computer you'll see that objectively
White is very close to winning. My guess is any 2200 player would win
from the White position against almost anyone."

Perhaps a bit of hyperbole on my part.

That *undoubtedly* was hyperbole by Angelo DePalma.

Of course it's not a forced win

That was my original point.

and a master would have a difficult time beating Karpov from that setup.

I happen to be at least 2200 USCF in strength, and I should not be
confident of necessarily 'beating Karpov from that' opening position.

Angelo, please consider what the responses might have been if, say,
Sam Sloan had written the hyperbole that you did in your claim.
--Nick

On 1 Apr 2004 13:45:43 -0800, (Nick) wrote:

(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...
On 31 Mar 2004 15:54:52 -0800, (Nick) wrote:

(I was responding to a hyperbolic claim by Angelo DePalma.)

I happen to be at least 2200 USCF in strength, and I should not be
confident of necessarily 'beating Karpov from that' opening position.

As an example, I have played many (non-blitz) games against a USCF expert
with a well-established rating, usually 2000-2100 USCF (peak rating 2125),
and my performance rating was higher than 2200 USCF.

Nick would have the reader bellieve that a "performance rating of
2200+" against a single opponent demonstrates 2200+ strength. He
neglects to mention whether these were rated games. If not, woulld he
regard an *imputed* performance rating resulting from off-hand games
as a reliable indicator?

Of course, chess is not transitive, so a performance rating against a
single opponent may or may not equate to an establiished rating based
on tournament play.

But what am I saying? We're talking serious vaporware here, Nick, his
opponent, their respective ratings.... Names and games, such as Sam
often provides, would give credence to these claims of master
strength.

Gee. You are really good. Almost as good as Mig Greengard who informs
us that he is a 2300 strength player, even though his USCF rating is 1834.
http://www.64.com/uscf/ratings/12525629

For the record, I have no connection to Michael Greengard (aka 'Mig').

For the record, Sam specified no "connection" between Nick and Mig,
other than his skepticism about their respective claims of master
strength.

Sam Sloan's latest attempt to troll me by fabricating a spurious comparison
between me and Mr Greengard warrants no further response beyond disdain.

"Spurious comparison"? Well, maybe so, since Greengard (like Sam) is
an actual person with a record and rating available for public
inspection.


--Nick

Ahhh, so you're not really rated.

You've played "many" games against some (most likely nonexistent) guy who
told you he was a USCF expert. This USCF expert lives in England. Which
means there are more USCF experts in your home town than in the entire state
of Nebraska.

Do you know the American Psychiatric Association used to have a medical
classification for men who fantasized about other men?

And somehow your experience playing Mr. X makes you "at least 2200 USCF in
strength." And that makes you an expert on whether that position is close to
a win. I see it now. May I henceforth call you Massa? It's an old southern
U.S. term that means "master." Massa Nick.

See, Nicky boy, the difference between your statement and my statement is
this: Your statement is pure, unadulterated bull**** and mine is true. We
can't check out what you said, and given the fact that you're a slimy snake
I can't give you the benefit of the doubt.

By contrast you can check out what I said by entering the position into a
good chess-playing program. You can also look up games in which it appeared
and see that White wins 69% of the time -- from move 9!! -- and when he
doesn't Black out-rates White by several hundred points.

Bye, Massa.





"Nick" wrote

As an example, I have played many (non-blitz) games against a USCF expert
with a well-established rating, usually 2000-2100 USCF (peak rating 2125),
and my performance rating was higher than 2200 USCF.

"Nick" wrote

I am *not* attempting to compete
in a popularity contest.

Don't worry, there's no chance you'd win.

For the record, Angelo DePalma wrote (31 March 2004):
"*Perhaps* a *bit* of hyperbole on my part."

Look, dick-head. Put the goddamned position into Fritz and tell me what it
says.

That seems to be Angelo DePalma's *minimalist conditional retraction*
of his original statement.

Next time to show my sincerity and remorse I'll jump in front of a train.

And I took back my blanket statement, didn't I?

Angelo DePalma did qualify his earlier 'blanket statement' to a minimal
extent.

Ok, ok. Before I step in front of the train I'll swallow hot coals.

*If* Angelo DePalma's sample of games is representative (which is *not* to
say that I could know that they are not), then it seems that the opening
position (after Black's move 8) is favourable for White, but that's *not*
the same as a proof that "it's close to a win", as Angelo DePalma claims.

You obviously have no ****ing idea what you're talking about. If you were
even vaguely familiar with how chessbase engines evaluate positions you'd
know that +1.35 is very close to a win. It's not my opinion, it's not
subjective. It was a simple position where White had an advantage
approximately equal to 1.35 pawns.

Your'e a hopeless imbecile.

In article ,
Angelo DePalma wrote:

Tell you what...without looking up ratings give me 15 relatively low-rated
NY players who you believe may be FIDE rated. I'll look them up.

Well, I won't do that, if only because I've looked at the reatings of
most of the NY players in that group, because I've played them.

Last Fall, I spent a little time comparing the USCF ratings of players
listed as US players on the FIDE list to their FIDE ratings. Here's
the message ID, so you can look it up in Google:


Basically, the ratings were very comparable; players with FIDE ratings
above 2400 had slightly higher USCF ratings, on average. (The 20
active players over 2500 FIDE averaged 67 points higher in USCF; that
was the largest difference either way in any category.) Players below
2400 FIDE averaged slightly lower USCF ratings. Overall, the average
difference was less than a dozen points.

Anecdotally, since last October I've played 27 opponents with both
FIDE and USCF ratings. Fourteen of them had higher FIDE ratings than
USCF ratings; 13 had lower FIDE ratings. My own FIDE ratiung on the
April list is 2156; my April USCF rating is 2191.

Fifteen years ago, I think there _was_ a 100 to 150 point difference
between FIDE and USCF ratings. If there was, I think it's gone now.

-ed g.

"Nick" wrote
Neither she or I are amused at all by Angelo DePalma's trolling.

Nor I.

Nick wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
Let's stop playing silly buggers, everyone.

Dave, need I remind you that if everyone 'stop(ped) playing silly
buggers' in writing here, then the chess newsgroups should become
much abridged? :-)

You seem to be suggesting that this would be a bad thing...


Dave.

--
David Richerby Psychotic Tool (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ screwdriver but it wants to kill you!

Ed Gaillard wrote:
Last Fall, I spent a little time comparing the USCF ratings of players
listed as US players on the FIDE list to their FIDE ratings. Here's
the message ID, so you can look it up in Google:


It would be useful to do a regression analysis of those data rather than
the somewhat ad hoc analysis that it looks like you've done. I'm happy to
do it myself if you could E-mail me the spreadsheet, preferably in CSV
format.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Atom Bomb (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a weapon of mass destruction but you
can never put it down!

In article ,
David Richerby wrote:
Ed Gaillard wrote:
Last Fall, I spent a little time comparing the USCF ratings of players
listed as US players on the FIDE list to their FIDE ratings. Here's
the message ID, so you can look it up in Google:


It would be useful to do a regression analysis of those data rather than
the somewhat ad hoc analysis that it looks like you've done. I'm happy to
do it myself if you could E-mail me the spreadsheet, preferably in CSV
format.

My machine crashed just as I was sending you email, so I don't know if
you got it, but I sent you a link to a zip file with the spreadsheet
(in Excel 97 format). Let me know if you need me to send it again, or
if you really can't import an xls file. I look forward to hearing
what you make of it.

-ed g.