Winning expectancy
CCamp81318
My 83% winning expectancy for one stone is quoted from the AGA's explanation of
their rating system. They state that a one stone difference equates to an 83%
winning expectancy while a two stone difference equates to a 97% winning
expectancy. 'tisn't something that I made up. Maybe grades are closer together
in Europe?
CTCampbell
Hans-Georg Michna
wrote:
CT,
no, the grade distance is one stone everywhere, but people shirk
the missing komi problem with handicap stones.
Anyway, I cannot believe this. Do you have a Web address or some
such to allow me to read the original? As far as I can remember
83% is way out of line for just a difference of just one
handicap stone.
Hans-Georg
--
No mail, please.
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
The Europe grade information apparently comes from data,
the AGA information is based on a theoretical model:
http://www.usgo.org/resources/downloads/aga-rating.pdf
Unfortunately, no model survives contact with the data:-)
A Statistican Writes:
=====================
A quick look at the above file suggests the model might be improved
[e.g., when I looked at BCF chess ratings many years ago,
a logistic distribution fit much better than a normal].
Also the description is rather garbled ["Bayesian likelihood" etc.]
--
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 2476 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept http://www.ewartshaw.co.uk
3 ((4&({*.(=+/))++/=3:)@([:,/0&,^:(i.3)@|:"2^:2))&.>@]^:(i.@[) <#:3 6 2
-
> camp...@aol.com (CCamp81318) writes:
>> My 83% winning expectancy for one stone is quoted from the
>> AGA's explanation of their rating system. They state that a one
>> stone difference equates to an 83% winning expectancy while
>> a two stone difference equates to a 97% winning expectancy.
>> 'tisn't something that I made up. Maybe grades are closer
>> together in Europe?
An 83% seems to correspond to 2/3 = 1- 1/3 winning expectancy.
They quite possibly -inferred- that 8/9 = 1- (1/3)^2 is appropriate
for a two stone difference, thus the 1/2 * 1/9 = 1/18 = ~0.0555..
should be the amount to subtract from 1.0 to yield ~94%, not 97% ?
Yet for present purposes, its 97% is a result from "px_sigma" set
to 104: "second-order" extrapolations do -not- fit data very well.
Using " 1- ((1/3)^e)/2 " = ~0.974764... seems to approach 97% ?
One -could- postulate " 1- ((1/3)^(n*e))/2 " for "n" handicaps,
with "even games" called "0.5 handicap" which offers instead
an 88% winning chance when there is no _komi_, or if _komi_
is reversed when it need not be? Perhaps much more interesting
results are available when using simply " 1 - ((1/2)^(n*e)) " here
showing the yields of ~84.8%, ~97.69%, ~99.649% respectively
for 1, 2, 3 ... handicaps. The "1/2 handicap game" then offers
an expectation of ~61% chances, only slightly higher than typo
percolation constants for some square -lattice- arrangement(s).
The choice for "natural logarithm" stems from an observation
in measure theory that "base e" provides -maximal- coverage.
That -derived- _komi_ value of "361/47 - 1" is "accessible" for
the special programmable calculators, converging on ~6.68..
( Ref: those prior threads on "Re: Strength of random play " )
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk () wrote:
> The Europe grade information apparently comes from data,
> the AGA information is based on a theoretical model:
> http://www.usgo.org/resources/downloads/aga-rating.pdf
>
> Unfortunately, no model survives contact with the data:-)
Yes: rather presumptuous as "a shot in the dark" to speculate on
possible alignments with standard deviations. That document has
"survived" since 7/28/90, despite attempts at revision/modification.
And yes: Paul Matthews states on its second page "...working
backward from this assumption." In order to consider goodness
of fit, eveybody needs to agree on "how many ranks there are"
and where endpoints of the ranking scale(s) are anchored. An
understanding of "skewness in ranks" high or low can introduce
further complications. Player preferences for "responsiveness"
on rank changes vs. "conservative stability" can yield additional
points for contention. The notion of "one size fits all" may, from
the outset, be rejected. Alternatively some globalist rank monger
may seek to extend -exacting- rank-rank correlations all the way
through systems into _kyu_ play and an anchor point for random.
Let's review "the data" nevertheless: here one obtains suspect
findings from questionable tournament conditions among large
numbers of approximately guessing intermediate players. The
notion that "the data" ought be governing, rather than theory, is
itself one of the discussion topics for -serious- posters for this
extraordinarily fascinating & interesting thread preoccupation.
A.Einstein, for example, when confronted with preliminary data
not supportive of relativity, or queried on the point concerning
which should be doubtful, replied like "...too bad for the facts."
> A Statistican Writes:
> =====================
> A quick look at the above file suggests the model might be improved
> [e.g., when I looked at BCF chess ratings many years ago,
> a logistic distribution fit much better than a normal].
Logistic distributions are -typical- for static phenomena, or
dynamic phenomena reduced to abstracting theoretical stasis.
Players have requested "responsiveness" in rank/ratings models
and not merely of the kind that formulate -flattened- trajectories.
In other words, the -inaccuracy- of a ratings system which burps
slightly up or down, allows players "minute-by-minute" variation.
As Paul Matthews says on page 4: "It will never be perfect, and
work continues," particularly the "better tournament practices to
improve data integrity." Topological divergences between Chess
and Go could just as well argue for distinct differences in systems.
> Also the description is rather garbled ["Bayesian likelihood" etc.]
An irony perhaps missed by many posters to this newsgroup.
This is based upon the observation that "players are probably
about the strength they say they are." Now players can also be
expected to overstate or to understate, each with an associated
probability and -itemized- for past, present, and future histories.
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------------
Summer pics: A mettle detector for thesps
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1940&u=/variety/20040722/va_fi_ne/summer_pics__a_mettle_detector_for&printer=1
----------------------------------------------------------------
H3x
> Anyway, I cannot believe this. Do you have a Web address or some
> such to allow me to read the original? As far as I can remember
> 83% is way out of line for just a difference of just one
> handicap stone.
Here you "go". Look at the end of the second page, under the header:
Parameter Values
http://www.usgo.org/resources/downloads/aga-rating.pdf
H3x
Fu, Ren-Li
AFAIK winning expectancy is about 65% for one stone, 85% for two, 95% for
three.
-frl
dan
From this information, and the table on the European Ratings Website
(http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/gor.html) , I deduce your rank is
about 12 kyu.
--
Remove REDS to achieve successful communication
Hans-Georg Michna
>Here you "go". Look at the end of the second page, under the header:
>Parameter Values
>
>http://www.usgo.org/resources/downloads/aga-rating.pdf
H3x,
thank you very much!
My answer is obvious---the parameters are way wrong. They must
have pulled them out of a hat.
Note that they describe a rating system, not the real world.
I have read some statistics from tournament games some time ago,
but forgot the source. I found another source though, at
http://senseis.xmp.net/?KGSRatingMath. The page seems to be
inconsistent (after my very superficial reading), in that it
mentions 63% in one place and 69% in another, but both figures
confirm my statement that 83% is way out of kilter.
Hans-Georg
p.s. Somebody mentioned my old source later in this thread. It
is http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/gor.html, Statistics on
Even Games.
This table shows something I conveniently forgot, namely that
the winning probability depends a lot on the players' absolute
strenghts. Once you think about it, it becomes fairly obvious
too. Without handicap a 3d can beat a 1d a lot more often than a
20k can beat a 22k. Thus the percentage figures we're bandying
about have no real meaning anyway, without also mentioning the
absolute strength. And thus the AGA 83% figure for a one
handicap stone discrepancy begins to make sense again, namely
for very high-dan players.
This, in turn, means that a good rating system cannot simply
treat all players alike, reckoning from their winning
probabilities. If a rating system tries to do that, the low kyu
players will have to win a thousand games before they rise in
rank. But since their strength changes quickly, the rating
system has to allow them to quickly rise or sink in rank, while
still keeping their absolute ratings reasonably in balance in
relation to stronger players, particularly the anchors.
I think the rating systems we're seeing today on KGS and IGS
have to be improved to fulfill these demands. They're not quite
cutting it at present.
Hans-Georg Michna
wrote:
>AFAIK winning expectancy is about 65% for one stone, 85% for two, 95% for
>three.
Ren-Li,
yes, that coincides with what I remember.
But as I wrote in my previous message, these numbers depend on
players' ranks, so stating them just like that is wrong anyway.
Fu, Ren-Li
>> AFAIK winning expectancy is about 65% for one stone, 85% for two, 95% for
>> three.
>>
>> -frl
>
> From this information, and the table on the European Ratings Website
> (http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/gor.html) , I deduce your rank is
> about 12 kyu.
How is that possible? winning 18 out of 21 is 85% -- i should have been
promoted to 3 dan. Currently my winning percentage is about 75-80% or so,
over the last 20 or more games. So I should be 2 dan now (but of course --
i'm not).
If I'm 12 kyu what are you.. 20 kyu?
-frl
-
>>> AFAIK winning expectancy is about 65% for one stone,
>>> 85% for two, 95% for three.
> dan wrote:
>> From this information, and the table on the European Ratings Website
>> (http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/gor.html) , I deduce your rank is
>> about 12 kyu.
The "Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> How is that possible? winning 18 out of 21 is 85% --
No, winning 17 out of 20 is 85%. Your homework is to try again.
> i should have been promoted to 3 dan. Currently my winning
> percentage is about 75-80% or so, over the last 20 or more games.
> So I should be 2 dan now
Winning percentage alone is not what promotes you. Your
results were assessed against opponent performances as well.
> (but of course -- i'm not).
Yes, of course you're not: your math skills are atrocious.
> If I'm 12 kyu what are you.. 20 kyu?
A cat may look at a queen. Some 20 kyus do quite well at
the firing range, especially when substituing flesh for paper targets.
- regards
- jb
----------------------------------------------------------------
Japanese Council Approves Human Cloning...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=624&ncid=753&e=2&u=/ap/20040723/ap_on_sc/japan_cloning
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fu, Ren-Li
> The "Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> How is that possible? winning 18 out of 21 is 85% --
>
>
> No, winning 17 out of 20 is 85%. Your homework is to try again.
What's the difference between someone who wins 17 out of 20 and someone who
wins 18 out of 21? Essentially this, if the first is promoted, so will the
second be (both achieve 85% win rate).
Go ahead, tell me how much 1800 over 21 is.
>> i should have been promoted to 3 dan. Currently my winning
>> percentage is about 75-80% or so, over the last 20 or more games.
>> So I should be 2 dan now
>
> Winning percentage alone is not what promotes you. Your
> results were assessed against opponent performances as well.
Even if all my opponents were over-rated by one stone, an 85% win percentage
still means you would be promoted by one stone yourself.
>> (but of course -- i'm not).
>
> Yes, of course you're not: your math skills are atrocious.
At least they're better than your debating skills.
>> If I'm 12 kyu what are you.. 20 kyu?
>
>
> A cat may look at a queen.
What's this? Authority by way of inferiority? Ridiculous. Not in this case,
JB.
-frl
Michael Alford
-
>> The "Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>> How is that possible? winning 18 out of 21 is 85% --
> "-" wrote:
>> No, winning 17 out of 20 is 85%. Your homework is to try again.
The "Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> What's the difference between someone who wins 17 out of 20
> and someone who wins 18 out of 21? Essentially this, if the first
> is promoted, so will the second be (both achieve 85% win rate).
Because 18 wins out of 21 is closer to 86% than to 85%.
It does not follow that win/loss percentage is necessarily going
to be correlated with promotion chances. Whether on KGS or IGS
players are rated/ranked according to Maximum Entropy Algorithm.
That Algorithm examines "the -value- of won games" by evaluating
also the relative strength of one's opponents.
> Go ahead, tell me how much 1800 over 21 is.
I said that you had "homework" to do. You will not graduate
from this course unless you turn in your "homework" assignment.
>>> i should have been promoted to 3 dan. Currently my winning
>>> percentage is about 75-80% or so, over the last 20 or more games.
>>> So I should be 2 dan now
>> Winning percentage alone is not what promotes you. Your
>> results were assessed against opponent performances as well.
> Even if all my opponents were over-rated by one stone, an 85% win
> percentage still means you would be promoted by one stone yourself.
Half of your win percentage will actually be ascribed to the loss
percentage for those opponents who become over-rated by two stones.
>>> (but of course -- i'm not).
>> Yes, of course you're not: your math skills are atrocious.
> At least they're better than your debating skills.
I don't need to win a debate. I am a walking billboard, wearing
a sign that says "I just want to get with the facts, and only the facts."
>>> If I'm 12 kyu what are you.. 20 kyu?
>> A cat may look at a queen.
> What's this? Authority by way of inferiority? Ridiculous. Not in this case,
Maybe you'd prefer the -apropros- scriptural reference:
Isaiah 11:6
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall
lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the
fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."
- regards
- jb
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mali calls for help to fight locust swarms...
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004072412110002895726&dt=20040724121100&w=RTR&coview=
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fu, Ren-Li
> Fu, Ren-Li wrote:
>> Go ahead, tell me how much 1800 over 21 is.
>
> I said that you had "homework" to do. You will not graduate
> from this course unless you turn in your "homework" assignment.
Are you afraid to answer my question? How much is 1800 over 21?
> Maybe you'd prefer the -apropros- scriptural reference:
>
> Isaiah 11:6
> "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall
> lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the
> fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."
Sorry JB, but I was not aware the second coming had come to pass. Therefore
I repeat: not in this case. Argument by inferiority is about the most
pathetic case you could make, are you aware of that?
-frl
Fu, Ren-Li
> http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/crotchlessleatherwheelchairmusic.htm
Come on malf, you're just mad because you want to be respected by other Go
players, but don't really want to improve. So you attack me in this way to
try and gain respect from your "peers" on IGS. I've seen this before, as
you point out above.
It looks worse for you because I am respected for my efforts in spreading
go. Why would you want to launch such a pathetic attach on such a nice guy
malf? You look really bad! You're just like someone who wants to attack
those in power to steal that power for themselves. But in your case I doubt
you would know what to do with it, or how to maintain it.
I mean how else can I explain it? You're so nice in chat on IGS, but never
accept my game offer. Then you run your mouth here. I thought you were a
better go player that that.
-frl
-
>> Fu, Ren-Li wrote:
>>> Go ahead, tell me how much 1800 over 21 is.
> "-" wrote:
>> I said that you had "homework" to do. You will not graduate
>> from this course unless you turn in your "homework" assignment.
The "Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Are you afraid to answer my question? How much is 1800 over 21?
I had informed you of your error; perhaps that's a clue that I had
already conducted the -laborious- calculation that you are avoiding.
Then you had misattributed to "Rick Adams" who is not on this thread.
>> Maybe you'd prefer the -apropros- scriptural reference:
>>
>> Isaiah 11:6
>> "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall
>> lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the
>> fatling together; and a little child shall lead them."
> Sorry JB, but I was not aware the second coming had come to pass.
Nope, Isaiah was prescient about the first coming, an event
of which perhaps you have not yet taken sufficient inventory.
You won't get far by rudely insulting the religions of other people.
> Therefore I repeat: not in this case. Argument by inferiority is about
> the most pathetic case you could make, are you aware of that?
"Much use is made of what is not there." -- Lao Tzu
Additionally, you could -review- the use of _aji_ stones, for your
edification. Furthermore, there's a "jury out there" who shall decide.
Fortunately, the standards for judgment were not established by you.
- regards
- jb
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Alford wrote:
>> http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/crotchlessleatherwheelchairmusic.htm
"Fu, Ren-Li" <fr...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Come on malf, you're just mad because you want to be respected
> by other Go players, but don't really want to improve.
Not true. Mr. Alford has been taking lessons from Cornel Burzo.
> So you attack me in this way to try and gain respect from your "peers"
> on IGS. I've seen this before, as you point out above.
Mr. Alford is not attacking you. That website was put together by
your former denizens of newsgroup nemesis. Not "related to" r.g.g.
Among Mr. Alford's motives is not that of trying to gain respect. Mike
is retired: has already contributed his fill of respectful obligations.
> It looks worse for you because I am respected for my efforts in
> spreading go.
You have not been "spreading go." You've been tooting your own horn.
> Why would you want to launch such a pathetic attach on such a
> nice guy malf?
I suggest that you once again review definitions for "nice" (appended).
> You look really bad! You're just like someone who wants to attack
> those in power to steal that power for themselves. But in your case
> I doubt you would know what to do with it, or how to maintain it.
So you're "in power" under your pretext of fictitious "attacks" ?
> I mean how else can I explain it? You're so nice in chat on IGS,
> but never accept my game offer. Then you run your mouth here.
> I thought you were a better go player that that.
Not sure if you are really *-YOU-* when you're not at IGS.
When you -are- at IGS then not sure if you're not a proxy,
remote, or IP# spoof.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
==============
nice, n. -( Oxford English Dictionary )-
Obs.
1. A foolish or simple person; a fool.
2. With the.
a. Dissolute or wicked people as a class. Also: fastidious
people. In quot. c1400 prob.: a wicked person.
b. That which is nice. rare.
==============
Nice, n.
More fully Nice biscuit. A thin, sweet biscuit containing coconut
and sprinkled with sugar.
==============
nice, a. and adv.
A. adj. I. General uses.
1. a. Of a person: foolish, silly, simple; ignorant. Obs.
b. Of an action, utterance, etc.: displaying foolishness or
silliness; absurd, senseless. Obs.
2. a. Of conduct, behaviour, etc.: characterized by or
encouraging wantonness or lasciviousness. Obs.
b. Of a person: wanton, dissolute, lascivious. Obs.
c. Of dress: extravagant, showy, ostentatious.
Also in extended use. Obs.
d. Of a person: finely dressed, elegant. Cf. sense 17a. Obs.
3. a. Precise or particular in matters of reputation or conduct;
scrupulous, punctilious. Now rare.
b. Fastidious, fussy, difficult to please, esp. with regard
to food or cleanliness; of refined or dainty tastes.
c. Particular, strict, or careful with regard to a specific
point or thing. Obs.
d. Refined, cultured; associated with polite society.
e. Fastidious in matters of literary taste or style. Obs.
f. Respectable, virtuous, decent.
g. Of a topic of conversation, mode of conduct, etc.: in good
taste, appropriate, proper. Usu. in negative contexts.
4. a. In early use: faint-hearted, timorous, cowardly, unmanly.
Later also: effeminate. Obs.
b. Slothful, lazy, sluggish. Obs.
c. Not able to endure much; tender, delicate, fragile. Obs.
d. Pampered, luxurious. Obs. rare.
5. Strange, rare, extraordinary. Obs.
6. a. Shy, coy, (affectedly) modest; reserved. Obs.
b. Shy, reluctant, or unwilling in regard of or to.
Also with in or infinitive. Obs.
7. That requires or involves great precision or accuracy. Now rare.
8. a. Not obvious or readily understood; difficult to decide or
settle; demanding close consideration; intricate (obs.).
b. Minute, subtle; (of differences) slight, small.
c. Precise in correspondence; exact, closely judged.
9. a. Slender, thin, fine; insubstantial. Obs.
b. Unimportant, trivial. Obs.
10. a. That enters minutely into details; meticulous,
attentive, sharp. Obs.
b. Of the eye, ear, etc.: able to distinguish or
discriminate to a high degree; sensitive, acute.
c. Delicate or skilful in manipulation; dexterous. Also fig.
d. Of judgement, etc.: finely discriminative.
11. a. Critical, doubtful; full of risk or uncertainty. Obs.
b. Requiring tact, care, or discrimination in handling. Obs.
12. a. Minutely or carefully accurate.
b. Of an instrument or apparatus: capable of showing minute
differences; finely poised or adjusted. Obs.
13. Of food or drink: dainty, choice; (later in weakened sense)
tasty, appetizing; refreshing, restorative.
14. a. That one derives pleasure or satisfaction from; agreeable,
pleasant, satisfactory; attractive.
b. Used as an intensifier with a predicative adjective or
adverb in nice and , sometimes ironically.
c. Of a person: pleasant in manner, agreeable, good-natured;
attractive.
d. Used ironically.
e. Kind or considerate in behaviour; friendly (towards
others). Freq. in to be nice (to).
f. Of a (finished) action, task, etc.: well-executed;
commendably performed or accomplished. Now freq. in
interjections, as nice going!, nice try!, nice work!.
Also used ironically.
g. colloq. nice one: expressing approval or congratulations
for something done well. In later use also ironically.
Popularized by the song Nice One Cyril, used in a
television commercial for bread in the early 1970s, and
recorded in 1973 by the Tottenham Hotspur football team
(associated with the former Tottenham player Cyril Knowles).
II. Phrases.
15. In proverbial phrases in sense 3b, as nice as a nun's hen,
more nice than wise. Obs.
16. to make (it) nice: to display reserve or reluctance; to
entertain a scruple or doubt. Obs.
17. a. to look nice: to have an attractive or pleasing appearance;
to be smartly dressed.
b. In similative phrases in sense 14, esp. in nice as nice.
See also nice as ninepence s.v. NINEPENCE n. 2b,
nice as pie s.v. PIE n.2 4a.
18. nice work if you can get it: expressing envy of what is
perceived to be another's more agreeable situation, esp.
if it seems to have been attained with little effort.
19. N. Amer. colloq. to make nice (also nice-nice): to be pleasant
or polite, esp. in an expedient or hypocritical way;
to smooth things over.
III. Special uses.
20. nice-lookingness; nice-becoming, -brained, -conscienced,
-discerning, -driven, -eared, -fingered, -hearted, -judging,
-looking, -mouthed, -palated, preserved, -scented, -sized,
spoken, -spun (also as noun), -stomached adjs.
B. adv.
1. Foolishly. Obs.
2. Satisfactorily, thoroughly; prettily, pleasingly. Now non-standard.
==============
Michael Alford
>
>Michael Alford wrote:
>
>> http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/crotchlessleatherwheelchairmusic.htm
>
>Come on malf, you're just mad because you want to be respected by other Go
>players, but don't really want to improve. So you attack me in this way to
>try and gain respect from your "peers" on IGS. I've seen this before, as
>you point out above.
This "attack" is the result of you making yourself so unpopular on
rec.martialarts, or have you forgotten that? I didn't commission that
song. As for improving, I take lessons from Cornel.
>It looks worse for you because I am respected for my efforts in spreading
>go. Why would you want to launch such a pathetic attach on such a nice guy
>malf? You look really bad! You're just like someone who wants to attack
>those in power to steal that power for themselves. But in your case I doubt
>you would know what to do with it, or how to maintain it.
I refer you to a post by Mr Burzo, in which he states I am stronger
than you are. Not that our relative playing strengths have one wit to
do with this argument. You don't spead Go, all you spread around is
your own chutzpah. Want me to stop posting that url? Stop your brazen
promoting of yourself as something you are not. As long as you keep
doing that, I will continue to post that url so beginners, newbies,
and kyu players looking for lessons are not taken in by your act.
>I mean how else can I explain it? You're so nice in chat on IGS, but never
>accept my game offer. Then you run your mouth here. I thought you were a
>better go player that that.
What game offer? I don't recall tsukino offering me a game.
>-frl
Michael
justafriend
> I refer you to a post by Mr Burzo, in which he states I am stronger
> than you are...
Then I guess that settles it. If it is in a prior post then it must
be true. (that the post was made by the ultra objective Mr. Burzo
makes it even more true I suppose)
Speaking of prior posts Malf, you stated in a prior post that you
would never again post to this newsgroup. Yet here you are.
Ralph
It's obvious they're both hooked so it must be time to make
rec.games.go a pay per post/ pay per read newsgroup. I always wanted
to pay for other people to advertise to me that's why I got on the
internet.
Alex Papadimitriu
justafriend wrote:
If you are really being objective, then don't forget last year Fu said he
was going to restrain the urge to enter flames. So far he hasn't shown
much restraint.
Fu, Ren-Li
> If you are really being objective, then don't forget last year Fu said he
> was going to restrain the urge to enter flames. So far he hasn't shown
> much restraint.
Believe me, I have. I've cut down by over 65% :)
-frl
CJ
Good song hehe. Send it to all my friends in the go-club ^^
> So you attack me in this way to try and gain respect from your "peers" on IGS.
You mean "The" IGS, right?
> I've seen this before, as you point out above.
Then you should be used to it, since you really bring out the worst in
us...
> It looks worse for you because I am respected for my efforts in spreading
> go.
You should learn to distinguish between respect and pity.
> You're just like someone who wants to attack those in power to steal that
> power for themselves. But in your case I doubt you would know what to do with > it, or how to maintain it.
Your pseudo-tao-fengshui-chopsuey-gibberish hasn't improved at all...
> You're so nice in chat on IGS, but never accept my game offer. Then you run
> your mouth here. I thought you were a better go player that that.
And you are so embarrassing: You challenge people who doubt you with
an unknown nick. So nobody will know if you loose and if you win your
opponent was just a sucker not worth the time.
Fu, Ren-Li
>> http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/crotchlessleatherwheelchairmusic.htm
> Good song hehe. Send it to all my friends in the go-club ^^
Sure you did. Anyways, I keep winning games of go - but I am sure you would
say it's all a fantasy. How about you? Making any real progress lately?
What's your rank?
-frl