That's not what the data says, this has already been explained to you. In the tools description it explicitly says it's based on level of elo advantage out of the opening, i.e. you are not interpreting it correctly. You have ignored those explanations repeatedly. You didn't get it.
Chess will never be solved, here's why
Sort:
Optimissed wrote:
In the upside-down world inhabited by looking-glass people where the asylum is the church and the university is the asylum, then you are acting perfectly correctly.
[and]
And in a real world where reporting people who break the rules (and in doing so, cause harm to others) has no effect, then those who should be reacting to such reports have no grounds for criticism if it is necessary to take other steps to sort the situation out.
If you could read and were willing to be honest, he's making clear and literal accusations of cheating. His earlier contratulations were made with an unescapably evident tone of sarcasm.
Sarcasm is not against the TOS. If your stats are showing up better than super GMs in any context, he is free to point it out. You can choose to ignore it, or to answer by either accepting the congratulations for your excellent play, or trying to explain or defend yourself if you feel the stats reflect poorly on you somehow.
What he is not allowed to do is to say publicly on the forums that you are cheating (whether he could prove it or not). If he points out something that you *feel* is circumstantial evidence that is making you look bad, I suggest you figure out why your results are so good relative to super GMs and point out why yourself.
Octopus already pointed out a reasonable supposition for his data, so you ought to have no problem, given your claims of having 30-60 IQ points on everyone here. Just don't copy his.
One can always tell when you are floundering by how convoluted your banter gets (re: your first sentence above).
Feb 26, 2025
0
#14924
Optimissed wrote:
I am quite a book player but I do have my own interpretations of book moves. Actually, some moves in chess games have become book moves on Chess.com because I've played them consistently. That's me and not others. I know that to be a fact since I'm capable of seeing evidence (something that a lot of people cannot do) and drawing correct conclusions from it (also something that many others cannot do, whatever their protestations that they are the great intellectual elite and the rest of us are peanuts).
Give a specific example of this wonderful inference ability! (One book move you introduced)
(Random amateurs' quick games are not where book moves come from, by the way).
philosophy screws up the mind
no more than tryn2apply abstract/made-up math to real world stuff right ?
Quoting to preserve the attempted subterfuge.
here, this should get ya started ... 
seething cauldron of hysteria
its just his moods & moments (trust me i know all abt those...)
Feb 26, 2025
0
#14930
18883 message.. wow.
It's clear that there is a huge disagreement on this. well, it's a positive from me, it will be solved, just a matter of time.. and computing power.
just wait for the quantum computer era
Feb 26, 2025
0
#14931
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
I think he suspected it wasn't a result of an objective evaluation tool.
In case someone needs a further explanation:
Anyone can base an accusation on a formula, real or fake one, spitting random numbers to support a given accusation. Anything is just as objective.
It very much depends on whether the formula is real or fake or spits out random numbers. If the formula is real and doesn't spit out random numbers and the conclusions drawn from it are correctly derived, then clearly not everything is just as objective.
No reason to believe his formula is more objective than my "formula".
As above, that would depend on the validity of the chess base style report. I wouldn't know, but it has received some good reviews. Your formula, while not spitting out random numbers, appears to be intentionally fake.
Whether the conclusion derived from the style report is valid may, perhaps, be open to debate.
MARattigan wrote:
OctopusOnSteroids wrote:
MARattigan wrote:
I think he suspected it wasn't a result of an objective evaluation tool.
In case someone needs a further explanation:
Anyone can base an accusation on a formula, real or fake one, spitting random numbers to support a given accusation. Anything is just as objective.
It very much depends on whether the formula is real or fake or spits out random numbers. If the formula is real and doesn't spit out random numbers and the conclusions drawn from it are correctly derived, then clearly not everything is just as objective.
No reason to believe his formula is more objective than my "formula".
As above, that would depend on the validity of the chess base style report. I wouldn't know, but it has received some good reviews. Your formula, while not spitting out random numbers, appears to be intentionally fake.
Whether the conclusion derived from the style report is valid may, perhaps, be open to debate.
Point was... A "real formula", an actual piece of code spitting out numbers is not much better than a fake one (like me jotting down some numbers on a paper), if the numbers lack validity. The style report is already demonstrably garbage, if Garrys slow games produce a theory score that was somehing like 8 times lower than my sunday blitz games...
Additionally, its possible that the 'theory' metric does what it was intended to do, which could be to heavily emphasize the evaluation after opening... I doubt it because my openings are just that bad, and even if it was the case thats a silly way to measure strength in theory/opening..
Feb 26, 2025
0
#14933
As I said, the style report got some good reviews, so there are obviously different views on whether it's demonstrably garbage. I don't have the program or documentation (you have to fork out), so I won't pass an opinion.
Feb 26, 2025
0
#14934
I have to observe that the outputs for top players provide a lot of evidence for the quality of this tool. It seems very incisive in its assessments.
Feb 26, 2025
0
#14935
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
I am quite a book player but I do have my own interpretations of book moves. Actually, some moves in chess games have become book moves on Chess.com because I've played them consistently. That's me and not others. I know that to be a fact since I'm capable of seeing evidence (something that a lot of people cannot do) and drawing correct conclusions from it (also something that many others cannot do, whatever their protestations that they are the great intellectual elite and the rest of us are peanuts).
Give a specific example of this wonderful inference ability! (One book move you introduced)
(Random amateurs' quick games are not where book moves come from, by the way).
Nope and I know I'm right. Where there's evidence I can draw the right conclusions, unlike people who say that infinity isn't a concept and then start slanging them ... or chess-bots don't make some random moves. I could even tell you why they do that. OK so professionals maybe copy some of my moves.
Not much evidence there then. We can probably draw the right conclusions.
Feb 26, 2025
0
#14936
DiogenesDue wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
Have playerafar, Elroch and DiogenesDue reported him for making public cheating allegations? If not, then why not?
They stand up and tell others that they dislike rule-breakers and report them.
It's difficult to imagine that they could be people who protect rule breakers.
If I had...I certainly would not be answering to you. Have you reported the poster you warned not to use language that would get him muted? Or did you just try to help him avoid any consequences by trying to tell him exactly what to avoid, and showing him how to misspell it the way you do yourself to circumvent the filter? Rest assured, I will always tend to act more ethically than you do..
He has only recently crossed the line, by the way. The early stages where he posted your stats and congratulated you for being better than super GMs at this or that are perfectly acceptable. Pointing out unusual results is not against the TOS. Taking the next step of accusing, naming and shaming, etc. is a problem.
Its obvious that Opto wants to intimidate other posters as usual.
He's going to directly call other posters 'psychopath' but Dubrovnik playing around with some AI is to be regarded as some kind of sinister aggression?
'Dub' is doing a good job of demonstrating that Opto and his kind can't manage their emotions.
And Opto's behaviour - as usual - is an obvious attempt at power plays.
Feb 26, 2025
0
#14937
Ghass2015 wrote:
Too many quoting and chats not related to chess.
Yes. But chess relates to chessplayers and their behaviours.
People react to the quoting in different ways.
There's a certain poster here who immediately poisons the atmosphere by trying to spam-insist he's more intelligent than everyone else.
Constantly. Year in year out. And he commits crassly direct rulebreaking too.
He's been muted by the staff including for three months recently and is a repeat offender.
For some reason he hasn't been re-muted yet during the last two months as crassly repeating offenders should be.
His name begins with the letters 'Op'.
------------------
Now - most people have better emotional control than Op.
And demonstrate that constantly.
I've been muted 4-5 times, a couple times for those 30 day or 90 day periods, it's automated, you just gotta contact staff, I was unmuted both times in less than 24 hours. At this point I hope someone comes up with a typing modification sub routine app that automatically changes Os to 0s and Es to 3s and added extra Ss so that we don't have to do it manually with the ridiculously expanding list of trigger words, even in PMs.
Feb 26, 2025
0
#14939
EndgameEnthusiast2357 wrote:
Philosophy is such a pointless and unhealthy topic for the mind. The human brain is designed to experience stuff in the real world, not aimlessly wonder and agonize over it's own meaning and existence and other reduction ad surdem/self-referential paradoxes. To protect youth mental health it shouldn't be offered as a course or major in college, and all books on the subject should be deprioritized in publishing/selling. Obsessing over things like that can lead to serious depression/existential dread/mental dilemmas. Who cares whether life has meaning or not? The freedom, ironically, is realizing none of these questions are important and are a laughable waste of time that people who had nothing better to do back then concocted. Go ziplining/take pilot lessons/go on random road trips if you're bored. You couldn't pay me to sit through a philosophy class lol
Yet other people, including many of history's great minds, feel it is the fundamental foundation of thought and reason. Not wishing to debate the matter, just noting that there is also a large body of opinion contrary to yours.
@DiogenesDue
Strictly speaking he hasn't accused anybody. Are "crat", "octo" and "O" anybody's ids?
The labels are clearly associated with the actual users by prior usage and "cheater" was added to each one of them. This would hold up as potential evidence of libel in a court case, so I'm going to say yes, his last post contained accusations.
I have seen worse slip by in the past, but if I were a mod here I would act on something like that immediately.