|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 33 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-26-07 | | chessamateur: Sneaky what happened to you in the Chess Bookie? You went from like 19k to 2.6k all of a sudden. |
|
| Mar-26-07 | | Archives: Whoa that's a big swing! |
|
Mar-26-07
 | | TheAlchemist: I think he bet on a draw in Ivanchuk-Vallejo |
|
Mar-27-07
 | | Sneaky: I lost a few thousand, then I had to make an even bigger bet to make up for it, lost that one as well, then I had to go "all in" to get back to the top, lost that as well. Oh well that's how it goes. |
|
| Mar-28-07 | | wydrukowac: Will betting start from the beginning in some time? |
|
| Mar-29-07 | | chessamateur: <sneaky> Too bad. I think they should change the "all in" rule and make a limit anyway. |
|
| Mar-31-07 | | Swapmeet: <Sneaky> Any interest in playing in the online chess league on FICS? <shr0pshire> and I are looking to start up a team. Teams square off in individual 60 15 games. |
|
Apr-01-07
| | Sneaky: swapmeet -- I don't know much about ICC league play. How does it work? Do all the members of a team have to be present, or is it OK if you have a slack-ass like me on your team? ;-D |
|
| Apr-01-07 | | Swapmeet: During tournaments, we would get paired against another team and each individual member of the teams are paired. You have a certain amount of time to contact your opponent via FICS message (a week I think), and set up a time to play. No, the whole team never even has to be online at the same time. And theres no way you'll top me in the slacking department. ;) |
|
| Apr-03-07 | | square dance: <sneaky> could you tell me how to report cheaters on fics? thanks. |
|
| Apr-03-07 | | Silverstrike: <Sneaky> How would you feel about a rematch correspondence game? Only if you want. Thanks. :) |
|
Apr-03-07
| | Sneaky: <Swapmeet> I've been so busy lately I'm going to have to decline. <Silverstrike> See above. But I *do* want a rematch! <square dance> What kind of cheater? The only kind of cheating I've ever reported is the kind where the person who gets their queen skewered and suddenly "their internet connection goes bad" and they refuse to finish the game even when you see them online again. Type "help abuse" I think and it will explain the procedure. Basically you just get the game adjudicated in your favor. It takes forever to get the game adjudicated but in the end justice was served. If the kind of abuse you're talkin' about is just some schmuck who uses Fritz in an obvious and blatant fashion, you're probably out of luck. I'm not 100% sure about that-- but I never tried to get somebody in trouble for simply playing strong moves. But there are times when it's very obvious that I'm not playing against a human being, or at the very least certainly not some 1500-rated player. |
|
| Apr-03-07 | | square dance: <sneaky> i was actually watching <KingG> play this guy who took a full minute to play 7 moves of najdorf theory. and in every game he would take several seconds to play each move even in the openings. he thought for about 10 seconds, iirc, to play ...Be7 in the ruy lopez!? and one game all of his moves matched fritz 10. it was pretty suspicious. oh, he was also a 1000 player not too long ago, but is now about 1500. his name is luthar, btw. |
|
| Apr-03-07 | | square dance: oh, and btw, thanks. |
|
| Apr-04-07 | | Silverstrike: <Sneaky> Just drop me an e-mail when you feel ready. :) |
|
Apr-05-07
| | Sneaky: <square dance> Yeah I know what you mean, sometimes you can really tell they are cheating. Nothing you'll ever prove, but you can just tell. If you've played against computers a lot you get a feel for the "computer style", very materialistic, very brave ... willing to expose their king if it means they get to keep an extra pawn, that kind of thing. Another tip-off about computer play is that they can be incredibly accurate when it comes to not doubling pawns. Just as surely as you can't snatch the computer's queen, you can't double its pawns (without paying some price). A good, solid player will not be so totally paranoid about pawn doubling because doubled pawns have their good-points and bad-points, they will often purposely double-pawns for positional reasons. The computer is more likely to dogmatically follow the rule "doubled pawns are bad" and then enforce that rule with amazing accuracy, even when the position doesn't call for it. Sometimes I get accused of cheating myself, which I always take as compliment, albeit undeserved. Usually the games that I get accused of cheating on are blitz games where I play one unsound move after another, and maybe a few outright blunders thrown in, and then finally I zero in on a single hard-to-see combination to decide the game in my favor. How people can equate that style of play to computer play, I don't know. Just a case of sour grapes I suppose. |
|
Apr-05-07
| | Sneaky: <Silverstrike> You got it. I'll have Black so this time I'll be able to Albinize YOU if you let me ;-) |
|
| Apr-13-07 | | Tactic101: <Silverstrike> I've been wondering for a while whether or not I should ask you for a correspondance game. Think you would like a go (maybe after you've finished your correspondance game with Sneaky? I thought it would be interesting. I'm the same age as you. Anyway, tell me if you're interested. We can fix up the dates and all, but only if you're interested. I'm probably not as strong as you, but it may be fun. PS: I like your analysis on various games and openings a lot. I'm not nearly as good at this. |
|
| Apr-14-07 | | square dance: <cheating update> apparently luthar was banned from fics. hmm, wonder why? |
|
Apr-22-07
| | Sneaky: <square dance> Well done! |
|
| Apr-22-07 | | square dance: <sneaky> im going to pass that thanks on to <KingG> as it was his persistence that got that scum bag banned. |
|
| Apr-29-07 | | Silverstrike: <Sneaky> Great! Sorry for the late response, I didn't know that you had accepted. I'll play my first move here, if you would prefer e-mail, just tell me. Best of luck! 1.e4
You'll be the first to "Albinize" this. ;)
<Tactic101> I'm flattered. :) Again sorry about my late response. |
|
| Apr-29-07 | | Silverstrike: <Sneaky> On the subject of the Albin, I played an interesting game with it in the recent Edinburgh Congress, could I perhaps post it on this forum for discussion? |
|
Apr-29-07
| | Sneaky: <Silverstrike> You misunderstood--I accept your challenge in spirit (I do want to play) but I can't start yet. I guess, when I'm ready I'll post my move here (which will 90% likely be 1...c5) and then we can get started here. I've been super busy lately so it might be a few weeks, sorry. <On the subject of the Albin, I played an interesting game with it in the recent Edinburgh Congress, could I perhaps post it on this forum for discussion?> I don't mind at all, however, it might be even better if you post it to the real Albin page which is Queen's Gambit Declined, Albin Counter Gambit, 5.g3 (D09) (or it might be on D08 depending how the opening went). If you post it there I'll stop by for sure. |
|
| May-23-07 | | timhortons: sneaky i agree that bobby is the best....i love the way o kelly smash the queen side of white in the middle of the game as he try to coordinate an attack in the castled kingside of black...its the only defense im comfortable with as black when an opponent open e4...id seen in the database that geller is one of the best handler of it...geller is the upsetter of bobby during there era though bobby had prove his intellectual superiority over everybody...i play in gameknot.com...im an amateur lover of chess whos heart is always in improving his play |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 33 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
