Evaluations Wanted
Sort:
BigJimi
Mar 11, 2008
0
#21
This person has no life,to resort to cheating at online chess shows that this person controls nothing else in their like.Soon they will be buried and forgotten and may as well have never lived! LOL
Yeah the Chessmaster stat wouldn't be so bad if it were over one game, but the statistical possibilities of having the same moves as every move the Chessmaster makes except one is next to sheer impossibility for the six games. He has to be cheating. (Assuming its a male.)
Mar 11, 2008
0
#23
well, someone already noted that "agreement" doesn't necessarily mean the same move as what Chessmaster might have picked. But, then I'm not sure what it does mean. Does Chessmaster agree with an inferior move? Early in the game there might by a wide variety of equal moves, but as the game progresses, fewer moves are equal.
Rael wrote: Latitude, what hypocrisy are you getting on about? My hypocrisy detector is in really good working order (just got it back from the shop), and the needle is still. So... ?
That’s exactly my point. No offense here RAEL.
That’s exactly my point. No offense here RAEL.
batgirl wrote: well, someone already noted that "agreement" doesn't necessarily mean the same move as what Chessmaster might have picked. But, then I'm not sure what it does mean. Does Chessmaster agree with an inferior move?
Chessmaster probably has a threshold (perhaps even settable by the user) that it uses to determine whether or not to flag a move as inferior. Fritz, for example, has a couple of different analysis modes that use different thresholds. Its Blunder Check uses .5 pawns while Full Analysis uses .3 pawns (I think). These are out-of-the-box numbers and can be changed by the user.
So, knowing what Chessmaster's threshold was on these analyses would tell us a lot about what we can imply from them.
batgirl wrote: Does Chessmaster agree with an inferior move?
Indeed it does, I've lost count of how many times it's 'agreed' with 1.d4 
Better to call the sheriff than have a hanging.
Mar 11, 2008
0
#28
It's quite obvious that that person was Robert Fischer himself. He's alive and well as is Elvis. But seriously, I almost PUKED when I read this post. The chess players of today are still the same as the chess players of 11 years ago when I first started. The FIRST word out of their mouth when someone had a 20-0 or 153-2 or some record like that, was "CHEATER". It takes a cheater to catch a cheater, I say. Here's the deal. BATGIRL is obviously the "friend of mine" who used chessmaster to analyze the game. She in fact was petrified to say that she actually used the CM program, for fear of being branded a cheater, so enter the convenient "friend". Furthermore, BATGIRL was checkmated by that person and is quite angry at her program losing. Her and her ilk are a dime a dozen and I can smell them a mile away.
Hello. Has anyone seen the billy goats gruff? Or a bridge for that matter? Because they're missing a troll.
Standard troll handling procedure:
1.Don't.
To summarize: Don't feed the trolls; don't respond to Cheater-1, who obviously gets his kicks from reading people flaming him.
Mar 11, 2008
0
#30
"Rael is a chess nerd aka chess geek aka "whatever", but actually, inside the hardshelled veneer, he is really a nice fellow."
Yes, I know. I was just kidding with him.
Awww geez. Talk about the road to evil paved with good intentions. Ret comes to my defense (when I know that Batgirl got the joke - my whole "I couldn't resist" thing makes it clear) but need to tack on that I'm a chess geek/nerd.
Well, maybe posting on chess.com as often as I do qualifies me for that. But if that's true, then all of you are also implicated with me, bwahaha.
/ps. I don't have a hardshelled veneer, do I?
My conclusion is that you use an awful lot of words in order to make a relatively simple point.
I also think think that suspicion and proof are often confused.
Hey Batgirl, I think a reasonable conclusion is that you do not know how to formulate a specific question, and rather prefer to raise a nebulous issue as a form of exhibitionism.
In other words, exactly what are you asking? Sheesh.
Agreement in Chessmaster is usually means that move have no tactical drawbacks but it can still be losing strategically or it still can be a completely losing move... İ have chessmaster gm edition and when i play against the program the persons i am playing with do disagreed moves much frequent than me nearly always i have more agreement ratio but still i lose more than it. Sometimes i even have hundred percent ratio but losing. And it is senseless to use chessmaster to cheat. There is nothing to gain in cheating and i don't think chess.com rating is too valuable. Playing can teach something but cheating is just lose of time.
In optimistic view of myself i hope he/she might be thinking like this: The games playing here are too long in time and every move without accuracy will cause the game become more longer one. And he/she might be analysing the position everytime that the person play in order to not expanding the game unnecessarily. (I mean board analysis not software one) (second note: of course compherensive analysis is required it is kind a corresponding chess.)
Nibbler wrote:
Hey Batgirl, I think a reasonable conclusion is that you do not know how to formulate a specific question, and rather prefer to raise a nebulous issue as a form of exhibitionism.
In other words, exactly what are you asking? Sheesh.
"Based on this information. what would be a reasonable conclusion?" - an excerpt from Batgirl's original post which you may not have read.
silentfilmstar13 wrote: Nibbler wrote:
Hey Batgirl, I think a reasonable conclusion is that you do not know how to formulate a specific question, and rather prefer to raise a nebulous issue as a form of exhibitionism.
In other words, exactly what are you asking? Sheesh.
"Based on this information. what would be a reasonable conclusion?" - an excerpt from Batgirl's original post which you may not have read.
I read it, and any number of conclusions are possible based on what batgirl wrote. Why, I could conclude that she writes poorly ... I want a specific question from her, not a leading, nebulous piece of vacuous fluff. Thanks.
Batgirl spreading rumors about me, I'm a 100 percent brillint player. Come one come all and face me on live chess.. I'll be waiting and challenging those of you with higher rtings than I.
Mar 12, 2008
0
#38
Hey, Nibbler, the alternate possibility is that you do not know how to read with comprehension. But which ever is the case, my original posting is a bit nebulous since I wanted to avoid a cheating discussion in general and an accusation against a particular person specifically. As one person said, suspicion and proof are separate things. I already had my suspicions. These suspicions were confirmed by a computer analysis - or where they? This specific person became less an issue to me than understanding the validity of comuter analysis, or at least this particular computer analysis, in determining such things. So, what I wanted was experienced input to help me understand it all better. Thanks for yours.
Nibbler wrote: silentfilmstar13 wrote: Nibbler wrote:
Hey Batgirl, I think a reasonable conclusion is that you do not know how to formulate a specific question, and rather prefer to raise a nebulous issue as a form of exhibitionism.
In other words, exactly what are you asking? Sheesh.
"Based on this information. what would be a reasonable conclusion?" - an excerpt from Batgirl's original post which you may not have read.
I read it, and any number of conclusions are possible based on what batgirl wrote. Why, I could conclude that she writes poorly ... I want a specific question from her, not a leading, nebulous piece of vacuous fluff. Thanks.
I doubt Batgirl cares what you want of her post. I was unaware that all posts must contain specific questions. In context, her question was perfectly reasonable and well suited to glean the feedback she was after. To call her post vacuous is absurd, as its point was quite clear. I'm having trouble finding the heavy content in your reply, though. What, exactly, is your point?
