< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
|Feb-24-14|| ||mistermac: It looks to me, therefore, as if Karpov gets the guernsey, and John Berleycorn goes to the top of the class, and Bill Wall gets another accolade as a fine researcher.|
|Feb-24-14|| ||wwall: Former world champion Mikhail Tal played 83 consecutive games without a loss in 1972-73. Capablanca played 63 consecutive games without a loss between 1916 and 1924 (losing to Reti in New York in 1924). He became world champion in 1921.|
|Feb-25-14|| ||DcGentle: <mistermac>: Hi! I like your new avatar!
|Feb-26-14|| ||mistermac: I love Old Bach. I like to play, when I am out of sorts in one way or another to listen to his Cello Suites.
It is superbly crafted music for a solo instrument, both lively and serene.|
Yo Yo Ma has put out a fine rendition of all six of them.
|Feb-26-14|| ||Jim Bartle: <Yo Yo Ma has put out a fine rendition of all six of them.>|
thank you for that. Excellent.
|Feb-27-14|| ||mistermac: I can hardly wait until the seventh. That will be Heaven.|
|Mar-02-14|| ||wwall: More research on world champions with longest unbeaten record. Alekhine may be the winner. As world champion, he did not lose the last 7 games of his 1929 world championship match with Bogoljubow. Then he went unbeaten in 15 rounds at San Remo 1930. Then we went unbeaten in 9 rounds at the 1930 Hamburg Olympiad. He then went unbeaten in 8 games at 1931 Nice. He then went unbeaten in the first 15 rounds at the 1931 Prague Olympiad, finally losing to Mattison in round 16. That makes 54 games unbeaten as world champion.|
|Apr-20-14|| ||mistermac: I buried my wife last Tuesday.
She was a pretty ordinary chess player, but she liked and was liked by Ortvin Sarapu, who at the Auckland Chess Club, helped her in Chess distress, to his, my wife's, and her opponent's, who willing watched his superior position gradually go down the gurgler with a few improvements in the posting of her pieces, pleasure.
Nice lady was my wife. The game of course was a skittles, and at the time, she was unaware of who Sarapu was, except that he was wearing a NZ Chess blazer, apparently.
|Apr-20-14|| ||WannaBe: <mistermac> My deepest condolences.|
|Apr-21-14|| ||moronovich: Very sorry to hear <mistermac>.|
My deepest condolences.
|Apr-21-14|| ||Shams: <mistermac> What a heart-wrenching year for you. I'm so sorry.|
|May-18-14|| ||mistermac: Ich Habe Genug.|
|May-27-14|| ||mistermac: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foHT...|
|Jun-01-14|| ||DcGentle: <mistermac>: Also from me my heartfelt condolences. Life is cruel at times. Losing close relatives is always hard.|
We have to deal with it, but time will heal the wounds, I hope.
How about some distraction?
It's starting all over again:
The World vs Naiditsch, 2014
See also here:
I will not register yet, although I am excited. It's too early for me.
|Jun-02-14|| ||mistermac: Thanks, Dc! I am basically doing quite well, given I have lost a fabulous wife. Which means there is a big hole.|
I have joined the big game, which begins at the middle of the month. I will not post much, and my attention will be given to the sticky, especially where the action is not, meaning I will try to find the plausible lines which do not work on moves which we may never try or encounter.
|Jun-03-14|| ||DcGentle: Well, I was too curious, so I signed up. I will keep a low profile for now, though. I hope we'll have a nice game.|
|Jun-07-14|| ||mistermac: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD7...|
|Jul-13-14|| ||DcGentle: <mistermac>: Some people, who have worked really hard for the game in order to get something new on the board to surprise the opponent, get as reward insinuations and disparagement. Even if they have produced some decent but not perfect lines, these critics just say "bad move", instead of looking for possible improvements, which would be work. Then even one of these critics quotes something from other pages for more disparagement.|
And this is not the first time something like this happens, I mean the disregard and underestimation of valuable work for the team.
What do you think is a human reaction of these people treated in this way? For sure they are cheered and want to work even harder.
Don't you think so?
|Jul-13-14|| ||mistermac: <Dc> I fancy that your post here was prompted by my post to the game thread. So be it.
Quite frankly, I have a very hard time trying to figure who has real knowledge, and who does not.|
If you think that the post was designed to criticise you, it was not. I actually had someone else in mind.
Egos and personal animosities exist between you and others, as do other animosities not involving you.
One day, I may figure out who the real experts are, and perhaps I will find that you are one of them.
|Jul-14-14|| ||DcGentle: <mistermac>: Thank you. I hope, that I have shown that I am a team player and don't disrespect or insult others.|
|Jul-24-14|| ||mistermac: Greetings, also. I see the opinions of our largest contributors vary considerably. I also see, mirabile dictu, that you and <John Barleycorn> actually agreed on something in a recent post.|
|Aug-13-14|| ||mistermac: mistermac: First Copied Post from World vs Naiditsch
(no secrets here divulged!)
<hoodrobin: <mistermac: <ossipossi: <ajile: The plan is to make obscure moves that don't make any sense...> :-))> I think they are called computer moves. But, put a number with a decimal point after them, and they become meaningful.> hoot!>>
Second Copied Post
<<mistermac>: Getting the correct number can be a problem, of course, but that is made difficult by the difficulty of not being tall enough to see over the horizon. Chess is not an easy game.>>
|Aug-13-14|| ||mistermac: Copy of reply from World Forum.
<AylerKupp: <mistermac> I think they are called computer moves. But, put a number with a decimal point after them, and they become meaningful.>
I think that obscure moves are those moves that my opponent comes up with that I hadn't thought of, and that usually turn what I thought was a favorable position for me into an unfavorable one. I also disagree that adding a decimal point after a move makes a meaningful. It does make them computer moves, and then people start paying attention to them, even though there are no more meaningful than they were before. :-)
And, if you want to see over the horizon, get a taller chair to stand on. :-) But, yes, chess is not an easy game. If it were, I would (hopefully!) be better at it.>>
|Aug-13-14|| ||mistermac: Copy of reply from World Forum, with my brief reply not given there but only here.
<<AylerKupp: <mistermac> I think they are called computer moves. But, put a number with a decimal point after them, and they become meaningful.> I think that obscure moves are those moves that my opponent comes up with that I hadn't thought of, and that usually turn what I thought was a favorable position for me into an unfavorable one. I also disagree that adding a decimal point after a move makes a meaningful. It does make them computer moves, and then people start paying attention to them, even though there are no more meaningful than they were before. :-)
And, if you want to see over the horizon, get a taller chair to stand on. :-) But, yes, chess is not an easy game. If it were, I would (hopefully!) be better at it.>|
I was very tongue in cheek, by way of gross irrevence, in saying that the Number assigned by the computer to its analysis made it more meaningful. A move is as meaningful as what becomes apparent on closer examination. A cursory glance may give a hint as to the state of things after the move is made. A mate in two will probably leap out of the diagram, as will some catastrophic gain or loss in material. The state of the game may have certain favorable or otherwise tactical of strategic possibilities, some apparent on first glance, others only after analysis.
A move made after a deep search may disclose very little to the human, over and above the cursory examination. And, if made by a computer, a move may have very little in it which shows its possibilities, as it is based on the concrete, or in other words the uniqueness proper to the position upon which it made its move. So, many moves are by that fact obscure, and more so if made by a GM or a good engine.
That is why many patzers, or part-patzers like myself, find lines very hard to study as the process of understanding is at best, slow, and at worst, incomprehensible.
|Aug-18-14|| ||mistermac: Well, I had to go away for a few days. Lo, a Daddy of all Discussions has taken place on the World Forum! To the extent that some poster have suggested that it is no place to disgust Chess Motors. I would have thought it was very apropos there, but I suggested it come here so that its sacred turf would not be sullied by a midget like me.|
The question which I irreverently posed originally there,in my own snide fashion, was "How flaming reliable is this number with the dismal point?"
The discussion on the Worls Forum has been extremely interesting, and all the things I suspected about Engines, their design, their capabilities, even there politics, have been confirmed. They are very good, the best ones, but they are inhumanly good, and thus they cannot really be understood by the average patzer.
Chess is too complicated to be completely solved by a computer, because it has to fossick in the dark, or find a higher table to stand on, meaning the horizon effect is always there.
The World seems to have a policy to outwork its opponents by complicating the game. This probably ensures at least a draw in any game, but denies a win against the better opponents, and Naiditsch appears to be one of them.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 11 OF 11 ·
from the Chessgames Store