|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Aug-22-06
 | | Sneaky: By the way, a while ago on page #3 of Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav (D44) I posted what is the one game I am probably most proud of: beating a computer from the Black side of the Botvinnik variation. I sacrificed both exchanges, and then a knight, and won with a mass of pawns. It's my favorite game because it was guided so much by intuition. So it goes to show, you don't necessarily need to know every little nuance in opening theory to do well, if you can just get to the kind of position where creativity can pay off. |
|
Aug-23-06
| | Sneaky: << mp3 of the day >> Today's song is actually two songs, by the Grateful Dead. It's a medley of "Scarlet Begonias" which segues gracefully into "Fire on the Mountain." This was performed live at Cornell University in 1977. Among Grateful Dead aficionados this is considered to be one of the most sparkling performances in the band's long history. http://www.sandiegoserenade.com/mp3... Oh by the way, it's long. Real long. |
|
| Aug-23-06 | | micartouse: Hi Sneaky, I just wanted to say I like the new music feature. Going back a few days ... I just realized (maybe I should have heard this a long time ago, but I'm slow) that the intro to "So What" is similar to the bass and piano of "Flamenco Sketches". So it kind of creates a cyclical effect; I'm guessing it was intentional. Just a small thing, but kind of cool. I bought the CD a few years ago; it's very powerful! My only beef is that my version features a 2nd take of Flamenco Sketches as track 6. For me, when the 5th track is over, I want the CD to stop! Grrr ... it's like listening to an Agnus Dei twice for no good reason, very imbalanced. |
|
| Aug-23-06 | | positionalgenius: <Sneaky>Nice music.:) |
|
Aug-24-06
| | Sneaky: Thanks guys, I'm glad I got some feedback on my music feature. I was wondering if I was just jamming out here by myself. << mp3 of the day >> Today's song is far less serious than the previous ones: it's a novelty song by a talented young rocker named Jonathan Coulton. His website says <If Hollywood has taught us anything, it’s that being trapped in a mall surrounded by a million zombies would be really troublesome.> But the zombie in this song is much more literate and courteous than the brain-eating ghouls of Hollywood legend. The name of the song is "Re: Your Brains"
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writi... If you like this song, be sure to visit Coulton's website, he has lots of other great songs you will like http://www.jonathancoulton.com/ |
|
| Aug-24-06 | | Hesam7: <Sneaky: I was wondering if I was just jamming out here by myself.> I listened to all of them and they were pretty good. Btw I saw your game vs the computer it is really cool. The Moscow variation can lead to equally complex positions if White decides to sacrifice a pawn with 6. Bh4. I think this is the main line: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nc3 e6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 dxc4 7. e4 g5 8. Bg3 b5 9. Be2 Bb7 
click for larger view |
|
| Aug-24-06 | | KingG: <Another point is that after 16. Na4, 16... Qb5 is forced.>
I don't know if it's 'forced', but it's certainly the best move. Some pretty good players have tried 16...Qd6 though: Kramnik vs Ivanchuk, 1996. |
|
| Aug-24-06 | | Hesam7: <KingG> this is taken from Shirov vs Piket, 1995. <<refutor>: what an unbelievable game! i'm assuming why this is why 16. ... Qd6?! is never played. amazing that shirov won this!> <<KingG>: Kramnik improved on this game a year later against Ivanchuk with 17 Bf4!. After this move White already has a solid advantage.eg after Kramnik's recomended 17...Qa6 comes 18 dxe6 fxe6(18...Qxe6 19 Re1 Qa6 20 Bxb7+ Qxb7 21 Qc2 ) 19 Bxb7+ Qxb7 20 Qe2 and i wouldn't like to be black. Ivanchuk played 17...e5?! and lost in 25 moves. I don't think 16...Qd6?! has been played since.> |
|
| Aug-24-06 | | whatthefat: Hi <Sneaky>,
Mathematics seems to be rather poorly treated on the Fischer page! Your most recent post, <Let me say that whether or not...>, is completely fair in my opinion. Obviously if a Fischer match, and a fixed game match are played out to the same number of games, the fixed game match is more fair, since the challenger is able to win by only 1 point when draws count (so the final scores need not be integers). The point is, that under the Fischer system, the total number of games is undetermined at the beginning. The only way to make a completely fair match would be first to n wins, in which case a tie is not possible. In this case though, the result can fail to be statistically significant. Alternatively, one could add the clause "if the match ends 9-9,another match is played" to the Fischer proposal; i.e., repeat until a statistically significant result occurs. This is hardly ideal though, since it's effectively ruling out any other challenges from the next cycle. What it basically comes down to is: do you think the champion deserves some sort of advantage in the case of a statistically inconclusive result (be it 9-9, or 10-9)? If so, use either the Fischer proposal, or the fixed game match - as we've shown, there's not a significant difference between the two. If not, use first to n wins. |
|
Aug-24-06
| | Sneaky: <Whatthefat> Thanks. I know that the people there arguing this subject aren't stupid, but several of them sure seem to not understand what I'm saying no matter how carefully and clearly I state it. Maybe it's one of these "History Majors" vs "Math Majors" type conflicts, and they cringe at the idea of using math for anything beyond balancing their checkbooks. <do you think the champion deserves some sort of advantage in the case of a statistically inconclusive result (be it 9-9, or 10-9)?> I think the champion should receive some kind of advantage. The form that this advantage takes must depend on the format. I don't think it should be a very great advantage, but good enough to make it unlikely that a weaker challenger gets lucky. <If so, use either the Fischer proposal, or the fixed game match - as we've shown, there's not a significant difference between the two.> Well, maybe there isn't a big difference in terms of a champion's advantage, but there may be a difference in the character of the games and the length of the match. Don't underestimate the impact of the fact that in Fischer's system, draws don't count. In a traditional match, draws count very much. For the first game, the draw is in favor of the champion who would like nothing more than to see all 24 games drawn. Should he lose a game along the way, the draw suddenly favors the challenger who just wants to reach the magic number 24. As Fischer rightfully pointed out, in a fixed length match one of the players always has an impetus to draw the game. |
|
| Aug-24-06 | | whatthefat: <Sneaky>
That's true, there is certainly a different character to the match under the Fischer proposal, as compared to the fixed length match. There doesn't seem to be a significant objective difference in 'fairness' however, so it probably comes down purely to a matter of opinion. |
|
Aug-24-06
| | Sneaky: <There doesn't seem to be a significant objective difference in 'fairness' however> Well, I'm still not so sure about that. I've only really looked into the 24 game format so far, the Fischer format is a different kind of computation. Suppose you and I played a game where we flipped a coin and I would score a point for heads, while you scored a point for tails. First person with 10 points wins. What is the exact probability that our game will achieve a 9-9 score at any time? This is a question which is most definitely knowable, not with statistics but with combinatorics. I will get back on this. |
|
| Aug-24-06 | | pawntificator: Woo hoo!! The <Sneaky> page! Nice. I just stopped over here to congratulate you on your position on the Chessbookie game! Very impressive. Do you still play on gameknot? I was never able to wrench away a win from you, and I was in the mood for a rematch. Otherwise, hope life is good. I might remember to check back here for your response in a week or so. heh, crazy life. |
|
| Aug-24-06 | | KingG: <Hesam7> Lol. I had forgotten about that. Obviously i must have known more Semi-Slav theory back then than i do now. :-) Still, in the Botvinnik variation, can you can never be sure if something is refuted or not. |
|
Aug-25-06
| | Sneaky: <pawntificator> Hey man, glad you could come by. No I don't play at Gameknot any more, correspondence is too much work. This new Arno Nickel thing will be enough correspondence for me. <Hesam7 / KingG> I am following your conversation with great interest but I have nothing to add. |
|
Aug-25-06
| | Sneaky: << mp3 of the day >> No jokes today, we're breaking out the big guns. You can't go wrong with Dave Brubeck's signature offbeat jazz number, "Take Five" http://www.phys.uu.nl/~leow/Dave%20... Piano: Dave Brubeck
Alto Sax: Paul Desmond
Drums: Joe Morrello
Bass: Gene Wright
Brubeck was a great experimenter in exotic time signatures, and this song is called "Take Five" because it's written in 5/4 meter. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | Hesam7: <KingG: Still, in the Botvinnik variation, can you can never be sure if something is refuted or not.> You are right, Black has some tricks after 16... Qd6 and 16... Qa6. I will post through analysis in the next 24 hours. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | micartouse: <You can't go wrong with Dave Brubeck's signature offbeat jazz number, "Take Five"> That is a great number. I love the whole album "Time Out" because of how upbeat and flawless it is. For some reason I associate it with Christmas, so I usually only break it in the winter months. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | Larsker: <You can't go wrong with Dave Brubeck's signature offbeat jazz number, "Take Five"> Love it. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | Hesam7: @ Sneaky, KingG
<acirce> has posted Pedersen's analysis on his forum and to me it looks convincing. According to Pedersen both 16... Qd6 and 16... Qa6 lose to 17. dxe6! |
|
Aug-26-06
| | Sneaky: << mp3 of the day >> I've done rock, psychedelic, jazz, a novelty song, but no classical yet. Let's fix that right now. Today's song is a quickie but a goodie. It's "Bach Suite #1" performed by Yo Yo Ma. http://folk.ntnu.no/thoreil/stuff/Y... |
|
Aug-27-06
| | Sneaky: << mp3 of the day >> No tour of musicial genres would be complete without some down & dirty New Orleans style funk! This is "Cissy Strut" performed by the Dirty Dozen Brass Band. http://www.math.grin.edu/~lundersk/... |
|
Aug-28-06
| | Sneaky: << mp3 of the day >> Today's musician is a chess player! Not only that, he could play blindfold chess, how many of you can say the same? Of course I'm talking about Ray Charles. The song is Frankie Laine's golden oldie "Lucky Old Sun". (Not sure about the other musicians in the Ray's lineup.) http://www.brianhull.org/my_documen... |
|
| Aug-28-06 | | Skeeter777: Hi, Sneaky!
Have you posted your full analysis yet, and if so, where? Thanks much for what you've contributed thus far (and you, too, whatthefat). You make a strong case that there's an objective way to answer the question and I'm looking forward to the rest. You say, <but several of them sure seem to not understand what I'm saying no matter how carefully and clearly I state it.> I agree these individuals aren't dummies; and if that's the case, something else must be in play. When one wants to be facual, he presents the facts. When one doesn't want the facts, he calls names. Thanks again! |
|
Aug-29-06
| | Sneaky: No I haven't posted it yet, I'm still putting finishing touches on it. At this point the math won't change but my interpretations might. For example, in one part I wrote that an estimate of less than 60% draws is "unreasonable." But reading through some old messages, I found a post where Honza presents a pretty good argument that the draw rate may be as low as 56.6%. I don't happen to agree with Honza but I won't go so far as calling him unreasonable. So I'm just making little changes to my wording and so forth. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 16 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
