Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Old July 13th 10, 09:24 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 Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:34:22 -0700 (PDT), raylopez99
wrote:


You always go by
the highest Elo you've held--a high water mark.


No. That would be true only of an earned title. All you can say is
that you once were a rated Master/Expert/Class A/whatever.

Just like a GM never
loses his status just because he drops Elo points.


That's because the official GM is a *title* awarded by FIDE.

That's why I say
I'm "borderline Expert" even though 1975 Elo is about the highest I've
ever reached (and that's just by playing my PC, not in a tourney, with
no time controls).


The ratings estimated by your PC are just SWAGS. I'm unaware they've
ever been demonstrated to correlate with real ratings earned OTB.

Anyway, the fly in your ointment TK is you assume an online person is
the same as a real person. Not true. It could be Janos Farkas is a
pseudonym, like Ray Lopez is for me. He could be "Jianni Farkapappas,
a Greek name, and he changed it. We'll never know. What we do know is
his rating on Playchess, at 2575 Elo, is high enough to be considered
a grandmaster by Professor Elo's traditional scale.


We don't really know that.

A rating on PlayChess is earned against a pool of other PlayChess
competitors. Essentially, it's a blitz rating but encompasses some
skills unique to playing via computer (e.g., utilizing pre-move) in an
environment with fewer safeguards against cheating than OTB play.
Plus, hardware can provide some advantages (e.g., a good wired mouse,
a stable broadband connection, etc). And one has a bit more
discretion about choosing opponents on PlayChess.

Equally important, the OTB GM title requires successful play against
other GMs. It's possible to get to 2575 on PlayChess by beating up
lower rated players.

That said, I think ratings generally correspond, within maybe a
100-150 point range, but there are notable exceptions of guys playing
several hundred points higher or lower on one scale or the other.

Even on PlayChess, compare the difference many players exhibit between
their ratings on Blitz, Bullet and Slow chess. Sometimes 500 points
or more.
  #42   Report Post  
Old July 13th 10, 09:33 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 13, 3:34*pm, raylopez99 wrote:
On Jul 13, 7:13*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

* Interesting. There is a Hungarian named Janos Farkas on the FIDE
rating list:


http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=718351


and you can see this
player has played 170 Blitz 5' games, and 250 Bullet 1' games, and
he's a much better bullet player than a blitz player (in fact, he's
still increasing in Elo for Bullet, at 2770 Elo!)


* That's as may be, but his regular FIDE rating is only 1948. He has
no FIDE title whatever, let alone GM. There are, all told, 58 people
named Farkas on the FIDE rating list:


http://ratings.fide.com/seek.phtml?i...offset=0http:/...


* Only one them, a Tibor Farkas of Serbia, has any FIDE title, and
that is merely FM with a 2246 rating.


Wait. *If everybody is inflated by 250 points on Playchess,


I observed only that Short is inflated by 250 points. Don't know how
much others may be. It looks like Janos Farkas is inflated by over 600
points. I see that the top current Playchess blitz rating is 3237,
nearly 400 points above the highest FIDE rating ever recorded.
Inflation indeed!

might this
T. Farkas be J. Farkas? *2575 (Playchess Elo) - 250 = 2325 Fidel Elo,
which is within shouting distance of Tibor's Fide title rating.


Doesn't matter. Neither is a GM, which is a requirement for your
weaseling to work.

* Therefore, Ray, even your definitional trickery fails. Even if we
include — as you have insisted but I rejected — "a move a grandmaster
would make" as part of the criterion for "master level," none of Janos
Farkas' moves qualify, nor the moves of any other Farkas, because he's
not a GM. Heck, Janos is not even an expert. He's class A, like me. No
wonder he played so poorly, his inflated Playchess rating
notwithstanding. (I notice Short's rating is much inflated there too:
he's 2690 FIDE, but 2940 on Playess, a 250-point difference.)


You're stronger than Class 1--you're Expert level.


Not OTB. My highest USCF rating was 1853, around 1993.

*You always go by
the highest Elo you've held--a high water mark. *Just like a GM never
loses his status just because he drops Elo points. *


A title and a rating are not the same thing. In any case, totally
irrelevant to the point at issue.

Anyway, the fly in your ointment TK is you assume an online person is
the same as a real person.


ROFL! It's certainly far less of a fly than assuming an unknown
person is a GM.

*Not true. It could be Janos Farkas is a
pseudonym, like Ray Lopez is for me. *He could be "Jianni Farkapappas,
a Greek name, and he changed it. We'll never know. *


Just the line of bull**** I expected from you, Ray. You admit you
don't know who this guy is, therefore you have no basis for calling
him a Grandmaster, which is a /FIDE/ title awarded according to very
specific criteria. You certainly are not entitled to merely /assume/
he's a GM because it suits your purpose of the moment.
Based on the name he himself gives, Janos Farkas, all the current
evidence points to him being a 1948-rated mediocrity, no more a GM
than I am.

What we do know is
his rating on Playchess, at 2575 Elo, is high enough to be considered
a grandmaster by Professor Elo's traditional scale. *


Ray, your weasel has diarrhea. The /only/ rating that counts toward
a GM title is a /FIDE/ rating, and that's only part of the
requirements. Absurdly inflated Playchess ratings, obtained by playing
worthless blitz games under phony names, are no part of it at all.
It's quite clear now why Farkas made so many more mistakes than
Short. He's simply nowere near GM strength.

So case closed,


Yep, the door of the case is slamming shut right into your face and
on your fingers.
  #43   Report Post  
Old July 14th 10, 12:02 AM 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, 11:33*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

Wait. *If everybody is inflated by 250 points on Playchess,


* I observed only that Short is inflated by 250 points. Don't know how
much others may be. It looks like Janos Farkas is inflated by over 600
points. I see that the top current Playchess blitz rating is 3237,
nearly 400 points above the highest FIDE rating ever recorded.
Inflation indeed!


So you're speculating then, just like me.


might this
T. Farkas be J. Farkas? *2575 (Playchess Elo) - 250 = 2325 Fidel Elo,
which is within shouting distance of Tibor's Fide title rating.


* Doesn't matter. Neither is a GM, which is a requirement for your
weaseling to work.


Nope. It only matters that ONE player was a master. Re-read the
conditions, as I have. Since Short is a FIDE grandmaster, ergo I win.

Let's re-read the condition (mine, not yours):

/*
"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" TK means ANY set of moves by EITHER player, not ALL moves by
ALL players. Since Short--a proxy for me--is a grandmaster, then
"my" (white's) moves satisfy the criteria above. All of white's
moves--by definition--flow from the hand of a grandmaster, ergo, they
are a "move a grandmaster would make". Short is a GM.

Got it now? Thanks for your understanding. And thanks for pointing
this out to me. (this is weasel language I picked up working on
business deals--the other side tries to make it seem their point was
your point, as a sop and to get a sense of agreement....hehehe).



You're stronger than Class 1--you're Expert level.


* Not OTB. My highest USCF rating was 1853, around 1993.


Don't be that way TK. You are an expert and you know it.


*You always go by
the highest Elo you've held--a high water mark. *Just like a GM never
loses his status just because he drops Elo points. *


* A title and a rating are not the same thing. In any case, totally
irrelevant to the point at issue.


Right.


Anyway, the fly in your ointment TK is you assume an online person is
the same as a real person.


* ROFL! It's certainly far less of a fly than assuming an unknown
person is a GM.


Not necessary with our re-reading of the definition (mine) above.
Thanks again.

So case closed,


* Yep, the door of the case is slamming shut right into your face and
on your fingers.


Nope. Not with the new definition.

Hey, as a courtesy to you here is my latest game, that I intend to
upload in a few minutes in a new post. You get to see it first.
That's how highly I think of you TK. TK to be honest I want to thank
you for this opportunity for us to "get to yes" and reach agreement on
this contentious issue. Without your insights and help from your and
your team, it would have been impossible for our team to resolve this
issue with your team. A appreciate the opportunity to work with you
and your team. There's a retreat for all our partners being held this
year in Hawaii, and I hope you and your team will join us there for
some networking, fun and sun! (more business BS--throwing a sop to the
opponent...note I didn't say I was going to pay for your
expenses...just that you can crash my party, LOL. Note also the CYA
language about "team" since most corporate lemmings don't want any
decision pinned just on them--so you spread the blame/glory around).

With warm regards,

RL


7r/pp3pkp/2p1pNpR/2nrP1P1/3q4/8/PPP1Q3/4R2K w - - 0 28

In this position, find the best move for White (which white found),
that equalizes the game. It's not the obvious capture.

White went on to win when Black panicked and effectively resigned on
the next move.

A Ray Lopez 99 Instructive Blitz (TM) game.

[Event "Friendly Game, 5m + 0s"]
[Site "Café"]
[Date "2010.07.14"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Ray"]
[Black "Guest41684"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B01"]
[WhiteElo "1606"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[EventDate "2010.07.14"]

1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Nf6 3. Nc3 Nxd5 4. Nf3 c6 5. Be2 Bg4 6. O-O e6 7. d4
Be7 8. h3
Bh5 9. Ne5 Bxe2 10. Qxe2 O-O 11. Bd2 Bg5 12. f4 Bf6 13. g4 g6 14. g5
Bg7 15. h4
Ne7 16. Be3 Nf5 17. Bf2 Nxd4 18. Bxd4 Qxd4+ 19. Rf2 Bxe5 20. fxe5 Qxh4
21. Rg2
Qd4+ 22. Kh1 Na6 23. Ne4 Kg7 24. Nf6 Rad8 25. Rh2 Rh8 26. Re1 Nc5 27.
Rh6 Rd5
28. Qh2 Rxe5 29. Qxe5 Qxe5 30. Rxe5 Na6 31. Re2 Nc7 32. Rhh2 Nd5 33.
Nxd5 cxd5
34. Re3 Rc8 35. c3 1-0
  #44   Report Post  
Old July 14th 10, 01:13 AM 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 13, 4:33*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

Ray, your weasel has diarrhea.


Is his weasel named Don?
  #45   Report Post  
Old July 14th 10, 01:43 AM 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 13, 7:02*pm, raylopez99 wrote:

It only matters that ONE player was a master. Re-read the
conditions, as I have.


I don't have to. I know what I agreed to. That was not it.

*Since Short is a FIDE grandmaster, ergo I win.


To borrow a page from Houlsby's translations of Innes, this comes
out to:

"Since I, Ray Lopez, reserve the right to define and redefine
anything to mean anything else, everything I say is by definition a
fact, whether true or not."

"A move" TK means ANY set of moves by EITHER player,


Lord, we move from the ridiculous, to the absurd. By this logic, all
the moves of a simul game in which a world champion mates a bumbling
amateur in six moves is a "grandmaster level game" because one player
is a GM.

I think nothing more need be said.


  #46   Report Post  
Old July 14th 10, 09:07 AM 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 14, 3:43*am, Taylor Kingston
wrote:


* Lord, we move from the ridiculous, to the absurd. By this logic, all
the moves of a simul game in which a world champion mates a bumbling
amateur in six moves is a "grandmaster level game" because one player
is a GM.

* I think nothing more need be said.


Because you lost. First, Black was not a "bumbling amateur" in this
game. Second, even if he was, six move mates by GM are often
published.

RL
  #47   Report Post  
Old July 14th 10, 05:33 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 13, 7:02*pm, raylopez99 wrote:

Nope. *It only matters that ONE player was a master. Re-read the
conditions, as I have.*Since Short is a FIDE grandmaster, ergo I win.


Heck, Ray, why stop there? If, as you insist, it takes only /one/
GM, rather than two, for all the moves of /both/ players in a game to
be GM class, why not go just one little step further, and lower the
requirement one tiny bit more, by just one GM? Then we don't need /
***any GMs at all***/ for a game to be GM class! All of your games,
all of mine, ALL OF **EVERYBODY'S** GAMES ARE GM CLASS!! Wouldn't that
be great?

Well, I've paid way more attention to you in this thread than you
deserve. But then that was your goal all along — getting attention, no
matter how. You're the group's equivalent of a subway exhibitionist. I
now return gladly to ignoring you, a course I recommend to everyone
else here as well.
  #48   Report Post  
Old July 14th 10, 05:42 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 14 July, 17:33, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Jul 13, 7:02*pm, raylopez99 wrote:



Nope. *It only matters that ONE player was a master. Re-read the
conditions, as I have.*Since Short is a FIDE grandmaster, ergo I win.


* Heck, Ray, why stop there? If, as you insist, it takes only /one/
GM, rather than two, for all the moves of /both/ players in a game to
be GM class, why not go just one little step further, and lower the
requirement one tiny bit more, by just one GM? Then we don't need /
***any GMs at all***/ for a game to be GM class! All of your games,
all of mine, ALL OF **EVERYBODY'S** GAMES ARE GM CLASS!! Wouldn't that
be great?

* Well, I've paid way more attention to you in this thread than you
deserve. But then that was your goal all along — getting attention, no
matter how. You're the group's equivalent of a subway exhibitionist. I
now return gladly to ignoring you, a course I recommend to everyone
else here as well.


Huzzah!
  #49   Report Post  
Old July 14th 10, 09:55 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 14, 7:33*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Jul 13, 7:02*pm, raylopez99 wrote:

Nope. *It only matters that ONE player was a master. Re-read the
conditions, as I have.*Since Short is a FIDE grandmaster, ergo I win.


* Heck, Ray, why stop there? If, as you insist, it takes only /one/
GM, rather than two, for all the moves of /both/ players in a game to
be GM class, why not go just one little step further, and lower the
requirement one tiny bit more, by just one GM? Then we don't need /
***any GMs at all***/ for a game to be GM class! All of your games,
all of mine, ALL OF **EVERYBODY'S** GAMES ARE GM CLASS!! Wouldn't that
be great?


Reducto ad absurdium. Perfect for somebody absurd as you.


* Well, I've paid way more attention to you in this thread than you
deserve. But then that was your goal all along — getting attention, no
matter how. You're the group's equivalent of a subway exhibitionist. I
now return gladly to ignoring you, a course I recommend to everyone
else here as well.



I could care less. You lost the bet, that's all.

RL

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 09:52 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