|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
| Jan-27-08 |
| Landzhev: I believe I got the point the first time - more thinking on your own and less automatic movements like copy stuff to the clipboard and turn on the engine at every move even when it is not needed. |
 |
| Mar-02-08 |
| mack: How's yer roquefort, Adrian? |
|
Mar-28-08
 |
| just a kid: Count me in with the no computer analysis live broadcast page. |
|
| Apr-04-08 |
| Method B: Hi Adrian,
I'd like to join to the no computer analysis movement. |
|
| Apr-14-08 |
| Anzer: Adrian,
I love your opening repertoire, I play exactly the same =)Ill join into the movement too |
|
| Apr-23-08 |
| Tomlinsky: Add me as another positive for your poll <AdrianP>. Plonking 2X-Ply analysis into the middle of discussions where people are trying to actually understand what is going on does nothing for me either. Even if the broadcast area was restricted to the odd 'Engines say X or Y is better' without supporting 'analysis' would be fair game imo. Count me in. It would be a better workout for observers and participants alike. |
|
| Jul-02-08 |
| Shams: please add me to your list-- I don't care for seeing engine analysis in live broadcast pages. |
|
| Aug-04-08 |
| hamham: Add me to the list, I would also be interested in a live broadcast page without computer analysis. |
|
| Aug-15-08 |
| ravel5184: Me threee! |
|
| Sep-05-08 |
| chessamateur: I would also like to have a separate no CPU analysis during live broadcasts. It takes some of the drama out of it and can become a bit annoying when it is posted too frequently. I remember we once had a nice engine free analysis during an endgame of a live broadcast where many participated and everyone learned alot. So definitely put me down. |
|
| Sep-05-08 |
| theodor: dear amateurs, most of us know openings till 5-6 move! that's why the idea to separate from professionals is very good! I'll suggest you more: during the M'tel contest in Sofia they brodcast a program ''guess the move''. the rools wernt very good. if necessary, I could participate in a discussion for better rools. my e-mail is: totogyurovsky@yahoo.com |
|
Sep-05-08
 |
| jessicafischerqueen: Hello <AdrianP>
Thank you for making this effort.
I want to put my name on the <live page without comp eval> option too. |
|
| Oct-17-08 |
| madlydeeply: keep the comp analysis. lets you know who the lazies are. |
|
Jan-17-09
 |
| Pyke: Hello <AdrianP> I'd like to join and be added to the list. |
|
Jan-17-09
 |
| technical draw: Add me to the list Adrian.... |
|
Jan-24-09
 |
| hms123: <AdrianP> great idea! Sign me up. thanks. |
|
| Jan-27-09 |
| Augalv: Add me to the list. |
|
Feb-23-09
 |
| chessic eric: you can add my name to your list as well - let's learn something rather than just spectate... |
|
Mar-05-09
 |
| Gypsy: For the list. |
|
| Mar-13-09 |
| Hesam7: <AdrianP> I posted this on <acirce>'s forum already. What is the verdict on the following line: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5 h6 11.Bh4 dxe5 12.fxe5 Nfd7 13.Ne4 Qxa2 14.Rd1 Qd5 15.Qe3 Qxe5 16.Be2 Bc5 17.Bg3 Bxd4 18.Rxd4 Qa5+ 19.Rd2 O-O 20.Bd6 Nc6 21.O-O I remember ppl claiming that this was winning for White. |
|
| Apr-18-09 |
| chessman95: Hi <AdrianP>, never posted here before... You can add me to the list. Anyone participating in the current UMAN vs. World game right now has to admit that it is really a game of UMAN vs. everyone's computer engine. Since the late opening and early midgame, every move we have played has been based on what the computers have liked the best... that really bothers me. |
|
Nov-05-09
 |
| agb2002: Hi <AdrianP>, please add me to your list. I never use an engine in live games, no matter how many mistakes I might contribute, because the computer turns me lazy. |
|
Nov-05-09
 |
| sbevan: I agree with agb2002
<agb2002: Hi <AdrianP>, please add me to your list. I never use an engine in live games, no matter how many mistakes I might contribute, because the computer turns me lazy.>
Please add me also.
Thanks |
|
Nov-13-09
 |
| achieve: <AdrianP> You <know> you can add me to the list, also ;) |
|
Nov-16-09
 |
| zanshin: <Adrian> Thanks for your comments. In a past exchange with <achieve>, I expressed my sentiments about engine analysis during live games, so there is no need to repeat them. You can read them here if you are interested: achieve chessforum I probably sympathize with your position more than you think. Engine users can also get annoyed with proclamations like "Carlsen blundered!" based on an engine line. (Unfortunately, anyone with a computer and $50 can now post analysis.) In live games where the audience may be unknown, I feel that if you must post engine analysis, then constrain it to comments like "At 20 plies, Rybka evaluates 22.Bb3 as -1.0 relative to 22.g5" and leave others to draw their own conclusions. I don't think that analysis should be accepted unquestioned, regardless of whether it came from Rybka or from a human GM. However, when both Rybka and GM Polgar are in apparent agreement that 22.Bb3 was inferior to 22.g5, then the argument is compelling. I believe that in many cases, the GM sees the alternatives but decides for some reason to play a move generally assessed to be inferior. In this case, only Carlsen can tell us for sure if he missed 22.g5 or 22...Bb7 as a reply to his 22.Bb3. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing > |
