Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 09:00 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Jul 12, 7:40*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
Lopez,Ray (1540) - Pappas (1575)



* We shall see if he has any honor at all.


Oh I have honour all right. I'm just wondering, that master friend of
yours--is he going to analyse the game too? I assume not, otherwise I
can wait until tomorrow before I post my missive. And trust me, it is
massive.

You my friend remind me of Indio in the classic closing scene of this
western movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_a_Few_Dollars_More

I hear that melancholy tune playing...

RL
  #12   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 09:29 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Jul 12, 3:31*pm, raylopez99 wrote:
On Jul 12, 7:01*pm, MikeMurray wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:40:13 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston


wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:10*am, raylopez99 wrote:
TK--you have accurately summarized our agreement. *I will abide by it--
I assure you. *You are in for a big surprise.


Is the surprise that you've found some GM game which you are passing
off as your own ? *


My my my. You are a clever boy. *Too bad TK has already bit...and I
will proceed to shred him in my next post.


So this is all a hoax? The game is not really one of yours, Ray?
Well then, if that is the case, I make two observations:

1. If so, you have blatantly, deliberated lied to the group. You
billed this as definitely one of your games, your best game, adding "I
swear it."

2. Who played the game is completely immaterial to your promise. The
game could have been between Kasparov and the ghost of Morphy, or
between two chimpanzees. Doesn't matter. That was not the issue.
The point at issue is that you claimed the game was without
mistakes, and if anyone found one, then you'd quit posting here
forever. Clear, definite mistakes have been found and posted.
Therefore, you are bound to keep that promise, whether you played the
game or not.

TK has said my blitz games are
not worthy of being posted...so if a GM's blitz game is also not
worthy, then what blitz game is worthy?


Relatively few, I suspect. That's not the point at issue. The point
is: You made an agreement, based on certain conditions. Those
conditions have been fulfilled. And, as I expected, you have
immediately gone back on your agreement.
So if indeed you have concocted a hoax, I am not surprised.
  #13   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 09:32 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2010
Posts: 311
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On 12 July, 21:29, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

....troll food.

PDFTT.
  #14   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 10:09 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Jul 12, 12:40*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
Lopez,Ray (1540) - Pappas (1575)

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qc7 5.Nc3 e6 6.Be2 a6 7.0–0 Nf6
8.Kh1 b5 9.Nxc6 dxc6 10.f4 b4?!

* Through White’s 10th move the game can be considered “book,” though
this particular variation of the Taimanov Sicilian is not well
regarded by theoreticians, nor has it had much practical success.


I would not call that a pure Taimanov... looks more like a Paulsen...
both very similar... lots of transpostion opportunities... Mark
didn't usually bring the Queen that quick,,, (see Anand games)... he
liked to put his king knight on e7 and maybe play g6... also on a3 he
exchange knights and play e7 to c6... I'd have to break out a board
and my books to be sure but I hate chess these days so I won't

  #15   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 10:11 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Jul 12, 7:40*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
Lopez,Ray (1540) - Pappas (1575)

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Qc7 5.Nc3 e6 6.Be2 a6 7.0–0 Nf6
8.Kh1 b5 9.Nxc6 dxc6 10.f4 b4?!

* Through White’s 10th move the game can be considered “book,” though
this particular variation of the Taimanov Sicilian is not well
regarded by theoreticians, nor has it had much practical success.
ChessBase shows it occurring in 54 games from 1955 thru 2004, with
Black scoring only +12 -31 =11, 32%.


Only 54 games?

* The text, in my opinion, must be considered Black’s first mistake.
It is positionally loosening, and wastes time when Black is already
behind in development. Better was 10...Bb7, and if 11.e5 Rd8 12.Qe1
Nd5 13.Nxd5 cxd5 as in Ye Jiangchuan - J. Polgar, Biel Interzonal 1993
(½–½, 50).

* In Rybka’s opinion, 10…b4?! is about 10th-best, behind 10...Bb7,
Be7, Bc5, Rb8, Bb4, Nd7, h5, Bd7, and h6.


Probably true.


* The “?!” is not just my opinion, by the way. GM Zoltan Ribli,
annotating three games on CB (Volotkin-Crisan, Portoroz 2001 (1-0,
28); Ricardo-Sunye Neto, Buenos Aires 1994 (1-0, 34); Short-
Ljubojevic, Linares 1995 (1-0, 31)), gives the same punctuation. Ribli
is considered one of the top 30 or 40 players of all time. Practical
results support his conclusion: of the 24 games in this line on CB,
White has scored +15 -7 =2, 67%.


Short played white in this variation? That's interesting.


11.e5 bxc3?

* While Rybka does not make much of this, it has to be faulted as
positionally unspeakable. It leads to a position in which Black has
three isolated pawns, four pawn islands to White’s two, his king has
no safe place to castle, and he has great difficulty coordinating his
pieces, especially in connecting his rooks. Necessary was 11...Nd5.


But Fritz 9.0 scores 11...bxc3 as 0.32, while 11...Nd5 scores 0.85.
So Black made the right call perhaps, though, like you say, he gave up
the right to castle.


12.exf6 Rb8

* Finally leaving the books altogether, and in a manner not to be
recommended. Rybka rates this about the 8th-best option at about
+1.20, well behind 12...gxf6 (+0.54).


Fritz says 12...Qd8 is best. Then any queen trade would mean the loss
of a right to castle is no big deal.


13.bxc3

* A master would prefer 13.Qd4 cxb2 14.Bxb2 Rg8 15.Rab1 when White's
position is much superior. Of course, Black has played so badly that
White stands better anyway. Rybka puts the text as 3rd-best (+0.85),
behind 13.Qd4 (+1.17) and 13.Qd3 (+0.92).


A master would prefer 13. Qd4 says Mr. Taylor Kingston. Ladies and
Gentlemen (and I use that term loosely) of the forum, I ask you to
remember TK said this. A master would prefer 13. Qd4 he said. But
White in fact played 13. bxc3. Ergo, following TK's logic, White is
not a master. OK then. Moving right along.... (he he he this is
going to be good).


13...gxf6 14.f5

* 3rd-best (+0.56), behind 14.Qd4 (+0.85) and 14.Be3 (+0.60).


Imagine that--White is playing third rate moves, though Fritz scores
it as a second best move (1.13 vs 0.72)! Shame on White then. I
guess White will never make it to the expert level, much less the
master or, God forbid, the grandmaster level! Ok then.


14…e5 15.Be3 h5

* I have no comment on this particular move (Rybka’s #2 choice, after
15…Qa5), but this is a good point at which to show a diagram which
reveals in what a sorry state Black is in positionally and
developmentally, as I said would be a likely consequence of his 11th
move:

* 1rb1kb1r/2q2p2/p1p2p2/4pP1p/8/2P1B3/P1P1B1PP/R2Q1R1K w k h6 0 16



* Could any chess master look at this and not see that Black is in a
miserable state, and has played in a decidedly unmasterful manner?


I'll have to mention that next time I play Black...if Black will stoop
low enough to play me. For you see, TK, Black is rated about 1000 Elo
points higher than me. But let's not let the cat out of the bag so
quick. Moving right along then (hehehe this is going to be good).



16.Bxh5

* 8th-best (+0.50), behind 16.Bc4 (+0.80), Qd3, Bf3, h3, Bd3, Qd2, and
a4.


You mean White is now playing 8th best moves?! Wow, that's shameful.
Fritz too considers it an 8th best move, 0.45 vs 0.75. But it's not a
bad move IMO (but what do I know? Literally, as you'll soon see
reader).


16…c5

* If Black wanted to play this, better to have done it the move
before. After 15...h5 16.Bxh5, the correct followup was 16...Qa5
17.Qe2 Qxc3 , though even then his chances were poor. Rybka puts the
text at 4th-best (+0.99), behind 16...Qa5 (+0.50), Rb2 and Bh6.


I agree. But after 16...Qa5 17.Qe2 Qxc3, Fritz rates the position as
0.4, not bad. Best for white is in fact 16...Qa5 17. Qf3 Qxc3 18. Ba7
then after the queen swap Bxc6 etc. +0.6. But even 0.6 in blitz is
not a winning position IMO.


17.h3

* 3rd-best (+0.77), behind 17.Qg4 (+0.99) and Qe2 (+0.89).


Really? That high up? Fritz rates 17.h3 as the 10th move, and nearly
0.6 pawns worse than the first two moves (which are the same as
Rybka's). Why such a big difference? I think Rybka is correct--I
really don't see 17. h3 as a blunder, as Fritz does.


17...Bb7 18.Qe2 Qa5?

* This is not even in Rybka's top 10. It rates 18...Bd5 or …Be4 best
at about +0.88. The text is way down the list at about +1.45.


I agree. Seems like trying to grab the c3 pawn is futile at this
point. Better to defend.


19.Bf3 Bxf3 20.Qxf3 Be7

* 3rd-best (+1.85), behind 20...Bd6 (+1.69) and Qc7 (+1.76).


Not much of a difference. What is black's plan? I was thinking, to
connect the rooks would it make sense to castle? Let me check
this...nope, castling is out of the question


21.Rab1 Rd8 22.c4

* At best about 5th-best (+1.82), behind 22.Qc6+ (+4.60), Rb7 (+3.18),
Rfd1 (+2.05), and Qe4 (+1.84). Most masters would see that 22.Qc6+ Kf8
(22...Rd7?? 23.Rfd1+-) 23.Rb7, threatening 24.Rxe7 Kxe7 25.Bxc5+, wins
quickly.


We agree Black is in a bad spot, but checking the King would only make
him move to g7at some point, sort of an artificial castling move. But
I agree the move played by White was sub-optimal. Wait?! Does this
mean I lose the bet? Nah. Read on reader, you'll see.


22...Qxa2??

* A dreadful blunder. 15th-best, at +5.76. Rybka prefers 22...Kf8
(+1.87) and 13 other moves over this.


True enough. But Black is in a bad, losing position already. Perhaps
looking to complicate?


23.Qc6+ Kf8 24.Bxc5 Bxc5

* About 6th best at +13.60, though now Black's position is so ruined it hardly matters; #1 is 24...Kg7 at +11.79.



25.Qxc5+

* This routine, unthinking recapture is Rybka's #2, but a runner-up so
far behind as to make Alf Landon look like Alexander the Great. After
letting it run a /long/ time, Rybka rates this move at about +3.50,
Fritz8 only at about +1.40. More immediately decisive was 25.Qxf6,
which Rybka evaluates at about +29.00 if Black replies 25...Qxb1;
anything else leads to mate in 14 at most. Fritz8 concurs.


Yes. I saw this in blunder check mode when I first replayed this
game. You are right as rain TK. No ifs, ands or buts. That's why I
said "ignore" move 25. But for one thing: this shows even strong
players make stupid moves. Does that mean that no chess game can ever
be posted on r.g.c.m if it has a stupid move? Food for thought.


25...Kg7 26.Rb3 Rh5 27.Rg3+ Kh7 28.Qe7 Qxc4 29.Qxf6 Rg8 30.Rff3 Qh4??

* Allows mate in 3, and is not even in Rybka's top 20. Relatively best
was 30...Rh6, at about +3.55.


You missed the fact that MikeMurray mentioned, and I agree: no blitz
player below the master level would play: 29. Qxf6? which is not the
best move, since the white rook on the back rank is being attacked,
with check to be given to the white king. Any player below
grandmaster would reflexively play 29. Rff3, which is the best move
and gives white a +10.65 advantage, vs. the +3.72 score that 29. Qxf6
gives. Except for one thing TK--and this is important--the White rook
on f1 cannot be taken! That's right, it's mate in 8, even after check
is given, if black takes the rook. Only a master--dare I say
grandmaster?--would see that. Hence that's perhaps why white did not
play the strongest move, 29. Rff3, but instead played 29. Qxf6? (which
still wins).

Question for the reader: why is Ray speaking in the third person when
he speaks of White? Is he trying to be a scholar and a gentleman or
is he trying to signal something? Stay tuned...


31.Qxf7+ 1–0

* Counting up the mistakes as defined in the agreed terms, we have 14:
Black’s moves 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 30; White’s moves
13, 14, 16, 17, and 22. Even being generous, and discounting moves
that came in third in Rybka’s evaluation takes away only four moves (B
20; W 13, 14, 17). It is also evident, especially from looking at
White’s 22nd and 25th moves, that he had relatively few mistakes only
because Black made his task so easy, rather than because of any great
skill on White’s part.
* Even if Rybka or I am wrong about some of these moves, there is
still plenty to refute Lopez, who has repeatedly boasted that there
was not even one mistake by either side in this game. By any
reasonable standard, there are way more than one.


But we are not reasonable, are we TK? We live in a land of laws. Of
rules. Of historical context. The great jurist Oliver Wendall Holmes
once said (contemptuously), that a "page of history is worth a volume
of logic". He was right--about the maxim, not about the contempt.

You see TK, I said (and you modified, but essentially kept) this
definition of what a flawless and master quality game was:

Ray:

"But let me try and come up with something. I define "flawless" and
"master quality" as a move that--with the exception of move 25, which
we all agree could have been better--Rybka would have made within the
top three moves--a move a grandmaster would make (since Rybka
essentially is a grandmaster, on any decent hardware). Fair enough?
No vagueness whatsoever. "

A move a grandmaster would make TK. And "--" is equivalent to "or" in
this context. Or vague enough to be, note the parenthetical
"(since...)" language. Oh yes, I did that on purpose. You see TK
I've been involved in multi-billion dollar deals, where you have to
watch every single word carefully. I know all sorts of tricks:
business forks if you will, even speaking in forked tongues. Sort of
like that NY Times cartoon showing two businessmen shaking hands
cordially to seal a deal but with thought bubble balloons showing what
they were thinking, both thinking "This will never hold up in court
[so I'm safe to agree]".

Am I saying I'm a grandmaster then? No. Use logic. The solution is
very close. MikeMurray got it without so many hints, but then again
Mike is brighter than you.


* Therefore, I ask that Ray Lopez keep his promise, effective
immediately. He is no longer to post on any rec.games.chess newsgroup,
in particular rec.games.chess.misc and rec.games.chess.analysis. This
applies not only to posts as “Ray Lopez,” which he has admitted is not
his real name anyway, but under any other screen name or pseudonym
(e.g. “Your Smrat”). Nor is he to have any other people post his words
under their names (and yes, Ray, we would quickly recognize your
style).


You are very harsh in your capitulation terms. You could have, under
the rules of our bet, also have asked that I post more politely in the
future, or, never post any more of my blitz games. And, btw, "my
blitz game" means blitz games in "my" collection of blitz games, get
it? Do you see where this is going TK? Or do I have to spell it out
for you? Of course I intend to spell it out for you, but since it's
midnight, you'll have to excuse me as I have a bit more coding to do,
then I hit the sack.


* We shall see if he has any honor at all.


Oh I have honor all right. I just want to see the lame excuse that you
come up with when, tomorrow, I unveil the identity of the players.
And no, TK, I was not white. Or black. They would not play me on
playchess.com even if I offered them 1000 ducats.

Good night, sleep tight, until 'morrow!

(I hear that tune from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_a_Few_Dollars_More
playing....hehehe...this is going to be good).

RL


  #16   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 10:23 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Feb 2010
Posts: 618
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:31:55 -0700 (PDT), raylopez99
wrote:

On Jul 12, 7:01*pm, MikeMurray wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 08:40:13 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston


wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:10*am, raylopez99 wrote:
TK--you have accurately summarized our agreement. *I will abide by it--
I assure you. *You are in for a big surprise.


Is the surprise that you've found some GM game which you are passing
off as your own ? *


My my my. You are a clever boy. Too bad TK has already bit...and I
will proceed to shred him in my next post.


This wouldn't prove much -- major league ball players make errors too.


Oh yes it does prove much MM. Because TK has said my blitz games are
not worthy of being posted...so if a GM's blitz game is also not
worthy, then what blitz game is worthy?


Not all GM blitz games are necessarily worthy of publication. But
any given GM game is more likely to be publication-worthy than an
individual game played by an Expert or Class player. And if the GM
games is bad enough, it may be interesting as a "man bites dog"
curiousity.

GM games contain a surprising number of tactical errors -- they
acknowledge this. *The presence or lack of presence of Rybka tactical
improvements doesn't serve to enable a bunch of class players to
identify true GM games.


Perhaps. So you are saying that even a Class A or B player can
produce a grandmaster quality game? I agree, if that's what you're
saying. In fact, I've been saying all along that I sometimes play
like Capablanca or Tal.


Similarly, I once overlooked mate on the move, so I play like Kramnik.
Not.

I think you're getting into semantic confusion here. "Grandmaster
quality" doesn't equate to "played by a Grandmaster" although I
suppose you could make such an operational definition. In everyday
usage, it's probably difficult to rigorously define "GM quality".
Statistically, "GM quality" games are much more likely to be played by
GMs than they are by Experts.

But, yeah, it's possible, but less likely, for a lower rated player to
produce an interesting game, or at least a game that has interesting
facets or positions.

The whole approach of evaluating the quality of a game by engine
choices is flawed. I've played tournament games where Rybka finds no
significant errors, games where my opponent and I more or less futzed
around, traded stuff off and agreed to a draw. Neither of us tried
much of anything. Interesting? Probably not. GM quality. Naah.

I will say "your" 29th move, allowing capture of a rook with check,
seems rather sophisticated for a 1540 player in a blitz game. *I say
"sophisticated" even though Rybka finds better in the position.


My 29th move--or rather, White's 29th move--is Qxf6, which, as you
say, I never would have made; instead, I would have played Rff3, which
in fact Fritz says is the best move. So you consider a suboptimal move
"sophisticated"?


Sure, if it the reason behind making the suboptimal move reveals a
deep general understanding -- this isn't invalidated by a tactical
improvement discovered by a computer.

  #17   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 10:56 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Jul 12, 5:11*pm, raylopez99 wrote:

his usual bull.


I recall the incident some months ago, when I challenged Ray to
judge the quality of four unidentified games. To his embarrassment, he
said Estrin-Berliner, one of the greatest games of the 20th century,
was the worst, while he thought one of mine was best.
Ray, that has obviously stuck in your craw for months, so you tried
to devise some similar trap for me.

I just want to see the lame excuse that you
come up with when, tomorrow, I unveil the identity of the players.
And no, TK, I was not white. Or black.


Irrelevant, except insofar as it shows you (yet again) to be a liar.
The challenge was not to identify the players. The challenge was to
find significant mistakes in the game according to a carefully defined
standard. I found them.

Now you come in with this bull****:

A move a grandmaster would make TK. And "--" is equivalent to "or" in
this context. Or vague enough to be, note the parenthetical
"(since...)" language. Oh yes, I did that on purpose. You see TK
I've been involved in multi-billion dollar deals, where you have to
watch every single word carefully.


Again, irrelevant. These were the agreed terms, as posted above:

(A) The move must be among the top two choices of the Rybka analysis
engine.
(B) Even if the move is a #2 choice, it is not master level if it
lets a win slip to a loss or draw, or lets a draw slip to a loss, or
changes the position from one significantly favoring White to one
significantly favoring Black (or vice versa).
(C) A move considered good by Rybka may still be considered below
master level if it is positionally bad according to established chess
principles. On this point Lopez has agreed to defer to my judgement.


You replied: "TK--you have accurately summarized our agreement,"
thus ratifying the above. Points A, B, and C have nothing about "a
move a grandmaster would make." The Rybka analysis and positional
judgement are the deciding factors. Having written an article about
how GMs sometimes make very bad moves:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/blundr.txt

I would never use "a move a grandmaster would make" as a synonym for
"mistake-free."

I know all sorts of tricks:


Ray, this one won't even get you on the "Stupid Pet Tricks" segment
of a Letterman show.

As I expected, you have not adhered to the terms. You have not acted
in good faith. You have lied blatantly, and gone back on your word.
However, the game afforded me an interesting exercise in analysis,
and the whole affair has, again as I expected, added more discredit to
your sorry résumé here.

And you have certainly validated Mark Houlsby's repeated PDFTT
advice.


  #18   Report Post  
Old July 12th 10, 11:25 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,536
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Jul 13, 12:56*am, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Jul 12, 5:11*pm, raylopez99 wrote:


his usual bull.


* I recall the incident some months ago, when I challenged Ray to
judge the quality of four unidentified games. To his embarrassment, he
said Estrin-Berliner, one of the greatest games of the 20th century,
was the worst, while he thought one of mine was best.


Estrin-Berliner was total bull****. Estrin as I recall did not castle,
which all the engines recommend. Hardly a profound game. And your
game was not bad--don't be so hard on yourself.


* Ray, that has obviously stuck in your craw for months, so you tried
to devise some similar trap for me.

I just want to see the lame excuse that you
come up with when, tomorrow, I unveil the identity of the players.
And no, TK, I was not white. Or black.


* Irrelevant, except insofar as it shows you (yet again) to be a liar.
The challenge was not to identify the players. The challenge was to
find significant mistakes in the game according to a carefully defined
standard. I found them.


Nope. You fail to understand. The bet was either the conditions you
laid out, or, as I point out, a move a grandmaster would make. And
you clipped your response, see below at EITHER/OR. I did say you
accurately summarized the conditions YOU laid out, but those
conditions were only HALF the equation (see below). The other half
is, by definition, as Mike Murray says in this thread, an operational
definition of a grandmaster move, that is, a move a grandmaster would
make. Again, this is the other half:

/*
"But let me try and come up with something. I define "flawless" and
"master quality" as a move that--with the exception of move 25, which
we all agree could have been better--Rybka would have made within the
top three moves--a move a grandmaster would make (since Rybka
essentially is a grandmaster, on any decent hardware). Fair enough?
No vagueness whatsoever. "

*/

And you'll see tomorrow who is making these moves, who you say a
master would never make. I'll let you twist in the wind a bit more...
(I'm loving this).


* Now you come in with this bull****:

A move a grandmaster would make TK. *And "--" is equivalent to "or" in
this context. *Or vague enough to be, note the parenthetical
"(since...)" language. *Oh yes, I did that on purpose. * You see TK
I've been involved in multi-billion dollar deals, where you have to
watch every single word carefully.


* Again, irrelevant. These were the agreed terms, as posted above:


[deletia]

No. Again, those are only half the terms--your half, not mine.
Either...OR. Either your conditions OR mine would satisfy the bet.
Your conditions failed, but, mine did not, so I win. Since you're a
programmer, I'll give you a C# syntax example:

int X = 0; int Y = 1000;

If (X == 0 || Y==0) {//TK loses}.

You lose TK. You're a big zero.



* You replied: "TK--you have accurately summarized our agreement,"
thus ratifying the above.


You clipped your response. Your rules, as you stated, were not
exhaustive. You specifically said concerning these rules: " In brief
they a ". In brief--note that language of yours. What this means
is that these rules were not EXCLUSIVE. They were not sufficient
conditions to winning. They were, like I say above, one branch of the
EITHER...OR equation.


http://www.chesscafe.com/text/blundr.txt

I would never use "a move a grandmaster would make" as a synonym for
"mistake-free."


Not at issue. The issue is the bet we made, and the language used,
not what your understanding of synonyms are.

I know all sorts of tricks:


* Ray, this one won't even get you on the "Stupid Pet Tricks" segment
of a Letterman show.


Never seen that.


* As I expected, you have not adhered to the terms. You have not acted
in good faith. You have lied blatantly, and gone back on your word.


The issue is not lying about the identity of players, but the bet we
made.

* However, the game afforded me an interesting exercise in analysis,
and the whole affair has, again as I expected, added more discredit to
your sorry résumé here.


It was interesting, but the game was lame. Frankly, you wasted your
time (and mine) with this game. We should try again analyzing a
better game. After you get over this defeat that is...it must sting.


* And you have certainly validated Mark Houlsby's repeated PDFTT
advice.


He's an idiot. He's also a troll BTW--with less chess content in his
troll posts than any troll posts I make.

RL
  #19   Report Post  
Old July 13th 10, 01:03 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,146
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On Jul 12, 11:29*am, Andy Walker wrote:

* *The terms for judging whether a move qualified as “master level”
were worked out and agreed to by Lopez and myself he

[...]
* *In brief they a
* *(A) The move must be among the top two choices of the Rybka analysis
engine.


* * * * Even if this is agreeable to Ray, it is pretty daft. *I don't
know which two initial moves Rybka prefers, but it's not reasonable to
say that two of 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4 and 1 Nf3 are not master level, as
they have all been played regularly by strong GMs even in the most
serious competitions and after due preparation. *Similarly, after 1 e4,
which of 1 ... e5, 1 ... e6, 1 ... c5 and 1 ... c6 [all played in WC
matches] are not master level? *OK, that's in the opening, and perhaps
comes under special rules, but even in the middle-game and ending, it
is quite common for there to be many more-or-less equally playable
moves. *Would it not be more sensible to say that the move must be
among those rated by Rybka within [say] 0.2 [20 centipawns] of its
top choice? *That will still give you plenty of scope to find moves
that are clearly not master level.



You're right about that agreement being daft.

However, rather than crank the margin for error down to a miniscule
0.2, I
would suggest cranking it up. The default setting seems to be 0.3 but
this
tends to flag any number of moves in typical games between 'masters,'
as
well as at least a few in full games between average grandmasters.
Heck,
while I ate lunch I scanned over an article in Chess Life magazine
which
had Boris Gulko defeaing Anatoly Karpov -- two big name GMs -- in a
contest in which both sides made significant errors. Cut 'Ray' some
slack
and allow him at least a couple of Gulko-sized slips. After all, he
keeps
using the term 'master' -- not grandmaster (or former world champion).

In any case, I've grown tired of Phil's 'Ray Lopez' handle and
welcome his
ignomineous defeat. Please do stomp him and retire that particular
handle
once and for all. Don't spend too much time arguing over match
conditions
as history shows that can sometimes lead nowhere.




  #20   Report Post  
Old July 13th 10, 01:05 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2010
Posts: 311
Default Analyzing Ray Lopez's "Master Level" Game

On 13 July, 01:03, The Master wrote:
On Jul 12, 11:29*am, Andy Walker wrote:



* *The terms for judging whether a move qualified as “master level”
were worked out and agreed to by Lopez and myself he

[...]
* *In brief they a
* *(A) The move must be among the top two choices of the Rybka analysis
engine.


* * * * Even if this is agreeable to Ray, it is pretty daft. *I don't
know which two initial moves Rybka prefers, but it's not reasonable to
say that two of 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4 and 1 Nf3 are not master level, as
they have all been played regularly by strong GMs even in the most
serious competitions and after due preparation. *Similarly, after 1 e4,
which of 1 ... e5, 1 ... e6, 1 ... c5 and 1 ... c6 [all played in WC
matches] are not master level? *OK, that's in the opening, and perhaps
comes under special rules, but even in the middle-game and ending, it
is quite common for there to be many more-or-less equally playable
moves. *Would it not be more sensible to say that the move must be
among those rated by Rybka within [say] 0.2 [20 centipawns] of its
top choice? *That will still give you plenty of scope to find moves
that are clearly not master level.


* You're right about that agreement being daft.

* However, rather than crank the margin for error down to a miniscule
0.2, I
would suggest cranking it up. *The default setting seems to be 0.3 but
this
tends to flag any number of moves in typical games between 'masters,'
as
well as at least a few in full games between average grandmasters.
Heck,
while I ate lunch I scanned over an article in Chess Life magazine
which
had Boris Gulko defeaing Anatoly Karpov -- two big name GMs -- in a
contest in which both sides made significant errors. *Cut 'Ray' some
slack
and allow him at least a couple of Gulko-sized slips. *After all, he
keeps
using the term 'master' -- not grandmaster (or former world champion).

* In any case, I've grown tired of Phil's 'Ray Lopez' handle and
welcome his
ignomineous defeat. *Please do stomp him and retire that particularhe
handle
once and for all. *Don't spend too much time arguing over match
conditions
as history shows that can sometimes lead nowhere.


There is no way that Phil can retire the handle Ray Lopez, since
Ray Lopez is not Phil, you deranged moron.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...5a6eadb7497e70
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pls analyze this game of Beginner Level Sanny rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 23 September 14th 08 11:22 AM
GetClub (Beginner) played Rybka till end Game. [51 Moves] Sanny rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 16 February 26th 08 04:41 PM
Is the initial position in chess a mutual Zugswang? [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 66 April 4th 07 02:14 PM
Interview with CJA Award Winning Historian in The Chess Journalist The Historian rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 215 November 16th 06 08:34 PM
Chess game improved further with double pawns Sanny rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 16 June 24th 06 09:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017