Don't let yourself get sucked in by the Troll that is Cheater_1.
That's were he gets his enjoyment from, so just don't give him the satisfaction.
Cheater-1 talks trash
Sort:
When you get pissed at Cheater, he wins.
He is here to make people upset, that simple
I just want to play him where he can't see my comments. As it is I think I have a winning plan.
How can cheater_1 see your plan when you post it in the team section, not the public section?
He has (at least) one insider or other account on our team.
The media is too government controlled!
Oh. Bit of a dumb question, then.
He is trying to get a draw. He is so dang scared. He tries to use people's ignorance of the position to get himself a draw. He realizes that your plan will eventually win the game, so he tries mental tricks to try to get a draw. But he won't get it. Then he will leave chess.com because he is a sore cheater. I will laugh when that day comes.
He does have a draw unfortunately. But this game revealed everything we need to know to give him a pounding in a second game.
It's likely that he won't accept a second game. This game served to "prove his point that he was unmateable", and I don't think he'll bite on a 2nd challenge. "½" looks a lot better than "0-½".
Cheater won't give you another game. He'll say he proved his point, and milk it for as long as he can.
Webgogs I think you think you are better than you are, for pretending that you can beat computers so easily, when the world champion actually have a hard time doing it ;)
Laporte: What makes you think I can't take out a top player? Did it occur to your that I took the most difficult route and got a draw. When was the last time you tackled a computer in a tactical skirmish and didn't lose outright? On top of this it wasn't just a computer. It was a centaur. They're even harder to beat.
As for prentending? Prentending hmmm... them's fight'en words punk.
Webgogs wrote:
Laporte: What makes you think I can't take out a top player? Did it occur to your that I took the most difficult route and got a draw. When was the last time you tackled a computer in a tactical skirmish and didn't lose outright? On top of this it wasn't just a computer. It was a centaur. They're even harder to beat.
As for prentending? Prentending hmmm... them's fight'en words punk.
This is something that few people understand - the game is just as hard to play for a noob as it is for a master-level player, unless you start with a handicap (missing piece). A player with a higher rating does not have any advantage over anyone else at the beginning of the game. And few players have an advantage even 10-15 moves in, until you get out of public, standardized starting books. Webgogs is no different from a master-level player (or Kasparov for that matter) until he makes a mistake - and in most cases, a draw is actually a favorable result against a higher-ranked player.
Now, I typically didn't select the same moves as Webgogs did through the game. But most of the time, I agreed with him. I had some doubts that we could beat Cheater_1, but the draw is OK. Cut Webgogs some slack - he did fine. And last time I checked, there were around 600 people on the team? How come the rest of them didn't speak up if they could do better?
All i said is that you pretending you can beat computers easily makes us, intelligent people, smile. And thats all ;)
May 22, 2008
0
#17
It's so easy to pretend to be a GM when you got a top prog behind you, I did it for YEARS. I assumed real life GM's identities and played it out until I got bored. Anyone can do it. No trick involved. Illegal but fun.
NOW, let me, the program MASTER, clarify something for all you people interested in the inner workings of a computer Brain and HUMAN chess mind. There is something called a POINT OF DIMINISHING RETURNS. Basically, it means that after a certain point in time, what you get is LESS and LESS to the point of "it" being worthless after a certain amount of time. LISTEN UP as I give you all an example:
Letting a chess program think for 2 minutes per move is CERTAINLY better than 2 seconds--same for a human brain. Giving it a hash table of 256 MB is certainly better than 2 MB. However, letting a computer think for 5 days per SINGLE move is absolutely not even .0000001% better than letting it think for 3 days--the same with a human. There comes a point when no matter how long you let it think or how large the hash table is, it is pointless. Why, you ask?
Let's talk about a program first. RAM is finite. Has tables and virtual memory reach a limit, just as a cup can only hold 12 ounces of water. Once it's full, the benefit of adding more is a WASTE. Chess programs will not analyze every single move and every single variation until you stop it...that's not how they work. They have a built in "selectivity" (BILLIONS of moves that are deemed worthless are disregarded). They will stop returning results after a certain time--and that time is measured in hours. I could go much deeper and lose you all dealing with the nuts and bolts of programs, but we'll leave it at that for now.
Humans. Take the average 1700 Tournament player. He or she usually spends 3 minutes thinking about their move in a 40/120 game. Put them in a 1 hour game, and their rating WILL slip. When faced with 1.5 minutes per move, naturally they will get weaker. Give them 2 seconds per move and they'll play like a child. The OPPOSITE is not true. If the 1700 player all of a sudden got 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 3 days PER MOVE, will they miraculously play like ANAND? Nope. Will their rating increase proportionately as it decreased when time was taken away? Nope. In many cases, HUMANS play WORSE if you let them overthink for hours per move. The mind wanders. The mind gets bored. It loses focus and plays a poor move, much as a person who falls asleep at the wheel when driving long distances.
The mind is powerful, but if you're a 1700 player, you cant just add more time and BLAMMO become a 2400 player. You have a ceiling of 1700, and only with practice will you rise. Suggesting adding time makes you stronger is nothing more than a false claim. ANALOGY TIME. I'm the world's #2 heavyweight boxing contender. I dont like the short time that I get to rest between rounds. If theyd only let me rest 1 hour between rounds, then I could DESTROY the champ.True, he would be more rested and fight with more energy, but so WOULD THE OTHER GUY. There is no advantage to adding time because the other side gets the advantage too. He would not fight better or stronger than his initial round. TO suggest that more time makes him super human is ridiculous.
Back to chess. Yes, if a person got to think for 5 minutes per move his moves would generally be better than a 3 minute move, but the same goes for his opponent whether it be human or comp. His stength has not improved over his opponent at all. Not one single iota. But give that human 5 hours per move and his play would actually be MUCH WORSE than a program. Chess programs dont get tired or bored or lose focus.
Don't fool yourself, people. This has been a program vs program match from the get go. There has not been one single move on either side that was generated by a human brain. Trust me on that. I contributed to the Svenska schackdatorföreningen (SSDF) for many years. I know what I'm talking about.
Lol.. you should complete your education, cause your explanations of a computer and a brain playing chess is totally a laugh.. lol.. thats all
I thought the other guy was acting childish by talking of you that way, but now i see he was right, you're just a little baby trying to look like a well educated man, but only thing you can come up with is insufficient and unexact arguments. Wait a few years, kid, youll get maturity, then youll be able to know what youre talking about before coming here and exteriorise your superiority complex (wich obviously in your case hides an inferiority complex) ;)
sorry i dont like internet fights so i stop right here but hey i had to tell you, no offense, "Master" LOL
May 22, 2008
0
#19
Another one of "those" people. They like to pick on the guy with the biggest ego. Until I came along, you like to pick on webgogs, right?
You know what I hate, it is people who challenge me but REFUSE to back up their position or refute mine. For as long as Ive been here, people have said just what you said, laporte. They say I'm wrong, or laughable, or lying, etc. but just cant explain about what or why. Until you can come to the table with something......anything...I pass judgement that you are guilty of buffoonery. All you can come up with is "insufficient and unexact" and "totally a laugh", when it is YOU who is woefully inadequate. Sorry little man, but that just doesnt cut it with the likes of me. You are obviously out of your league with the likes of me. Come back when you are ready to debate. BTW, I havent lost a debate on this site since I came here. Touche.
ha ha. Woe is Cheater-none
It takes far less time to come up with ideas than to work them out. Because of this our brains are faster than a computer. We do it part by intuition and part by sight. If we play or chess.com does you can almost guarantee yourself that I'll be behind it. There's a reason why no one on the site contradicted me. I'm a very active top level player so I'm on the site lots and actually have the time. The other top players realize that if they spoke up then they would have to lead. Most of them just don't have the time. So in essence, you can learn something from these encounters. I might not have the time later this summer when your proposed rematch is to take place.
Obviously he knows Qc3 is not a computer move yet he implies I'm using chessmaster as my guide. What a joke. Qc3 was my idea and the next 10 move plan will hopefully be my idea too. In our private emails and his public comments to me he has been revealing. He won't take me up on an offer to play but continues to talk trash. It is not true that programs thrash GM's with such ease. It's true I can't beat my machine in 30 minutes a side. I'm just too slow. But I can beat it in standard length games. At 3 days a move? You godda be kidding. I can play near perfection. I have better positional judgement than the computer and it is backed up by tactical calculation.
Cheater not only gets a powerfull program to use but he also gets to read my comments and I even provide diagrams. But if he accepts my challenge then he doesn't get to read my thoughts! Cheater. If you continue to follow my suggestions sooner or later you will begin to lose. It is simply because I know how to push the advantage of the first move right to the end of the game. I judge White to have enough advantage. Eventually you will have to veer off the path I'm aiming for and make a move on your own. This is where I'm going to get you. I suspect you've noticed that I'm only offering a single line of play and I'm not explaining it. Where will your Bishop go? Ha ha ha. You didn't really think a computer can be beat in 30 moves did you? Nope, not in my experience. But they can be beat when the plan is 50 moves deep! Good Luck.