Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Computers, Analysis and Theory (Read 19342 times)
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #30 - 06/21/09 at 15:32:31
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 06/20/09 at 00:12:57:
I don't know exactly why there is so much anger in these threads lately, and I have even less idea of how to stop it.

Lev, if you wish to discuss one of your opening variations, you know where the appropriate forums are.

If you wish to attack each other, I don't know that others need to participate.  So, why don't you create a thread that is clearly labelled, and see who really wants to discuss what you wish to discuss?



I kicked this thread over here precisely because it was not about theory.  If anyone wants to discuss the theory of any of Lev's 1.d4 systems, feel free to come over and do it.  But I will delete straightaway anything that veers onto the supposed cowardice of given ways of playing chess, or studying it.  That subject should be verboten on any theory board, and it certainly is on the ones that I moderate.

I suggest that you rule Lev here with an iron rod, because it appears to me that the entire purpose of many of his remarks is to provoke.

P.S. Actually I think those remarks by Pandolfini quoted above were both stupid and rude.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2106
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #29 - 06/21/09 at 13:17:43
Post Tools
Cor blimey guvnor.

Board games sought with murderous despots.

As part of this, I would like to play Kerplunk against Ivan the Terrible.

Any other readers have favoured games in which they fancy their chances against infamous historical types?

Write to: letterbocks, Viz, Newcastle.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
CraigEvans
God Member
*****
Offline


If I can't sacrifice a
pawn, I'll throw my rook
in

Posts: 587
Location: Kidderminster
Joined: 07/14/03
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #28 - 06/21/09 at 12:20:19
Post Tools
Quote:
8:  Chicken Line, 9...c6


Also known as "Refutation, 9...c6."

Lev calls people cowards if they spurn the "chance" to play him in "OTB" (he should really try expanding that out to see what it means). I call people cowards if they deliberately seek arguments and then spurn the "chance" to respond to all the points which make their argument so flawed. It's also amusing that his neutral third-person opinion comes from a personal friend of his and whom no-one else here could verify the story of. Instead of listening to upwards of ten people on here all giving the same opinion despite having no reason to agree with each other.

Some people will only hear what they want to hear and do what they want to do, and will disregard the thoughts, opinions and feelings of others.  In that respect it's almost a Hitleresque determination that Lev posesses.

Luckily he doesn't share some of Hitler's other prejudices... well, not that we yet know of, anyway. But I still think I'd rather play an OTB game against the Austrian chap.

Before you launch into another "you are weak, I'll beat you" argument, Lev... bear in mind that my FIDE is also higher than yours. Your chess really is as weak as your debate/argumental skills.

Ahh, much better. Sorry Smyslov, I do wonder at times why he causes anger too, but he's very good at it! Consider me out.
  

"Give a man a pawn, and he'll smell a rat. Give a man a piece, and he'll smell a patzer." - Me.

"If others have seen further than me, it is because giants have been standing on my shoulders."
Back to top
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10368
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #27 - 06/20/09 at 20:59:42
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 06/20/09 at 00:12:57:
I don't know exactly why there is so much anger in these threads lately, and I have even less idea of how to stop it.


Close the thread if it becomes hopeless.
Censor the rude posts.

I would certainly welcome censorship on any post that contains the word "coward". The reason is not that it's offensive, the reason is that Gambit now must have explained his opinion on computers about 200 times. This thread therefor is superfluous.

As long as language is civilized there is nothing wrong with anger. So you might keep it open for a while yet as well.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
derdudea
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 173
Location: Germany
Joined: 10/03/08
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #26 - 06/20/09 at 17:38:21
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 06/20/09 at 11:00:08:
You conflate the two. Clearly not so.
Regarding OTB seems you have no FIDE rating, as you never actually play OTB. Amusingly enough. Just internet ranting and random blitz chess that you claim to play.

Have members here any reason to believe that you are not just a random teen duffer with poor manners?



After checking the Fide- rating,  members have reason to believe that age does not prevent from behaving like this.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1384
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #25 - 06/20/09 at 16:30:39
Post Tools
Excuse me, but I do have a FIDE rating of 2027. I think that is the equivalent of 2127 USCF, since FIDE ratings are at least 100 points higher.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2106
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #24 - 06/20/09 at 11:00:08
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 06/20/09 at 06:12:15:
Just yesterday, I decided to get a neutral third-party opinion. So what I did was the following.

I talked to the editor of New Jersey's chess magazine yesterday. He agreed with me in that it is not good to trust computers blindly. Secondly, he agreed that during the game you can't use a computer for help. Third, he basically agreed with me that those who just throw out computer-generated "refutations" while avoiding accepting a honest OTB match are cowards.

This is the same cowardly behavior that Howard Staunton showed Paul Morphy in 1858, when Morphy came to England. Only difference was there were no computers at the time. One thing that remained constant was avoiding of a honest, man-to-man match.

I see that has not changed, even though 150+ years have passed.

Now, in response to Mr. TonyRo, I have to say the following. Of course he is not going to accept my challenge, for it is much more easier to criticize than to face the line over the board. Can't take the chance that he will fail to remember the so-called "refutation" !
And should I defeat him, what when? Oh, the ignominy! The so-called unsound gambit is suddenly sound!

But this is more a matter of chess psychology.

You ask why all of a sudden there is so much anger here? Fair question, and so I will give you a honest and fair answer.

I find it most annoying when people start citing computer analyses like the imam cites the Koran, the priest, the Bible, or the rabbi, the Torah and Talmud. You see, I don't worship the computer like a lot of people do here. Oh, chess engine so-and-so said this was bad, thereby it is unquestionable! Infallible, like the Pope in Rome!

Even more annoying is when I offer people the chance to play me on the Internet Chess Club a honest match. You can see for yourself, dear moderator, how many people chickened out. Of all who are here,
only two brave people accepted my challenge and played a honest match.

Give them the chess medal of honor for decency and bravery. Their names are Patrik Schoupal of Czech Republic and Pablo Schmidt of Germany.

Everyone else just plain invented this or that excuse not to accept an over-the-board match.
You know, what comes to mind is an expression from the military: Cabinet Generals. It means that such people don't know zip about the situation on the field of battle, but are good critics of military plans.
Same here, in a miniature fashion. Rather than go to the battlefield and fight, my critics would rather be cabinet generals.

I sincerely hope this answers your question, my dear moderator?

Thank you kindly.

Respectfully yours,

Gambit


You conflate the two. Clearly not so.
Regarding OTB seems you have no FIDE rating, as you never actually play OTB. Amusingly enough. Just internet ranting and random blitz chess that you claim to play.

Have members here any reason to believe that you are not just a random teen duffer with poor manners?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
cyronix
Ex Member
*



Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #23 - 06/20/09 at 06:53:16
Post Tools
I think computer engines really do only improve the play of the professionals, because they analyze new, unknown variations on their computers ...

most other people, just play a repertoire based on books,
I mean I use engines to analyze my games afterwards,
but I never really sucessfully used an engine to investigate into "unknown" realms of opening theory (I mean chess is there for so long, if you look for noveltys you should start somewhere at move 17-20 in a variation, honestly most players can't remember so many moves, if it is not a mainline variation ...)

Engines are a tool for professionals, amateurs can only use engines for analyzing their own games ... and engines also lack in giving you a real plan or strategy ...

well maybe there are also correspondence players out there,
who could use computer engines ... and tbh. I don't think any player with ELO up to 2400 or maybe 2500 would stand a chance in a correspondence game against the machine ... so in a way these engines destroyed correspondence chess on amateur level ...

gambit, tbh. if you are an opening investigator,
you can't do without computers nowadays, at least if you are looking for the truth ... I mean if you are only equipped with books and your own findings on the bdg, I could just start up rybka, and still show you who is the boss in any variation in the BDG ... if your only aim is to win practical games against amateurs, it is still ok though ...

the BDG is not that bad, I think my rybka showed only 0.00 in the critical variations for black, so at least it doesn't lose,
I mean in many mainline variations rybka also only shows 0.00 ...
I guess that if Rybka would play the BDG against the top players Rybka would still win ...

Gambit wrote on 06/20/09 at 06:12:15:
I talked to the editor of New Jersey's chess magazine yesterday. He agreed with me in that it is not good to trust computers blindly. Secondly, he agreed that during the game you can't use a computer for help. Third, he basically agreed with me that those who just throw out computer-generated "refutations" while avoiding accepting a honest OTB match are cowards.

This is the same cowardly behavior that Howard Staunton showed Paul Morphy in 1858, when Morphy came to England. Only difference was there were no computers at the time. One thing that remained constant was avoiding of a honest, man-to-man match.

I see that has not changed, even though 150+ years have passed.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1384
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #22 - 06/20/09 at 06:12:15
Post Tools
Just yesterday, I decided to get a neutral third-party opinion. So what I did was the following.

I talked to the editor of New Jersey's chess magazine yesterday. He agreed with me in that it is not good to trust computers blindly. Secondly, he agreed that during the game you can't use a computer for help. Third, he basically agreed with me that those who just throw out computer-generated "refutations" while avoiding accepting a honest OTB match are cowards.

This is the same cowardly behavior that Howard Staunton showed Paul Morphy in 1858, when Morphy came to England. Only difference was there were no computers at the time. One thing that remained constant was avoiding of a honest, man-to-man match.

I see that has not changed, even though 150+ years have passed.

Now, in response to Mr. TonyRo, I have to say the following. Of course he is not going to accept my challenge, for it is much more easier to criticize than to face the line over the board. Can't take the chance that he will fail to remember the so-called "refutation" !
And should I defeat him, what when? Oh, the ignominy! The so-called unsound gambit is suddenly sound!

But this is more a matter of chess psychology.

You ask why all of a sudden there is so much anger here? Fair question, and so I will give you a honest and fair answer.

I find it most annoying when people start citing computer analyses like the imam cites the Koran, the priest, the Bible, or the rabbi, the Torah and Talmud. You see, I don't worship the computer like a lot of people do here. Oh, chess engine so-and-so said this was bad, thereby it is unquestionable! Infallible, like the Pope in Rome!

Even more annoying is when I offer people the chance to play me on the Internet Chess Club a honest match. You can see for yourself, dear moderator, how many people chickened out. Of all who are here,
only two brave people accepted my challenge and played a honest match.

Give them the chess medal of honor for decency and bravery. Their names are Patrik Schoupal of Czech Republic and Pablo Schmidt of Germany.

Everyone else just plain invented this or that excuse not to accept an over-the-board match.

You know, what comes to mind is an expression from the military: Cabinet Generals. It means that such people don't know zip about the situation on the field of battle, but are good critics of military plans.
Same here, in a miniature fashion. Rather than go to the battlefield and fight, my critics would rather be cabinet generals.

I sincerely hope this answers your question, my dear moderator?

Thank you kindly.

Respectfully yours,

Gambit
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #21 - 06/20/09 at 00:12:57
Post Tools
I don't know exactly why there is so much anger in these threads lately, and I have even less idea of how to stop it.

Lev, if you wish to discuss one of your opening variations, you know where the appropriate forums are.

If you wish to attack each other, I don't know that others need to participate.  So, why don't you create a thread that is clearly labelled, and see who really wants to discuss what you wish to discuss?

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1739
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #20 - 06/19/09 at 20:51:48
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 06/19/09 at 19:58:33:
TonyRo wrote on 06/19/09 at 18:31:42:
Why does anyone dignify LDZ with a response? No matter what you say to a person like that, he's going to keep on saying whatever the hell he wants anyway, probably in a rude manner, such that he can garner as much attention as possible. If he refuses to use computers to help his chess and insists of promoting silly gambits that he named after himself, then let him hurt his chess like this. Every time he posts, you should just read this, chuckle to yourself, then go look around ChessPub for something that's worth reading. Relatively speaking, it's not too hard to find. Click anywhere. Even the ads.

Taken from Bruce Pandolfini's 8th Chess Cafe Column called "The Q&A Way":

"Question This is Lev D. Zilbermints, inventor of the Zilbermints
Gambit, writing. If you were White, what would you play after 1.
d4 e5  2. de5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nge7(!)? Please give some specific
analysis to support your viewpoint. Thanks. Keep in touch. (Lev
D. Zilbermints, USA)

Answer Sometimes you have to be there. I've never been there,
nor is it likely I'll ever experience the pleasure of being in this
position against you. Now that I know what you play I plan to steer
clear of 1.d4 in all our possible encounters."


It has a sort of begging puppy dog quality doesn't it? Even Bruce Pandolfini blows him off. Coward.  Grin



I read that on Internet awhile ago. The point was, I asked Bruce his opinion about what he would play against 3...Nge7. His response was that he never faced 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 in a chess tournament. That said, he planned to "play coward" as TonyRo puts it, by avoiding 1 d4 altogether. Of course! Because gambits are still possible after 1...e5!

Cowards want to avoid gambits at all costs. That is what you say, TonyRo.

And, Mr. TonyRo, this is a place of free opinion. How about you play me in a honest long-time control match, G/60, at the Internet Chess Club? You so intent on criticizing my inventions, how about you face them in a serious tournament game?

Put your money where your mouth is, as the American expression goes?

Ciao.


Apparently the fact that I was mocking you in saying that Pandolfini was a coward was lost on you or just ignored out of convenience. I am not disputing the fact that ChessPub is a place of free opinion. I'm just saying that responding to yours is a colossal waste of time and effort, as is playing you on ICC. I don't have two hours to waste playing against a gambit that I know sucks and that I'll literally never see in my entire life. I'm an e4 player.  Grin

This is the last post you'll hear from me...I stand by words that ignoring you is best policy. At least the posts that are contentless.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #19 - 06/19/09 at 20:10:56
Post Tools
Gambit wrote on 06/19/09 at 18:07:49:
See, you just proved a key point, that being you might "mess" up in the ZGED. It is not, as you say, often seen over the board.


Except that due to what I play it'd never occur in one of my games - ever.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1384
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #18 - 06/19/09 at 19:58:33
Post Tools
TonyRo wrote on 06/19/09 at 18:31:42:
Why does anyone dignify LDZ with a response? No matter what you say to a person like that, he's going to keep on saying whatever the hell he wants anyway, probably in a rude manner, such that he can garner as much attention as possible. If he refuses to use computers to help his chess and insists of promoting silly gambits that he named after himself, then let him hurt his chess like this. Every time he posts, you should just read this, chuckle to yourself, then go look around ChessPub for something that's worth reading. Relatively speaking, it's not too hard to find. Click anywhere. Even the ads.

Taken from Bruce Pandolfini's 8th Chess Cafe Column called "The Q&A Way":

"Question This is Lev D. Zilbermints, inventor of the Zilbermints
Gambit, writing. If you were White, what would you play after 1.
d4 e5  2. de5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nge7(!)? Please give some specific
analysis to support your viewpoint. Thanks. Keep in touch. (Lev
D. Zilbermints, USA)

Answer Sometimes you have to be there. I've never been there,
nor is it likely I'll ever experience the pleasure of being in this
position against you. Now that I know what you play I plan to steer
clear of 1.d4 in all our possible encounters."


It has a sort of begging puppy dog quality doesn't it? Even Bruce Pandolfini blows him off. Coward.  Grin



I read that on Internet awhile ago. The point was, I asked Bruce his opinion about what he would play against 3...Nge7. His response was that he never faced 1 d4 e5 2 dxe5 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nge7 in a chess tournament. That said, he planned to "play coward" as TonyRo puts it, by avoiding 1 d4 altogether. Of course! Because gambits are still possible after 1...e5!

Cowards want to avoid gambits at all costs. That is what you say, TonyRo.

And, Mr. TonyRo, this is a place of free opinion. How about you play me in a honest long-time control match, G/60, at the Internet Chess Club? You so intent on criticizing my inventions, how about you face them in a serious tournament game?

Put your money where your mouth is, as the American expression goes?

Ciao.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
TonyRo
God Member
*****
Offline


I'm gonna crack your skull!

Posts: 1739
Location: Cleveland, OH
Joined: 11/26/07
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #17 - 06/19/09 at 18:31:42
Post Tools
Why does anyone dignify LDZ with a response? No matter what you say to a person like that, he's going to keep on saying whatever the hell he wants anyway, probably in a rude manner, such that he can garner as much attention as possible. If he refuses to use computers to help his chess and insists of promoting silly gambits that he named after himself, then let him hurt his chess like this. Every time he posts, you should just read this, chuckle to yourself, then go look around ChessPub for something that's worth reading. Relatively speaking, it's not too hard to find. Click anywhere. Even the ads.

Taken from Bruce Pandolfini's 8th Chess Cafe Column called "The Q&A Way":

"Question This is Lev D. Zilbermints, inventor of the Zilbermints
Gambit, writing. If you were White, what would you play after 1.
d4 e5  2. de5 Nc6 3. Nf3 Nge7(!)? Please give some specific
analysis to support your viewpoint. Thanks. Keep in touch. (Lev
D. Zilbermints, USA)

Answer Sometimes you have to be there. I've never been there,
nor is it likely I'll ever experience the pleasure of being in this
position against you. Now that I know what you play I plan to steer
clear of 1.d4 in all our possible encounters."


It has a sort of begging puppy dog quality doesn't it? Even Bruce Pandolfini blows him off. Coward.  Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Gambit
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 1384
Location: Newark
Joined: 07/26/05
Gender: Male
Re: Honey, Computers, etc.
Reply #16 - 06/19/09 at 18:07:49
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 06/18/09 at 23:42:42:
Gambit wrote on 06/18/09 at 21:05:14:
BPaulsen wrote on 06/18/09 at 20:55:38:
The high point of this message board might be the exchanges between Markovich and Gambit. I laugh hard every time I see the "chess cowardice" topic come up.

Grin


How about me and you playing a six-game match on Internet Chess Club, Game/60 ? Or would you rather have it slower time controls, anywhere from Game/5 to Game/30 ?


I let all of my online chess accounts expire, but aside from that - why?

Any training games I play are in variations I feel I'm going to actually run into over the board. Everything else I mess around in.


See, you just proved a key point, that being you might "mess" up in the ZGED. It is not, as you say, often seen over the board.
  
Back to top
YIM  
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo