Sneaky Member since Jan-19-02 I live in South Florida USA. Rated USCF ~1800 A long time ago I was a new player in a Miami chess park, and one of the stronger players thought I had real talent, so he suggested that I play the park champ, a Cuban master. After the master destroyed me in a few blitz games, the question was posed, "Is he any good?" The answer I took as a great compliment: "Ehh... he tries to be sneaky." The greatest chess player of all time is Robert James Fischer. The greatest chess problemist of all time is Sam Loyd. The greatest chess site of all time is chessgames.com! Other players who I admire: <Morphy> Possibly the greatest natural chess talent ever. Like Steinitz who followed, he taught the world how the game should really be played. <Najdorf> He was smart enough to make his money outside of chess, so he played for the pure joy of it. <Tal> Proved that even in the modern era, chess is an art more than a science. <Blackburne> Sacrificed his queen more times than I've had hot meals. <Diemer> One of the most original thinkers the game ever has known. His ideas were not always right, but they were HIS ideas. <Topalov> He hates draws so much he'll gladly risk losing to avoid one. I can forgive him for the Elista debacle; his chess is payment enough. <Lembit Oll> When on the attack, Lembit Oll said "Dambit All!" <Kasparov> Strive for perfection, one move at a time. <Alekhine> Swashbuckling play culminating in booming sacrifices. And countless others: Nezhmetdinov, Shirov, Nunn, Shabalov, Nakamura, basically, anybody with cojones. Addendum 2015: <Magnus Carlsen> has to be on the list. He's a modern day Casablanca. The way he squeezes wins out of the tiniest advantages and grinds his opponents down through sheer stamina is right up there with Robert James. You can find me on FICS (freechess.org) ... and lately, on ICC as well. I'll gladly play anybody within 1000 points of my rating. I also really like the site http://www.lichess.org but so far have only played anonymously.

Sneaky has kibitzed 13504 times to chessgames   [more...]

Jul-21-18 Kramnik vs Giri, 2018    Sneaky: I like the new Giri photo. Sharp dressed young grandmaster.      Jul-21-18 Duda vs Nepomniachtchi, 2018    Sneaky: For those who care what engines think... 52.b4! retains the initiative according to Stockfish. If true, that’s a hard move to see. And I’m not sure if it isn’t just having horizon blindness. It’s in love with the idea of getting Qa2+ in.      Jul-20-18 Biographer Bistro    Sneaky: <if I said "I live 90 minutes from Miami" I am not being ambiguous.> That's entirely ambiguous! 90 minutes by airplane? By automobile? By foot?      Jul-20-18 Chessgames Bookie chessforum    Sneaky: The first music I ever owned in my life were two eight track tapes my mother gave me. One was the Eagle’s Greatest Hits; the other was Pink Floyd’s Animals.      Jul-20-18 Nepomniachtchi vs Kramnik, 2018    Sneaky: <Marmot PFL: <c5/d5 are “hanging pawns” right?> Not really, black doesn't have an open c-file.> You are colorectal. (I’m sorry, I meant “correct.” Stupid auto-colorectal.)      Jul-18-18 Kramnik vs Duda, 2018    Sneaky: Who is it who mockingly said “All rook endings are drawn?”      Jul-10-18 Dortmund Sparkassen (2018)    Sneaky: Coors is like making love in a canoe. It’s ****ing close to water.      Jul-03-18 S Vaibhav vs Carlsen, 2018    Sneaky: <vabe vs vibe> ssssshhhh... don't spoil morf's fun. He lives for this stuff. So what's White's error here? I've never seen the Scandi get so much counterplay so quick. Is 4.f3 the culprit?      Jun-28-18 Rameshbabu Praggnanandhaa    Sneaky: Returning to India with a very warm reception :D https://twitter.com/maxinmathewTOI/...      Jun-17-18 E Terpugov vs Petrosian, 1957    Sneaky: The pun is a reference to the movie "300", specifically https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZe... .

indicates a reply to the comment.

Sneaky's Shanty

< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 26 OF 58 ·  Later Kibitzing> Nov-27-06    Sneaky: Let's just say, we're not exactly shivering in fear ;-) I do hope cg lets us read each others forums at the end. That will be a hoot, won't it? Nov-27-06    Sneaky: <Shr0pshire: It would be priceless for me to go and read what your team is writing about us. Just so you know, I am one of the lead clowns because I argued for it in our forum. :)> I wish I could tell you what's going on! But we have to wait. I deleted your post because the part that followed revealed a detail that your teammates might not want revealed. I'm probably being overly paranoid (it really was nothing) but I don't want anybody to accuse us of giving or receiving confidential info. Nov-28-06    azaris: <I deleted your post because the part that followed revealed a detail that your teammates might not want revealed. I'm probably being overly paranoid (it really was nothing) but I don't want anybody to accuse us of giving or receiving confidential info.> A-ha! You're sharing confidential information and then trying to cover your tracks by deleting it afterwards. Nov-28-06    Sneaky: Hey don't blame me, it was shr0pshire who bragged about his home prep! Nov-29-06    acirce: Hi <Sneaky>. The point is <keypusher> didn't just say algebraic notation was <invented> long before the 70's, he correctly pointed out it was in widespread use, which ran counter to your false statement that it wasn't yet starting to become accepted. Then you said <Even in the 1970's it was an exception, not the rule> but it was the other way around - just like with the metric system, the USA was lagging behind. Like <euripides>' link said, http://www.excaliburelectronics.com... <In the 1970's, The US Chess Federation began a campaign to convert the US to algebraic notation, which had by then become standard in nearly all countries.> Somebody else should be able to document this better than I can do right now. Nov-29-06    Sneaky: Acirce, yes I learned something today. Actually I do have one old book written in Russian, a giant Soviet chess tome published in the 1950's. I just pulled it off the shelf to take a look at it. Sure enough it's in algebraic notation. But he's still pendantic. ;-) Nov-29-06    chancho: Lasker's Manual Of Chess(1927) mentions notation by coordinates (algebraic) and shows a position with perpetual check in the book using algebraic. He writes: "True, many nations follow the notation by coordinates described and used above." Then later this: "Either notation(descriptive/algebraic) has it's advantages, and it is useful to know both of them." Nov-29-06    Sneaky: It never occured to me that all of these old chess books I have were not only translated into English but translated into descriptive notation at the same time. I have Lasker's Manual of Chess (in descriptive notation), but I never considered, was the book written in German and translated into English, or vice versa? Nov-29-06    chancho: <Sneaky> It was originally written in German and later in English by Lasker himself. Nov-29-06    Sneaky: Well, he did a bang-up job at translating! Dec-01-06    Stevens: <sneaky> hi, i have finally got FICS working, so anytime you need an ego boost and want to win a few games, let me know! i don't know how to find people on there and all that stuff but i'm sure between us we can figure out a game. same goes for you <wannabe> Dec-01-06    Sneaky: Sure thing Stevens, I sign-in all hours of the day and night. What's your handle there? I'm Sneaky. Dec-01-06    WannaBe: <Sneaky> nystevens. Dec-02-06    Sneaky: Thanks, I already put him on my list. Dec-03-06    Stevens: cool <sneaky>, i'll be there from tomorrow onwards. i try to have a break from the internet over the weekends, but i'm there during the week. i'll let you know here when i'm logged on. Dec-05-06    hucknoog: <Sneaky> <But one still might be inclined to suggest that stalemate should be a win... for the side being stalemated! I've heard it said that in some parts of the world, a long time ago, that was the fashion..> Apparently Philip Stamma published a chess problem in 1745 where the object was to steal the win by stalemate. If you (or anyone else) knows the board setup for this problem, please share! Dec-20-06    WannaBe: Congratulations on your Caissar, <Sneaky>!! Dec-20-06    cu8sfan: Congratulations on your Caissar! Enjoy! Dec-20-06    whatthefat: Well deserved after the mammoth analysis of world championship formats! Dec-20-06    Sneaky: I just found out! Thank you everybody! Also, hats off to twinlark who helped transform the Arno Nickel game from what could have been a circus, into a serious page out of chess history. I just posted an acceptance speech on the The Kibitzer's Café (page 2526 for those with empty ignore lists). Dec-20-06    twinlark: <Sneaky> Thanks for reminding me of KC...I had to switch the microphone back on. Well done, mate, thanks for the compliment and I'd like to acknowledge your contribution to this most worthy community. You've come to exemplify so much of what this domain stands for. To 2007! Dec-20-06    whatthefat: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail... Should you feel the urge: a new championship format to consider! Specifically I'd be interested to know what the chances of the best challenger emerging from the cycle is. I'm a little concerned by only the top player going through from each all-play-all stage. One bad performance and you're out! I would have much preferred starting with 64 and letting 2 go through from each group of 8. Also, I wonder what time limit will be used. Dec-21-06    Sneaky: Yes, the new FIDE format. Frankly I sort of like the format, just because it's exciting. <Specifically I'd be interested to know what the chances of the best challenger emerging from the cycle is.> Yes I'd be curious to learn that too. <All 128 participants will be divided into 16 groups of 8 players. Each group will play an all-play-all. The 16 winners will then be divided into two eight-player groups, and again each will play an all-play-all. The two winners will then play a match of four games to determine the challenger.> An interesting experiment would be to define 127 players are mathematically equal, and place one "superplayer" in their midst, who is clearly stronger than the others. We could then figure out what the chances are that the superplayer becomes the challenger. You'd like to hope that the superplayer would have a better than 50% of succeeding but in my gut I am very skeptical that this would be the case. Dec-21-06    acirce: Hi guys, allow me to step in. Here is Stefan Fischl on the subject: <Okay, I did some statistical simulations to see whether this new FIDE system is an improvement - and it turned out that it's actually worse than a KO! For a 128-player KO (with a 6-game final, overall 20 playing days) I get a 30% probability of the strongest player winning, in the new World Cup format (4-game final, 18 playing days) it's only 27% (28% with a 6-game final instead). That's not as surprising as it may seem, after all we have the same number of players with even fewer playing days. For comparison, in a tournament like the 2002 Dortmund qualifier (8 players, two 4-player DRR groups followed by 4-game semis and a 4-game final) my simulations give the strongest player a 37% winning chance. If you replace the group stage with 4-game quarterfinal matches and lengthen the final to 6 games (to arrive at the same overall number of 14 playing days) it's up to 39%, in an 8-player DRR like San Luis 38%. So you can see there's no big difference between KO, round robins or a combination of both.> http://www.chessninja.com/cgi-bin/u... Dec-21-06    AdrianP: <Statistical simulations> Surely the chances of the strongest player winning depends on the degree by which he is strongest? Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 58) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 26 OF 58 ·  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. See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator. NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific user 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.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com. If you need an account, register now; it's quick, anonymous, and free! If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.