Obviously not.
The chess.com analysis engine is a jerk
Sort:
rich has often been queried regarding the false fide rating, but refuses, point blank, to even acknowledge the issue. I think it's safe to say though, that the entry is entirely correct in rich's mind. 
Rich has a mind!?
Ray_Brooks wrote:
rich has often been queried regarding the false fide rating, but refuses, point blank, to even acknowledge the issue. I think it's safe to say though, that the entry is entirely correct in rich's mind.
lol Yeah, that's probably right. Well I'll just let him have it then. Getting him to admit he may be wrong (shock! 
) about something is not really going to realistically happen 
.
PerfectGent wrote:
surely fide ratings have to be verified?? if not shouldnt the staff remove them
It's been proven many times before his fide rating isn't real. Do you want me to give you a link to the threads? It's correct the staff should remove them, I'm not sure why they haven't with him.
so i shouldnt listen to the analizer?
Jan 17, 2009
0
#48
atomichicken wrote:
Oh, and by the way rich isn't it about time you deleted your false fide rating already. You know it's against chess.com rules to give false information about yourself.
Atomichicken, you're a complete idiot. I fully analyzed your game with Rich, and you are certainly not winning. You also have made more novice level mistakes than Rich.
You putting down other players because you can't handle the fact that you're a beginner level chess player, is laughable, and sad.
Everything you said about Rich, is actually what you're saying to your own sad self.
Man, you guys sure did ruin my thread. 
jazzTUNE wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
Oh, and by the way rich isn't it about time you deleted your false fide rating already. You know it's against chess.com rules to give false information about yourself.
Atomichicken, you're a complete idiot. I fully analyzed your game with Rich, and you are certainly not winning. You also have made more novice level mistakes than Rich.
You putting down other players because you can't handle the fact that you're a beginner level chess player, is laughable, and sad.
Everything you said about Rich, is actually what you're saying to your own sad self.
lol Well I thought rich's stupidity couldn't be rivaled, but it looks like someone has come along to take away his crown.
If you have analyzed the game and come to that conclusion then it's you who is the novice, not me. Anyone who is past beginner should be able to see that my play has so far been far superior to Rich's. Once I have established a rating on this site I WILL be over 2000, I'm certain of that. And you're calling me a beginner without any backing to your argument, that's just a joke. I am literally rolling on the floor laughing this time. 
Narz wrote:
Man, you guys sure did ruin my thread.
Sorry, but when idiots start spouting their rubbish it's hard not to show them up as arrogant fools.
Jan 17, 2009
0
#52
atomichicken wrote:
jazzTUNE wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
Oh, and by the way rich isn't it about time you deleted your false fide rating already. You know it's against chess.com rules to give false information about yourself.
Atomichicken, you're a complete idiot. I fully analyzed your game with Rich, and you are certainly not winning. You also have made more novice level mistakes than Rich.
You putting down other players because you can't handle the fact that you're a beginner level chess player, is laughable, and sad.
Everything you said about Rich, is actually what you're saying to your own sad self.
lol Well I thought rich's stupidity couldn't be rivaled, but it looks like someone has come along to take away his crown.
If you have analyzed the game and come to that conclusion then it's you who is the novice, not me. Anyone who is past beginner should be able to see that my play has so far been far superior to Rich's. Once I have established a rating on this site I WILL be over 2000, I'm certain of that. And you're calling me a beginner without any backing to your argument, that's just a joke. I am literally rolling on the floor laughing this time.
Dear Ding Dong,
I had written 100% backing of my "argument" (although, there really is no argument), but chess.com staff deleted it. (They said it was because I can’t publish my detailed analyses of a game currently in play.)
I say this to you; you’re playing like a beginner in that game against Rich. Sorry, but you’re going to have to accept it, and stop putting down others because of your chess insecurities.
jazzTUNE wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
jazzTUNE wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
Oh, and by the way rich isn't it about time you deleted your false fide rating already. You know it's against chess.com rules to give false information about yourself.
Atomichicken, you're a complete idiot. I fully analyzed your game with Rich, and you are certainly not winning. You also have made more novice level mistakes than Rich.
You putting down other players because you can't handle the fact that you're a beginner level chess player, is laughable, and sad.
Everything you said about Rich, is actually what you're saying to your own sad self.
lol Well I thought rich's stupidity couldn't be rivaled, but it looks like someone has come along to take away his crown.
If you have analyzed the game and come to that conclusion then it's you who is the novice, not me. Anyone who is past beginner should be able to see that my play has so far been far superior to Rich's. Once I have established a rating on this site I WILL be over 2000, I'm certain of that. And you're calling me a beginner without any backing to your argument, that's just a joke. I am literally rolling on the floor laughing this time.
Dear Ding Dong,
I had written 100% backing of my "argument" (although, there really is no argument), but chess.com staff deleted it. (They said it was because I can’t publish my detailed analyses of a game currently in play.)
I say this to you; you’re playing like a beginner in that game against Rich. Sorry, but you’re going to have to accept it, and stop putting down others because of your chess insecurities.
You are either trolling, or that USCF rating of yours isn't real either. If you really think that I'm playing like a beginner then it's actually you who is the beginner, as only beginners can possibly come to that conclusion. I think the guy with the real chess insecurities here is the one calling a 2000+ player a "beginner". You and Rich of course.
Jan 17, 2009
0
#54
atomichicken wrote:
jazzTUNE wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
jazzTUNE wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
Oh, and by the way rich isn't it about time you deleted your false fide rating already. You know it's against chess.com rules to give false information about yourself.
Atomichicken, you're a complete idiot. I fully analyzed your game with Rich, and you are certainly not winning. You also have made more novice level mistakes than Rich.
You putting down other players because you can't handle the fact that you're a beginner level chess player, is laughable, and sad.
Everything you said about Rich, is actually what you're saying to your own sad self.
lol Well I thought rich's stupidity couldn't be rivaled, but it looks like someone has come along to take away his crown.
If you have analyzed the game and come to that conclusion then it's you who is the novice, not me. Anyone who is past beginner should be able to see that my play has so far been far superior to Rich's. Once I have established a rating on this site I WILL be over 2000, I'm certain of that. And you're calling me a beginner without any backing to your argument, that's just a joke. I am literally rolling on the floor laughing this time.
Dear Ding Dong,
I had written 100% backing of my "argument" (although, there really is no argument), but chess.com staff deleted it. (They said it was because I can’t publish my detailed analyses of a game currently in play.)
I say this to you; you’re playing like a beginner in that game against Rich. Sorry, but you’re going to have to accept it, and stop putting down others because of your chess insecurities.
You are either trolling, or that USCF rating of yours isn't real either. If you really think that I'm playing like a beginner then it's actually you who is the beginner, as only beginners can possibly come to that conclusion. I think the guy with the real chess insecurities here is the one calling a 2000+ player a "beginner". You and Rich of course.
Whatever makes you feel better, you keep "believing" that.
I am now dummer just for having read your last paragraph.
Anytime you want to get schooled, just let me know.
Jan 17, 2009
0
#55
I can't wait to see the outcome of this game, there is a lot on it now. Actually, it'll probably continue afterwards, with accusations about extra help and the likes. Pity it's not over the board :)
Maradonna wrote:
I can't wait to see the outcome of this game, there is a lot on it now. Actually, it'll probably continue afterwards, with accusations about extra help and the likes. Pity it's not over the board :)
I agree - it's neat to have the egos on the line like a prize fight boxing match or something. I also agree that it would've been fun to see as an on the board match, because now, with such claims riding on it's outcome, I'm sure the two combatants are hunkering down in their analysis.
I'm way to patzerish too know who is doing better or what have you (and we're not allowed to discuss that, of course), but I'm most definitely going to be a spectator.
Rael wrote:
Weren't you the guy that had a hissy fit about Erik and the site?
lol seriously, as if cc wasnt stressful enough as it is, the importance of this game has reached epic proportions, at least for atomichicken. One slip, and he may have to lie low for a bit.
atomichicken wrote:
jazzTUNE wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
jazzTUNE wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
Oh, and by the way rich isn't it about time you deleted your false fide rating already. You know it's against chess.com rules to give false information about yourself.
Atomichicken, you're a complete idiot. I fully analyzed your game with Rich, and you are certainly not winning. You also have made more novice level mistakes than Rich.
You putting down other players because you can't handle the fact that you're a beginner level chess player, is laughable, and sad.
Everything you said about Rich, is actually what you're saying to your own sad self.
lol Well I thought rich's stupidity couldn't be rivaled, but it looks like someone has come along to take away his crown.
If you have analyzed the game and come to that conclusion then it's you who is the novice, not me. Anyone who is past beginner should be able to see that my play has so far been far superior to Rich's. Once I have established a rating on this site I WILL be over 2000, I'm certain of that. And you're calling me a beginner without any backing to your argument, that's just a joke. I am literally rolling on the floor laughing this time.
Dear Ding Dong,
I had written 100% backing of my "argument" (although, there really is no argument), but chess.com staff deleted it. (They said it was because I can’t publish my detailed analyses of a game currently in play.)
I say this to you; you’re playing like a beginner in that game against Rich. Sorry, but you’re going to have to accept it, and stop putting down others because of your chess insecurities.
You are either trolling, or that USCF rating of yours isn't real either. If you really think that I'm playing like a beginner then it's actually you who is the beginner, as only beginners can possibly come to that conclusion. I think the guy with the real chess insecurities here is the one calling a 2000+ player a "beginner". You and Rich of course.
Mr. Atomichicken;
Initially I agreed with you on this thread in your response to Rich, but truth be told your playing of the game has not been mind blowing or even that great. Since I cannot comment openly about the game I will say that both players have made "mistakes" but no blunders in the game. You each have given up small advantages to the other. I believe you have made more "better" moves than Rich, by no means are you currently superior and your past moves have shown a tendency to blow the lead. This is no slight against you since I too blow games and leads. We all blunder and make mistakes which is why we play online for kicks and not OTB for money or fame. In the end, when it's all said and done, please remember the words you posted under your own profile,
"Don't let your victories go to your head, or your failiors(sic) to your heart."
By the way, I agree with the belief that the chess.com analysis is not perfect, polite or correct. With that said, it's fun, amusing at times and good for some personal analysis, even if just to prove it wrong.
Oh, and by the way rich isn't it about time you deleted your false fide rating already. You know it's against chess.com rules to give false information about yourself.