FWIW, owltuna has been extremely up-front for the entire thread, and everywhere else I've seen him post. Maybe there's some catharsis for you in attacking him like that, but you come off looking even more foolish than before.
Anyway, do me again! I promise you can find me being more of an "asshole" than that stuff you quoted earlier. I don't think you even read anything in those threads besides what you percieved as nastiness from me...
...hmmm, a little like this thread...
so what? if not in chess.com you can check chess base or any data base, if u dont like it play only slow or blitz but not correspondence style...and dont complaint
No, I don't think you are so transparent. You are one of the main agents who try to tamper this conversation down when anyone brings it up. I haven't really read the other threads, just saw your name, and see some of your tactics. Perhaps you are a true believer in the GE. I believe that you see it as your role to prevent this discussion from being big enough from this rule being threatened. As I said before: you're old; you're retired; you don't have enough to do; you're disgusted at yourself that you never progressed enough in chess, that you didn't have what it took; you talk like you're a postal chess expert but hadn't played a game in 10 years (I looked at your profile weeks ago); perhaps you're disgusted at other aspects of yourself; wouldn't be surprised if you are divorced, bad relations with your kids, but who knows, maybe your life is blessed and that's why you're so charming on here.
Talk about being a demented piece of shit! Ya know Peter, I first knew you weren't wrapped tight when you warped that Pink Floyd song to your own benefit to insult owltuna's age, which was a weird and sociopathic insult. At multiple times in this thread you vehemently accuse others of being assholes, they need to atone, bla bla bla. And yet you post something like this which is a very sick and dark insult...you aren't an asshole Peter, you are a hypocritical delusional douchebag who is a sad excuse for a man.
BTW, I know I said I was leaving this thread, but I couldn't let you warp someone else's work I enjoy for your own benefit(first Pink Floyd and then Bart Ehrman).
Childish attacks (like making fun of a person's age or accusing someone of alcoholism) seem to be the only thing Peter's got at this point. He's like a cornered animal lashing out at anything within reach. That doesn't mean it's not sick, but I'd like to think that the targets aren't taking it seriously.
But you are following the rules. And the rules are wrong. That is what I am saying..
Your long-windedness is no substitute for your extraordinary ignorance. You claim to be a member of USCF. I suggest you read their rules of correspondance chess, and perhaps join a traditional postal tournament. If you don't want to do that, then you should just shut up, for you speak of things you do not understand.
FIN
I am one of the most transparent people you will ever meet. It says something that it took you forty pages of nonsense to figure that out.
No, I don't think you are so transparent. You are one of the main agents who try to tamper this conversation down when anyone brings it up.
Ooo...can I be an agent? I would love to be in an actual conspiracy...how cool would that be? ;)
Would you really? You have NOT demonstrated that. Jesus, A former US Correspondence Champion with a peak rating above 2500 chimed in and you insulted him and failed to take note of a single thing he said. (...)
At first I thought that Jesus had posted in the thread, so I went looking for it. I was fairly disappointed.
Would you really? You have NOT demonstrated that. Jesus, A former US Correspondence Champion with a peak rating above 2500 chimed in and you insulted him and failed to take note of a single thing he said. (...)
At first I thought that Jesus had posted in the thread, so I went looking for it. I was fairly disappointed.
Sorry, I'm a blasphemer. Well, Jesus pre-dates chess and certainly modern chess so I doubt he would be above 1400 ;) With God on his side, striking down strong opponents like Purdy, 1500. Tops.
Based upon chess ability, an algorithm could be created to create a threshold level over which a player at a certain level just wouldn't play that amount of "book" moves. For example, a 1300 level player is not going to play book moves 7 moves deep into their games more than 50% of the time. Not possible.
I am interested in the above statement.
Would it ever be possible to create an algorithm based on playing strength?
Here are two games I am familiar with. Last book and last DB moves are indicated. From that can one conclude the ratings of the players and whether or not they used a database?
Quiz
Based on the assumtion that player's opening knowledge correlates to rating
1. Which player's used a DB?
2. Which player's are strongest?
3. Average rating of players in both games. (i.e. 1300-1600 or U1600 etc...)
What's the difference between last book and last DB move?
What's the difference between last book and last DB move?
Nothing really. "Book moves" is usually in reference to engines, they have their set opening books and will arbitrarily choose moves within their "book." Database move basically means anything...any move ever played is a "database move." EDIT: (Assuming the move was made in a game that is in a database, obviously)
What's the difference between last book and last DB move?
Nothing really. "Book moves" is usually in reference to engines, they have their set opening books and will arbitrarily choose moves within their "book." Database move basically means anything...any move ever played is a "database move."
Ok thanks...
What's the difference between last book and last DB move?
Nothing really. "Book moves" is usually in reference to engines, they have their set opening books and will arbitrarily choose moves within their "book." Database move basically means anything...any move ever played is a "database move."
That doesn't mean that book moves are usually in reference to engines. The book lines come from GM-level games and opening theory, and are increasingly augmented with engine's own results...but the whole point of an opening "book" for engines is that they need one still...they cannot see past their horizon, and so don't understand the consequences of something 40 moves down the line. Without humans providing the opening books, engines would be make pawn structure inaccuracies in openings all the time and losing king and pawn endgames.
This is changing over time, and the more that engines play, the more "bootstrapped" opening theory they also create. Eventually, engine play will be influencing opening book tweaks more than human recommendations...and eventually, engines will decide what a knight is worth relative to a bishop, not the developers ;).
What's the difference between last book and last DB move?
Nothing really. "Book moves" is usually in reference to engines, they have their set opening books and will arbitrarily choose moves within their "book." Database move basically means anything...any move ever played is a "database move."
That doesn't mean that book moves are usually in reference to engines. The book lines come from GM-level games and opening theory, and are increasingly augmented with engine's own results...but the whole point of an opening "book" for engines is that they need one still...they cannot see past their horizon, and so don't understand the consequences of something 40 moves down the line. Without humans providing the opening books, engines would be make pawn structure inaccuracies in openings all the time and losing king and pawn endgames.
I don't see how this contradicts anything I said. "Book moves" is a redundant term unless it is applied to engines...as all "book moves" are "database moves." Differences between variations depend on what current theory says.
Book moves are corrupt.
What's the difference between last book and last DB move?
Nothing really. "Book moves" is usually in reference to engines, they have their set opening books and will arbitrarily choose moves within their "book." Database move basically means anything...any move ever played is a "database move."
That doesn't mean that book moves are usually in reference to engines. The book lines come from GM-level games and opening theory, and are increasingly augmented with engine's own results...but the whole point of an opening "book" for engines is that they need one still...they cannot see past their horizon, and so don't understand the consequences of something 40 moves down the line. Without humans providing the opening books, engines would be make pawn structure inaccuracies in openings all the time and losing king and pawn endgames.
I don't see how this contradicts anything I said. "Book moves" is a redundant term unless it is applied to engines...as all "book moves" are "database moves." Differences between variations depend on what current theory says.
It does contradict what you said...a "book" move was a "book" move long before engines started beating GMs...so the term "book moves" is not "usually in reference to engines". It is in relation to general opening book theory as played by both humans, and now engines. Ask any avid tournament/club chessplayer older than their 20s ;)...
The term goes back to at least the 60s or 50s, which precludes it from being a term meant to refer primarily to engine's opening "books".
What's the difference between last book and last DB move?
Nothing really. "Book moves" is usually in reference to engines, they have their set opening books and will arbitrarily choose moves within their "book." Database move basically means anything...any move ever played is a "database move."
That doesn't mean that book moves are usually in reference to engines. The book lines come from GM-level games and opening theory, and are increasingly augmented with engine's own results...but the whole point of an opening "book" for engines is that they need one still...they cannot see past their horizon, and so don't understand the consequences of something 40 moves down the line. Without humans providing the opening books, engines would be make pawn structure inaccuracies in openings all the time and losing king and pawn endgames.
I don't see how this contradicts anything I said. "Book moves" is a redundant term unless it is applied to engines...as all "book moves" are "database moves." Differences between variations depend on what current theory says.
It does contradict what you said...a "book" move was a "book" move long before engines started beating GMs...so the term "book moves" is not "usually in reference to engines". It is in relation to general opening book theory as played by both humans, and now engines. Ask any avid tournament/club chessplayer older than their 20s ;)...
The term goes back to at least the 60s or 50s, which precludes it from being a term meant to refer primarily to engine's opening "books".
I know of the history of the term...but that is irrelevant. The only time the term "book" is used nowadays w/o being in reference to an engine is if someone is "out of book", which is often just someone forgetting the rest of their line in the database, lol. If your definition still applies, then book moves=database moves.
I am one of the most transparent people you will ever meet. It says something that it took you forty pages of nonsense to figure that out.
No, I don't think you are so transparent. You are one of the main agents who try to tamper this conversation down when anyone brings it up. I haven't really read the other threads, just saw your name, and see some of your tactics. Perhaps you are a true believer in the GE. I believe that you see it as your role to prevent this discussion from being big enough from this rule being threatened. As I said before: you're old; you're retired; you don't have enough to do; you're disgusted at yourself that you never progressed enough in chess, that you didn't have what it took; you talk like you're a postal chess expert but hadn't played a game in 10 years (I looked at your profile weeks ago); perhaps you're disgusted at other aspects of yourself; wouldn't be surprised if you are divorced, bad relations with your kids, but who knows, maybe your life is blessed and that's why you're so charming on here.
In any case, you are frustrated beyond belief, that no matter what you do, you can't get this conversation to stop. But you know what, when this thread stops, in a few weeks or months, someone else will bring it up because some people realize it's not right and have the bravery to say so.
I love this so much that I want to frame it.
I'm not really a big fan of Freud, but this post is just priceless.