A few weeks ago, I mentioned that my current chess goal was to reach a 2300 rating on chess24.com, but when this was achieved, I remarked that 2500 was a realistic target.
Somebody, as is usual on this forum, attacked me, twisted my words (mentioned my FIDE rating, which is irrelevant when talking about a goal for an online rating) and labelled me a liar, saying that I was exaggerating my chess ability.
Instead of saying "hmm that seems a bit high - good luck!", as a normal person would - he called me a liar, twisted my words (changing topic of discussion from online rating to FIDE rating) and mocked me. Standard TalkChess practice.
Nevertheless, and regardless of what cynics say, within a few more games, I hit my target.
How does this relate to computer chess?
I have improved my chess by a few hundred points in the last few years, despite not playing a tournament since 2010, all as a direct result of only training with engines.
This is all as a result of three things.
- Playing against them (this results in a strong law of contrast coming into effect when you return to playing humans - in effect, the human "feels" weaker.)
- Analyzing their games played in my openings (from deliberately created theme tournaments)
- Creating personalities of all playing styles (mostly with Rodent) and seeing how strong a given personality can become, no matter how extreme the settings are.
A direct result of all of this has been a wide broadening of my knowledge of the many varied ways of handling positions, that previously, I'd thought could only be played in a specific way.
Especially ways that a position, even a quiet one, can quickly be turned dynamic in a way that human players quickly drown in.
Of course, the next step is to learn some reliable openings, and enter some LTC tournaments again.
When I have the time.
P.S Here is a game from this morning, where, I blundered my queen in the opening by playing quickly "without looking" - and when the splash of cold water that was the queen loss took effect, I focussed.
The tactical onslaught that came from my opponent's only real blunder, could well have been played by one of my engine "personalities".
[pgn][Event "chess24 online game | blitz"]
[Site "chess24.com"]
[Date "2018.02.24"]
[Round "?"]
[White "ChessnCognac"]
[Black "ArturoMarnCorresa"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackCountry "es"]
[BlackElo "2308"]
[ECO "A80"]
[Time "01:03:35"]
[TimeControl "300"]
[WhiteCountry "au"]
[WhiteElo "2486"]
1.d4 f5 2.g4 { [%clk 0:04:57] } 2...fxg4 { [%clk 0:04:56] } 3.h3 { [%clk 0:04:55] } 3...d6 { [%clk 0:04:54] } 4.e4 { [%clk 0:04:50] } 4...c6 { [%clk 0:04:51] } 5.hxg4 { [%clk 0:04:47] } 5...Nf6 { [%clk 0:04:47] } 6.f3 { [%clk 0:04:43] } 6...e5 { [%clk 0:04:43] } 7.g5 { [%clk 0:04:38] } 7...Nfd7 { [%clk 0:04:29] } 8.f4 { [%clk 0:04:09] } 8...exd4 { [%clk 0:04:08] } 9.Qxd4 { [%clk 0:04:01] } 9...Qb6 { [%clk 0:04:06] } 10.Qc3 { [%clk 0:03:50] } 10...d5 { [%clk 0:04:01] } 11.Be2 { [%clk 0:03:40] } 11...Bb4 { [%clk 0:03:58] } 12.Nd2 { [%clk 0:03:24] } 12...Bxc3 { [%clk 0:03:57] } 13.bxc3 { [%clk 0:03:22] } 13...Nc5 { [%clk 0:03:52] } 14.Ngf3 { [%clk 0:02:57] } 14...dxe4 { [%clk 0:03:47] } 15.Ne5 { [%clk 0:02:54] } 15...Bf5 { [%clk 0:03:45] } 16.Ndc4 { [%clk 0:02:49] } 16...Qd8 { [%clk 0:03:36] } 17.Ba3 { [%clk 0:02:42] } 17...Nbd7 { [%clk 0:03:33] } 18.Nd6+ { [%clk 0:02:39] } 18...Kf8 { [%clk 0:03:17] } 19.Nxf5 { [%clk 0:02:35] } 19...b6 { [%clk 0:03:12] } 20.Ng6+ { [%clk 0:02:28] } 20...Kf7 { [%clk 0:02:56] } 21.Bc4+ { [%clk 0:01:55] } 21...Kxg6 { [%clk 0:02:52] } 22.Nh4+ { [%clk 0:01:52] } 22...Kh5 { [%clk 0:02:51] } 23.Be2# { [%clk 0:01:49] } 1-0[/pgn]
The opponent is over 2300 by the way.
2500! Not such an exaggeration. And how computer chess helps
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 2526
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:43 am
- Full name: Brendan J Norman
-
- Posts: 2283
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:13 am
Re: 2500! Not such an exaggeration. And how computer chess h
Congratz to you Brendan! The best way to beat back those pesky detractors.BrendanJNorman wrote:A few weeks ago, I mentioned that my current chess goal was to reach a 2300 rating on chess24.com, but when this was achieved, I remarked that 2500 was a realistic target.
Somebody, as is usual on this forum, attacked me, twisted my words (mentioned my FIDE rating, which is irrelevant when talking about a goal for an online rating) and labelled me a liar, saying that I was exaggerating my chess ability.
Instead of saying "hmm that seems a bit high - good luck!", as a normal person would - he called me a liar, twisted my words (changing topic of discussion from online rating to FIDE rating) and mocked me. Standard TalkChess practice.
Nevertheless, and regardless of what cynics say, within a few more games, I hit my target.
How does this relate to computer chess?
I have improved my chess by a few hundred points in the last few years, despite not playing a tournament since 2010, all as a direct result of only training with engines.
This is all as a result of three things.
- Playing against them (this results in a strong law of contrast coming into effect when you return to playing humans - in effect, the human "feels" weaker.)
- Analyzing their games played in my openings (from deliberately created theme tournaments)
- Creating personalities of all playing styles (mostly with Rodent) and seeing how strong a given personality can become, no matter how extreme the settings are.
A direct result of all of this has been a wide broadening of my knowledge of the many varied ways of handling positions, that previously, I'd thought could only be played in a specific way.
Especially ways that a position, even a quiet one, can quickly be turned dynamic in a way that human players quickly drown in.
Of course, the next step is to learn some reliable openings, and enter some LTC tournaments again.
When I have the time.
P.S Here is a game from this morning, where, I blundered my queen in the opening by playing quickly "without looking" - and when the splash of cold water that was the queen loss took effect, I focussed.
The tactical onslaught that came from my opponent's only real blunder, could well have been played by one of my engine "personalities".
[pgn][Event "chess24 online game | blitz"]
[Site "chess24.com"]
[Date "2018.02.24"]
[Round "?"]
[White "ChessnCognac"]
[Black "ArturoMarnCorresa"]
[Result "1-0"]
[BlackCountry "es"]
[BlackElo "2308"]
[ECO "A80"]
[Time "01:03:35"]
[TimeControl "300"]
[WhiteCountry "au"]
[WhiteElo "2486"]
1.d4 f5 2.g4 { [%clk 0:04:57] } 2...fxg4 { [%clk 0:04:56] } 3.h3 { [%clk 0:04:55] } 3...d6 { [%clk 0:04:54] } 4.e4 { [%clk 0:04:50] } 4...c6 { [%clk 0:04:51] } 5.hxg4 { [%clk 0:04:47] } 5...Nf6 { [%clk 0:04:47] } 6.f3 { [%clk 0:04:43] } 6...e5 { [%clk 0:04:43] } 7.g5 { [%clk 0:04:38] } 7...Nfd7 { [%clk 0:04:29] } 8.f4 { [%clk 0:04:09] } 8...exd4 { [%clk 0:04:08] } 9.Qxd4 { [%clk 0:04:01] } 9...Qb6 { [%clk 0:04:06] } 10.Qc3 { [%clk 0:03:50] } 10...d5 { [%clk 0:04:01] } 11.Be2 { [%clk 0:03:40] } 11...Bb4 { [%clk 0:03:58] } 12.Nd2 { [%clk 0:03:24] } 12...Bxc3 { [%clk 0:03:57] } 13.bxc3 { [%clk 0:03:22] } 13...Nc5 { [%clk 0:03:52] } 14.Ngf3 { [%clk 0:02:57] } 14...dxe4 { [%clk 0:03:47] } 15.Ne5 { [%clk 0:02:54] } 15...Bf5 { [%clk 0:03:45] } 16.Ndc4 { [%clk 0:02:49] } 16...Qd8 { [%clk 0:03:36] } 17.Ba3 { [%clk 0:02:42] } 17...Nbd7 { [%clk 0:03:33] } 18.Nd6+ { [%clk 0:02:39] } 18...Kf8 { [%clk 0:03:17] } 19.Nxf5 { [%clk 0:02:35] } 19...b6 { [%clk 0:03:12] } 20.Ng6+ { [%clk 0:02:28] } 20...Kf7 { [%clk 0:02:56] } 21.Bc4+ { [%clk 0:01:55] } 21...Kxg6 { [%clk 0:02:52] } 22.Nh4+ { [%clk 0:01:52] } 22...Kh5 { [%clk 0:02:51] } 23.Be2# { [%clk 0:01:49] } 1-0[/pgn]
The opponent is over 2300 by the way.
Pls check out the latest Schooner and Winter engines when you get a chance - some fresh 'blood' on the horizon. I've only recently found out about how well Schooner plays here: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 84&t=66599
I might post some sample games over the weekend or whenever I have more time.
Cheers,
CL
-
- Posts: 1600
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:48 am
Re: 2500! Not such an exaggeration. And how computer chess h
No one called you a liar.BrendanJNorman wrote:
There was a question as to how the chess24 rating could be compared to the FIDE rating.
Perhaps a normal joke among Spaniards that you didn't understand, apologize if you were so offended to say Grand Master. I apologize.
My congratulations, I think it's a good achievement.
On the other hand, if it seems that the chess24 classification is a little inflated,
don't you think?
-
- Posts: 2526
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:43 am
- Full name: Brendan J Norman
Re: 2500! Not such an exaggeration. And how computer chess h
Thanks Carl.carldaman wrote: Pls check out the latest Schooner and Winter engines when you get a chance - some fresh 'blood' on the horizon. I've only recently found out about how well Schooner plays here: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 84&t=66599
I might post some sample games over the weekend or whenever I have more time.
Cheers,
CL
Yes, I seen your post and downloaded Schooner.
It really is an excellent engine, and I'd already experimented with Winter as well and like it also.
When I get time, I'll review both for my site.
Very interesting styles, both of them!
-
- Posts: 7216
- Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:31 am
Re: 2500! Not such an exaggeration. And how computer chess h
I didn't know you read Lyudmil's book.
-
- Posts: 2526
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:43 am
- Full name: Brendan J Norman
Re: 2500! Not such an exaggeration. And how computer chess h
Why can't you be a man and just say "Sorry, I was wrong" instead of constantly altering what your original argument was.velmarin wrote:
No one called you a liar.
On the other hand, if it seems that the chess24 classification is a little inflated,
don't you think?
What truly happened was this (direct quotes from the thread):
1. I told Uly the following:
2. He asked:I'm now at 2450 Elo on chess24...making progress.
3. I responded:Do you have any idea about how Chess24 rating compares to FIDE
4. You entered and starting making jokes, and when confronted, you feigned innocence and some sort of moral outrage, saying:It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that chess24 is about 200 points higher than chess.com, so ideally, I should be able to crack 2500+ on chess24 assuming a good internet connection and sober play
As we can see...I don't understand your attacks, I already gave you some private information.
... if Brendam (sic) claims to be a 2500 ELO, he could be a Grand Master.....
This is not insulting... Oh, my God.
1. Yes, I DID mention that chess24 ratings are inflated, you are not winning any contests by pointing this out.
2. No I NEVER claimed to be 2500 Elo, nor a GM, this was your twisting of my words to discredit me.
Now be a man and admit to the truth of the matter, only a child would keep making excuses.
I like your Bouquet engine, but not your disingenuous way of handing interpersonal communication. One is excellent, one needs improving.
Everything I ever (truly) claimed with regards to ratings and playing strength, has been proven as sincere - everything the TalkChess trolls have tried to throw at me has missed by a mile.
What type of person would you like to be?
A mean-spirited troll, or a nice guy who programs an even nicer engine?
BTW... My estimation of the chess24 inflation is almost completely spot on. chess.com and ICC are about the same, while chess24 is about 200 points higher.
Last edited by BrendanJNorman on Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 2526
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:43 am
- Full name: Brendan J Norman
Re: 2500! Not such an exaggeration. And how computer chess h
Please enlighten us, what are you truly trying to say here?Henk wrote:I didn't know you read Lyudmil's book.
Don't be vague.
-
- Posts: 565
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:03 pm
Re: 2500! Not such an exaggeration. And how computer chess h
I think blitz ratings are always inflated to over 3000 because of low percentage of draws. It's the same with Go, where top players have ~3500. It's very rare to have a draw in Go (same nr. of stones for each side at the end).
Probably Kai can confirm this
And of course, congratz on an achievement. Always good to see efforts pay off.
Probably Kai can confirm this
And of course, congratz on an achievement. Always good to see efforts pay off.
-
- Posts: 1600
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:48 am
Re: 2500! Not such an exaggeration. And how computer chess h
I think what I've written is written.BrendanJNorman wrote:
Four words deserve your replica of an entire letter.
Certainly my intelligence is not enough to dialogue with you.
Don't worry, this kid's giving up the thread.
-
- Posts: 2526
- Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:43 am
- Full name: Brendan J Norman
Re: 2500! Not such an exaggeration. And how computer chess h
Yep, indeed, blitz ratings always stack on at least a couple hundred, but I had no idea it was related to number of draws. Makes sense though.whereagles wrote:I think blitz ratings are always inflated to over 3000 because of low percentage of draws. It's the same with Go, where top players have ~3500. It's very rare to have a draw in Go (same nr. of stones for each side at the end).
Most likely, the guy is a genius.whereagles wrote:Probably Kai can confirm this
Thanks, I'll see if I can keep pushing it above 2500>>>whereagles wrote:And of course, congratz on an achievement. Always good to see efforts pay off.