I was joking, I think I have never offered a draw (I've been glad of accepting it a couple of times though). How it was that? Sounds interesting! I bet he was surprised.
Chess Experts Getting It Wrong
Sort:
Jan 5, 2016
0
#63
Pulpofeira wrote:
I was joking, I think I have never offered a draw (I've been glad of accepting it a couple of times though). How it was that? Sounds interesting! I bet he was surprised.
Needed a reply for the whole story, haha.
It was a 10 board clock simul. I 'outplayed' him with black. Had an advantage when he offered. I never said no, just made a move (of course he wasn't at the board all the time).
What was the result of the game, you ask?
I lost, of course, hahahaha.
Jan 5, 2016
0
#64
0110001101101000 wrote:
Yes, most everyone agrees attacking is easier.
Actually defending, or trying to defend, against an attack, even a powerful one, can really be fun and push you beyond your normal effort. And when you're successful, it can be even more satisfying than attacking successfully.
Well, that's something worth to talk about! I once reached a totally lost K+B+5P vs K+B+6P endgame against a FM in a 12 boards simul and everybody in my city knows about it! :D
Jan 5, 2016
0
#66
batgirl wrote:
0110001101101000 wrote:
Yes, most everyone agrees attacking is easier.
Actually defending, or trying to defend, against an attack, even a powerful one, can really be fun and push you beyond your normal effort. And when you're successful, it can be even more satisfying than attacking successfully.
Sometimes it's fun... but I usually hate it 
Well I honestly believe the reason this forum was created was because ipcress12 was on tilt.
The word "Tilt" is a word used in poker when a person is upset, angry, or steaming.
Usually it involves a bad beat or heated exchange of sorts!
I believe ipcress12 created this forum while on tilt.
The reason why I beleive this is because of a very heated exchange between Mister ipcress12 and chess.coms favorite title player Pfren.
As a chess player one of your keys to success is being able to read a chess board.
As a poker player one of your keys to success is being able to read other people.
Now I might be wrong.
My reads could be off.
It could be a very strange coincidence.
However, when I read the below forum:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/scotch-four-knights-what-would-you-do-after-this-move?
I don't think it is a coincidence!
Especially when I see the time stamps and read the below statements:
pfren wrote:
Dear, I do not give the slightest fuck about your beliefs. Keep them for yourself, and enjoy them.
Understood?
I can picture a scenario in my mind lady's and gentlemen.
The OP going to sleep upset and angry.
Taking all the angry and frustration and bottling it up.
Until the next day when he can't keep it bottled up any more than he rages out on the forum.
I can picture him talking to himself saying the below statements right before creating this forum.
You sons of fishes I will teach you to talk to me that way!
Who do you think you are?
I quit chess before and I'll do it again!
Than I'm come back like the terminator you sons of fishes!
You experts know nothing!
ipcress12 wrote:
It's important to remember they're just human. They have their own biases and misunderstandings.
Well, the problem with experts isn't that they get things wrong so much as the attitude: "I'm the expert; you shut up."
They often will not admit they have biases and misunderstandings.
Than he pushed the submit button.
Waiting for the first title player to show up to his forum.
The whole time he is talking to himself saying.
I wish they would talk on my forum!
I wish they would say something crazy to me on my forum!
Circling his computer like a shark.
or
Like a lion waiting to pounce on a gazelle.
I wish they would say something out of line on my forum.
I will boot them and block them so fast there eyes will spin.
Oh lord!
Please let them say something stupid to me today.
As Jesus is my witness they will be gone before they even hit the submit button on my forum.
This is obviously a hypothesis which I have created.
It could be wrong or it could be right.
I honestly do not know.
However, it is a pretty awesome hypothesis.
The OP could of woke up and felt like talking about experts today.
I am not the OP I honestly don't know.
However, if my hypothesis is correct that is pretty freaken awesome!
Jan 5, 2016
0
#68
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
...A loooong and funny post...
Thx for the link. I never saw that thread. Now I understand where all this came from. :-)
In the past, a couple of times, I pointed out mistakes in Pfren's analysis in other threads. I'm still waiting for a reply.... hehheh.
About that position, by the way. I totally agree with Phren. I would never, ever play d5 in that position. I agree it's a positional error (blindness is a bit strong), giving black the option to break the white center with either c6 or f5 later on.
I don't care how long an engine is looking at this position. In some areas of chess engines are still fallible. Computer evaluations at that stage of the game mean little to nothing. Especially if you're talking about 0.1 point difference or so. I don't believe however that white is worse because of d5, but he lost his opening advantage. Anyway, let's not do that all over again, haha.
Ipcress12 is wrong in stating "the problem with experts". He should have said "this expert, this time" or something like that.
For what it's worth, Pfren's Greek. A proud people.
nobodyreally wrote:
ipcress12 wrote:
Well, the problem with experts isn't that they get things wrong so much as the attitude: "I'm the expert; you shut up."
If you will, please read slowly and don't respond immediately. I also typed slowly. ;-)
I disagree.
Maybe this happens sometimes, but certainly not as frequently as you seem to be implying. And what caused that attitude? Did you ever consider that? And if you still feel they do: is this actually a fact / the case?
Personally I'm sure I never have that attitude, but the number of times people (especially on chess sites, not as much in other places) will (ad infinitum) keep denying a perfectly logical and simple "1+1=2" argument is scary. Simply because they are unable to say: "Ah yes, thx, I was wrong". They will resort to all kinds of bullying tactics.
A recent example. Some days ago, a member in here wondered if it were possible for him to become GM, so he started a thread. Of course, instantly, from every which way they came out of the woodwork, argumenting that he would never make GM. Someone even went as far as to say it was impossible. When I then replied: "Very unlikely, OK, but impossible is nonsense". The reaction was: "Just because you're a master doesn't mean you're right automatically. I give a 100% guarantee he will not make GM level, regardless of what he does." (100% is OF COURSE complete nonsense)
Another example: The moment I make a suggestion or give an analytical observation about a game somewhere on a live chat during some tournament, you won't believe the amount of insults and rubbish I get thrown at me. Just because it says FM in front of my name.
The chess world is filled to the brim with frustrated, big ego - small brain, nasty individuals that would never dare to say something like that to my face. In fact no-one ever did. But enjoying the anonymity of the internet they spout all there vile bs all over the place. Sad individuals, I pity them, I really do (mind you, not in an arrogant manner).
So you see, it works two ways !
Namaste, NR.
p.s.
approx. 10-12 years ago I stopped playing active chess. This is just a small part of the "why". And I can't say I miss it.
Well, you're welcome to start a topic titled "Chess Amateurs Gettting It Wrong" or whatever strikes you as the appropriate counterbalance to this topic.
As to my main point, "Chess Experts Getting It Wrong," there is no question about that. Chess experts, like other experts, get things wrong. Sometimes it can be quite striking, other times amusing.
There is also no question that experts, being human, have their biases and misunderstandings. Is there?
Then we come to what seems to be your main concern: my claim that some experts take the position, "I'm the expert; you shut up" and how often you think I'm implying that happens.
Do you really doubt that this ever happens, though not in those exact words? If so, I must say from where I'm writing, you've led a sheltered life and not read much history.
So we can discuss how often that abuse of authority occurs based on our respective anecdotes and gut feelings, though those discussions are rarely settled to anyone's satisfaction.
As to what causes experts to take such an attitude, I don't imagine it's one thing and I don't assume that it's always justified by "small brain nasty individuals."
nobodyreally wrote:
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
...A loooong and funny post...
Thx for the link. I never saw that thread. Now I understand where all this came from. :-)
In the past, a couple of times, I pointed out mistakes in Pfren's analysis in other threads. I'm still waiting for a reply.... hehheh.
About that position, by the way. I totally agree with Phren. I would never, ever play d5 in that position. I agree it's a positional error (blindness is a bit strong), giving black the option to break the white center with either c6 or f5 later on.
I don't care how long an engine is looking at this position. In some areas of chess engines are still fallible. Computer evaluations at that stage of the game mean little to nothing. Especially if you're talking about 0.1 point difference or so. I don't believe however that white is worse because of d5, but he lost his opening advantage. Anyway, let's not do that all over again, haha.
Ipcress12 is wrong in stating "the problem with experts". He should have said "this expert, this time" or something like that.
For what it's worth, Pfren's Greek. A proud people.
FM nobody: I get it. You, like pfren, would never play d5 in that 4K position. So what? My argument, again, is perhaps it is a decent move nonetheless.
Tarrasch at one point dismissed Nimzovich's moves as "ugly." Did that mean Nimzovich's moves should be dismmised?
The history of opening theory is largely the history of the conventional wisdom of one generation being overthrown by the new insights of the next.
I don't claim that engines are infallible and I don't claim that d5 is the best move. But I did run Stockfish for two days -- long enough for the breaks c6 and f5 to show up in its analysis -- and White was still up +0.3 or so.
Are you and pfren so infallible that you can be certain on the basis of your human positional sense that d5 is inferior or has lost White's opening advantage in some clearly significant way than White's other alternatives?
lol...and everybody understands relativity, right?
Actually those who've read the explanations do understand relativity reasonably well.
You're contradicting the guy who came up with relativity, don't you know.
Jan 6, 2016
0
#72
ipcress12 wrote:
FM nobody: I get it. You, like pfren, would never play d5 in that 4K position. So what? My argument, again, is perhaps it is a decent move nonetheless.
Tarrasch at one point dismissed Nimzovich's moves as "ugly." Did that mean Nimzovich's moves should be dismmised?
The history of opening theory is largely the history of the conventional wisdom of one generation being overthrown by the new insights of the next.
I don't claim that engines are infallible and I don't claim that d5 is the best move. But I did run Stockfish for two days -- long enough for the breaks c6 and f5 to show up in its analysis -- and White was still up +0.3 or so.
Are you and pfren so infallible that you can be certain on the basis of your human positional sense that d5 is inferior or has lost White's opening advantage in some clearly significant way than White's other alternatives?
I'd bet they don't believe they're infallible, but historical ideas were never overturned by merely pointing out the fact that historical ideas are sometimes overturned. You have to have new ideas and show they work.
d5 gains space with little development and no (or very far away) pawn breaks. In most positions this is bad. Compared to similar positions (like a delayed steinitz) the pieces aren't well placed. In most positions this is bad.
So to overturn this you need new ideas, not the obvious fact "no one is infallible."
Ok so the engine. Engines are programmed to like space. It will take an unimaginable number of moves to "convince" the engine a move it's programmed to favor is not good. For example if you put the moves on the board (not just let it calculate, but put the moves it wants on the board), you might see 0.3 dwindle to 0.00 over 10 moves. Ok, now instead of Bd3 the engine likes Be2. You show the engine that is also 0.00. So now the engine says ok I'll play h3 and THEN Be2. So you show it that's not different... but now it's run out of hash table, so it's back to thinking Bd3 is good again.
I didn't do this, but it's a common scenario in many different kinds of positions.
I.e. there are some moves that you won't be able to convince the engine are not good.
So you might say "but d5 isn't a blunder." Ok, but neither is reaching over your head with your right arm to scratch your left ear. But without any reason to do so it is unnecessary and awkward.
Jan 6, 2016
0
#73
ipcress12 wrote:
- As to my main point, "Chess Experts Getting It Wrong," there is no question about that. There is also no question that experts, being human, have their biases and misunderstandings. Is there?
- Do you really doubt that this ever happens, though not in those exact words? If so, I must say from where I'm writing, you've led a sheltered life and not read much history.
- Are you and Pfren so infallible that you can be certain on the basis of your human positional sense that d5 is inferior or has lost White's opening advantage in some clearly significant way than White's other alternatives?
- Do you really doubt that this ever happens, though not in those exact words? If so, I must say from where I'm writing, you've led a sheltered life and not read much history.
- Are you and Pfren so infallible that you can be certain on the basis of your human positional sense that d5 is inferior or has lost White's opening advantage in some clearly significant way than White's other alternatives?
@ Ipcress12
Look, I do believe I started this discussion in a friendly and analytical manner. I don't want to make a big thing out of this, so this will be my last contribution.
- I simply never said chess experts never get it wrong. They do. So, there indeed is "no question about it". And of course they also have there biases and misunderstandings. I never stated otherwise.
- I also never said I doubt they behave like that. They do, sometimes. (i.e. some of them). In your "the problem with experts" in post #5 you are clearly generalizing it to 'all experts' which is simply incorrect and even malicious. And don't even start about my historic awareness / notion. Or mention "a sheltered life and not read much history" You have NO IDEA who or what I am and what my background is. Who do you think you are? Talking about Phren's attitude. Try a mirror.
I've been in chess, around experts, for decades and that what you seem to notice about experts happens 'sometimes' but no more or less than that. And I'm certainly more qualified to be the judge of that. End of.
- About the technical/engine side of that specific position. I refer to 0110001101101000's post #111 which is spot on. + Phren and I are certainly not infallible, but in terms of understanding chess, we are certainly 'lightyears' ahead of you.
That's it for me, good luck to you and enjoy your chess.
Phren and I are certainly not infallible, but in terms of understanding chess, we are certainly 'lightyears' ahead of you.
And there we have it, folks: "I'm the expert, you shut up."
nobody: No, you're just a lot better than I am at playing chess.
You are not lightyears ahead when it comes to reasoning about chess or debate in general. Nor are you lightyears ahead of Stockfish.
And in the chess world, neither you nor pfren are all that big as fishes either.
No, you are putting it out of context.
Seems to me that the OP has a personal issue or complex. Nothing to see here.
Jan 6, 2016
0
#78
X_PLAYER_J_X wrote:
Well I honestly believe the reason this forum was created was because ipcress12 was on tilt.
The word "Tilt" is a word used in poker when a person is upset, angry, or steaming.
Usually it involves a bad beat or heated exchange of sorts!
I believe ipcress12 created this forum while on tilt.
The reason why I beleive this is because of a very heated exchange between Mister ipcress12 and chess.coms favorite title player Pfren.
As a chess player one of your keys to success is being able to read a chess board.
As a poker player one of your keys to success is being able to read other people.
Now I might be wrong.
My reads could be off.
It could be a very strange coincidence.
However, when I read the below forum:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/scotch-four-knights-what-would-you-do-after-this-move?
I don't think it is a coincidence!
Especially when I see the time stamps and read the below statements:
pfren wrote:
Dear, I do not give the slightest fuck about your beliefs. Keep them for yourself, and enjoy them.
Understood?
I can picture a scenario in my mind lady's and gentlemen.
The OP going to sleep upset and angry.
Taking all the angry and frustration and bottling it up.
Until the next day when he can't keep it bottled up any more than he rages out on the forum.
I can picture him talking to himself saying the below statements right before creating this forum.
You sons of fishes I will teach you to talk to me that way!
Who do you think you are?
I quit chess before and I'll do it again!
Than I'm come back like the terminator you sons of fishes!
You experts know nothing!
ipcress12 wrote:
It's important to remember they're just human. They have their own biases and misunderstandings.
Well, the problem with experts isn't that they get things wrong so much as the attitude: "I'm the expert; you shut up."
They often will not admit they have biases and misunderstandings.
Than he pushed the submit button.
Waiting for the first title player to show up to his forum.
The whole time he is talking to himself saying.
I wish they would talk on my forum!
I wish they would say something crazy to me on my forum!
Circling his computer like a shark.
or
Like a lion waiting to pounce on a gazelle.
I wish they would say something out of line on my forum.
I will boot them and block them so fast there eyes will spin.
Oh lord!
Please let them say something stupid to me today.
As Jesus is my witness they will be gone before they even hit the submit button on my forum.
This is obviously a hypothesis which I have created.
It could be wrong or it could be right.
I honestly do not know.
However, it is a pretty awesome hypothesis.
The OP could of woke up and felt like talking about experts today.
I am not the OP I honestly don't know.
However, if my hypothesis is correct that is pretty freaken awesome!
That sounds about right, ipcress12 probably is on full tilt, feeling like he's lost something, and wants that 15 minutes of fame back!
Kinda like the time period when Britney Spears was having trouble with the law in January 2008! -- "Oh how them 13-year old teeny bop girls were all over me in 1999 and the 16 year old boys were drooling over my semi-pornographic music videos in the early 2000s, and now I'm just a stupid dumba$$ getting arrested"
ipcress12 must feel like he's the chess.com version of that!
Ad hominems, ridicule. I've seen that before. Try some substantive arguments.
Experts are human. They do mistakes. And they do abuse their authority. No one will deny that because it is undeniable.
But one must say not anything about it to those who imagine themselves as experts.
If you gotta prepare for a tournament and you're in a room with 10 amateurs and 10 titled players and you can only pick 10 guys to help you, I gather you'll pick 10 amateurs?
Instead of using fancy words like ad hominems, tell us it's not obvious that this thread comes from that special little place called (hurt) ego. I'll bet 50 cents that Pfren told you a couple of things about some blunder of yours and you never recovered.
I guess I'd say in some positions attacks are easier
Agreed