Ethereal 12 (3400) loses to God! (Most Amazing Game I've Seen)

[mirek]

What do you regard as negativity and pointless remarks? Pointing out the fact of the game's blunders? How is that negativity? That's just fact. Do you think the actual moves and their evaluation are pointless? It's telling that all the oversensitive admirers of this game don't want to talk about actual chess moves in the game.

All of that has been already addressed by BrendanJNorman, I am afraid I can not add anything substantially more relevant to it. Just re-read his posts with an opened mind.
- Best

[Collingwood]

All of that has been already addressed by BrendanJNorman, I am afraid I can not add anything substantially more relevant to it. Just re-read his posts with an opened mind.

He didn't say anything. He just attacked those who pointed out blunders. In all his posts, there has been zero discussion of any chess moves.

[chrisw]

All of that has been already addressed by BrendanJNorman, I am afraid I can not add anything substantially more relevant to it. Just re-read his posts with an opened mind.

He didn't say anything. He just attacked those who pointed out blunders. In all his posts, there has been zero discussion of any chess moves.

Brendan sees the wood, lots of the others only see the trees. Brendan is simply thinking at a way higher level and knows what is to be learnt and understood from this game is not to be found by atomising it into separate moves.

[Collingwood]

Brendan sees the wood, lots of the others only see the trees. Brendan is simply thinking at a way higher level and knows what is to be learnt and understood from this game is not to be found by atomising it into separate moves.

He refuses to see the details that disprove his sweeping claims. That's not higher level thinking; it's just denial.

Also, some of his attacks on those he disagrees with don't even make sense.

[MonteCarlo]

It seems to me both "sides" (such as there are sides) have fair points.

On the one hand, as a chess player, the sacrifice of the queen is a beautiful idea and a nice try to hold the position.

On the other hand, it seems clear it would have fallen short against stronger play at several points.

I don't think these two things conflict with each other. The sentence "That's a beautiful idea, but it doesn't quite work." seems perfectly coherent to me.

Just my $0.02

[chrisw]

Brendan sees the wood, lots of the others only see the trees. Brendan is simply thinking at a way higher level and knows what is to be learnt and understood from this game is not to be found by atomising it into separate moves.

He refuses to see the details that disprove his sweeping claims. That's not higher level thinking; it's just denial.

Also, some of his attacks on those he disagrees with don't even make sense.

I did just write a long text supporting and explaining Brendan, but decided not to press Enter on it. I sense there is no fruitful dialog to be had here in this thread.

[BrendanJNorman]

Witness this amazing game.

Truly amazing, thanks for sharing! I think kingscrusher would love to make a video from this game.
PS: I can't believe the amount of negativity and pointless remarks you had to face just by sharing this game Not sure if it proves any comfort but I think you've dealt with the shitstorm very well and I was 100% on your side all the time.

You're welcome. I'm glad you enjoyed the game as much as I did. I actually made a video about it yesterday.

Of course, I didn't go into great length to drill down into atomic levels about so-called "blunders" or whatever...just pointing out what is going on, various features (possibly Nf5 sac at some point) etc.

I appreciate your support too. Some of these guys use powerful hardware/engines to overcompensate for something much in the way an old man trying to be youthful might buy a sports car.

The rest of us are merely chess fans who appreciate a beautiful game when it arises.

I guess a fruit bowl would be boring if it only had apples.

[BrendanJNorman]

It seems to me both "sides" (such as there are sides) have fair points.

On the one hand, as a chess player, the sacrifice of the queen is a beautiful idea and a nice try to hold the position.

On the other hand, it seems clear it would have fallen short against stronger play at several points.

I don't think these two things conflict with each other. The sentence "That's a beautiful idea, but it doesn't quite work." seems perfectly coherent to me.

Just my $0.02

Of course, both sides have "points", but the point I am making is this:

NEVER did I claim that this game was perfect, do you know why? Perfect games end in a draw.

I claimed it was "amazing" that lc0 was able to pull off such a beautiful idea, and I persist with this claim.

These guys are just creating noise where no noise is necessary...it is a reflection on them, not the game itself.

[BrendanJNorman]

Also, some of his attacks on those he disagrees with don't even make sense.

Attacks?

When I respond to being called ignorant, clueless and accused of "ranting" (by a few morons, known for being combative) - all for merely sharing a beautiful game- these responses of mine are called "attacks"?

In a schoolyard incident when the nerd resists his beating (instead of cowering, sniveling and covering up) and somehow bloodies the bullies' nose, we can be sure you'd report to the principal that said nerd had "attacked" the bully too, huh?

The point is that you never said a word about those who first insulted me, only about my response.

There are 4 possibilities for this.

1. You didn't read the thread properly and responded out of ignorance.

2. You have a warped self of morality.

3. You play favorites, and morality is secondary.

4. You empathize with bullies and trolls.

Which is it?

[BrendanJNorman]

Brendan sees the wood, lots of the others only see the trees. Brendan is simply thinking at a way higher level and knows what is to be learnt and understood from this game is not to be found by atomising it into separate moves.

He refuses to see the details that disprove his sweeping claims. That's not higher level thinking; it's just denial.

Also, some of his attacks on those he disagrees with don't even make sense.

I did just write a long text supporting and explaining Brendan, but decided not to press Enter on it. I sense there is no fruitful dialog to be had here in this thread.

Yeah Chris, there's no need, although I appreciate your thoughts.

I am the type of guy who likes to analyze people's motivations (is it my inner INFJ? ), and it seems to me that those who "atomise games it into separate moves" (and rubbish those who don't) instead of seeing the bigger picture/higher value, they are generally not very confident in their own chess, even somewhat insecure perhaps.

So since they are unable to break down the game in clear, everyday chess terms....

Since they actually have no IDEA what they are actually SEEING when the engine is switched off...

They learn to rely on it for everything, they use it as metaphorical life-support for their chess hobby.

These were the guys who, as patzers, gathered at the back of the crowd as the stronger players in the club were analyzing and couldn't follow what they were seeing....sometimes point out a knight fork which others had glazed over and rejected internally several moves ago....only for it to be quickly rejected before the stronger players move on with their analysis - much to the patzer's embarrassment.

Now that they can carry a GM around in their pocket, they still don't understand the moves, but they feel uniquely powerful and like they are able to engage with those "arrogant" stronger players now.

This is what we are seeing in this thread.