page 2 of 24; games 26-50 of 589 |
     |
 |
Game |
| Result | Moves |
Year | Event/Locale | Opening |
26. S P Sethuraman vs A Gholami |
| 1-0 | 40 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | B42 Sicilian, Kan |
27. R Haria vs Sasikiran |
| ½-½ | 42 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | A06 Reti Opening |
28. Naroditsky vs S Mahadevan |
 | 1-0 | 54 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | D11 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav |
29. Z Saiyn vs Lenderman |
| ½-½ | 43 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | D36 Queen's Gambit Declined, Exchange, Positional line, 6.Qc2 |
30. A R Saleh Salem vs K Abhishek |
| 1-0 | 37 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | C92 Ruy Lopez, Closed |
31. Z Abdumalik vs M Bartel |
| ½-½ | 45 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | C16 French, Winawer |
32. A Slavin vs Z Zhang |
 | 0-1 | 27 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | E32 Nimzo-Indian, Classical |
33. Firouzja vs P Tregubov |
  | 1-0 | 42 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | A06 Reti Opening |
34. B Esen vs P Roy |
| ½-½ | 45 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | E11 Bogo-Indian Defense |
35. S Guramishvili vs F Rambaldi |
 | 0-1 | 39 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | A36 English |
36. A Bivol vs Kosteniuk |
 | 0-1 | 46 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | E17 Queen's Indian |
37. C Lin vs C Dai |
| 1-0 | 40 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | B56 Sicilian |
38. A Stefanova vs J Goriatchkin |
 | 1-0 | 38 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | A07 King's Indian Attack |
39. H Dronavalli vs D Derakhshani |
 | 1-0 | 44 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | A04 Reti Opening |
40. Carlsen vs N Batsiashvili |
 | ½-½ | 57 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | A06 Reti Opening |
41. B Khotenashvili vs Kramnik |
 | 0-1 | 59 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | E10 Queen's Pawn Game |
42. Goryachkina vs So |
 | 0-1 | 61 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | E15 Queen's Indian |
43. Mamedyarov vs N Zhukova |
 | 1-0 | 49 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | C69 Ruy Lopez, Exchange, Gligoric Variation |
44. S Gagare vs Wei Yi |
 | 1-0 | 53 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | E10 Queen's Pawn Game |
45. Vitiugov vs Y Xu |
 | 0-1 | 60 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | B90 Sicilian, Najdorf |
46. I Krush vs Wojtaszek |
| 0-1 | 62 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | E53 Nimzo-Indian, 4.e3 |
47. A Korobov vs L Moroni Jr |
 | 1-0 | 50 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | E00 Queen's Pawn Game |
48. B Adhiban vs A Puranik |
| ½-½ | 52 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | A15 English |
49. S Sagar vs V Fedoseev |
| ½-½ | 69 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | A28 English |
50. Bologan vs P L Basso |
 | 1-0 | 56 | 2015 | Qatar Masters | B12 Caro-Kann Defense |
 |
page 2 of 24; games 26-50 of 589 |
     |
|

|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 45 OF 46 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jan-09-16 | | Absentee: <Sally Simpson: I've no doubt a machine will one day be able to make an accurate assessment of players but that day is a long way off.> Engines don't assess players, they assess positions.
What you're thinking of is a psychiatrist cum sociologist. |
|
Jan-09-16 | | Gregor Samsa Mendel: <Sally Simpson: I've no doubt a machine will one day be able to make an accurate assessment of players but that day is a long way off.> A way to assess the strengths of players accurately? Isn't that called a <ratings system>? Don't we already have great ratings systems in place that allow us to assess the strengths of players across time and space, leaving no room for argument? Isn't that why everybody is so obviously happy about the state of things? I would be very surprised if a computerized ratings system of the future would eliminate arguments people have about the strengths of players. It often seems to be the case that people don't argue about such things because they have to, reluctantly, but because they want to, gleefully. |
|
Jan-09-16
 | | AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> They are not being produced to analyze human games, (that is a by-product) they are more interested in beating other computers. :)> True. If you are developing a commercial engine your selling point is that it is better than other engines. And the only objective way I know of doing that is by your engine having a higher rating than other engines based on engine vs. engine tournaments. In contrast, there is no way I know of knowing how well an engine is at analysis. That to me would imply knowledge of the perfect evaluation of a position and, assuming that this evaluation is expressed in centipawns, the deviation between this perfect evaluation and the engine's evaluation, for a sufficiently large number of comparisons. Besides, what is more sexy, to be able to say that "my engine can beat your engine" or "my engine can out-analyze your engine"? It reminds me of my all-time favorite bumper sticker, "Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma." But I definitely agree on the "Great minds" part of your post. :-) |
|
Jan-09-16
 | | AylerKupp: <<Clemens Scheitz> let's not forget that a computer will never know what went on inside a player's brain before a move was made.> If the objective is to determine the best move to make in any given position, does this really matter? I would think that your scenario 1 is more a criteria as to how well the player performed his bowel management and your scenario 2 is more a criteria of a player's laziness (or desperation!) than anything else. If the objective is to determine the best move consistently then it is only the results that count, providing that the result is achieved by following the rules of the encounter; i.e. no cheating. |
|
Jan-09-16
 | | AylerKupp: <<Absentee> Engines don't assess players, they assess positions.> You might be taking <Sally Simpson>'s statement too literally. I think that what <Sally Simpson> meant was assessing the player's strength, not his/her/its character. |
|
Jan-09-16
 | | AylerKupp: <<Gregor Samsa Mandel> Don't we already have great ratings systems in place that allow us to assess the strengths of players across time and space, leaving no room for argument?> Remember that the most popular chess rating system, the Elo system, only measures the <relative> strength of players within a given population. If the players are in a different population; e.g. the current set of players vs. the set of players in the early 1930's or the current set of players vs. the current set of chess engines (since players don't play chess engines today without some sort of engine handicap), then comparisons are not valid. But I do agree with you that the most perfect system in the future will not eliminate arguments. I think that it's just human nature to disagree even when presented with the exact set of fact and even after agreeing that the facts are indeed the same. |
|
Jan-09-16 | | Gregor Samsa Mendel: <<Gregor Samsa Mandel> Don't we already have great ratings systems in place that allow us to assess the strengths of players across time and space, leaving no room for argument?>> Perhaps I was being a little sarcastic when I said that. |
|
Jan-09-16 | | BOSTER: <Sally Simpson: They (computers) are not being produced to analyze human games>.
I'd say that analyzing human games is the side effect . The stronger computer no doubt has better analyzing qualities. |
|
Jan-09-16 | | Clemens Scheitz: <AylerKupp>,I was under the impression that the ultimate goal was to determine if a machine can establish the absolute strength of a player, and the result of a game as well as the frequency of matching "the computer best moves" by a player are not sufficient. My example of the 3 players points to the fact that there could be significant factors that will always be unknown to the computer. <Karne>, unfortunate? why?,.. because I will be judged negatively by<Bobwhoosta>'imaginary god?. That's actually a compliment. I would never want to have the same moral standard of that genocidal maniac ( remember that time when things didn't go his way, he threw tantrums and killed millions Genesis 7.21) |
|
Jan-09-16 | | nok: <I think SS mentioned Alekhine.> Klaus Junge even played Alekhine. |
|
Jan-09-16 | | Bobwhoosta: <Clemens Sheitz>
Oh it's far worse than that. Death itself started because Adam ate a piece of fruit. |
|
Jan-09-16
 | | Sally Simpson: Hi,
Yeah I meant players strengths, we have enough armchair psychiatrists to sort out that view of the players. Ignoring computers for now as they need a giant leap in a new direction to play like humans, the views of strong players should be noted by the fact they are strong players and therefore in theory should understand the game better. (Of course although they understand the game better this will not stop Kibitizers from advising them on what openings to play, how they should train, what seconds to use and what side to part their hair. I think Carlsen should sport a Mohican for 2016 just to show he means business.) However these strong players do change their minds on who was the greatest. Aronian was of the opinion it's Alekhine in 2012, then in 2015 it was Kasparov. In 2005 Kramnik had Kasparov as the best ever till 2011 when he changed it to Anand. Anand in 2008 said Fischer and Kasparov with Kasparov slightly ahead. In 2012 he changed his mind to simply just Fischer. Carlsen recently rated Fischer & Kasparov as the best but also gave a firm nod in Kramnik's direction. Possibly when Kramnik retires he will be Carlsen's top choice. in 2001 Chess Informant ran a readers poll it came out. Fischer, Kasparov, Alekhine, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Karpov, Tal, Lasker, Anand and Korchnoi. I reckon if they took a poll of all the players over 2700 and keeping the choice to inactive players then Kasparov would figure in everyone's top three and in the majority of cases have him as number one. (provided of course they can stick to chess and not chess politics.) ---
Grades are OK in lieu of a better method (it's probably the best we will ever have) but inflation and regional games where an overrated player can spread his grade around like the pox making it possible to get a grade of over 2600 without ever beating a player over 2600 thus giving birth to the ridiculous term 'a weak grandmaster', can produce lopsided and some eyebrow raising results. If you think that Nakamura, Wes So, Radjabov, Karjakin, Morozevich and Ivanchuk are better than Fischer and Karpov (all of those six have posted higher grades than Fischer and Karpov) then the grading system is your back up. Although all six are admirable players capable of displaying flashes of pure brilliance ...better than Fischer and Karpov? (you might get more than a few disagreeing with you on that one.) I'm also thinking if you asked any of that six if they thought they were better than Karpov and Fischer they would all answer 'No' or hedge their bets and say 'Not yet'. |
|
Jan-10-16 | | BOSTER: < AzingaBonzer: The average centipawm loss feature>.
I don't know what is the correct direction, but my feeling that <average > is very rough tool to compare real game with computer. |
|
Jan-10-16 | | AzingaBonzer: <BOSTER> Erm... what? |
|
Jan-10-16 | | BOSTER: Maybe the smallest loss , or max loss during the game can be criterion for comparison. |
|
Jan-10-16 | | BOSTER: Or 1/2( max loss +min loss). |
|
Jan-10-16 | | latvalatvian: For a computer to help a human it would have to emulate human thought and this it will never do just like a computer will never drink coffee and go to the bathroom. |
|
Jan-10-16 | | 1971: Yet no human can beat a computer why is that? |
|
Jan-10-16 | | diceman: <latvalatvian:
just like a computer will never drink coffee and go to the bathroom.> ...guess you've never seen a water cooled computer take a leak? |
|
Jan-11-16 | | BOSTER: <AzingaBonzer : What?>.
Let's consider one ex.
Two players as white played two games.
First player.
Move N- 50 cp loss.
Move N+1-shot in best -0 cp loss.
ACL for him 1/2 (50+0) = 25cp loss.
Second player .
Move N- 30 cp loss.
Move N+1 -20 cp loss.
ACL for second player 1/2 ( 30+20)=25
My Q is: are these two players really <equal good>?
My guess that <average> hides a big mistakes. |
|
Jan-11-16 | | AzingaBonzer: I'd say they're equally good. What's the problem with that? |
|
Jan-11-16 | | BOSTER: Thanks. |
|
Jan-11-16
 | | AylerKupp: <latvalatvian> So I suppose that you judge human greatness by our ability to drink coffee and go to the bathroom? |
|
Jan-11-16 | | john barleycorn: <AylerKupp: <latvalatvian> So I suppose that you judge human greatness by our ability to drink coffee and go to the bathroom?> The greatness comes from doing it in the right order at the right time. :-) |
|
Jan-11-16 | | diceman: <AylerKupp: <latvalatvian> So I suppose that you judge human greatness by our ability to drink coffee and go to the bathroom?> If we're going there,
I'm rated 2731. |
|
 |
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 45 OF 46 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
NOTE: Create an account today
to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users.
Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username,
then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.
|
Please observe our posting guidelines:
- No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
- No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
- No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
- Nothing in violation of United States law.
- No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
- No trolling.
- The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
- Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.
Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic.
This forum is for this specific tournament only. To discuss chess or this site in general,
visit the Kibitzer's Café.
|
Messages posted by Chessgames members
do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration. |
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Copyright 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC
|