The Spanking of NatalieR
lyle
Recently something very interesting and perhaps unfortunate
has happened at FICS ( the Free Internet Chess Server ):
NatalierR, an FICS player, was accused of using a computer by the
FICS admins; her account was disabled.
NatalieR, aka Natalie Radosevich, from Odessa, is ( or was )
One of the strongest players on the FICS. Since she’s a woman,
This makes her quite a celebrity ( I’m not being sexist here;
Strong women chess players are a rarity?!! ).
Anyways, I’ve annotated three of NatalieR’s chess games, and
I leave if to you, the public, to decide on how ‘computer-esque’
her style is.
Note that { } indicates a comment, and ( ) indicates a variation. PGN
notation ...
[Event "ICS Rated Standard match"]
[Site "fics.onenet.net"]
[Date "1997.12.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "woodman"]
[Black "NatalieR"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2439"]
[BlackElo "2442"]
[Annotator "Hayhurst"]
[PlyCount "68"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 g6 3. c4 3... Bg7
{NatalieR has had great success with the KID.}
4. Nc3 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Be2 e5 7. Be3 Ng4 8. Bg5 f6 9. Bh4 Nc6
10. d5 Ne7 11. h3 Nh6 12. O-O Nf7 13. Qb3 13...
Kh8
{Black intends on occuping g8 with the rook. It would seem unusual for a
computer to make such a move, unless it was working off its book.}
14. Rfd1 a6 15. Rac1
{After five minutes of thought Fritz5 didn't consider ...Rg8.}
15...Rg8 16. Re1 b6 17. Nh2 17... Qf8
{Another subtle move.}
18. Ng4 Nh6 19. Ne3
19... f5!
{I like this move!}
20. c5 {
An strange decision by the computer, giving up the c-pawn.}
20... bxc5 21. Qa4 21... Nf7 {And so the knight returns to f7} 22. exf5
gxf5 23. Bh5 Ng6 24. Qc6 Ra7 25. Bxg6 hxg6 26. Nc4 g5 27. Bg3 27... Qd8
{ Fritz5 didn't consider this move.}
28. Qa4 f4 29. Bh2 29... g4!
{ Now the attack begins.}
30. hxg4 Bxg4 31. Na5 Qh4 32. Nc6 Rb7 33. Rc2 Bh6 34.
Rec1 34... Bf3 {
Sure, any computer ( or human, or fish ) can spot this move. White resigned.
One finish: } (
34... Bf3 35. Kf1 Bxg2+ 36. Ke2 f3+ 37. Kd1 37... Qxh2 {-+}) 0-1
An atractive game. Here’s a second:
[Event "ICS Rated Blitz match"]
[Site "fics.onenet.net"]
[Date "1997.12.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "NatalieR"]
[Black "Fritz"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2415"]
[BlackElo "2477"]
[Annotator "Hayhurst"]
[PlyCount "39"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bxd7+ Qxd7 5. O-O Nc6 6. c3 Nf6 7. d4
{ An interesting pawn sacrifice.}
7... Nxe4 8. d5 Nd8 9. Re1 Nf6 10. Bg5 h6
(10... e5 {maybe})
11. Bxf6 gxf6 12. c4
{ White is space and development for the pawn.}
12... Rg8
(12... f5 13. Nc3 Bg7 14. Qc2 14... Bf6 {was another defensive try})
13. Qe2 Qg4 14. g3 Qd7 15. Nc3 b6 16. Nh4 Rc8
(16... f5 {and Black might hold on})
17. Ne4 Bg7
(17... f5?? 18. Nf6#)
18. Nf5
{Now Black is in trouble.}
18... Kf8 19. Nexd6! 19... Rc7
20. Nb5
{Black resigned. An interesting decision by the computer, since they
usually give a lot of blood before toppling over. One possible finish:}
(20. Nb5 Rb7 21. Qh5 e6 22. dxe6 Nxe6 23. Rad1 Nd4 24. Nfxd4 cxd4 25. Rxd4
Qc8 26. Nd6 {+-}) 1-0
And the third, another King’s Indian defense:
[Event "ICS Rated Blitz match"]
[Site "fics.onenet.net"]
[Date "1997.12.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "lynyrdskynyrd"]
[Black "NatalieR"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2555"]
[BlackElo "2509"]
[Annotator "Hayhurst"]
[PlyCount "119"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nf3 3... Bg7
{NatalieR's favorite KID.}
4. Nc3 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. Ne1 Ne8 10. f3 f5 11.
Nd3 f4 12. b4 a5 13. b5 b6 14. Qd2 g5 15. Bd1 Ng6 16. Bc2 Nf6 17. Bb2 h5 18.
Rad1 18... Kh8 !
{ NatalieR used this same move against woodman.}
19. Rfe1 19... Rg8
{ And this move as well.}
20. Rc1 Bh6 21. a3 Bd7 22. Rb1 Qe7 23. Rf1 Rg7 24. Rbd1
24... Rag8
{Black's constellation of pieces is very attractive.}
25. Rde1 25... Kh7
{The long diagonal a1-h8 might open up soon, so the king steps onto a
safer square.}
26. Rc1 26... g4
{...g4 signals the attack.}
27. Ne1 Nh4 28. Bd1
28... gxf3 {of course!}
29. Bxf3 Nxf3+ 30. Rxf3 Bg4 31. Qd1
{ White has to ditch the rook, ie} (31. Rf1 31... f3! { wins something})
31... Bxf3 32. Qxf3 Rg4 33. Rc2 Qf7 34. Re2 Nd7 35. Nd3 Qg6 36. Rf2 Bg5 37.
Rd2 Bh4 38. Re2 Nf6 39. Rd2 39... Kh8
{An interesting move; Black wants h7 for the Nf6!}
40. Kf1 Nh7 41. Nc1 Ng5 42. Qd3 42... f3!
(42... Nxe4 $?! 43. Qxe4 $! (43. Nxe4 Rxg2 44. Qf3 Rg1+ 45. Ke2 Re1+ 46. Kd3
46... Re3+))
43. g3 Nxe4 44. Nxe4 Rxe4 45. Qxf3 Rxc4 46. Nd3 Bg5 47. Rf2 h4 48. Qf5 Qxf5
49. Rxf5 hxg3 50. hxg3 Rc2 51. Rf2 Rxf2+ 52. Nxf2
{Black has a winning ending.}
52... Be3 53. Kg2 Bxf2 54. Kxf2 Rg4 55. Bc1 Rd4 56. Bg5 Rxd5 57. Bd8 Rc5 58.
g4 Kg7 59. Ke3 Kg6 60. Ke4 0-1
Having shown you these games, let me say a few words on the topic. I don’t
really think NatalieR is a computer. She uses an anti-computer philosophy
In her games; she will close the center, and then start an attack on the
wing.
Her openings favor this; they are sometimes eccentric as well ( she’s played
1 a3 on a number of occasions against strong computers .. .and won! )
According to an FICS admin, they compared a bunch of her games to Genius5’s
games and there was a lot of similarity. You decide …
--Lyle
MLK and RJP
In article <66c80f$7...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, wlh...@pitt.edu says...
>
>
>Recently something very interesting and perhaps unfortunate
>has happened at FICS ( the Free Internet Chess Server ):
>NatalierR, an FICS player, was accused of using a computer by the
>FICS admins; her account was disabled.
>NatalieR, aka Natalie Radosevich, from Odessa, is ( or was )
>One of the strongest players on the FICS. Since she’s a woman,
>This makes her quite a celebrity ( I’m not being sexist here;
>Strong women chess players are a rarity?!! ).
>Anyways, I’ve annotated three of NatalieR’s chess games, and
>I leave if to you, the public, to decide on how ‘computer-esque’
>her style is.
It would be helpful if we knew which games the decision was based on.
--
Robert Pawlak and
Michelle Kienholz
Chess widower's home page at:
http://members.aol.com/rjpawlak/ch_widow.html
CHARLES VENTIMIGLIA
They removed her membership based solely on a accusation? Chuck
Lonnie
On 7 Dec 1997 11:57:03 GMT, tree...@crosslink.net (MLK and RJP) wrote:
|In article <66c80f$7...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, wlh...@pitt.edu says...
|>
|>
|>Recently something very interesting and perhaps unfortunate
|>has happened at FICS ( the Free Internet Chess Server ):
|>NatalierR, an FICS player, was accused of using a computer by the
|>FICS admins; her account was disabled.
|>NatalieR, aka Natalie Radosevich, from Odessa, is ( or was )
|>One of the strongest players on the FICS. Since she’s a woman,
|>This makes her quite a celebrity ( I’m not being sexist here;
|>Strong women chess players are a rarity?!! ).
|>Anyways, I’ve annotated three of NatalieR’s chess games, and
|>I leave if to you, the public, to decide on how ‘computer-esque’
|>her style is.
|Stuff deleted
|
|It would be helpful if we knew which games the decision was based on.
|
WOW! Lets see the games in question. I played Natalie many times with my comp and her
style looked human to me.
°°°°°°
Lonnie
The harder you fall, the higher you bounce!
**Put a "c" before the "onn" to respond to proper email address**
Tim Mirabile
Hmm. You should know Lonnie, if anyone would. How many thousand human vs
computer and computer vs computer have you played so far? :)
But I hope the FICS admins did not make their decision based on the games alone.
Unfortunately we have heard neither FICS' nor NatalieR's side of the story.
lonni...@rionnect.com (Lonnie) wrote:
--
Long Island chess -> http://www.webcom.com/timm/ TimM on ICC and A-FICS
Webmaster, tech support - Your Move Chess & Games: http://www.icdchess.com/
The opinions of my employers are not necessarily mine and vice versa.
Rolf Tueschen
t...@mail.htp.net (Tim Mirabile) wrote:
>But I hope the FICS admins did not make their decision based on the games alone.
>Unfortunately we have heard neither FICS' nor NatalieR's side of the story.
But _why_ wasting so much of our precious time?
Isn't it the best way to proceed like you did on the ICD commercial site
with *me* when I had sinned by letting me be insulted??
Logically I was censored and thrown out. End of the story. So the same
with 'Natalie'. She could start a new hobby for example, no? ;-)
I can't see anything spectacular with a method that is in full
concordance with the constitutions of the United States. *Period*.
helmet
>|
>|It would be helpful if we knew which games the decision was based on.
>|
>WOW! Lets see the games in question. I played Natalie many times with my comp and her
>style looked human to me.
>°°°°°°
>Lonnie
yes a fics admin should post the games here.If she was cheating
we will find out. It could just be possible she achieved this rating
by learning how to bash comps,its possible for quite weak players
to learn this technique.
Lets see her games vs humans the ones that were like chess genius
helmet
Tryfon Costas Gavriel
I would just like to say I am personally upset, that SundayGirl was banned
from FICS.
I dont think SundayGirl is a computer in a million years! The computers on
FICS are not as strong as the likes of Ferret and Crafty on the ICC. I
believe that they can be smashed up.
As evidence of the fact that SundayGirl is a superb player, here are some of
the games I've played against her on the ICC:-. The first game demonstrates
she does make mistakes.
94) SundayGirl (2460) - KingsCrusher (2295)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bd7 8.Nxc6
bxc6 9.Be2 Bc5 10.0-0 Qh4 11.g3 Nxg3 12.Re1 Bxf2+ 13.Kxf2 Nxe2+ 0-1
(95) KingsCrusher (2318) - SundayGirl (2437)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Nf3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Nc6 7.Bd3 d6 8.e4 e5
9.d5 Ne7 10.0-0 h6 11.Nh4 0-0 12.f4 Ng6 13.Nxg6 fxg6 14.fxe5 dxe5 15.Be3 b6
16.h3 Ne8 17.Rxf8+ Kxf8 18.Qf3+ Kg8 19.Rf1 Qe7 20.Bf2 Nd6 21.Bg3 Ba6 22.Qe2
Rf8 23.Rxf8+ Kxf8 24.a4 Qg5 25.Qf2+ Kg8 26.a5 Qc1+ 27.Kh2 Qxc3 28.Bf1 Nxe4
29.Qf3 Qxf3 30.gxf3 Nxg3 31.Kxg3 bxa5 32.f4 e4 33.f5 g5 0-1
(96) SundayGirl (2448) - KingsCrusher (2307)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.0-0 Bg7 5.Re1 e5 6.c3 Nge7 7.a3 a5 8.a4 0-0
9.Na3 d6 10.d3 Be6 11.h3 h6 12.Be3 f5 13.Bc4 Qc8 14.Qb3 Bxc4 15.Nxc4 Qd8
16.Nxd6+ Kh7 17.Bxc5 fxe4 18.dxe4 g5 19.Rad1 Rxf3 20.gxf3 Ng6 21.Qxb7 Qf6
22.Nf5 Rb8 23.Qc7 Nh4 24.Re3 Nxf5 25.exf5 Rxb2 26.Rd7 Rb1+ 27.Kg2 h5 28.Rd6
Qxf5 29.Rxc6 g4 30.hxg4 hxg4 31.Qc8 gxf3+ 32.Rxf3 Rg1+ 33.Kxg1 Qxf3 34.Rc7
e4 35.Qd7 1-0
(97) KingsCrusher (2297) - SundayGirl (2458)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Qc2 c5 5.dxc5 Na6 6.Nf3 h6 7.g3 Nxc5 8.a3 Bxc3+
9.Qxc3 b6 10.Bg2 Bb7 11.0-0 Qc7 12.Bf4 d6 13.Rfd1 Nce4 14.Qc2 0-0 15.Rac1
Rac8 16.Nd4 a6 17.Nf3 Rfd8 18.b4 e5 19.Be3 d5 20.Nd2 Nxd2 21.Rxd2 d4 22.Bxb7
Qxb7 23.Rcd1 Re8 24.Bxh6 gxh6 25.Qf5 Kg7 26.f4 Qe4 27.Qh3 Qe3+ 28.Kh1 Ne4
29.Qg4+ Kh8 30.Qh5 Kg7 31.Qg4+ Kh7 32.Qf5+ Kg7 33.Qg4+ Kf8 34.Qh5 Nxd2
35.Qxh6+ Ke7 36.Qg5+ f6 37.Qg7+ Ke6 38.f5+ Kxf5 39.Qd7+ Kg6 40.h4 Qe4+
41.Kh2 Qxe2+ 42.Kh3 Qxd1 43.g4 Qf3+ 44.Kh2 Nf1+ 45.Kg1 Ne3 46.h5+ Kg5
47.Qg7+ Kh4 0-1
(98) SundayGirl (2467) - KingsCrusher (2288)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 g6 4.0-0 Bg7 5.Re1 e5 6.b4 cxb4 7.a3 b3 8.c3 Nge7
9.Qxb3 0-0 10.a4 d6 11.Ba3 Qc7 12.d3 Be6 13.Qb2 h6 14.Nbd2 f5 15.Bc4 Bxc4
16.Nxc4 Rad8 17.Rab1 b6 18.Qb3 Kh7 19.Rbc1 f4 20.d4 g5 21.h3 Ng6 22.dxe5
Ncxe5 23.Ncxe5 Bxe5 24.c4 Rc8 25.Red1 Rfd8 26.Nd4 Bxd4 27.Rxd4 Ne5 28.Rcd1
Nxc4 29.Rc1 d5 30.exd5 b5 31.axb5 1-0
(99) KingsCrusher (2280) - SundayGirl (2475)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 d5 5.cxd5 exd5 6.e3 0-0 7.Bd3 c5 8.Nge2 Nc6
9.0-0 Bxc3 10.bxc3 Re8 11.g4 Bxg4 12.fxg4 Nxg4 13.Ng3 Qh4 14.Qc2 c4 15.Bf5
Nxe3 16.Bxe3 Rxe3 17.Qg2 Rae8 18.Rf2 Rxc3 19.Raf1 Qxd4 20.Nh5 g6 21.Kh1 Kh8
22.Ng3 gxf5 23.Nxf5 Qe4 24.Rf3 Rg8 25.Qb2 d4 26.Nxd4 Rxf3 27.Nxf3+ Rg7
28.Qf6 Qe2 29.Ng5 1-0
(100) SundayGirl (2451) - KingsCrusher (2304)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g3 Bb4 5.Bd2 0-0 6.Bg2 c6 7.Nh3 d5 8.b3 Nbd7
9.0-0 Bd6 10.f3 e5 11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.Bg5 Be6 14.Nf4 Bf7 15.Bxf6
Qxf6 16.Ncxd5 Bc5+ 17.Kh1 Qh6 18.Rc1 Bb6 19.Nxb6 axb6 20.Qd4 Rfe8 21.Rc2
Rad8 22.Qb2 Ng6 23.Nxg6 hxg6 24.f4 Bd5 25.Rfc1 Bxg2+ 26.Kxg2 Qh5 27.Re1 Re3
28.Rc7 Qh6 29.h4 Rde8 30.Kf2 g5 31.fxg5 Qg6 32.Qd4 f4 33.gxf4 R3e6 34.h5 Qh7
35.g6 Qh6 0-1
(101) KingsCrusher (2326) - SundayGirl (2429)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 c5 5.Bd3 b6 6.Nf3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 d6 8.0-0 Nc6
9.Nd2 e5 10.a4 0-0 11.d5 Ne7 12.f4 exf4 13.exf4 Bf5 14.Nf3 Qd7 15.h3 h5
16.Nh4 Rae8 17.Nxf5 Nxf5 18.Qf3 Re7 19.g4 hxg4 20.hxg4 Nh4 21.Qg3 Qxg4
22.Qxg4 Nxg4 23.Bd2 Ne3 24.Rf2 Rfe8 25.a5 bxa5 26.Rxa5 Ng4 27.Rf1 Nf6
28.Rfa1 Nf3+ 29.Kf2 Nxd2 30.Rxa7 Nde4+ 31.Kg2 Rxa7 32.Rxa7 Nxc3 33.Kf3 Nd1
34.Bf5 Ne3 35.Bd3 g6 36.Kf2 Neg4+ 37.Kf3 Re3+ 38.Kg2 Rxd3 39.Ra8+ Kg7 40.Ra7
Ne4 41.Rb7 Rg3+ 42.Kf1 Rc3 43.Ke2 Rxc4 44.Kd1 Rd4+ 45.Ke2 Rd2+ 46.Ke1 Ne3
47.Rd7 1-0
(102) SundayGirl (2408) - KingsCrusher (2347)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3 g6 5.c3 Bg7 6.0-0 0-0 7.Re1 Qe7 8.Nbd2 d6
9.b4 Nh5 10.a4 Nd8 11.a5 Nf4 12.d4 Kh8 13.Nf1 g5 14.dxe5 dxe5 15.Ne3 c6
16.Nf5 Bxf5 17.exf5 e4 18.Nd4 c5 19.Nb5 Nc6 20.Bxf4 gxf4 21.Qg4 Ne5 22.Qxf4
a6 23.Na3 cxb4 24.cxb4 Nxc4 25.Nxc4 Bxa1 26.Rxa1 Qf6 27.Re1 Rae8 28.g4 Rg8
29.Rxe4 Rc8 30.Ne5 Rce8 31.Nd7 Qa1+ 32.Kg2 Rxe4 33.Qxe4 Qg7 34.h3 h5 35.f3
Qh6 36.Qe5+ Rg7 37.Nf6 Qd2+ 38.Kg3 h4+ 39.Kxh4 Qd8 40.g5 Qc8 41.Ne8 Qc4+
42.f4 Qxf4+ 43.Qxf4 Rh7+ 44.Kg4 Rh5 0-1
(103) KingsCrusher (2366) - SundayGirl (2389)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3 c6 4.Bg2 d5 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.d4 e4 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Qb3 Nc6
9.e3 Na5 10.Qc2 0-0 11.Nge2 Be6 12.0-0 Rc8 13.Nf4 b5 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.a3 a6
16.Bh3 Rc6 17.Qe2 Nc4 18.Rac1 Qc7 19.Bf4 Qb6 20.Rc2 h6 21.Rfc1 g5 22.Be5
Nxe5 23.dxe5 Nd7 24.Nxd5 Rxc2 25.Nxe7+ Kf7 26.Rxc2 Kxe7 27.Qh5 Nxe5 28.Qxh6
g4 29.Bxg4 Nf3+ 30.Bxf3 exf3 31.Qg7+ Rf7 32.Qg5+ Rf6 33.Qc5+ Qxc5 34.Rxc5
Kd6 35.Rg5 e5 36.h4 Kd5 37.h5 Rh6 38.g4 Ke4 39.Kh2 Kd3 40.Kg3 e4 41.Re5 Kc2
42.Rxe4 Kxb2 43.a4 Kb3 44.axb5 axb5 45.Kxf3 1-0
(104) SundayGirl (2372) - KingsCrusher (2383)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.e4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.d4 g6 5.Bd3 Bg7 6.Bf4 Nc6 7.c3 Nh6 8.0-0 Nf5
9.Re1 0-0 10.Nbd2 Nd6 11.Qe2 a6 12.a4 Re8 13.Ne5 f6 14.Nxc6 bxc6 15.Nf3 Nf7
16.Rad1 e5 17.dxe5 fxe5 18.Bg3 Ra7 19.c4 Qf6 20.cxd5 cxd5 21.Nxe5 Rxe5
22.Bxe5 Nxe5 23.Bc2 Rf7 24.Rxd5 Ng4 25.f3 Qb6+ 26.Kh1 Nf2+ 0-1
(105) KingsCrusher (2398) - SundayGirl (2357)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.a3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nc3 g6 7.g3 Bg7 8.Bg2 0-0
9.Nh3 a6 10.a4 Nbd7 11.Nf4 Rb8 12.0-0 b5 13.axb5 axb5 14.h4 Re8 15.e3 c4
16.Ra6 Nc5 17.Ra1 Bf5 18.Bf3 b4 19.Na4 Nb3 20.Ra2 Ra8 21.Be2 Qc7 22.f3 Bd7
23.Bxc4 Nxc1 0-1
(106) SundayGirl (2375) - KingsCrusher (2380)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 d5 5.b3 c6 6.f3 Nbd7 7.Nh3 Bd6 8.0-0 0-0
9.Bf4 Qe7 10.Nc3 dxc4 11.bxc4 e5 12.dxe5 Nxe5 13.Qb3 Be6 14.Rab1 b5 15.Bxe5
Bxe5 16.f4 Bd4+ 17.Kh1 Bxc4 18.Qc2 Qa3 19.Rfc1 Rac8 20.Ng5 Ng4 21.h3 Nf2+
22.Kh2 h6 23.Nf3 Bb6 24.Ne5 Qd6 25.Nxc4 bxc4 26.Na4 Be3 27.Qxc4+ Kh8 28.Rc2
c5 29.Rb7 Rce8 30.Qc3 Bd4 31.Qa5 g5 32.fxg5 hxg5 33.Nxc5 f4 34.Ne4 Nxe4
35.Bxe4 fxg3+ 36.Kg2 Rxe4 37.e3 Bxe3 38.Qxg5 Bxg5 0-1
(107) KingsCrusher (2396) - SundayGirl (2359)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nc3 g6 7.g3 a6 8.a4 Bg7
9.Bg2 0-0 10.0-0 Qe7 11.Bf4 Nbd7 12.Nd2 Nh5 13.Be3 f5 14.Nc4 Rb8 15.Qb3 Ne5
16.Nxe5 Bxe5 17.Rae1 f4 18.Bc1 b5 19.axb5 axb5 20.Ne4 c4 21.Qb4 Bg4 22.b3
cxb3 23.Qxb3 g5 24.Bd2 h6 25.Bb4 Nf6 26.Nxf6+ Rxf6 27.Qc2 Rbf8 28.Qc6 fxg3
29.hxg3 Bd4 30.e3 Be5 31.f4 gxf4 32.exf4 Bd4+ 33.Kh2 Qf7 0-1
(108) SundayGirl (2377) - KingsCrusher (2378)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.h4 h6 5.Nd2 e6 6.Ndf3 Nd7 7.Ne2 Qb6 8.Ng3 Bh7
9.Bd3 Bxd3 10.Qxd3 c5 11.c3 0-0-0 12.0-0 Kb8 13.dxc5 Nxc5 14.Qc2 g6 15.Be3
Qc7 16.b4 Nd7 17.Rfe1 Ne7 18.Nd4 Nc8 19.f4 g5 20.hxg5 hxg5 21.a4 Bg7 22.Nb5
Qc4 23.Na3 Qc7 24.a5 gxf4 25.Bxf4 Nxe5 26.Nb5 Nf3+ 27.gxf3 Qxf4 28.Qf2 Be5
29.Ne2 Rdg8+ 0-1
(109) KingsCrusher (2394) - SundayGirl (2361)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 03.11.1997
1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Nf3 Bf5 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 h6 6.Bxf6 Nxf6 7.Be2 e6 8.0-0
Be7 9.Ne5 0-0 10.Bf3 c5 11.Re1 Rc8 12.a4 Qb6 13.Qd2 cxd4 14.exd4 Qxb2 15.Nb5
a6 16.Rab1 Qxc2 17.Qxc2 Rxc2 18.Na7 Rc7 19.a5 Bxb1 0-1
(243) KingsCrusher (2431) - SundayGirl (2482)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 26.11.1997
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.a3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.Nc3 g6 7.e4 Bg7 8.Bd3 0-0
9.Nge2 a6 10.a4 Nbd7 11.0-0 Rb8 12.h3 Qc7 13.Bc4 Re8 14.Ng3 Ne5 15.Qe2 Nxc4
16.Qxc4 Bd7 17.a5 b5 18.axb6 Rxb6 19.Rxa6 Rb4 20.Qe2 h5 21.Bf4 h4 22.Bxd6
Qb7 23.Bxc5 Rxb2 24.Qc4 hxg3 25.fxg3 Nxe4 26.Nxe4 Rxe4 27.Qxe4 Qxa6 28.Qe7
Bf5 29.d6 Qa2 30.Rf2 Qb1+ 31.Kh2 Rxf2 32.Bxf2 Qd3 0-1
(273) SundayGirl (2501) - KingsCrusher (2440)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 04.12.1997
1.e4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ exf6 6.d4 Bd6 7.g3 0-0 8.Bg2
b6 9.0-0 a5 10.Re1 Ba6 11.Be3 Qc7 12.Qd2 Nd7 13.Rad1 a4 14.a3 Rae8 15.Bf1
Bxf1 16.Kxf1 b5 17.Qd3 Nb6 18.Nd2 Nd5 19.Ne4 Be7 20.c4 bxc4 21.Qxc4 f5
22.Nc3 Qd7 23.Qxa4 f4 24.Nxd5 Qxd5 25.gxf4 Qh1+ 26.Ke2 Qd5 27.Rc1 Rb8 28.Rc2
c5 29.dxc5 Rfd8 30.Rd2 Qh5+ 31.Kf1 Qxh2 32.Rxd8+ Rxd8 33.Qe4 Qh3+ 34.Qg2 Qf5
35.Rc1 Qd3+ 36.Kg1 Bf6 37.c6 Bxb2 38.c7 Rc8 39.Rc5 Bxa3 40.Qb7 Qd1+ 41.Kh2
Qd7 42.Rd5 Qe8 43.Ra5 Bd6 44.Ra7 h6 45.Qb6 Qd7 46.Rb7 Kh7 47.Rb8 Rxc7 48.Qd4
f5 49.Rb3 Rc6 50.Rd3 Qc7 51.Qd5 Bxf4+ 52.Bxf4 Qxf4+ 53.Kg2 Rc1 54.Rf3 Qg5+
55.Rg3 Qf4 56.Qd3 Qe4+ 57.Qxe4 fxe4 58.Rxg7+ 1-0
(274) KingsCrusher (2427) - SundayGirl (2514)
ICC r 3 0 Internet Chess Club, 04.12.1997
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 Bxd2+ 5.Nbxd2 d6 6.g3 Nc6 7.Bg2 0-0 8.0-0
e5 9.d5 Nb8 10.e4 a5 11.h3 Na6 12.Qe2 c6 13.Rfe1 cxd5 14.cxd5 Bd7 15.g4 Qe7
16.Nf1 Rfc8 17.Ng3 g6 18.g5 Ne8 19.Qe3 Rc2 20.Rab1 Nc5 21.h4 Nc7 22.h5 Bg4
23.Nh2 Bd7 24.Rf1 Nb5 25.f4 exf4 26.Rxf4 Rf8 27.hxg6 hxg6 28.Rf6 Qe5 29.Rbf1
Qxb2 30.e5 Rxg2+ 0-1
The overall score of these games at 3 minute chess (which I feel it would
impossible to use a computer program to cheat) is about 9-8 in her favour.
Cheers,
Tryfon
helmet
>I dont think SundayGirl is a computer in a million years! The computers on
>FICS are not as strong as the likes of Ferret and Crafty on the ICC. I
>believe that they can be smashed up.
>As evidence of the fact that SundayGirl is a superb player, here are some of
>the games I've played against her on the ICC:-. The first game demonstrates
>she does make mistakes.
is sunday girl on icc natalier on fics?
helmet
helmet
>is sunday girl on icc natalier on fics?
>helmet
to answer my own question it is the same player.
weird finger notes
helmet
Peter Coleman
Just to give a bit of background here. Tryfon's own grade on ICC is a lot higher
than his OTB grade. *He* is much better at Blitz play and can hold his own
against players graded much higher so that is no surprise to me. Based on his
score against SundayGirl her OTB strength may be only around 2000, or even less
if her Blitz is even more distanced from normal rates. Maybe her ping is good
too <s>.
Tryfon Costas Gavriel wrote in message
<881541877.26875.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Dave Tukey
Tryfon Costas Gavriel wrote:
>
> I would just like to say I am personally upset, that SundayGirl was banned
> from FICS.
>
> I dont think SundayGirl is a computer in a million years! The computers on
> FICS are not as strong as the likes of Ferret and Crafty on the ICC. I
> believe that they can be smashed up.
>
[snip]
> Tryfon
I hate to end this discussion on a factual element, but there is no
"SundayGirl" on FICS. I think you may mean ICC. But please don't
confuse the various chess servers when talking about what happened in a
given case. Makes it look like FICS (fics.onenet.net 5000) was doing
something wrong when in fact it was not involved at all.
Dave [ddt...@ilstu.edu]
BrainWall@feedme
I am a USCF master, usually rated about 2250 or so. I met NatalieR about three years ago when I was eeking out an existence playing speed chess and backgammon in Harvard Square.
When she approached my table, I thought I would have no trouble taking $5.00 or $10.00 from this cute little fish. My expectations increased as she fumbled in setting up the pieces, and then asked how the clock worked.
Twenty games later I was down 4-16, and was attempting to talk her out of not walking off with my last $60.00. I pointed out that she had unfairly pretended to be a novice, and that her looks had been a distraction. She kind of reminds me of the Xena warrior-princess chick from TV, with dark hair and big blue eyes. She responded coldly with something to the effect of, "If you can't concentrate, you need to find a new job." Then she took my last $60.00 in the world, and split.
If she is to be spanked, I would love to help.
Brian Wall, Boston
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hungry for NEWSGROUPS??? USE feedME.ORG
Read and Post to 30,000 groups through feedME.ORG
FREE FREE FREE http://www.feedME.ORG FREE FREE FREE
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tryfon Costas Gavriel
BrainWall@feedME wrote in message <3491a...@lightning.ica.net>...
> I am a USCF master, usually rated about 2250 or so. I met NatalieR
about three years ago when I was eeking out an existence playing speed chess
and backgammon in Harvard Square.
>
> When she approached my table, I thought I would have no trouble taking
$5.00 or $10.00 from this cute little fish. My expectations increased as
she fumbled in setting up the pieces, and then asked how the clock worked.
>
> Twenty games later I was down 4-16, and was attempting to talk her out
of not walking off with my last $60.00. I pointed out that she had unfairly
pretended to be a novice, and that her looks had been a distraction. She
kind of reminds me of the Xena warrior-princess chick from TV, with dark
hair and big blue eyes. She responded coldly with something to the effect
of, "If you can't concentrate, you need to find a new job." Then she took
my last $60.00 in the world, and split.
>
> If she is to be spanked, I would love to help.
>
> Brian Wall, Boston
Dear All,
I am sorry for confusing people about Natalies handle- it is NatalieR on
FICS (the American one), and now "SundayGirl" on the ICC.
She has recently beat a 2500+ computer on the ICC in 19 moves. I have
published this on my web site as a tribute to her and to this thread
discussion!
The address is:- http://www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc/ie.htm
If you go to the computer chess section- the 8th knight down on the left
frame, and then click on examples of play against computers you will find
her must recent crushing win against a computer. The direct web address page
is:-
http://www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc/Computer_chess/Weaknesses/topten.htm
Cheers and Happy Christmas all,
"Kingscrusher" alias Tryfon Gavriel
Lonnie
|
|BrainWall@feedME wrote in message <3491a...@lightning.ica.net>...
|> I am a USCF master, usually rated about 2250 or so. I met NatalieR
|about three years ago when I was eeking out an existence playing speed chess
|and backgammon in Harvard Square.
|>
|> When she approached my table, I thought I would have no trouble taking
|$5.00 or $10.00 from this cute little fish. My expectations increased as
|she fumbled in setting up the pieces, and then asked how the clock worked.
|>
|> Twenty games later I was down 4-16, and was attempting to talk her out
|of not walking off with my last $60.00. I pointed out that she had unfairly
|pretended to be a novice, and that her looks had been a distraction. She
|kind of reminds me of the Xena warrior-princess chick from TV, with dark
|hair and big blue eyes. She responded coldly with something to the effect
|of, "If you can't concentrate, you need to find a new job." Then she took
|my last $60.00 in the world, and split.
|>
|> If she is to be spanked, I would love to help.
|>
|> Brian Wall, Boston
|
This is what Nat told me,
"I DID NOTHING WRONG FOR THIS GUY. IF I PRETEND TO BE NOVICE, IT MUST BE
OBVIOUS NOT SO AFTER FIRST GAME, RIGHT? AND IF I LOSE ALL GAMES, HE
WOULD INSIST I PAY HIM, RIGHT ? TELL THIS PEOPLE FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO
MAKE GOSSIP ABOUT! IF HE TRY SPANK ME, I SPRAY HIM WITH PEPPER SPRAY!
NATALIE"
verbatim,heehee.
같같같
You Wascally Wabbit
If she did indeed beat a master out in the real world without using a
computer, that makes it sound like she is a very strong player. If she is
really this strong then one might wonder why fics hasn't commented on
their banning of her for supposedly being a computer. This is powerful
evidence to the contrary. Is anyone else starting to wonder about the fics
admins?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the great Tao is lost,
Humanism and justice appear.
When intelligence and cleverness arise,
So does gross hypocrisy.
-- Lao Tzu
M. David Maloney Email: asd...@uaa.alaska.edu
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8425
Ertertyu
answer is simple, log onto icc, finger sundaygirl, look at her 2200 rating,
then ask yourself, is she good enough to be rated 2400 on fics.
J...@suffolk.lib
On 21 Dec 1997 01:42:13 GMT, erte...@aol.com (Ertertyu) wrote:
>answer is simple, log onto icc, finger sundaygirl, look at her 2200 rating,
>then ask yourself, is she good enough to be rated 2400 on fics.
Maybe so - this has already been discussed here. In itself, it is
certainly insufficient evidence to ban someone or label her as a
computer. Helmet compiled a ton of evidence in order to show that Dr.
Mate was using a computer - I'm not sure if ICS considered this when
they labeled him (C).
There is of course no requirement that ICS administrators ever post
anything to this newsgroup. However, this is something akin to the
"court of public opinion", and it would be nice to see their
explanation of the NatalieR affair here (and perhaps a final rehash of
the DrMate affair as well). Otherwise many will be left with the
impression that their actions may be capricious and arbitrary (imagine
that!).
Jon
p.s. Sorry if I've confused ICC with FICS here and there - what I said
should be applicable to both orgs (IMHO).
helmet
this natalier buisness is certainly strange. It seems there
are many people who dont consider her a cheat.fics say they have games
that were very similar to chess genius. I think those games should of
been posted here, so we could all know the truth. There must be some
fics admins who read theses groups,and a number of us were asking for
these games to be made public. I cant see any reason not to publish them here.
As for drmate he is now officially a (C) on ICC. although he still
plays on chessnet, where apparantly use of computers is now allowed, according
to a previous poster
helmet
Tryfon Costas Gavriel
J...@suffolk.lib wrote in message <349f05a6....@newshost.li.net>...
>On 21 Dec 1997 01:42:13 GMT, erte...@aol.com (Ertertyu) wrote:
>
>>answer is simple, log onto icc, finger sundaygirl, look at her 2200
rating,
>>then ask yourself, is she good enough to be rated 2400 on fics.
>
Respectfully, may I suggest that you are putting things out of context.
an "fi SundayGirl" today (22/12/97) reveals:
rating [need] win loss draw total best
------------------------------------------------------
ild ---- [6] 0 0 0 0
Bughouse ---- [6] 0 0 0 0
Bullet 2300 [7] 9 3 0 12
Blitz 2234 367 255 47 669 2667 (02-Nov-97)
Standard ---- [6] 0 0 0 0
Bullet is one minute chess... do you think someone could play one minute
chess using a computer program in the background and not run out of time ?!
2300 is a decent rating for bullet... Some people might think that she's no
beginner just from this rating. Anyway she has only played 12 bullet
games... so you may not think this is significant especially given that she
could have simply run people out of time.
Blitz: Current: 2234 (as at 22/12/97)
This reads her current rating as 2234 - agreed.. around 2200... but look at
her best rating at blitz achieved :- 2667 . People do not get a max. of 2667
without being pretty damn good. Usually her rating is around 2400+.... but
how can this be proved?!... there are no grade duration statistics such as
how long she has been at various grading levels.
I can only continue to publish her computer wins and more fundamentally
start publishing her tips for beating computers, such as steering for closed
positions which is one of the hallmarks of anti-computer chess.
Have a look at the following three games and decide for yourself if the
SundayGirl is using a computer:-
Also note that the opening of the following game is too unusual to be in a
programmed opening book- like the early h4 move. This is almost a Julian
Hodgson variation!
1. "NataliaR" / "SundayGirl" aka Natalie Radosevich vs Flambe(C)
[Event "ICC 5 0 12/17/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.17"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "Flambe"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2227"]
[BlackElo "2518"]
[ECO "D03"]
[NIC "QP.08"]
[LongECO "Torre attack (Tartakower variation)"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5 Ne4 4. h4 Qd6 5. c3 Nc6 6. b4 Nxg5 7. hxg5 Bf5 8.
Nbd2 O-O-O 9. e3 a6 10. a4 e6 11. b5 axb5 12. axb5 Nb8 13. Ne5 Qe7 14. Ra8
f6
The female computer crusher now unleashes an absolutely superb move!
15. Nc6!! bxc6 16. bxc6 Qa3 17. Rxa3 Bxa3 18. Qa4 Rd6 19. Qxa3 Rxc6
{Black resigns} 1-0
The following game illustrates another classic for beating computers... an
extended pawn wedge around their king. Computers seem to underestimate pawns
on f6.
2.
[Event "ICC 3 0 12/18/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.18"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "singacrafty"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2251"]
[BlackElo "2592"]
[ECO "D03"]
[NIC "QP.08"]
[LongECO "Torre attack (Tartakower variation)"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5 e6 4. e3 Bd6 5. c4 O-O 6. Nc3 c6 7. Bd3 h6 8. Bh4
b6 9. O-O Nbd7 10. Rc1 Bb7 11. Re1 Rc8 12. e4 Bf4 13. Rc2 dxc4 14. Bxc4 b5
15. Bd3 Qb6 16. e5 Nd5 17. Nxd5 cxd5 18. g3 g5 19. gxf4 gxh4 20. f5 Rxc2 21.
Bxc2 h3 22. f6 Rc8 23. Qd2 Rxc2 24. Qxh6
Nxf6 25. exf6 Rxb2 26. Qg7+
{Black checkmated} 1-0
This game illustrates the use of the "stonewall" opening... this is a great
opening to play against computers because it does not offer the metal
monsters much tactical counterplay.
[Event "ICC 5 0 12/21/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.21"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "MrsLovett"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2211"]
[BlackElo "2744"]
[ECO "A45"]
[NIC "QP.07"]
[LongECO "Queen's pawn game"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 g6 3. f4 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Bd3 O-O
6. O-O c5 7. c3 b6 8. Qe2 Nc6 9. Nbd2 Bg4 10. h3 Be6
11. Ne5 Qd6 12. Qf2 cxd4 13. exd4 Rac8 14. Qh4 Rc7 15. Ndf3 Bc8
16. Be3 Bb7 17. Rae1 e6 18. Ng5 Nb8 19. Ng4 Nh5 20. Bd2 Ba6
21. Bxa6 Nxa6 22. Nf3 Qc6 23. Nge5 Qb5 24. b3 Nf6 25. Ng5 Nb8
26. g4 Qa6 27. a4 b5 28. axb5 Qa2 29. Rf2 Qxb3 30. f5 exf5
31. gxf5 gxf5 32. Rxf5 h6 33. Rxf6 Bxf6 34. Qxh6 Qc2 35. Re4 Qxe4
36. Nxe4 dxe4 37. Qxf6 e3 38. Bxe3 Rxc3 39. Bh6 Rg3+ 40. Kh2 Nd7
41. Nxd7 Rg6 42. Qxg6+ fxg6
{Black resigns} 1-0
Tryfon Gavriel
Webmaster, barnet chess club on-line
www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc
http://www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc/Computer_chess/Weaknesses/topten.htm is
relevant for this thread
Stan
helmet wrote in message ...
><snip>
> this natalier buisness is certainly strange. It seems
there
>are many people who dont consider her a cheat.fics say they have games
>that were very similar to chess genius. I think those games should of
>been posted here, so we could all know the truth. There must be some
>fics admins who read theses groups,and a number of us were asking for
>these games to be made public. I cant see any reason not to publish them
here.
> As for drmate he is now officially a (C) on ICC. although he still
>plays on chessnet, where apparantly use of computers is now allowed,
according
>to a previous poster
> helmet
>
A couple years back ther were two guys from Canada, friends they said.
Defensive and Russtyman on ICC. One was rating about 2000 and ocasionally I
would play him and whip him soundly. The other was 1500-1600 and I
regularly whupped him. Then about six months go by and they are both over
2500. I asked how can this be and was told they were taking lessons and
studying daily. Wellll I've taken lessons in my day and damn if my rating
ever went up 500-900 points in six months. I was hardly surprised when a few
months later they were branded as computers. Now as for Natalie, I find it
hard to believe she is that good and has never succumbed to the temptation
to play OTB. Golly, she could challenge the Woman's title huh ?
StanB
da...@taic.net
Stan <st...@voicenet.ih8spam.com> wrote:
: studying daily. Wellll I've taken lessons in my day and damn if my rating
: ever went up 500-900 points in six months. I was hardly surprised when a few
: months later they were branded as computers. Now as for Natalie, I find it
: hard to believe she is that good and has never succumbed to the temptation
: to play OTB. Golly, she could challenge the Woman's title huh ?
Only if there's an electrical outlet nearby, methinks.
helmet
>>
>A couple years back ther were two guys from Canada, friends they said.
>Defensive and Russtyman on ICC. One was rating about 2000 and ocasionally I
>would play him and whip him soundly. The other was 1500-1600 and I
>regularly whupped him. Then about six months go by and they are both over
>2500. I asked how can this be and was told they were taking lessons and
>studying daily. Wellll I've taken lessons in my day and damn if my rating
>ever went up 500-900 points in six months. I was hardly surprised when a few
>months later they were branded as computers. Now as for Natalie, I find it
>hard to believe she is that good and has never succumbed to the temptation
>to play OTB. Golly, she could challenge the Woman's title huh ?
>StanB
i agree those two idiots were probably cheating, but the natalier case
isnt quite so straightforward. She seems very good at beating computers
using very human anti computer tactics. Once you learn the technique for
beating them its not that difficult. It would be quite possible for a 2000
rated player to learn this technique and by just playing computers on servers
achieve a rating of 2600, a clear 600 points better than that player would
achieve playing humans
helmet
Robert
Once you learn the technique for beating computers it's not that difficult?
Why didn't somebody tell this to Kasparov?
Seriously, there are anti computer techniques but it's by no means easy.
I've watched GMs struggle against several versions of Crafty on chess.net.
In my experience, even people who can beat supercomps on a regular basis
lose to the comp more often than not. The only "easy" technique i have
found is finding a flaw in the comp's opening book. But this takes many
many losses to find.
helmet <acu...@es.co.nz> wrote in article
<acummin.31...@es.co.nz>...
J...@suffolk.lib
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997 01:55:51 GMT, "Stan" <st...@voicenet.ih8spam.com>
wrote:
>
>helmet wrote in message ...
>><snip>
>
>> this natalier buisness is certainly strange. It seems
>there
>>are many people who dont consider her a cheat.fics say they have games
>>that were very similar to chess genius. I think those games should of
>>been posted here, so we could all know the truth. There must be some
>>fics admins who read theses groups,and a number of us were asking for
>>these games to be made public. I cant see any reason not to publish them
>here.
>> As for drmate he is now officially a (C) on ICC. although he still
>>plays on chessnet, where apparantly use of computers is now allowed,
>according
>>to a previous poster
>> helmet
>>
>A couple years back ther were two guys from Canada, friends they said.
>Defensive and Russtyman on ICC. One was rating about 2000 and ocasionally I
>would play him and whip him soundly. The other was 1500-1600 and I
>regularly whupped him. Then about six months go by and they are both over
>2500. I asked how can this be and was told they were taking lessons and
>studying daily. Wellll I've taken lessons in my day and damn if my rating
>ever went up 500-900 points in six months. I was hardly surprised when a few
>months later they were branded as computers. Now as for Natalie, I find it
>hard to believe she is that good and has never succumbed to the temptation
>to play OTB. Golly, she could challenge the Woman's title huh ?
>
>StanB
>
I don't know about that. I think I read a post here that said she had
a 2200 rating in slower games (ICC) and 2400 in blitz (on FICS). In
any case "I find it hard to believe" is your opinion (I'm not saying
there's anything wrong with it). That's all we've had to go on here -
opinions and conjecture. One poster said that he was a master and had
been defeated regularly by NatalieR in blitz. What I am asking
(Helmet too) is simply to see some hard evidence. FICS, are you
listening?
Jon
Lonnie
In my opinion the ADM of any server on the Net best leave these decisions to
themselves as people would want a cyber-hearing everytime someone gets slighted.
Usually their pretty fair about these things and sometimes they might not be.
Randy Bauer
helmet <acu...@es.co.nz> wrote in article
<acummin.31...@es.co.nz>...
> i agree those two idiots were probably cheating, but the natalier
case
> isnt quite so straightforward. She seems very good at beating computers
> using very human anti computer tactics. Once you learn the technique for
> beating them its not that difficult. It would be quite possible for a
2000
> rated player to learn this technique and by just playing computers on
servers
> achieve a rating of 2600, a clear 600 points better than that player
would
> achieve playing humans
> helmet
I think your analysis of these human-computer match-ups is overly
simplistic. First, to achieve these super-high ratings under your
scenario, you'll have to be playing the true computer big boys. These
computers have not achieved 2500 ratings by easily succumbing to human
"anti-computer tactics." Indeed, I've played over many games by strong
grandmasters and international masters who couldn't regularly beat these
machines to the tune necessary to be 600 (or even 200) points stronger than
the rating they would achieve playing human players.
Second, you make it sound as if there's some easily mastered "secret" that
will make beating these machines so easy. If that's the case, why didn't
you just regularly "dust" the guy who was using the computer against you on
ICC and make a ton of rating points? Why, for that matter, is ANY computer
rated 2500 on ICC? Can't you just teach these anti-computer tactics
(probably for a nice fee) to all those 1800-2000 types, they'll play
computers all day and night, become 2600 themselves and the computers will
sink to the bottom of the rating lists?
Since this obviously isn't going to happen in any realistic world, let's
give the computers their due and not succumb to these flights of fancy that
2500 computers are easily manipulated by "knowing" human players with 2000
ratings.
Randy Bauer
Rolf Tueschen
"Robert " <nos...@nospam.net> wrote:
>Once you learn the technique for beating computers it's not that difficult?
>Why didn't somebody tell this to Kasparov?
>Seriously, there are anti computer techniques but it's by no means easy.
>I've watched GMs struggle against several versions of Crafty on chess.net.
>In my experience, even people who can beat supercomps on a regular basis
>lose to the comp more often than not. The only "easy" technique i have
>found is finding a flaw in the comp's opening book. But this takes many
>many losses to find.
Best post of the day!
I fear helmet does underestimate the needed attention to play against a
computer, without operating one's own. :)
Let me make my point as follows. We can actually follow the Wch in
Groningen. And there're many games with obvious errors. If you use a PC
program, most of the mistakes are detected within seconds. Not the
missed win of Adams vs Wely in the second regular game of course.
Look, if the players over there had a FRITZ or whatelse beside the
board, they would have played completely different. Now mig e.g. is
dissapointed of the "low level" or the "many mistakes". And we're
talking about players with ELO 2650!
Now I bet two Mercedes Benz, one Volkswagen and 23 Chrystlers, that a
2200, or Natalie at 2400 (??), not to speak of 2000 or 1900, could never
reduce that error-rate. I'm quite sure thal of those players needed a
computer at their side. Period.
Just for the record, I personally doubt extremely that "Natalie" should
be able to play at 2400 without ever having played OTB. I'm sure that
this is impossible. Of course <2000 players can't judge about it. A real
2400 is so strong and so experienced, that he's able to play the way he
does under a strict time control. Note another contradiction of Flying
Natalie. She claimed many long years of experience. But that was a time
when we had no internet at all. Now, where should this woman have won
experience for such a level (2400)? This is absolutely nonsense, I tell
you.
Bruce Draney
Robert wrote:
>
> Once you learn the technique for beating computers it's not that difficult?
>
> Why didn't somebody tell this to Kasparov?
In fact here it is in a nutshell:
1. Don't play h6?? in the Caro-Kann Ng5 variation.
2. Don't play the worst, most cheesiest openings as black every
game, especially those which Joel Benjamin who advises the
computer programmers writes articles in Chess Life about.
Best Regards,
Bruce
By the way, maybe they didn't tell Kasparov because they like him so
much.
helmet
>Since this obviously isn't going to happen in any realistic world, let's
>give the computers their due and not succumb to these flights of fancy that
>2500 computers are easily manipulated by "knowing" human players with 2000
>ratings.
>Randy Bauer
playing white i expect to score at least 50% against these 2600 plus
monsters,any 2000 player can do the same. i start my games
1.d4 d5 2.c3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 Bd6 5. Bg3 Bxg3 6.hxg3 Qd6 7.Nf3 Bd7 8.b4
Nc6 9.a4 0-0-0 the crafty clones usually allow this, then its just a
question of stoming qside. most the crafty clones allow this. heres
another 1.d4 d5 2.c3 Nf6 3.Bf4 Bf5 4.e3 Nbd7 5.Bd3 Bxd3 6.QxD3 e6 7.Nd2 Bd6
8.Bg3 Bxg3 9.HXG3 0-0 and attack plays itself
Take it from me thers tactics work,it just becomes a little
boring after a while
helmet
nos...@sickofspam.com
On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 14:03:58 +1200, acu...@es.co.nz (helmet) wrote:
> playing white i expect to score at least 50% against these 2600 plus
>monsters,any 2000 player can do the same. i start my games
> 1.d4 d5 2.c3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 Bd6 5. Bg3 Bxg3 6.hxg3 Qd6 7.Nf3 Bd7 8.b4
>Nc6 9.a4 0-0-0 the crafty clones usually allow this, then its just a
>question of stoming qside. most the crafty clones allow this. heres
>another 1.d4 d5 2.c3 Nf6 3.Bf4 Bf5 4.e3 Nbd7 5.Bd3 Bxd3 6.QxD3 e6 7.Nd2 Bd6
>8.Bg3 Bxg3 9.HXG3 0-0 and attack plays itself
>
> Take it from me thers tactics work,it just becomes a little
>boring after a while
For anyone who is interested in defeating these monsters, here are two
of my games which might give you ideas. I have no ideas (!) but rather
considered myself lucky to win them. But if you're interested, you
might find a pattern. I'm white in each.
WhiteElo 2062 or thereabouts.
Black: TolkienX(C) 2524
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg5 Bb4+ 5. c3 Bd6 6. Nbd2 O-O 7. Bg2
h6 8. Bxf6 Qxf6 9. e4 Nc6 10. e5 Nxe5 11.dxe5 Bxe5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 13.Qe2
Qxe2 14.Kxe2 Bd7 15.Rhe1 Bb5+ 16.Ke3 Rad8 17.Nb3 Rfe8 18.Rad1 Ba4
19.Rd4 Bxb3 20.axb3 c5 21.Ra4 a6 22.b4 c4 23.Ra3 Rd6 24.b3 cxb3
25.Rxb3 Rc8 26.Kd3 Rdc6 27.Kd2 R8c7 28.Rc1 Rc4 29.Bf1 Rg4 30.h3 Rg5
31.c4 d4 32.Bd3 Rh5 33.h4 Rc6 34.b5 axb5 35.Rxb5 Rxb5 36.cxb5 Rxc1
37.Kxc1 b6 38.Kb2 e5 39.g4 Kf8 40.Kb3 g6 41.Kc4 f5 42.gxf5 gxf5
43.Bxf5 Ke7 44.Kd5 Kf6 45.Be4 d3 46.Bxd3 Kf7 47.Be4 h5 48.Kc6 Ke6
49.Kxb6 Kd6 50.f3 Kd7 51.Kc5 Kc7 52.b6+ Kb8 53.Kd6 Kc8 54.Kxe5 Kd7
55.b7 Kc7 56.Kf6 Kb8 57.Kg5 Kc7 58.f4. Kb8 59.f5 Kc7 60.f6 Kb6 61.f7
Kb5 62.f8=Q Kc4 63.Qd8 Kc5 64.b8=Q Kc4 65.Qbc7+ Kb3 66.Qdb8+ Ka2
67.Qca7
I don't know why Tolkien gave me the piece in that game. In the next
game, I believe that Rocky-C had no tactics to play, within its
"horizon" that it could "see".
[WhiteElo "2062"]
[Black "Rocky-C" Elo "2834"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7
6. Bd3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5 8. Bd3 a6 9. O-O Bb4 10. Qe2 c5
11. a3 Bxc3 12. bxc3 c4 13. Bc2 O-O 14. e4 Qa5 15. Bd2 Rb8
16. Ng5 h6 17. e5 hxg5 18. exf6 Nxf6 19. Bxg5 Qd8 20. Qf3 Bb7
21. Qf4 Bd5 22. Rfe1 Re8 23. Qh4 Rc8 24. Re5 Bc6 25. Rae1 Qa5
26. Bxf6 gxf6 27. Qxf6 Bf3 28. gxf3 Qxc3 29. Rh5 Qxe1+ 30. Kg2 Qxf2+
31. Kxf2 Kf8 32. Rh8+ 1-0
They were five minute games.
DB
Tryfon Costas Gavriel
helmet wrote in message ...
>
>
>>Since this obviously isn't going to happen in any realistic world, let's
>>give the computers their due and not succumb to these flights of fancy
that
>>2500 computers are easily manipulated by "knowing" human players with 2000
>>ratings.
>
>>Randy Bauer
>
> playing white i expect to score at least 50% against these 2600 plus
>monsters,any 2000 player can do the same. i start my games
> 1.d4 d5 2.c3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 Bd6 5. Bg3 Bxg3 6.hxg3 Qd6 7.Nf3 Bd7
8.b4
>Nc6 9.a4 0-0-0 the crafty clones usually allow this, then its just a
>question of stoming qside. most the crafty clones allow this. heres
>another 1.d4 d5 2.c3 Nf6 3.Bf4 Bf5 4.e3 Nbd7 5.Bd3 Bxd3 6.QxD3 e6 7.Nd2
Bd6
>8.Bg3 Bxg3 9.HXG3 0-0 and attack plays itself
>
> Take it from me thers tactics work,it just becomes a
little
>boring after a while
> helmet
Your absolutely right, the "London System"- sorry I'm not intending to be
patriotic here!.....seems to be very effective against computers. Take the
following grouchy crunch up, which I played a few months ago:-
[Event "ICC 3 0 05/20/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.05.20"]
[Round "-"]
[White "KingsCrusher"]
[Black "grouchy"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2418"]
[BlackElo "2834"]
[ECO "D02"]
[NIC "QP.08"]
[LongECO "Queen's bishop game"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6 4. e3 Bd6 5. Bg3 O-O 6. Nbd2 c5 7. c3 Nc6 8.
Bd3 b6 9. Ne5 Bb7 10. f4 Qc8 11. O-O Qc7 12. Bh4 Be7 13. Rf3 Rac8 14. Rh3 h6
15. g4 Rfe8 16. g5 hxg5 17. Bxg5 Rcd8 18. Qf3 Rc8 19. Qf2 g6 20. Qh4 Nh5 21.
Nxg6 fxg6 22. Bxg6 Bxg5 23. Qxg5 Ng7 24. Qh6 Kf8 25. Qh8+ Ke7 26. Qxg7+ Kd8
27. Qxc7+ Kxc7 28. Bxe8 Rxe8 29. Rh7+ Ne7 30. Kf2 Kd6 31. Rg1 cxd4 32. cxd4
Bc6 33. Nf3 a5 34. Ne5 Bb5 35. Rgg7 Ba6 36. f5 exf5 37. Rh6+ Kc7 38. Re6 Kd8
39. Rexe7 Rxe7 40. Nc6+ Kd7 41. Nxe7 Ke6 42. Nc6 Kf6 43. Ra7 Bc4 44. b3 Bd3
45. Ne5 Bb1 46. a3 Ke6 47. h4 f4 48. exf4 Bc2 49. b4 axb4 50. axb4 Bf5 51.
h5 Kd6 52. h6 Bc2 53. h7 Bxh7 54. Rxh7 Ke6 55. Kf3 b5 56. Kg4 Kf6 57. Rh6+
Kg7 58. Rb6 Kf8 59. f5 Kg8 60. Rb7 Kh8 61. Kg5 Kg8 62. Kf6 Kh8 63. Kg6 Kg8
64. Rb8+
{Black checkmated} 1-0
I am only 2190 FIDE at present and yet I beat this "2800+" blitz monster
using this very solid opening.
Computers have improved a bit in this opening though... they seem less
likely to play the strategically bad c4 trying to attack the bishop on d3
nowadays. This always used to blow up in their "face", when white goes for
e4 later.
By the way, I have asked NatalieR / SundayGirl to give a few tips for a
beating computers, so here they are (in her own words) :-
-Play closed positions
-Try to make pawn attack on king
-Look for good exchange sacrifice
-Some computers sux in ending, particularly rook ending
-Some time you can give up pawn or two on queen side for attack on kingside
-Look for idea from game other player have win against computer in ICC
library or on UPitt archive site or from Aegon tournament site
-Try to play quick in opening to save time for later
Here is her current "portfolio" of computer wins on the ICC. She intends to
have a go at Ferret at some point...
[Event "ICC 5 0 12/17/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.17"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "Flambe"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2227"]
[BlackElo "2518"]
[ECO "D03"]
[NIC "QP.08"]
[LongECO "Torre attack (Tartakower variation)"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5 Ne4 4. h4 Qd6 5. c3 Nc6 6. b4 Nxg5 7. hxg5 Bf5 8.
Nbd2 O-O-O 9. e3 a6 10. a4 e6 11. b5 axb5 12. axb5 Nb8 13. Ne5 Qe7 14. Ra8
f6
The female computer crusher now unleashes an absolutely superb move!
15. Nc6!! bxc6 16. bxc6 Qa3 17. Rxa3 Bxa3 18. Qa4 Rd6 19. Qxa3 Rxc6
{Black resigns} 1-0
[Event "ICC 3 0 12/18/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.18"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "singacrafty"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2251"]
[BlackElo "2592"]
[ECO "D03"]
[NIC "QP.08"]
[LongECO "Torre attack (Tartakower variation)"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5 e6 4. e3 Bd6 5. c4 O-O 6. Nc3 c6 7. Bd3 h6 8. Bh4
b6 9. O-O Nbd7 10. Rc1 Bb7 11. Re1 Rc8 12. e4 Bf4 13. Rc2 dxc4 14. Bxc4 b5
15. Bd3 Qb6 16. e5 Nd5 17. Nxd5 cxd5 18. g3 g5 19. gxf4 gxh4 20. f5 Rxc2 21.
Bxc2 h3 22. f6 Rc8 23. Qd2 Rxc2 24. Qxh6
Nxf6 25. exf6 Rxb2 26. Qg7+
{Black checkmated} 1-0
[Event "ICC 5 0 12/21/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.21"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "MrsLovett"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2211"]
[BlackElo "2744"]
[ECO "A45"]
[NIC "QP.07"]
[LongECO "Queen's pawn game"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 g6 3. f4 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Bd3 O-O 6. O-O c5 7. c3 b6 8. Qe2
Nc6 9. Nbd2 Bg4 10. h3 Be6 11. Ne5 Qd6 12. Qf2 cxd4 13. exd4 Rac8 14. Qh4
Rc7 15. Ndf3 Bc8 16. Be3 Bb7 17. Rae1 e6 18. Ng5 Nb8 19. Ng4 Nh5 20. Bd2 Ba6
21. Bxa6 Nxa6 22. Nf3 Qc6 23. Nge5 Qb5 24. b3 Nf6 25. Ng5 Nb8 26. g4 Qa6 27.
a4 b5 28. axb5 Qa2 29. Rf2 Qxb3
The next move is always good in principle to play against computers!
30. f5! exf5 31. gxf5 gxf5 32. Rxf5 h6 33. Rxf6 Bxf6 34. Qxh6 Qc2 35. Re4
Qxe4 36. Nxe4 dxe4 37. Qxf6 e3 38. Bxe3 Rxc3 39. Bh6 Rg3+ 40. Kh2 Nd7 41.
Nxd7 Rg6 42. Qxg6+ fxg6
{Black resigns} 1-0
[Event "ICC 3 5 12/22/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.22"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "BlackDragon"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2253"]
[BlackElo "2580"]
[ECO "A46"]
[NIC "QP.04"]
[LongECO "Queen's pawn: Torre attack"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 h6 4. Bh4 g5 5. Bg3 Ne4 6. Nbd2 Nxg3 7. hxg3 Bg7
8. e3 d6 9. Bd3 e5 10. c3 f5 11. dxe5 dxe5 12. Bc4 Qf6 13. Qb3 Nc6 14. Qb5
a6 15. Qd5 Bd7 16. Nb3 O-O-O 17. Nc5 f4 18. Nxd7 Rxd7 19. Qe6 fxe3 20. fxe3
Rf8 21. Rd1 Nb8 22. O-O Qd8 23. Qg4 e4 24. Nd4 h5 25. Qxh5 Rh8 26. Qg4 Bxd4
27. Rxd4 c5 28. Rxe4 Kc7 29. Re5 Rh1+ 30. Kxh1 Qh8+ 31. Kg1 Qxe5 32. e4 Re7
33. Bd5 Rg7 34. Rf5 Qe7 35. Qf3 Nd7 36. Rf7 Rxf7 37. Qxf7 Qxf7 38. Bxf7 b5
39. Kf1 Kd6 40. Ke2 Ke5 41. Bd5 Nf6 42. Kf3 b4 43. cxb4 g4+ 44. Ke3 cxb4 45.
Bb7 a5 46. Bc8 Nxe4 47. Bxg4 Nxg3 48. Bd7 Nf1+ 49. Ke2 Ng3+ 50. Kf3 Ne4 51.
g4 Nc5 52. Bb5 Kf6 53. Kf4 Ne6+ 54. Ke4 Kg5 55. Kd5 Nf4+ 56. Kc5 Kxg4 57.
Bc4 b3 58. a4 Kf5 59. Kb5 Ke5 60. Kxa5 Kd6 61. Kb4 Kc6 62. Bxb3 Kd6 63. Bc4
Kc6 64. Bb5+ Kd6 65. Ka5 Nd5 66. b4 Ne3 67. Bd3 Nd5 68. Be4 Nc3 69. Bf3 Ke7
70. b5 Kd7 71. Kb4 Nxa4 72. Kxa4 Kc7 73. Ka5 Kc8 74. Ka6 Kc7 75. Ka7 Kd6 76.
b6 Ke5 77. b7 Kf4 78. Bh1 Ke5 79. b8=Q+ Kd4 80. Qd6+ Kc3 81. Be4 Kc4 82.
Qd5+ Kb4 83. Kb6 Kc3 84. Kb5 Kb2 85. Qd3 Ka2 86. Kb4 Kb2 87. Qb1+
{Black checkmated} 1-0
For the current "portfolio" status and top tips refer to
www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc - the computer chess section, examples of play.
Tryfon
Paul Onstad
> In my opinion the ADM of any server on the Net best leave these decisions to
> themselves as people would want a cyber-hearing everytime someone gets slighted.
> Usually their pretty fair about these things and sometimes they might not be.
> 같같같
> Lonnie
And perhaps they should (have cyber-hearings). Otherwise we'll be hunting
witches and convicting individuals by "tests" having all the science of
truth discovered by dunking. (It's not a trivial thing to get kicked out
of chess.)
All this discussion is evidence that FICS, ICC, etc., are making a big
mistake by not having a combined computer category to provide an outlet.
On-line chess could otherwise end up going the way of correspondence.
And I don't mean a separate $50 membership either....almost no one will
pay that. There already are categories for standard, blitz, & wild; why
not another for computer? That would take a lot of the pressure off.
In correspondence, Alex Dunne (USCF), to his credit, once held a
computer-assisted series of postal sections--the results of which were
to have been published. The sections were played but not one word was
ever heard again of how they had turned out. I don't know if someone
else frowned on the idea or if Dunne himself had later misgivings.
-Paul
blade
nos...@sickofspam.com wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Dec 1997 14:03:58 +1200, acu...@es.co.nz (helmet) wrote:
>
> >monsters,any 2000 player can do the same. i start my games
> > 1.d4 d5 2.c3 Nf6 3.Bf4 e6 4.e3 Bd6 5. Bg3 Bxg3 6.hxg3 Qd6 7.Nf3 Bd7 8.b4
> >Nc6 9.a4 0-0-0 the crafty clones usually allow this, then its just a
> >question of stoming qside. most the crafty clones allow this. heres
> >another 1.d4 d5 2.c3 Nf6 3.Bf4 Bf5 4.e3 Nbd7 5.Bd3 Bxd3 6.QxD3 e6 7.Nd2 Bd6
> >8.Bg3 Bxg3 9.HXG3 0-0 and attack plays itself
> >
> > Take it from me thers tactics work,it just becomes a little
> >boring after a while
>
elo 2834???!!!!????!!!!! where do you claim do prove that rocky can
play at this level when the concensus is that even the deep blue machine
is approx. 2700? nice try.....and im sure every program will always
answer d4 with d5....I wonder why my rebel and my chessmaster 5000 do
not always????
helmet
>elo 2834???!!!!????!!!!! where do you claim do prove that rocky can
>play at this level when the concensus is that even the deep blue machine
>is approx. 2700? nice try.....and im sure every program will always
>answer d4 with d5....I wonder why my rebel and my chessmaster 5000 do
>not always????
blade
for your information a rating of 2800 is possible for a computer at
blitz on ICC in fact ferret is over 3000. He wasnt claiming anything merely
giving the machines rating, so jump down off your high horse.
helmet
nos...@sickofspam.com
>elo 2834???!!!!????!!!!! where do you claim do prove that rocky can
>play at this level when the concensus is that even the deep blue machine
>is approx. 2700? nice try.....
It is blitz chess, where computers are very strong.
It's an automatic printout from icc. I didn't type the rating down.
Just cut and paste it.
You're not on icc are you? If you were, you could check it out.
DB
Ron Moskovitz
Contrary to popular opinion, there are really quite a few master-strength
women in the world. A FICS 2400 implies about a US National Master Strength--
hardly world class, even for women.
While I, too, am skeptical that someone could reach that skill level without
playing in rated OTB tournaments, I do not think that strenth is so high
to be impossible. As evidence for this, I would like to point out the
number of USCF rated people who are provisisonally rated fairly high.
(A provisional rating means they've played less than 20 games, so that
means it's their aproximate strength /before/ they ever played a game).
Now, a great many of people who are ranked over 2000 provisionally eventually
fall back to earth, but some don't.
Like I said, it seems improbable, but not impossibly so. And I wouldn't
want to see FICS ban people simply because he rating seems "improbable".
(Look at it this way, if there was only a 1% chance of it happening,
you'd expect to see it happen once for ever 100 people on FICS w/o
USCF ratings! That doesn't seem too unlikely, now, does it?)
As for the value of comparing gamescores to computers, several
flaws were pointed out in this reasoning in the 'icc cheat' threads
started by Helmet.
-Ron
dott...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
Whats the difference if it is really a person or not? Her FICS rating is 2400...the
game she puts out (regardless of computer aid or no) is a 2400 level FICS blitz
game. As long as she plays at her rating, whats the difference? Its not like there
is anything on the line..
--
*********************************************************************
David Ottosen
dott...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dottosen
*********************************************************************
helmet
> Like I said, it seems improbable, but not impossibly so. And I wouldn't
>want to see FICS ban people simply because he rating seems "improbable".
>(Look at it this way, if there was only a 1% chance of it happening,
>you'd expect to see it happen once for ever 100 people on FICS w/o
>USCF ratings! That doesn't seem too unlikely, now, does it?)
> As for the value of comparing gamescores to computers, several
>flaws were pointed out in this reasoning in the 'icc cheat' threads
>started by Helmet.
> -Ron
she wasnt banned because of improbable high rating , the ban
was because many of her games apparantly had a big similarity with
chess genius 5. Unfortunatly fics has not made those games public
so we cant decide for ourselves.
also several people have posted some of her games against computers
where she definatly wasnt cheating. So its possible her rating is high because
she has learnt to beat computers,which looking at the games she has,as her
style of play is the right one for beating the computers.
i still say if they posted the games of cheating we would soon know the truth
of this mysterious case.
helmet
J...@scorebusters.inc
On 27 Dec 1997 04:51:02 GMT, dott...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca wrote:
>Whats the difference if it is really a person or not? Her FICS rating is 2400...the
>game she puts out (regardless of computer aid or no) is a 2400 level FICS blitz
>game. As long as she plays at her rating, whats the difference? Its not like there
>is anything on the line..
I for one _would_ like to know whether I'm playing an extremely
talented human or a machine. I've got 10 programs on my own PC that I
can play anytime; I play on the net to get some human competition.
Aside from that, it's simply unethical to misrepresent one's self in
this manner. Never mind if "no one is really getting hurt". If your
wife fantasizes about Brad Pitt as she makes love to you, you aren't
"hurt" until you find out about it.
Jon
nos...@sickofspam.com
On Sat, 27 Dec 1997 11:12:48 GMT, J...@Scorebusters.Inc. wrote:
>If your
>wife fantasizes about Brad Pitt as she makes love to you, you aren't
>"hurt" until you find out about it.
Who is "Brad Pitt" ?
Guess I've been in ICC too much lately?!
DB
Rolf Tueschen
t...@mail.htp.net (Tim Mirabile) wrote:
>Paul Onstad <paulo...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> In my opinion the ADM of any server on the Net best leave these decisions to
>>> themselves as people would want a cyber-hearing everytime someone gets slighted.
>>> Usually their pretty fair about these things and sometimes they might not be.
>>> 같같같
>>> Lonnie
>>
>>And perhaps they should (have cyber-hearings). Otherwise we'll be hunting
>>witches and convicting individuals by "tests" having all the science of
>>truth discovered by dunking. (It's not a trivial thing to get kicked out
>>of chess.)
>I don't think we need a public cyber-hearing, but it would be comforting to know
>that these players had the chance to defend themselves in a reasonable way and
>somehow came up short.
Yes, somehow -----
But if they had a Grand Jury like I had on your server ICD, then these
people had nothing to defend. Because it's possibly as fascistic as you
and your ICD.
NB I did NEVER ever do anything bad on ICD, I did never misbehave in
particular, I only wrote two postings or such that were expressions of
my admiration for the new software program of someone.
Nevertheless I was censored and banned from this fascistic (commercial)
server where you try to earn your money. So, shut up, please, even
thinking that _you_ had the right to babble something about democratic
conditions on American Servers.
Regards
Rolf Tueschen
>--
>Long Island chess -> http://www.webcom.com/timm/ TimM on ICC and A-FICS
>Webmaster, tech support - Your Move Chess & Games: http://www.icdchess.com/
>The opinions of my employers are not necessarily mine and vice versa.
Tryfon Costas Gavriel
For SundayGirl's / NatalieR's latest computer crushes and computer bashing
top 7 tips you can visit
Computer chess section... examples of play.
For convenience here they are:-
Here are Natalia's 7 top tips for beating up computers (in her own words):-
-Play closed positions
-Try to make pawn attack on king
-Look for good exchange sacrifices
-Some computers sux in ending, particularly rook ending
-Some time you can give up pawn or two on queen side for attack on kingside
-Look for idea from game other player have win against computer in ICC
library or on UPitt archive site or from Aegon tournament site [Authors
note: Aeigon games are also held locally here on a java browser!]
-Try to play quick in opening to save time for later
Games Index
SundayGirl vs Flambe
SundayGirl vs Singacrafty
SundayGirl vs MrsLovett
SundayGirl vs BlackDragon
SundayGirl vs ajax1
SundayGirl vs Wyrm
This is a nice miniature from Natalia:-
[Event "ICC 5 4 12/27/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.27"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "ajax1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2251"]
[BlackElo "2577"]
[ECO "A45"]
[NIC "QP.07"]
[LongECO "Queen's pawn: stonewall attack"]
4. SundayGirl vs Ajax1
1.d4 Nf6 2.e3 d5 3.Bd3 e6 4.f4 c5 5.c3 Bd6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.0-0 0-0 8.Nbd2 b6
9.Ne5 Bb7 10.Qf3 Qc7 11.Qh3 Rfc8 12.g4 h6 13.Kh1 a6 14.Rg1 b5 1-0 The
operator resigned because black's king is about to be demolished.
5. SundayGirl vs Wyrm
[Event "ICC 5 0 12/28/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.28"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "Wyrm"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2242"]
[BlackElo "2641"]
[ECO "D00"]
[NIC "QP.08"]
[LongECO "Queen's pawn: stonewall attack"]
1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Bd3 c5 4.c3 e6 5.f4 Bd6 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0-0 Nb6 8.Ne5 Bd7
9.Nd2 Qe7 10.a4 c4 11.Bc2 0-0 12.g4 Ne8 13.a5 Nc8 14.g5 Bxe5 15.dxe5 Qc5
16.Nf3 Ne7 17.Nd4 Rd8 18.Qh5 g6 19.Qh6 Ng7 20.Rf3 Rfe8 21.Rh3 Kf8 22.Qxh7 b5
23.Qh8+ Ng8 24.Rh7 Nh5 25.Bd1 Ke7 26.Bxh5 Rf8 27.Bxg6 Rc8 28.Qg7 Be8 29.b4
cxb3 30.Ba3 b2 31.Bxc5+ Rxc5 32.Rb1 Rxc3 33.Rxb2 Rc1+ 34.Kf2 Rc7 35.a6 Rc1
36.Nxb5 Ra1 37.Nd6 Ra2 38.Rxa2 Nh6 39.gxh6 d4 40.exd4 Rh8 41.Rxh8 Kd7
42.Rxe8 Kc6 43.Be4+ Kb6 44.Rb2+ Kxa6 45.Qg3 Ka5 46.Qa3# 1-0
Lonnie
|For SundayGirl's / NatalieR's latest computer crushes and computer bashing
|top 7 tips you can visit
|
|www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc
|
|Computer chess section... examples of play.
|
|For convenience here they are:-
|
|Here are Natalia's 7 top tips for beating up computers (in her own words):-
|
|-Play closed positions
|-Try to make pawn attack on king
|-Look for good exchange sacrifices
|-Some computers sux in ending, particularly rook ending
|-Some time you can give up pawn or two on queen side for attack on kingside
|-Look for idea from game other player have win against computer in ICC
|library or on UPitt archive site or from Aegon tournament site [Authors
|note: Aeigon games are also held locally here on a java browser!]
|-Try to play quick in opening to save time for later
|
|Yeap,thats Nat favorite word,"sux" so I know its her :>)
같같같
Lonnie
This is like deja-vu, all over again!
**Put a "c" before the "ook" to respond to proper email address**
jbri...@efn.org
Ron Moskovitz wrote:
>
> Contrary to popular opinion, there are really quite a few master-strength
> women in the world. A FICS 2400 implies about a US National Master Strength--
> hardly world class, even for women.
<SNIP>
I have played on both ICC and FICS and while I would agree 2400 would
roughly translate to US National Master strength on ICC, I'm not sure I
agree that it would on FICS where ratings seem to be *much* lower. In
fact my average rating on FICS runs nearly 300 points less than on ICC.
Does anyone have any actual statistical information on how both ICC and
FICS ratings compare with USCF ratings? It might be interesting...
Stan
jbri...@efn.org wrote in message <34A784...@efn.org>...
---There have been studies on ICC by various folks. The gist of it is: The
more you play on ICC the more likely your blitz rating will be the same as
your OTB rating (assuming you have an active rating).
I too have noticed the -200 point differential at FICS.
StanB
Prakash Das
Since Ron posts profusely and frequently I do not take him seriously most of
the time ;-) That said...
In article <rmoskEL...@netcom.com>,
Ron Moskovitz <rm...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Contrary to popular opinion, there are really quite a few master-strength
>women in the world. A FICS 2400 implies about a US National Master Strength--
I doubt that there ever was a popular opinion that there there few master
strength women players! That may be true if we were talking about
(women) Grandmasters. (for whatever reason).
>
> While I, too, am skeptical that someone could reach that skill level without
>playing in rated OTB tournaments, I do not think that strenth is so high
>to be impossible. As evidence for this, I would like to point out the
>number of USCF rated people who are provisisonally rated fairly high.
I don't think you are skeptical enough :-) Very high strength is usually
only achieved by OTB play. Such a strength as that of (pseudo) wondergirl
NatalieR should make you extremely skeptical.
>
> Now, a great many of people who are ranked over 2000 provisionally eventually
>fall back to earth, but some don't.
Again, the "some" you assume, is only a _miniscule_ number. Odds are against
it that a new Capa or Fischer or Kasparov has surfaced on an internet server!
>
> Like I said, it seems improbable, but not impossibly so. And I wouldn't
>want to see FICS ban people simply because he rating seems "improbable".
Why do you assume that the reason was simply because rating seemed improbable?
>(Look at it this way, if there was only a 1% chance of it happening,
>you'd expect to see it happen once for ever 100 people on FICS w/o
>USCF ratings! That doesn't seem too unlikely, now, does it?)
Again, your 1% number is simply too high. More like a million in one.
Her rating would indicate that she is some kind of genius in chess. This is
really doubtful.
I do consider her as having abused with computers. She's been playing
for 21 years, was rejected originally in the old Soviet Union as
"someone with no promise", has never played a single OTB game.
Under her icc handle as Sundaygirl, her rating has plummeted to ~2180 from a
high of 2667 (which she achieved initially by playing a series of 2100
players, not elo strength, server strength mind you). Since then, she has
consistently lost.
I believe in this: a bit of pyschology: Her finger notes indicate that
she is "popular for playing internet strength". So she had become a "celebrity".(not for me though). In order to "keep up appearances" , that is her rating
and this popularity she had gained, she abused with computers to win games.
Now that she is on icc, she doesn't risk being banned again, so doesn't cheat
with computers probably not yet, so her rating is rather average. (keep in mind
that server ratings are way inflated over OTB ratings).
I do consider her as someone who has been a computer cheater, and probably
around 2000 OTB strength.
Lastly, FICS admins have NO obligation to answer anything on Usenet, which
is full of junk mostly anyway.
(This is not to say that she is not a "nice" person, whatever nice means.
This is about being a computer abuser).
>
> As for the value of comparing gamescores to computers, several
>flaws were pointed out in this reasoning in the 'icc cheat' threads
>started by Helmet.
I am yet to be convinced by any of that "reasoning".
Ciao.
---
Prakash
helmet
I
>I have played on both ICC and FICS and while I would agree 2400 would
>roughly translate to US National Master strength on ICC, I'm not sure I
>agree that it would on FICS where ratings seem to be *much* lower. In
>fact my average rating on FICS runs nearly 300 points less than on ICC.
>Does anyone have any actual statistical information on how both ICC and
>FICS ratings compare with USCF ratings? It might be interesting...
same here im about 250 points higher on icc. i think they use
the same rating system as on chessnet, but different to fics.
think icc uses american system,where ratings tend to be higher than elsewhere.
in terms of over the board chess i think fics ratings are more accurate.In
europe anyway, probably not the same for america though
helmet
helmet
I
> Again, your 1% number is simply too high. More like a million in one.
>Her rating would indicate that she is some kind of genius in chess. This is
>really doubtful.
> I do consider her as having abused with computers. She's been playing
>for 21 years, was rejected originally in the old Soviet Union as
>"someone with no promise", has never played a single OTB game.
>Under her icc handle as Sundaygirl, her rating has plummeted to ~2180 from a
>high of 2667 (which she achieved initially by playing a series of 2100
>players, not elo strength, server strength mind you). Since then, she has
>consistently lost.
my theory which is only a guess as we havent seen the games that got her
banned, is similar to yours i think after she was caught on fics she stopped
cheating on icc .for her rating to plummet 400 points in the space of 2 months
is extoadinary .Ihave also noticed that she is only keeping her rating at 2200
because she is sometimes able to beat computers
helmet
Ron Moskovitz
Hold on, Prakesh.
I do not think that most people who acheive high provisional rankings
(which hold up afterwards) are geniuses. I think that they're people
who've played, and studied, chess for some time, but just haven't played
in rated tournaments.
I'm not claiming NatalieR is a talent on the order of Capablanca.
I don't think she is, either. She's simply claiming (as is
my understanding) to have played for a long time.
(Somebody once posted the distribution of USCF ratings, both with and
without provisionals included, and I don't remember the breakdown but
there were a lot of provisionals over 2000.)
So, while I agree it's improbable that someone would acheive such
a ranking, I don't think it's as improbable as you claim.
She may be lying, she may be a cheat, I don't know. But there are lots
of examples of people playing at near-master strength in their
first tournaments--enough so to make me beleive there could be a few
master-strength players out there, too.
-Ron
Ron Moskovitz
In article <acummin.33...@es.co.nz>, helmet <acu...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> the fact he/she/its had this very high rating after so many games makes it
>even more remarkable that he/she/its rating would suddenly plummet 400 points
>on icc after having been caught cheating on fics.
Agreed. This is what you would expect to see if she suddenly stopped
using a computer which had artificially been boosting her rating.
-Ron
helmet
> (Somebody once posted the distribution of USCF ratings, both with and
>without provisionals included, and I don't remember the breakdown but
>there were a lot of provisionals over 2000.)
ron
provisionals over 2000 means nothing on uscf. anyone can get one.All
you have to do is lose to a few very high rated players to achieve this rating.
natalier was rated 2400 on fics (2600) icc after playing hundreds of games
.so it would of been fair reflection of he/she/its playing strength.
the fact he/she/its had this very high rating after so many games makes it
even more remarkable that he/she/its rating would suddenly plummet 400 points
on icc after having been caught cheating on fics.
helmet
Ned Walthall
Paul Onstad wrote:
> > In my opinion the ADM of any server on the Net best leave these decisions to
> > themselves as people would want a cyber-hearing everytime someone gets slighted.
> > Usually their pretty fair about these things and sometimes they might not be.
> > 같같같
> > Lonnie
>
> And perhaps they should (have cyber-hearings). Otherwise we'll be hunting
> witches and convicting individuals by "tests" having all the science of
> truth discovered by dunking. (It's not a trivial thing to get kicked out
> of chess.)
>
> All this discussion is evidence that FICS, ICC, etc., are making a big
> mistake by not having a combined computer category to provide an outlet.
> On-line chess could otherwise end up going the way of correspondence.
> And I don't mean a separate $50 membership either....almost no one will
> pay that. There already are categories for standard, blitz, & wild; why
> not another for computer? That would take a lot of the pressure off.
>
> In correspondence, Alex Dunne (USCF), to his credit, once held a
> computer-assisted series of postal sections--the results of which were
> to have been published. The sections were played but not one word was
> ever heard again of how they had turned out. I don't know if someone
> else frowned on the idea or if Dunne himself had later misgivings.
>
> -Paul
The other night I was playing on ICC against an opponent rated roughly 400 points
above me--1800 and change. We played two games and drew both. By my own standard--my
USCF rating has hovered between 1400 and 1500 for years and my Blitz rating on ICC
runs between about 1450 and 1600 and has never been higher than 1619, playing mostly 5
12--I played well. By his standard, he didn't. I mean even in a five minute post
mortem I could spot winning moves for him, especially in both endings--positions that
no really sharp computer would ever play itself into. Nevertheless, after the second
draw, he accuses me of using a computer.
This is a tough issue. I am not rated 1800 and I doubt that I will ever be, so I
can't get into the B player's mind, much less that of the A player or the Master. I
know you need a lot of self-confidence and a good bit of ego to be a good chess
player, and I don't mean to be unsympathetic. I can see how it is easier to believe
that you just drew two games to a fish who was using a computer, than that the fish
might have been in whatever "zone" fish occasionally play into and that you might have
simply not played very well. But the fact is, this kind of behavior--ungrounded,
unsubstantiated accusations of cheating--does great harm, really poisons, one of the
things about this game that really makes it great--the fact that none of us have
completely mastered it and that most of us, if we are still playing it, are trying,
legally, to play it better. And the fact is, given the rating system, when we do play
better, legally, oftentimes we beat someone rated higher than us. When you accuse
someone of cheating on a server without really having evidence, simply because a
player rated lower than you is playing better than what his or rating predicts, the
message you are sending is really harmful: whatever you do, don't get good too fast.
In fact, better just to play exactly according to what the number that they they hang
around you neck predicts; otherwise you will have your integrity questioned, which is
probably considerably more valuable to you than a rating. From the perspective of
someone whose integrity is considerably higher than his rating, it seems a strange
world in which your reward for playing well, better than people expect, is to be
accused of cheating.
My own take on this, for what it is worth, is that I would rather lose to a few
computers that I did not know I was playing on the ICC, than spoil the fun of an
honest person who has succeeded in raising the level of his or her game--IMHO of
course. :-)
Ned Walthall
Wordsworth on ICC and ICS
nos...@sickofspam.com
> The other night I was playing on ICC against an opponent rated roughly 400 points
>above me--1800 and change. We played two games and drew both. By my own standard--my
>USCF rating has hovered between 1400 and 1500 for years and my Blitz rating on ICC
>runs between about 1450 and 1600 and has never been higher than 1619, playing mostly 5
>12--I played well. By his standard, he didn't. I mean even in a five minute post
>mortem I could spot winning moves for him, especially in both endings--positions that
>no really sharp computer would ever play itself into. Nevertheless, after the second
>draw, he accuses me of using a computer.
If you were using a computer, you'd be playing at a 2300 level.
Computers wouldn't draw against 1800 players but would destroy them.
You 1800 opponent if severely flattering himself if he thinks someone
is using a computer to "draw" against him.
DB
Mig
On Sun, 4 Jan 1998 10:39:29 +1200, acu...@es.co.nz (helmet) wrote:
> i watched sundaygirl (natalier) play a 5 0 game
>today against womens grandmaster evbad. The game
>ended in a draw and she seemed to find good moves very
>fast. i then noticed that her rating had begun shooting back up
>now at 2400.
> i checked out the game with computer, and was suprised to find
>she wasnt cheating!! .
I long ago stopped getting into these threads, being the agnostic that
I am. But I am frightened by your confidence at being able to quickly
distinguish between human and computer play in a 5 0 blitz game. Even
the programmers of these programs will tell you how little consistency
there is from machine to machine depending on time used, hash tables,
customization, etc. Especially as most programs allow you to change
their playing style a great deal these days. Not to mention the dozens
of programs out there to use that all perform differently. I'd like to
see someone prove CS Tal is a computer after a dozen blitz games! And
when the players are titled their knowledge of long opening lines is
hardly incriminating. (A 2400 finding good moves quickly?! Egad!)
If you are basing your snap judgment on her missing an easy tactic, a
human operator of sufficient strength could easily do that to mask his
evil plans. Researching a player's games over a long period of time
and combining this with other methods still leaves room for debate,
but checking it out on your PC for a few minutes is far worse than
nothing at all. (Though it is much easier to prove the negative than
the positive for tactical reasons.)
saludos, Mig
-------
Have you heard that it was good to gain the day?
I also say it is good to fall, battles are lost in the
same spirit in which they are won.
-- Walt Whitman
-------
REMOVE SBLOCK TO MAIL ME
helmet
i watched sundaygirl (natalier) play a 5 0 game
today against womens grandmaster evbad. The game
ended in a draw and she seemed to find good moves very
fast. i then noticed that her rating had begun shooting back up
now at 2400.
i checked out the game with computer, and was suprised to find
can clearly play a decent game of chess.
did fics make a mistake? . the only evidence of her cheating comes
from them who say some games were like chess genius ,but we
havent seen the games. People are still defending her, it is
time fics showed us the games or do they know they made a mistake?
helmet
Tryfon Costas Gavriel
Prakash Das<PD...@MCS.COM wrote in message <688u7o$8na$1...@Venus.mcs.net>...
>In article <rmoskEL...@netcom.com>,
>Ron Moskovitz <rm...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> Contrary to popular opinion, there are really quite a few master-strength
>>women in the world. A FICS 2400 implies about a US National Master
Strength--
> I doubt that there ever was a popular opinion that there there few master
>strength women players! That may be true if we were talking about
>(women) Grandmasters. (for whatever reason).
>
>>
>> While I, too, am skeptical that someone could reach that skill level
without
>>playing in rated OTB tournaments, I do not think that strenth is so high
>>to be impossible. As evidence for this, I would like to point out the
>>number of USCF rated people who are provisisonally rated fairly high.
>
> I don't think you are skeptical enough :-) Very high strength is usually
>only achieved by OTB play. Such a strength as that of (pseudo) wondergirl
>NatalieR should make you extremely skeptical.
>
Surely there is room for being "innocent until proven guilty". Natalia has
improved her game since leaving the Ukraine, and has been studying respected
chess authors such as Dvoretsky. Combine this with the amount of practice
you can get from playing Internet chess, and you have the makings for an
improved player.
The ICC itself is in my opinion, a good way of improving your chess game.
Over the board chess is not the only route to improvement anymore. One can
play International masters and Grandmasters much more frequently than
previously possible. Location is no longer an issue. Time is no longer an
issue… One can play chess at 3 in the morning with someone good on the other
side of the planet. The point I am making, is that the ICC and Internet
chess in general is a good way of improving because it doesn’t have the
location and time dependencies of over the board play.
I think you will be surprised with the results of the dark horse Natalie
Radosevich if and when she does eventually play in over the board
tournaments. But this is besides the point. On the ICC, Natalia seems to be
a very strong player generally. She has not only crushed computers, she also
beaten on the ICC people like women grandmaster Evbad, GM Schroeder, IM
Valvo and other titled players. Natalia’s games reflect good strategy, and
her tips for beating computers seem sound and echoe true to me about
effective ways of beating them :-
"
Play closed positions
Try to make pawn attack on king
Look for good exchange sacrifices
Some computers sux in ending, particularly rook ending
Some time you can give up pawn or two on queen side for attack on kingside
Look for idea from game other player have win against computer in ICC
library or on UPitt archive site or from Aegon tournament site
Try to play quick in opening to save time for later
"
I suggest you show this list of tips to a qualified computer chess expert.
>>
>> Now, a great many of people who are ranked over 2000 provisionally
eventually
>>fall back to earth, but some don't.
>
> Again, the "some" you assume, is only a _miniscule_ number. Odds are
against
>it that a new Capa or Fischer or Kasparov has surfaced on an internet
server!
>
Yes I agree that the odds are high of a new Capa or Fischer or Kasparov. Are
we however talking about a Capa or Fischer here?! No- we are talking about
a player which has beaten computers on FICS and was banned because of that.
>>
>> Like I said, it seems improbable, but not impossibly so. And I wouldn't
>>want to see FICS ban people simply because he rating seems "improbable".
>
> Why do you assume that the reason was simply because rating seemed
improbable?
>
>>(Look at it this way, if there was only a 1% chance of it happening,
>>you'd expect to see it happen once for ever 100 people on FICS w/o
>>USCF ratings! That doesn't seem too unlikely, now, does it?)
>
> Again, your 1% number is simply too high. More like a million in one.
>Her rating would indicate that she is some kind of genius in chess. This is
>really doubtful.
We are talking about someone that has been born in the a place which takes
chess very seriously- Russia generally used to take chess very seriously
because it was used politically to show that their people were
intellectually superior than other nations. She was born in the Ukraine,
and started playing chess from the age of 6 years old. She doesn’t have to
apologise that she does not possess a USCF rating. Contrary to people like
Randy on this newsgroup, chess is not centred around America. It is a truly
international game.
It would not be too difficult to arrange a women blitz tournament on the ICC
, and invite her, to finally sort this matter out. I am sure that people
will be interested in the resolution of this matter. Someone could have the
relevant chess playing programs that she was thought to be using on FICS.
Someone could interview her opponents, and the results could all be
published on this thread… to finally prove her innocence or guilt. If she is
proven innocent, I would like to see her ban from FICS lifted immediately
and a written apology from FICS to be published on this thread. Is anyone
interested in seeing the results of such a tournament / organising such a
tournament ?
> I do consider her as having abused with computers. She's been playing
>for 21 years, was rejected originally in the old Soviet Union as
>"someone with no promise", has never played a single OTB game.
>Under her icc handle as Sundaygirl, her rating has plummeted to ~2180 from
a
>high of 2667 (which she achieved initially by playing a series of 2100
>players, not elo strength, server strength mind you). Since then, she has
>consistently lost.
>
She is back to around 2400 now as of 04/1/97. As I have pointed out in a
different thread, she has been to over 2600 on ICC. And for a matter of
fact, she has building up a computer win portfolio which I have been
publishing at:-
http://www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc/Computer_chess/Weaknesses/topten.htm
To be labelled as "someone with no promise" shows that the place she came
from took chess very seriously- to label someone like this at a young age -
(check the age at which she was labelled this) - is not very nice but can
also fuel motivation to disprove people and to improve one’s play. Maybe we
should also start researching FICS administrators that were personally
involved in her ban ?
> I believe in this: a bit of pyschology: Her finger notes indicate that
>she is "popular for playing internet strength". So she had become a
"celebrity".(not for me though). In order to "keep up appearances" , that is
her rating
>and this popularity she had gained, she abused with computers to win games.
>
> Now that she is on icc, she doesn't risk being banned again, so doesn't
cheat
>with computers probably not yet, so her rating is rather average. (keep in
mind
>that server ratings are way inflated over OTB ratings).
>
She has bounced back to around 2400 now. This is not an average rating. Your
argument that server ratings are way inflated over OTB ratings actually
contradicts a statement you have previosly made:- "Her rating would indicate
that she is some kind of genius in chess". You both devalue server ratings,
in one statement, and in another claim to it to represent some kind of chess
genius? So which is it?
> I do consider her as someone who has been a computer cheater, and probably
>around 2000 OTB strength.
>
> Lastly, FICS admins have NO obligation to answer anything on Usenet, which
>is full of junk mostly anyway.
> (This is not to say that she is not a "nice" person, whatever nice means.
>This is about being a computer abuser).
>
It would also be particularly embarrassing for FICS if it turned out she was
a very good player and had not been using computers. Usenet maybe full of
junk but it is can be a very useful way of arriving at the truth. It is
great that people from different countries, that have a relevant perspective
to bring into this discussion, can do so. It is called freedom of speech
without location getting in the way.
In this particular case, it is also embarassing for FICS I would imagine,
that she can keep on generating evidence that she is not a computer abuser.
This is because she has beaten a number of titled players on the ICC and
will continue to do so. Her rating is back to 2400+ at time of writing.
Tryfon
Webmaster, Barnet chess club on-line
www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc
da...@taic.net
Tryfon Costas Gavriel <try...@gtryfon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: Surely there is room for being "innocent until proven guilty". Natalia has
: improved her game since leaving the Ukraine, and has been studying respected
: chess authors such as Dvoretsky. Combine this with the amount of practice
: you can get from playing Internet chess, and you have the makings for an
: improved player.
Yea, right. Just like that, and now beating Woman Grandmasters.
That should says a lot about WGM's or Natalier, or both.
: her tips for beating computers seem sound and echoe true to me about
: effective ways of beating them :-
: "
: Play closed positions
: Try to make pawn attack on king
: Look for good exchange sacrifices
: Some computers sux in ending, particularly rook ending
: Some time you can give up pawn or two on queen side for attack on kingside
: Look for idea from game other player have win against computer in ICC
: library or on UPitt archive site or from Aegon tournament site
: Try to play quick in opening to save time for later
: "
: I suggest you show this list of tips to a qualified computer chess expert.
Of course, there is no chance AT ALL that she could have gotten
this by reading about it herself. Maybe from a "qualified computer chess
expert."
Geoffrey E. Caveney
Tryfon Costas Gavriel (try...@gtryfon.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I think you will be surprised with the results of the dark horse Natalie
: Radosevich if and when she does eventually play in over the board
: tournaments. But this is besides the point. On the ICC, Natalia seems to be
: a very strong player generally. She has not only crushed computers, she also
: beaten on the ICC people like women grandmaster Evbad, GM Schroeder, IM
: Valvo and other titled players. Natalia’s games reflect good strategy, and
: [...]
: It would not be too difficult to arrange a women blitz tournament on the ICC
: , and invite her, to finally sort this matter out. I am sure that people
: will be interested in the resolution of this matter. Someone could have the
: relevant chess playing programs that she was thought to be using on FICS.
: Someone could interview her opponents, and the results could all be
: published on this thread… to finally prove her innocence or guilt. If she is
: proven innocent, I would like to see her ban from FICS lifted immediately
: and a written apology from FICS to be published on this thread. Is anyone
: interested in seeing the results of such a tournament / organising such a
: tournament ?
I don't think Natalie is using a computer either. But the fact is, she
can't *prove* her strength by playing *only* on a medium where the
possibility of cheating cannot be ruled out. A blitz tourney on ICC won't
prove it. Only OTB tournament play will. Why exactly won't she play OTB
chess? Until she does, or gives a compelling reason why she doesn't, she
will remain just a curiosity.
(Even human-like games on ICC don't prove she's not cheating -- how do
we know some titled player isn't sitting next to her making her moves? She
*HAS TO PLAY OTB CHESS* to prove she's for real. Period. End of story.)
Jeff
J...@suffolk.lib
On Sat, 03 Jan 1998 16:01:19 -0500, Ned Walthall
<nwal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> The other night I was playing on ICC against an opponent rated roughly 400 points
>above me--1800 and change. We played two games and drew both. By my own standard--my
>USCF rating has hovered between 1400 and 1500 for years and my Blitz rating on ICC
>runs between about 1450 and 1600 and has never been higher than 1619, playing mostly 5
>12--I played well. By his standard, he didn't. I mean even in a five minute post
>mortem I could spot winning moves for him, especially in both endings--positions that
>no really sharp computer would ever play itself into. Nevertheless, after the second
>draw, he accuses me of using a computer.
Your opponent's behavior was certainly rude and childish, but I don't
think that this scenario really compares to the one with NatalieR. If
someone really uses a computer to win tournaments or even prizes at a
high level, measures should be taken to stop that person. Of course,
the determination of a player's "cheating" shouldn't be capricious.
In your opponent's case, I agree that he sounds like a sore loser (at
least at the moment of defeat), and a carefully considered analysis of
the game score would probably reveal errors on your part that would
show that you're human. I once defeated a strong master in a blitz
game, but later discovered that he had overlooked a mate in 1! In
another game, I lost to a player rated in the 1200s after I overlooked
a mate in 1 (sigh).
BTW, you may call yourself a "fish", but IMHO the only one who is
justified in calling someone else a "fish" is named Kasparov.
Regards,
Jon
George S. Phoenix, III
> (Even human-like games on ICC don't prove she's not cheating -- how do
>we know some titled player isn't sitting next to her making her moves? She
>*HAS TO PLAY OTB CHESS* to prove she's for real. Period. End of story.)
Guilty until proven innocent? What's this world coming to?
Adios
--------------------------------------------
| George S. Phoenix, III |
| Garfield, NJ, USA |
| |
| "The check is in the e-mail!" |
--------------------------------------------
When replying to this message, remove the
# from the email address if there is one.
The # is there to ward off spammers.
Kenneth Sloan
cav...@wwa.com (Geoffrey E. Caveney) writes:
>
> I don't think Natalie is using a computer either. But the fact is, she
> can't *prove* her strength by playing *only* on a medium where the
> possibility of cheating cannot be ruled out. A blitz tourney on ICC won't
> prove it. Only OTB tournament play will. Why exactly won't she play OTB
> chess? Until she does, or gives a compelling reason why she doesn't, she
> will remain just a curiosity.
> (Even human-like games on ICC don't prove she's not cheating -- how do
> we know some titled player isn't sitting next to her making her moves? She
> *HAS TO PLAY OTB CHESS* to prove she's for real. Period. End of story.)
I'm confused about something. Why is it incumbent on NatalieR to prove
anything? Has *she* made any claims, one way or the other, about her
strength?
Mr. Caveney is absolutely correct - on-line chess, at present and
probably forever, provides absolutely no guarantees about the identity
of *any* player, at *any* time.
Personally, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would use an
unidentified computer to play on FICS or ICC - but I have an equally
hard time understanding why anyone would *care*.
--
Kenneth Sloan sl...@cis.uab.edu
Computer and Information Sciences (205) 934-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX (205) 934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/faculty/sloan/
Paul Onstad
> When you accuse
> someone of cheating on a server without really having evidence, simply because a
> player rated lower than you is playing better than what his or rating predicts, the
> message you are sending is really harmful: whatever you do, don't get good too fast.
> In fact, better just to play exactly according to what the number that they they hang
> around you neck predicts; otherwise you will have your integrity questioned, which is
> probably considerably more valuable to you than a rating.
> Ned Walthall
And this is exactly what's wrong with all the accusation-slinging....the
silence of evidence (FICS) when someone "knows" or "determines" that another
has "cheated." Not good for chess at all and a black mark, IMO, on the
servers which don't allow a legitimate outlet for those who would _like_
to use their computers in an honest way--and all of those like yourself
who are the targets of poor losers because of it.
-Paul
Jeff Otto
George S. Phoenix, III wrote:
>
> > (Even human-like games on ICC don't prove she's not cheating -- how do
> >we know some titled player isn't sitting next to her making her moves? She
> >*HAS TO PLAY OTB CHESS* to prove she's for real. Period. End of story.)
>
>
Well, logic has little to do with politics. Logically speaking, the
only way
anyone could be sure that she isn't cheating is to have neutral people
watch
her play. Generally speaking, the most accepted form of this
observation is
OTB play. Now, in her defense I read here a while ago of a master who
tried
to pick up a few bucks hustling blitz chess, and ended up losing to
her. If
we accept a) that he is is a master (easy enough to verify) and that b)
that
this encounter took place as described (more difficult to verify), then
this
would supply sufficient evidence to satisfy me as to her strength.
Jeff
--
Jeffrey M. Otto, Ph.D.
Department of Biochemistry, Rush Presbyterian - St Luke's Medical Center
Chicago, IL 60302
1-312-942-5766
da...@taic.net
George S. Phoenix, III <#gsph...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: > (Even human-like games on ICC don't prove she's not cheating -- how do
: >we know some titled player isn't sitting next to her making her moves? She
: >*HAS TO PLAY OTB CHESS* to prove she's for real. Period. End of story.)
: Guilty until proven innocent? What's this world coming to?
Say, didja hear the one about the challenger to the world
championship? Really good at Blitz, ya know, but never played OTB. Been
playing on the internet for over 2 decades, though, and that's how he got
real good.
Next, a bridge in Brooklyn.
da...@taic.net
Kenneth Sloan <sl...@cis.uab.edu> wrote:
: I'm confused about something. Why is it incumbent on NatalieR to prove
: anything? Has *she* made any claims, one way or the other, about her
: strength?
She has made implicit claims by not having a (C) next to her name.
And if her moves tend to look like computer moves, and she's never played
OTB, then it's real curious how she gets to be 2400 strength. Don't get
that way from playing a few years on the internet, unless she's a real
prodigy, you know? Or from reading Krogius books.
Peter Coleman
Ron Moskovitz
I'm with Ken, here. It is not Natalie's job to prove she's not a computer
user--such proof is almost impossible. (Games of hers which are very
uncomputer-like have been posted, so now the accusation is that she
uses a computer /sometimes/. How do you defend yourself against that
charge?)
The responsibility is on her accusers to prove that she is using a computer.
-Ron
Ron Moskovitz
Just like I've argued with you, Helmet, over your willingness to accept
similar moves as evidence of computr use, I'm going to have to argue
with you here. The same factors which make it hard to have confidence
in the fact that a player picks the same moves as a computer
(is it the same program, running on the same platform, under the same
conditions?) make it almost impossible to be confident that someone
isn't using a computer simply because the moves don't match.
Maybe her moves didn't make any sense to Fritz3, but were made
by Genius?
I'm not saying this to accuse NatalieR of being a computer cheater.
I don't know her, haven't seen her games, and have argued
repeatedly that strength is not, in and of itself, evidence of
cheating.
However, it's precisely because it's so hard to prove that you aren't
cheating that we need to be very careful about accusing people
of being cheats. Rumors get started and can be very hard to disprove--
one person puts, "Fred is a computer cheater" in their finger notes,
and all of a sudden Fred finds himself on everyone's noplay list despite
not having done anything wrong--and is almost completely not
capable of exonerating himself.
-Ron
George S. Phoenix, III
Well, this whole incident still won't be resolved until the games are
produced. I'm sure with all of the attention it's getting here that many of
us would analyze the games with various programs.
I read the post about the master that played her too, and it would be a
plus to her claim of innocence if it could be reliably verified. But it all
really boils down to the fact that we don't have the games to analyze. They
should be posted and the computer program's settings that are claimed to be
proof should be included.
Adios
--------------------------------------------
| George S. Phoenix, III |
| Garfield, NJ, USA |
| |
| "The check is in the e-mail!" |
--------------------------------------------
When replying to this message, remove the
# from the email address if there is one.
The # is there to ward off spammers.
Jeff Otto wrote in article <34AFDE...@rush.edu>...
>George S. Phoenix, III wrote:
>>
>> > (Even human-like games on ICC don't prove she's not cheating -- how do
>> >we know some titled player isn't sitting next to her making her moves?
She
>> >*HAS TO PLAY OTB CHESS* to prove she's for real. Period. End of story.)
>>
>> Guilty until proven innocent? What's this world coming to?
>>
>
George S. Phoenix, III
The games, the games. We demand the games!
--
Adios
--------------------------------------------
| George S. Phoenix, III |
| Garfield, NJ, USA |
| |
| "The check is in the e-mail!" |
--------------------------------------------
When replying to this message, remove the
# from the email address if there is one.
The # is there to ward off spammers.
Ron Moskovitz wrote in article ...
George S. Phoenix, III
Your ignorance is duly noted.
Adios
--------------------------------------------
| George S. Phoenix, III |
| Garfield, NJ, USA |
| |
| "The check is in the e-mail!" |
--------------------------------------------
When replying to this message, remove the
# from the email address if there is one.
The # is there to ward off spammers.
da...@taic.net wrote in article <68og07$d...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>George S. Phoenix, III <#gsph...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>: > (Even human-like games on ICC don't prove she's not cheating -- how do
>: >we know some titled player isn't sitting next to her making her moves?
She
>: >*HAS TO PLAY OTB CHESS* to prove she's for real. Period. End of story.)
>
>: Guilty until proven innocent? What's this world coming to?
>
George S. Phoenix, III
Sure it's real curious that she has become so strong, but that doesn't make
her guilty. We need the games.
Adios
--------------------------------------------
| George S. Phoenix, III |
| Garfield, NJ, USA |
| |
| "The check is in the e-mail!" |
--------------------------------------------
When replying to this message, remove the
# from the email address if there is one.
The # is there to ward off spammers.
da...@taic.net wrote in article <68og3u$d...@news-central.tiac.net>...
You Wascally Wabbit
On 4 Jan 1998, Geoffrey E. Caveney wrote:
: I don't think Natalie is using a computer either. But the fact is, she
: can't *prove* her strength by playing *only* on a medium where the
: possibility of cheating cannot be ruled out. A blitz tourney on ICC won't
: prove it. Only OTB tournament play will. Why exactly won't she play OTB
: chess? Until she does, or gives a compelling reason why she doesn't, she
: will remain just a curiosity.
: (Even human-like games on ICC don't prove she's not cheating -- how do
: we know some titled player isn't sitting next to her making her moves? She
: *HAS TO PLAY OTB CHESS* to prove she's for real. Period. End of story.)
Well, obviously you haven't been vollowing this thread for long. Otherwise
you'd know that in real otb chess (although not a rated tournament) she
was able to defeat, in very decisive fashion, a national master.
Incidentally, I found that posting rather curious. It made me begin to be
rather interested in this case so I forwarded a copy of it to the fics
admin address. I received a reply from "Friar" which said that he had seen
it. Now, given that something like that is pretty compelling evidence that
NatalieR is a pretty decent player (I defy anyone to come up with a
rational disagreement to the notion that someone who defeats an NM by
16-4 is not capable of performing at a high level on the chess servers).
Such a performance, assuming NatalieR to be an unrated player would give
her a USCF rating of 2490 if her opponent's rating were 2250, as the
poster of this story said his averaged. Granted, the USCF does not
rate blitz chess. Nonetheless, this should give anyone a clear
indication that she's quite capable of playing a very strong game. Now,
questions of how she got so strong are irrelevant. The point is that she
apparently is very strong. An incident such as this makes me very
suspicious about both the silence of the fics administration and their
banning of her in the first place. So. . . is anyone else starting to
think that a daily email to fics until they either rescind their decision
or publicly post an explanation might be a good idea? :)
As for the trash in this post about her having some sort of silly
obligation to play otb rated chess, I won't respend except to say 1) maybe
she did in the former USSR somewhere and 2) she is under no more
obligation to play in otb tournaments to prove herself than I am to do
prove that my 1900ish rating on the 'net (as compared to 1241 USCF) is the
result of some sort of cheating. That is to say, absolutely none.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the great Tao is lost,
Humanism and justice appear.
When intelligence and cleverness arise,
So does gross hypocrisy.
-- Lao Tzu
M. David Maloney Email: asd...@uaa.alaska.edu
WWW: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8425
You Wascally Wabbit
On 4 Jan 1998 da...@taic.net wrote:
: She has made implicit claims by not having a (C) next to her name.
: And if her moves tend to look like computer moves, and she's never played
: OTB, then it's real curious how she gets to be 2400 strength. Don't get
: that way from playing a few years on the internet, unless she's a real
: prodigy, you know? Or from reading Krogius books.
While I appreciate your humor, I'd have much prefered for you to post an
intelligent bit of thought and commentary rather than a blind and plainly
foolish assertion.
OTB tournaments do not have some sort of magic spell about them that helps
a person become a strong player, nor do the y have some sort of forcefield
that does that. The benefit comes from playing strong players. This is the
beneit o a) pactice and b) making mistakes that you get punished for and
can learn from. In order for your assertion to be true, it would have to
be demonstrated that these same benefits do not apply to internet chess.
While there are such patzers as IMs Schroer and Ben Finegold, it should be
noted that other players such as GM Jaan Ehlvest (a GM who comfortably and
firmly resides in the FIDE 2600s) also populate the chess servers. I
realize that you probably do not consider the opposition of grandmasters
and international masters to be worthy of even the slightest consideration
so I won't even mention the number of strong computers and FMs and various
strong untitled players. I, however, consider this to be a kind of
opposition which would be more than capable of punishing my mistakes and
providing me with very instructive losses. I would say that this type of
playing environment provides plenty of oprotunity for improving players.
It should also be pointed out that NatalieR comes from a part of the
former USSR. We all know that chess has never been popular in that part of
the world and there was never any sort of training available there nor has
there ever been any chance for anyone to play in tournaments there (heavy
sarcasm intended.)
The assertion that it is impossible to become a strong, even very strong
player without playing rated otb tournaments is clearly BS. Especially in
the internet age.
[posted & mailed]
da...@taic.net
Ron Moskovitz <rm...@netcom.com> wrote:
: However, it's precisely because it's so hard to prove that you aren't
: cheating that we need to be very careful about accusing people
: of being cheats. Rumors get started and can be very hard to disprove--
: one person puts, "Fred is a computer cheater" in their finger notes,
: and all of a sudden Fred finds himself on everyone's noplay list despite
: not having done anything wrong--and is almost completely not
: capable of exonerating himself.
One can start by never using a computer again, and making human
errors frequently (Even Anand-Karpov missed Qe8!--but no computers did).
Patterns, Ron, patterns. Don't play whole games missing few
tactics, like a 3200 level player, and then only at the end all of a
sudden "miss" 2000 level tactics, when the game's already way wrapped up.
It's real easy.
da...@taic.net
George S. Phoenix, III <#gsph...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: Well, this whole incident still won't be resolved until the games are
: produced. I'm sure with all of the attention it's getting here that many of
: us would analyze the games with various programs.
: I read the post about the master that played her too, and it would be a
: plus to her claim of innocence if it could be reliably verified.
Yes, it would be a plus as to the fact that she did not use a
computer when playing the master. As for the games on the internet, if we
can see the moves of the games that led to the suspension, we can better
tell if she was using a computer for those games.
Regardless of whether she comes up with the world's most perfect
list of anti-computer hints, or if she never even looks at a computer for
the rest of her life, if she used a computer for those games, that fact
won't change.
da...@taic.net
You Wascally Wabbit <asd...@UAA.ALASKA.EDU> wrote:
: Well, obviously you haven't been vollowing this thread for long. Otherwise
: you'd know that in real otb chess (although not a rated tournament) she
: was able to defeat, in very decisive fashion, a national master.
Hi, I have defeated, in a 10 game match, by a 9-1 score, an
International Grandmaster. Prove I didn't.
Do you swallow everything you read, you wascally wabbit?
da...@taic.net
You Wascally Wabbit <asd...@UAA.ALASKA.EDU> wrote:
: OTB tournaments do not have some sort of magic spell about them that helps
: a person become a strong player, nor do they have some sort of forcefield
: that does that.
Excellent surgeons are not necessarily only those that have
graduated medical school and gone through a surgical internship, but
that's where I'll put my money. Even if are plenty of opportunities to
play surgeon in 3rd world countries and using $35 PC programs.
We have not had the internet for more than a few years. It's very
unlikely that anyone has become a 2400 level player by just hanging out
there, and reading a few books. Really. Try to understand how strong a
2400 player is before you make such ridiculous claims.
: noted that other players such as GM Jaan Ehlvest (a GM who comfortably and
: firmly resides in the FIDE 2600s) also populate the chess servers.
They didn't get that way by playing on the internet. I'll bet
they've played a few OTB games on the way to becoming GM's. And a player
does not become a 2400 player by either playing a GM a few times a month
(if you even get that lucky) or a 2400 player by playing computers. Sorry,
not in real life.
: It should also be pointed out that NatalieR comes from a part of the
: former USSR. We all know that chess has never been popular in that part of
: the world and there was never any sort of training available there nor has
: there ever been any chance for anyone to play in tournaments there (heavy
: sarcasm intended.)
If was not me, but rather her, that claimed she'd never played
OTB chess. And in the Soviet Union, if you are at all promising, you will
quickly be playing OTB chess, to get the benefits (real $$ benefits) of
your skill. In the Soviet Union, you took whatever opportunities you could
get.
D.Regis
> J...@suffolk.lib wrote in message <34b0754a...@newshost.li.net>...
> >
> >BTW, you may call yourself a "fish", but IMHO the only one who is
> >justified in calling someone else a "fish" is named Kasparov.
What, that fish?!
--
May your pieces harmonise with your Pawn structure and your sacrifices
_ be sound in all variations
/ "()/~ Exeter Chess Coaching Page etc.:
|| \_/| Dave Regis &8^D* http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/chess.html
~\ / "...what else exists in the world but chess?"
_|||__SHEU ~/sheu.html -- NABOKOV "Contribute!" -- Doug Attig
Ron Moskovitz
Nobody disagrees with you about the notion that most--heck, almost all--
strong players have played OTB and aquired OTB ratings indicative of
their strength.
You say you'd put your money on the player who has, and I'd agree with you--
nine times out of ten, 99 times out of 100, heck, probably 999 times out
of a thousand.
But there are enough people playing on the internet servers to make
it likley that you would see the improbable every so often. Because
we have a fairly large sample size (there are a /lot/ of people playing
on the servers who don't have OTB ratings) it's entirely reasonable
that one or two of them would be very, very strong.
I understand, and agree with you, that it is "very unlikely" that
someone would become that strong. But given a large enough sample
size, you expect to see the very unlikely.
fn...@uaf.edu
> Excellent surgeons are not necessarily only those that have
> graduated medical school and gone through a surgical internship, but
> that's where I'll put my money. Even if are plenty of opportunities to
> play surgeon in 3rd world countries and using $35 PC programs.
The difference is that playing chess on computer is exactly the same as
playing chess via a computer. It is all about what level of opponent you
are playing against and how seriously you take the game. This is quite a
bit different than performing surgery, as you must well know. Poor
rhetorical ploy. Even though I agree that it is highly, HIGHLY unlikely
that one can become a 2400 level player with only books, it is at least a
tiny bit more probable that one could reach that level via things like
ICC, etc. And who knows who she has been playing at home, etc. Her claim
is that she has never played RATED OTB, right? And she did verifiably
beat an NM over the board, which is something.
Mind you, I am not arguing that she is or isn't a computer cheat, or 2400
or whatever. Only that the comparison with surgery is an invalid one.
> If was not me, but rather her, that claimed she'd never played
> OTB chess. And in the Soviet Union, if you are at all promising, you will
> quickly be playing OTB chess, to get the benefits (real $$ benefits) of
> your skill. In the Soviet Union, you took whatever opportunities you could
> get.
This is simply not true-- a gross generalization that is often true, but
certainly not true all of the time. My SO is from Russia. I have met many
Russians because of her. One of them is a young woman who was regularly
beating her brother when he was 2200+. She was not picked up as a chess
player for various reasons (this was 8 years ago), mostly family and a
little bit political. Interestingly, she had never played a rated OTB
game either-- but she regularly played strong players such as her brother
and others. Now he has far surpassed her, but that is to be expected.
c
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Tryfon Costas Gavriel
Dear fellow members of this newsgroup,
I believe people on both sides of this argument and those sitting on the
fence, have all potentially useful perspectives to arrive at the truth in
this particular case. Also the people in the computer chess newsgroup have
very valuable perspectives to bear on this matter.
The following is the truth and nothing but the truth…… I swear by my king
safety in chess games that I play this year :-)
Let me introduce myself first:
My alias on both FICS and the ICC is Kingscrusher. I currently am rated 2199
on FICS, and about 2420 on the ICC. My max on the ICC was 2605. My max on
FIC is about 2240.
I have some background in computer chess, and have studied computer chess
programming techniques, and implemented basic minimax and alpha-beta
pruning. I run a chess web site:- www.gtryfon.demon.co.uk/bcc which has had
a computer chess section for some time.
I am interested in computer chess, and in effective ways of beating
computers. Natalier is proving an excellent source of games for ways of
beating computers and for useful tips :-) and her reputation is becoming
well known :-)
I met NatalieR a while ago, when she was still allowed to play on FICS :-).
She beat the hell out of me at 3 minute chess. I was rated about 2450 on the
ICC at the time, and I thought it was a bit unusual to be done over like
this.
I played Natalier on the ICC (which is a server I am more comfortable with
when the lag is not too bad) at 3 minute chess, and I feel lucky to take
games from her.
There are lots of things which have been posted so far which implications
for NatalieR / SundayGirl being innocent. I am using DejaNews to dig up the
old evidence, so that new people who become involved in this DISCUSSION have
a good handle of what has been said in the past :-
*Testimony from a US Master on over-the-board chess*
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A US Master has indicated that she was beaten by her at blitz chess by quite
a large margin. Did he just make this up ? :-
1997/12/12
"
I am a USCF master, usually rated about 2250 or so. I met NatalieR about
three years ago when I was eeking out an existence playing speed chess and
backgammon in Harvard Square.
When she approached my table, I thought I would have no trouble taking
$5.00 or $10.00 from this cute little fish. My expectations increased as
she fumbled in setting up the pieces, and then asked how the clock worked.
Twenty games later I was down 4-16, and was attempting to talk her out
of not walking off with my last $60.00. I pointed out that she had unfairly
pretended to be a novice, and that her looks had been a distraction. She
kind of reminds me of the Xena warrior-princess chick from TV, with dark
hair and big blue eyes. She responded coldly with something to the effect
of, "If you can't concentrate, you need to find a new job." Then she took
my last $60.00 in the world, and split.
If she is to be spanked, I would love to help.
Brian Wall, Boston
"
A quote from Lonnie, which seems to back the credibility of this story that
Natalie was in fact the person involved in this incident :- (1997/12/20)
This is what Nat told me,
"I DID NOTHING WRONG FOR THIS GUY. IF I PRETEND TO BE NOVICE, IT MUST BE
OBVIOUS NOT SO AFTER FIRST GAME, RIGHT? AND IF I LOSE ALL GAMES, HE
WOULD INSIST I PAY HIM, RIGHT ? TELL THIS PEOPLE FIND SOMEONE ELSE TO
MAKE GOSSIP ABOUT! IF HE TRY SPANK ME, I SPRAY HIM WITH PEPPER SPRAY!
NATALIE"
verbatim,heehee.
°°°°°°
Lonnie
You can also see from Natalie’s photograph on
ftp://chess.onenet.net/pub/chess/pictures/natalie.jpg
, that she does indeed have blue eyes! (and she is pretty good looking J).
*3 minute chess*
---------------------
Natalier has been both me and loads of titled players at 3 minute chess. A
basic question to ask here is how difficult it is to win a load of 3 minute
games with a computer program? Lets break it down:-
- How long would it take to enter the move on the program?
- How long would it take to put the computer move back on the ICC / FICS
board to play against your opponent ?
A lots of strong players are intentionally using 3 minute chess as a way of
improving the chances that they are not playing "fish" (as you American call
it) or ("rabbits" /"bunnies" ) as us Brits call it, with supercharged
pentium II's with rebel 8/ genius/ other programs.
Official computer operators have it it in some seamless way of the computers
playing the moves. Are we to make the assumption that Natalier has got a
seamless way of making moves using a computer program. It makes the moves so
she does not run out of time ?
There are a lot of Natalia's wins at 3 minute chess, which I have published.
Wouldn’t she have run out of time against them, or has she also got the
ingenuity to seamless plug her programs in?
*Her style of play*
-------------------------
I quote from Lyle 97/12/06
Recently something very interesting and perhaps unfortunate
has happened at FICS ( the Free Internet Chess Server ):
NatalierR, an FICS player, was accused of using a computer by the
FICS admins; her account was disabled.
NatalieR, aka Natalie Radosevich, from Odessa, is ( or was )
One of the strongest players on the FICS. Since she’s a woman,
This makes her quite a celebrity ( I’m not being sexist here;
Strong women chess players are a rarity?!! ).
Anyways, I’ve annotated three of NatalieR’s chess games, and
I leave if to you, the public, to decide on how ‘computer-esque’
her style is.
Note that { } indicates a comment, and ( ) indicates a variation. PGN
notation ...
[Event "ICS Rated Standard match"]
[Site "fics.onenet.net"]
[Date "1997.12.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "woodman"]
[Black "NatalieR"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2439"]
[BlackElo "2442"]
[Annotator "Hayhurst"]
[PlyCount "68"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. d4 g6 3. c4 3... Bg7
{NatalieR has had great success with the KID.}
4. Nc3 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Be2 e5 7. Be3 Ng4 8. Bg5 f6 9. Bh4 Nc6
10. d5 Ne7 11. h3 Nh6 12. O-O Nf7 13. Qb3 13...
Kh8
{Black intends on occuping g8 with the rook. It would seem unusual for a
computer to make such a move, unless it was working off its book.}
14. Rfd1 a6 15. Rac1
{After five minutes of thought Fritz5 didn't consider ...Rg8.}
15...Rg8 16. Re1 b6 17. Nh2 17... Qf8
{Another subtle move.}
18. Ng4 Nh6 19. Ne3
19... f5!
{I like this move!}
20. c5 {
An strange decision by the computer, giving up the c-pawn.}
20... bxc5 21. Qa4 21... Nf7 {And so the knight returns to f7} 22. exf5
gxf5 23. Bh5 Ng6 24. Qc6 Ra7 25. Bxg6 hxg6 26. Nc4 g5 27. Bg3 27... Qd8
{ Fritz5 didn't consider this move.}
28. Qa4 f4 29. Bh2 29... g4!
{ Now the attack begins.}
30. hxg4 Bxg4 31. Na5 Qh4 32. Nc6 Rb7 33. Rc2 Bh6 34.
Rec1 34... Bf3 {
Sure, any computer ( or human, or fish ) can spot this move. White resigned.
One finish: } (
34... Bf3 35. Kf1 Bxg2+ 36. Ke2 f3+ 37. Kd1 37... Qxh2 {-+}) 0-1
An atractive game. Here’s a second:
[Event "ICS Rated Blitz match"]
[Site "fics.onenet.net"]
[Date "1997.12.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "NatalieR"]
[Black "Fritz"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2415"]
[BlackElo "2477"]
[Annotator "Hayhurst"]
[PlyCount "39"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bb5+ Bd7 4. Bxd7+ Qxd7 5. O-O Nc6 6. c3 Nf6 7. d4
{ An interesting pawn sacrifice.}
7... Nxe4 8. d5 Nd8 9. Re1 Nf6 10. Bg5 h6
(10... e5 {maybe})
11. Bxf6 gxf6 12. c4
{ White is space and development for the pawn.}
12... Rg8
(12... f5 13. Nc3 Bg7 14. Qc2 14... Bf6 {was another defensive try})
13. Qe2 Qg4 14. g3 Qd7 15. Nc3 b6 16. Nh4 Rc8
(16... f5 {and Black might hold on})
17. Ne4 Bg7
(17... f5?? 18. Nf6#)
18. Nf5
{Now Black is in trouble.}
18... Kf8 19. Nexd6! 19... Rc7
20. Nb5
{Black resigned. An interesting decision by the computer, since they
usually give a lot of blood before toppling over. One possible finish:}
(20. Nb5 Rb7 21. Qh5 e6 22. dxe6 Nxe6 23. Rad1 Nd4 24. Nfxd4 cxd4 25. Rxd4
Qc8 26. Nd6 {+-}) 1-0
And the third, another King’s Indian defense:
[Event "ICS Rated Blitz match"]
[Site "fics.onenet.net"]
[Date "1997.12.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "lynyrdskynyrd"]
[Black "NatalieR"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "2555"]
[BlackElo "2509"]
[Annotator "Hayhurst"]
[PlyCount "119"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nf3 3... Bg7
{NatalieR's favorite KID.}
4. Nc3 O-O 5. e4 d6 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5 Ne7 9. Ne1 Ne8 10. f3 f5 11.
Nd3 f4 12. b4 a5 13. b5 b6 14. Qd2 g5 15. Bd1 Ng6 16. Bc2 Nf6 17. Bb2 h5 18.
Rad1 18... Kh8 !
{ NatalieR used this same move against woodman.}
19. Rfe1 19... Rg8
{ And this move as well.}
20. Rc1 Bh6 21. a3 Bd7 22. Rb1 Qe7 23. Rf1 Rg7 24. Rbd1
24... Rag8
{Black's constellation of pieces is very attractive.}
25. Rde1 25... Kh7
{The long diagonal a1-h8 might open up soon, so the king steps onto a
safer square.}
26. Rc1 26... g4
{...g4 signals the attack.}
27. Ne1 Nh4 28. Bd1
28... gxf3 {of course!}
29. Bxf3 Nxf3+ 30. Rxf3 Bg4 31. Qd1
{ White has to ditch the rook, ie} (31. Rf1 31... f3! { wins something})
31... Bxf3 32. Qxf3 Rg4 33. Rc2 Qf7 34. Re2 Nd7 35. Nd3 Qg6 36. Rf2 Bg5 37.
Rd2 Bh4 38. Re2 Nf6 39. Rd2 39... Kh8
{An interesting move; Black wants h7 for the Nf6!}
40. Kf1 Nh7 41. Nc1 Ng5 42. Qd3 42... f3!
(42... Nxe4 $?! 43. Qxe4 $! (43. Nxe4 Rxg2 44. Qf3 Rg1+ 45. Ke2 Re1+ 46. Kd3
46... Re3+))
43. g3 Nxe4 44. Nxe4 Rxe4 45. Qxf3 Rxc4 46. Nd3 Bg5 47. Rf2 h4 48. Qf5 Qxf5
49. Rxf5 hxg3 50. hxg3 Rc2 51. Rf2 Rxf2+ 52. Nxf2
{Black has a winning ending.}
52... Be3 53. Kg2 Bxf2 54. Kxf2 Rg4 55. Bc1 Rd4 56. Bg5 Rxd5 57. Bd8 Rc5 58.
g4 Kg7 59. Ke3 Kg6 60. Ke4 0-1
Having shown you these games, let me say a few words on the topic. I don’t
really think NatalieR is a computer. She uses an anti-computer philosophy
In her games; she will close the center, and then start an attack on the
wing.
Her openings favor this; they are sometimes eccentric as well ( she’s played
1 a3 on a number of occasions against strong computers .. .and won! )
According to an FICS admin, they compared a bunch of her games to Genius5’s
games and there was a lot of similarity. You decide …
--Lyle
*Computer chess winning hints*
--------------------------------------
The list that I had asked from Natalier was given to me WITHIN A DAY :-
In her own words:-
"
Play closed positions
Try to make pawn attack on king
Look for good exchange sacrifices
Some computers sux in ending, particularly rook ending
Some time you can give up pawn or two on queen side for attack on kingside
Look for idea from game other player have win against computer in ICC
library or on UPitt archive site or from Aegon tournament
Try to play quick in opening to save time for later
"
Check that these are her own words by refering to Lonnies quote earlier.
Added to this, I shall say that regarding the first tip "Play closed
position", I had been observing a game between GM Heine and Ferret. She had
told me during the observation of Heine (getting crushed 4 games in a row-
before winning one game), that Heine had not been trying to get into a
closed position. This is what prompted me to ask her for more tips.
This idea of playing for closed positions is in my opinion, and way of
exploiting effectively one of the fundamental weaknesses of alpha-beta
pruning which is used in the majority of today’s chess programs. GM
Demetrious Agnos, also made a similar statement in converse I remember, when
we using Fritz to do a post-mortem analysis of a game- saying the computer
would produce good analysis in open positions.
Alpha-beta pruning works best when the position is tactical, not closed.
From my personal experience of playing for a closed position :-
This is a 2400+ computer I beat recently on FICS:-
pikozrout (2450) vs. Kingscrusher (2211) --- Sun Dec 28, 6:33 CST 1997
Rated Blitz match, initial time: 3 minutes, increment: 0 seconds.
Move pikozrout Kingscrusher
---- ---------------- ----------------
1. d4 (0:00) Nf6 (0:03)
2. c4 (0:00) g6 (0:01)
3. Nf3 (0:00) Bg7 (0:00)
4. g3 (0:00) d6 (0:00)
5. Bg2 (0:00) O-O (0:00)
6. Nc3 (0:00) Nc6 (0:00)
7. O-O (0:00) e5 (0:00)
8. d5 (0:00) Ne7 (0:00)
9. e4 (0:00) Ne8 (0:00)
10. Re1 (0:03) h6 (0:01)
11. h3 (0:12) f5 (0:02)
12. Bd2 (0:00) f4 (0:02)
13. gxf4 (0:06) exf4 (0:01)
14. Qc1 (0:00) g5 (0:01)
15. Qc2 (0:03) Ng6 (0:01)
16. c5 (0:04) Ne5 (0:01)
17. Nxe5 (0:03) Bxe5 (0:02)
18. cxd6 (0:00) cxd6 (0:02)
19. Rac1 (0:00) Bd7 (0:04)
20. Qb3 (0:00) Rb8 (0:10)
21. Qb4 (0:06) h5 (0:07)
22. Qa3 (0:03) g4 (0:03)
23. hxg4 (0:01) hxg4 (0:01)
24. Qxa7 (0:02) Ng7 (0:09)
25. Bf1 (0:02) Qh4 (0:08)
26. f3 (0:00) Qg3+ (0:06)
27. Kh1 (0:05) Kf7 (0:06)
28. Bg2 (0:00) Rh8+ (0:03)
29. Kg1 (0:02) gxf3 (0:07)
30. Re2 (0:01) Rh2 (0:09)
31. Qf2 (0:02) Bd4 (0:05)
32. Kf1 (0:00) Bxf2 (0:02)
33. Rxf2 (0:00) fxg2+ (0:01)
34. Ke2 (0:00) g1=Q (0:02)
35. Be1 (0:01) Rxf2+ (0:01)
36. Bxf2 (0:00) Q3xf2+ (0:01)
37. Kd3 (0:00) Qe3+ (0:01)
38. Kc4 (0:01) Qgxc1 (0:01)
39. e5 (0:00) b5+ (0:01)
40. Kb3 (0:10) Qxe5 (0:07)
41. Kb4 (0:01) Rc8 (0:02)
42. Ka5 (0:04) Rxc3 (0:01)
43. bxc3 (0:00) Qcxc3+ (0:01)
44. Ka6 (0:01) Qa3+ (0:02)
45. Kb7 (0:02) Bc8+ (0:04)
46. Kxc8 (0:00) Qa7 (0:03)
47. Kd8 (0:00) Qe8+ (0:01)
{White checkmated} 0-1
Should I be banned from FICS for this win, against my higher rated metal
monster?
One can also sometimes use the "London System" as white, if one wants to
steer into a solid, CLOSED position:-
This is a grounchy crunch up:-
Kinsgscrusher aka Tryfon Gavriel vs Grouchy(C)
[Event "ICC 3 0 05/20/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.05.20"]
[Round "-"]
[White "KingsCrusher"]
[Black "grouchy"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2418"]
[BlackElo "2834"]
[ECO "D02"]
[NIC "QP.08"]
[LongECO "Queen's bishop game"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bf4 e6 4. e3 Bd6 5. Bg3 O-O 6. Nbd2 c5 7. c3 Nc6 8.
Bd3 b6 9. Ne5 Bb7 10. f4 Qc8
11. O-O Qc7 12. Bh4 Be7 13. Rf3 Rac8 14. Rh3 h6 15. g4 Rfe8 16. g5 hxg5 17.
Bxg5 Rcd8 18. Qf3 Rc8 19. Qf2 g6 20. Qh4 Nh5
21. Nxg6 fxg6 22. Bxg6 Bxg5 23. Qxg5 Ng7 24. Qh6 Kf8 25. Qh8+ Ke7 26. Qxg7+
Kd8 27. Qxc7+ Kxc7 28. Bxe8 Rxe8 29. Rh7+ Ne7 30. Kf2 Kd6 31. Rg1 cxd4 32.
cxd4 Bc6 33. Nf3 a5 34. Ne5 Bb5 35. Rgg7 Ba6 36. f5 exf5 37. Rh6+ Kc7 38.
Re6 Kd8 39. Rexe7 Rxe7 40. Nc6+ Kd7 41. Nxe7 Ke6 42. Nc6 Kf6 43. Ra7 Bc4 44.
b3 Bd3 45. Ne5 Bb1 46. a3 Ke6 47. h4 f4 48. exf4 Bc2 49. b4 axb4 50. axb4
Bf5 51. h5 Kd6 52. h6 Bc2 53. h7 Bxh7 54. Rxh7 Ke6 55. Kf3 b5 56. Kg4 Kf6
57. Rh6+ Kg7 58. Rb6 Kf8 59. f5 Kg8 60. Rb7 Kh8 61. Kg5 Kg8 62. Kf6 Kh8 63.
Kg6 Kg8 64. Rb8+
{Black checkmated} 1-0
I don’t seem to remember being banned from the ICC after this win.
Her computer win porfolio
---------------------------------
Her computer win portolio demonstrates the tips she has told me:-
This is a nice miniature from Natalia:-
[Event "ICC 5 0 12/17/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.17"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "Flambe"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2227"]
[BlackElo "2518"]
[ECO "D03"]
[NIC "QP.08"]
[LongECO "Torre attack (Tartakower variation)"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5 Ne4 4. h4 Qd6 5. c3 Nc6 6. b4 Nxg5 7. hxg5 Bf5 8.
Nbd2 O-O-O 9. e3 a6 10. a4 e6 11. b5 axb5 12. axb5 Nb8 13. Ne5 Qe7 14. Ra8
f6
The female computer crusher now unleashes an absolutely superb move!
15. Nc6!! bxc6 16. bxc6 Qa3 17. Rxa3 Bxa3 18. Qa4 Rd6 19. Qxa3 Rxc6
{Black resigns} 1-0
[Event "ICC 3 0 12/18/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.18"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "singacrafty"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2251"]
[BlackElo "2592"]
[ECO "D03"]
[NIC "QP.08"]
[LongECO "Torre attack (Tartakower variation)"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Bg5 e6 4. e3 Bd6 5. c4 O-O 6. Nc3 c6 7. Bd3 h6 8. Bh4
b6 9. O-O Nbd7 10. Rc1 Bb7
11. Re1 Rc8 12. e4 Bf4 13. Rc2 dxc4 14. Bxc4 b5 15. Bd3 Qb6 16. e5 Nd5 17.
Nxd5 cxd5 18. g3 g5 19. gxf4 gxh4 20. f5 Rxc2 21. Bxc2 h3 22. f6 Rc8 23. Qd2
Rxc2 24. Qxh6
Nxf6 25. exf6 Rxb2 26. Qg7+
{Black checkmated} 1-0
[Event "ICC 5 0 12/21/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.21"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "MrsLovett"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2211"]
[BlackElo "2744"]
[ECO "A45"]
[NIC "QP.07"]
[LongECO "Queen's pawn game"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. e3 g6 3. f4 d5 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. Bd3 O-O 6. O-O c5 7. c3 b6 8. Qe2
Nc6 9. Nbd2 Bg4 10. h3 Be6
11. Ne5 Qd6 12. Qf2 cxd4 13. exd4 Rac8 14. Qh4 Rc7 15. Ndf3 Bc8 16. Be3 Bb7
17. Rae1 e6 18. Ng5 Nb8 19. Ng4 Nh5 20. Bd2 Ba6 21. Bxa6 Nxa6 22. Nf3 Qc6
23. Nge5 Qb5 24. b3 Nf6 25. Ng5 Nb8 26. g4 Qa6 27. a4 b5 28. axb5 Qa2 29.
Rf2 Qxb3
The next move is always good in principle to play against computers!
30. f5! exf5 31. gxf5 gxf5 32. Rxf5 h6 33. Rxf6 Bxf6 34. Qxh6 Qc2 35. Re4
Qxe4 36. Nxe4 dxe4 37. Qxf6 e3 38. Bxe3 Rxc3 39. Bh6 Rg3+ 40. Kh2 Nd7 41.
Nxd7 Rg6 42. Qxg6+ fxg6
{Black resigns} 1-0
[Event "ICC 3 5 12/22/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.22"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "BlackDragon"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2253"]
[BlackElo "2580"]
[ECO "A46"]
[NIC "QP.04"]
[LongECO "Queen's pawn: Torre attack"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 h6 4. Bh4 g5 5. Bg3 Ne4 6. Nbd2 Nxg3 7. hxg3 Bg7
8. e3 d6 9. Bd3 e5 10. c3 f5 11. dxe5 dxe5 12. Bc4 Qf6 13. Qb3 Nc6 14. Qb5
a6 15. Qd5 Bd7 16. Nb3 O-O-O 17. Nc5 f4 18. Nxd7 Rxd7 19. Qe6 fxe3 20. fxe3
Rf8 21. Rd1 Nb8 22. O-O Qd8 23. Qg4 e4 24. Nd4 h5 25. Qxh5 Rh8 26. Qg4 Bxd4
27. Rxd4 c5 28. Rxe4 Kc7 29. Re5 Rh1+ 30. Kxh1 Qh8+ 31. Kg1 Qxe5 32. e4 Re7
33. Bd5 Rg7 34. Rf5 Qe7 35. Qf3 Nd7 36. Rf7 Rxf7 37. Qxf7 Qxf7 38. Bxf7 b5
39. Kf1 Kd6 40. Ke2 Ke5 41. Bd5 Nf6 42. Kf3 b4 43. cxb4 g4+ 44. Ke3 cxb4 45.
Bb7 a5 46. Bc8 Nxe4 47. Bxg4 Nxg3 48. Bd7 Nf1+ 49. Ke2 Ng3+ 50. Kf3 Ne4 51.
g4 Nc5 52. Bb5 Kf6 53. Kf4 Ne6+ 54. Ke4 Kg5 55. Kd5 Nf4+ 56. Kc5 Kxg4 57.
Bc4 b3 58. a4 Kf5 59. Kb5 Ke5 60. Kxa5 Kd6 61. Kb4 Kc6 62. Bxb3 Kd6 63. Bc4
Kc6 64. Bb5+ Kd6 65. Ka5 Nd5 66. b4 Ne3 67. Bd3 Nd5 68. Be4 Nc3 69. Bf3 Ke7
70. b5 Kd7 71. Kb4 Nxa4 72. Kxa4 Kc7 73. Ka5 Kc8 74. Ka6 Kc7 75. Ka7 Kd6 76.
b6 Ke5 77. b7 Kf4 78. Bh1 Ke5 79. b8=Q+ Kd4 80. Qd6+ Kc3 81. Be4 Kc4 82.
Qd5+ Kb4 83. Kb6 Kc3 84. Kb5 Kb2 85. Qd3 Ka2 86. Kb4 Kb2 87. Qb1+
{Black checkmated} 1-0
[Event "ICC 5 4 12/27/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.27"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "ajax1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2251"]
[BlackElo "2577"]
[ECO "A45"]
[NIC "QP.07"]
[LongECO "Queen's pawn: stonewall attack"]
4. SundayGirl vs Ajax1
1.d4 Nf6 2.e3 d5 3.Bd3 e6 4.f4 c5 5.c3 Bd6 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.0-0 0-0 8.Nbd2 b6
9.Ne5 Bb7 10.Qf3 Qc7 11.Qh3 Rfc8 12.g4 h6 13.Kh1 a6 14.Rg1 b5 1-0 The
operator resigned because black's king is about to be demolished.
5. SundayGirl vs Wyrm
[Event "ICC 5 0 12/28/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.28"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "Wyrm"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2242"]
[BlackElo "2641"]
[ECO "D00"]
[NIC "QP.08"]
[LongECO "Queen's pawn: stonewall attack"]
1.d4 d5 2.e3 Nf6 3.Bd3 c5 4.c3 e6 5.f4 Bd6 6.Nf3 Nbd7 7.0-0 Nb6 8.Ne5 Bd7
9.Nd2 Qe7 10.a4 c4
11.Bc2 0-0 12.g4 Ne8 13.a5 Nc8 14.g5 Bxe5 15.dxe5 Qc5 16.Nf3 Ne7 17.Nd4 Rd8
18.Qh5 g6 19.Qh6 Ng7 20.Rf3 Rfe8 21.Rh3 Kf8 22.Qxh7 b5 23.Qh8+ Ng8 24.Rh7
Nh5 25.Bd1 Ke7 26.Bxh5 Rf8 27.Bxg6 Rc8 28.Qg7 Be8 29.b4 cxb3 30.Ba3 b2
31.Bxc5+ Rxc5 32.Rb1 Rxc3 33.Rxb2 Rc1+ 34.Kf2 Rc7 35.a6 Rc1 36.Nxb5 Ra1
37.Nd6 Ra2 38.Rxa2 Nh6 39.gxh6 d4 40.exd4 Rh8 41.Rxh8 Kd7 42.Rxe8 Kc6
43.Be4+ Kb6 44.Rb2+ Kxa6 45.Qg3 Ka5 46.Qa3# 1-0
Her record of beating 2300+ players / International/Grandmasters on the ICC
-------------------------------------------------------
if you do a
search winner=SundayGirl
it finds 119 matches at the time of writing. (where either both players were
over 2300 or one of the players was a titled player). Therefore if you see a
player below 2300- it indicates a titled player.
I give a sample:-
Your search found 119 games: [59 0 60 = (white win,draw,black win)]
0 2691 SundayGirl 2403 ALEXa1 1-0 [ br 3 0] B14 Res 27-Oct-97
1 2385 CountNiko 2715 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 5 0] E14 Res 27-Oct-97
2 2729 SundayGirl 2384 CountNiko 1-0 [ br 5 0] C05 Res 27-Oct-97
3 2560 SundayGirl 2388 Platon 1-0 [ br 5 0] B13 Res 27-Oct-97
4 2382 Platon 2576 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 5 0] A22 Res 27-Oct-97
5 2590 SundayGirl 2378 CountNiko 1-0 [ br 5 0] B28 Res 27-Oct-97
6 2373 CountNiko 2602 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 5 0] B46 Res 27-Oct-97
7 2367 CountNiko 2613 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 5 0] A31 Res 27-Oct-97
8 2610 SundayGirl 2322 JoaoG 1-0 [ br 3 0] B09 Res 27-Oct-97
9 2594 SundayGirl 2433 godel 1-0 [ br 5 0] C19 Res 30-Oct-97
10 2430 SundayGirl 2301 beetle 1-0 [ br 5 0] C56 Res 31-Oct-97
11 2291 beetle 2440 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 5 0] B78 Res 31-Oct-97
12 2450 SundayGirl 2281 beetle 1-0 [ br 5 0] C55 Res 31-Oct-97
13 2438 SundayGirl 2293 beetle 1-0 [ br 5 0] A45 Mat 31-Oct-97
14 2323 beetle 2408 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 5 0] B01 Res 31-Oct-97
15 2420 SundayGirl 2311 beetle 1-0 [ br 5 0] A50 Res 31-Oct-97
16 2300 beetle 2431 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 5 0] B42 Res 31-Oct-97
17 2441 SundayGirl 2290 beetle 1-0 [ br 5 0] A00 Res 31-Oct-97
18 2281 beetle 2450 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 5 0] B12 Res 31-Oct-97
19 2433 SundayGirl 2298 beetle 1-0 [ br 5 0] A02 Res 31-Oct-97
20 2423 SundayGirl 2308 beetle 1-0 [ br 5 0] B50 Res 31-Oct-97
21 2297 beetle 2434 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 5 0] B01 Res 31-Oct-97
22 2376 GamesMaste 2448 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 5 0] A17 Res 31-Oct-97
23 2461 SundayGirl 2363 GamesMaste 1-0 [ br 3 0] A03 Res 31-Oct-97
24 2462 SundayGirl 2462 alkhateeb 1-0 [ br 5 3] B40 Res 31-Oct-97
25 2446 alkhateeb 2478 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 5 3] E19 Mat 31-Oct-97
26 2488 SundayGirl 2319 Smudge 1-0 [ br 5 0] C60 Res 31-Oct-97
27 2520 SundayGirl 2420 BrentSpar 1-0 [ br 4 0] C60 Res 31-Oct-97
28 2536 SundayGirl 2560 MalucaPalu 1-0 [ br 3 0] B04 Res 31-Oct-97
29 2558 SundayGirl 2634 loxias 1-0 [ br 5 0] A25 Res 31-Oct-97
30 2615 loxias 2577 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 5 0] B00 Res 31-Oct-97
31 2595 SundayGirl 2597 loxias 1-0 [ br 5 0] A00 Fla 31-Oct-97
32 2581 loxias 2611 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 5 0] B23 Fla 31-Oct-97
33 2872 Silvester 2633 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 3 0] E61 Fla 01-Nov-97
34 2852 Silvester 2653 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 3 0] A48 Fla 01-Nov-97
35 2653 SundayGirl 2609 GrandRoly 1-0 [ bu 3 0] B30 Mat 01-Nov-97
36 2426 ilerdense 2660 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 3 0] B78 Res 02-Nov-97
37 2667 SundayGirl 2419 ilerdense 1-0 [ br 3 0] B52 Res 02-Nov-97
38 2342 LuckyLukez 2628 SundayGirl 0-1 [ br 3 0] B70 Res 02-Nov-97
39 2634 SundayGirl 2371 Firebreath 1-0 [ br 3 0] B52 Res 02-Nov-97
40 2634 SundayGirl 2747 Schwinger 1-0 [ bu 5 0] B13 Fla 02-Nov-97
….etc
Any of these games can be analysed on line, or mailed to your email for
analysis….
To analyse on-line do: ex 40 for example
to mail it to yourself do: mailstored 40
So those people with computers wanting to do some computer comparison of her
play- there is currently 119 worthwhile examples stored on the ICC.
*The Silence of FICS*
-----------------------------
Why havent they published the games, which was convincing for her to be
banned?
I am sure that between us, and the interest in this newsgroup thread, we can
pool together and compare her play will all the most popular chess programs
and different versions of those chess programs.
People from the computer chess newsgroup could also get involved, to help
judge if her moves were computer moves/.
Conclusions
---------------
My own conclusion is that she is not a computer abuser, but judge for
yourself. I hope to be useful my this posting to get a recap on previous
evidence.
Thanks for your time,
Tryfon (alias Kingscrusher)
P.S. Can I throw in her win against a women grandmaster! :-) - she did lose
to Evbad as well by the way!
[Event "ICC 5 0 12/13/97"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "1997.12.13"]
[Round "-"]
[White "SundayGirl"]
[Black "evbad"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "2245"]
[BlackElo "2413"]
[ECO "C42"]
[NIC "RG.03"]
[LongECO "Petrov's defense"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 Nc6 4. Nxc6 dxc6 5. e5 Ng4
6. d4 c5 7. c3 cxd4 8. cxd4 c5 9. Be2 h5 10. h3 Nh6
11. d5 Nf5 12. Nc3 Nd4 13. O-O Bf5 14. Be3 Nxe2+ 15. Qxe2 Be7
16. d6 Bg5 17. f4 Bh4 18. Nd5 O-O 19. Qxh5 Be4 20. Nc3 Bc6
21. Bxc5 b6 22. Be3 Rc8 23. Rad1 g6 24. Qe2 Qd7 25. Nd5 Bxd5
26. Rxd5 Rc4 27. Qxc4
{Black resigns} 1-0
You Wascally Wabbit
On 5 Jan 1998 da...@taic.net wrote:
: One can start by never using a computer again, and making human
: errors frequently (Even Anand-Karpov missed Qe8!--but no computers did).
:
: Patterns, Ron, patterns. Don't play whole games missing few
: tactics, like a 3200 level player, and then only at the end all of a
: sudden "miss" 2000 level tactics, when the game's already way wrapped up.
:
: It's real easy.
Perhaps Mr. Data is unfamiliar with the Deep Blue vs. Kasparov match in
which DB and Kasparov both missed a not-to-terribly complicated draw.
Obviously Kasparov was cheating with a computer for the first part of the
game according to this line of "reasoning." As for Deep Blue, it must have
been cheating by using a 2000 rated human, otherwise it would not have
missed the draw. Yasser Seirawan, who missed the same perpetual check due
to what (IIRC) he called a case of chess blindness induced by trust in
KKasparov not to do something like that, must have had some sort of
computer annotating the game for him. Then there's the last game in which
Kasparov came up with a howler deserving of many ?s. Again, this proves
that Kasparov is not a very strong player, he's just a fish who used a
computer to cheat in order to get where he did. Or, it could be that Mr.
Data's "logic" (independent of any actual evidence as it is) is screwy.
In another incident, world championship candidate and future world
champion Tigran Petrosian, playing in the 1956 candidate's tournament,
played what he called "the game of his life." Then he simply left his
queen en prise. Obviously Petrosian was really just a fish. Grandmasters
don't do things like that. In reality, Petrosian was just a patzer who
probably wouldn't even have a rating of 1000 if he didn't cheat. Check out
the game if you don't believe it:
[White "Petrosian, Tigran"]
[Black "Bronstein, David"]
[Event "1956 World Championship Candidates Tournament"]
[Site "Amsterdam"]
[Result "0-1"]
1. c4 Nf6 2. Nc3 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nf3 c5 6. O-O Nc6 7. d4 d6 8.
dxc5 dxc5 9. Be3 Nd7 10. Qc1 Nd4 11. Rd1 e5 12. Bh6 Qa5 13. Bxg7 Kxg7 14.
Kh1 Rb8 15. Nd2 a6 16. e3 Ne6 17. a4 h5 18. h4 f5 19. Nd5 Kh7 20. b3 Rf7
21. Nf3 Qd8 22. Qc3 Qh8 23. e4 fxe4 24. Nd2 Qg7 25. Nxe4 Kh8 26. Rd2 Rf8
27. a5 Nd4 28. b4 cxb4 29. Qxb4 Nf5 30. Rad1 Nd4 31. Re1 Nc6 32. Qa3 Nd4
33. Rb2 Nc6 34. Reb1 Nd4 35. Qd6 Nf5 36. Ng5 Nxd6 0-1
For some reason people seem to have this idea that strong players (NMs,
GMs, IMs, whatever) don't make blunders. The fact is that they don't make
them as often as weaker players do but it isn't terribly difficult to find
some stunners. I suspect that the illusion comes about as a result of
playing over too many collections of "best games" that don't have the
blunders. :) For those who are interested in the above game, which is one
of my favorites except for the blunder, you can find it as game 517 with
notes by Petrosian in volume 1 of The Games of Tigran Petrosian by E.
Shekhtman.
You Wascally Wabbit
On 5 Jan 1998 da...@taic.net wrote:
: You Wascally Wabbit <asd...@UAA.ALASKA.EDU> wrote:
:
: : Well, obviously you haven't been vollowing this thread for long. Otherwise
: : you'd know that in real otb chess (although not a rated tournament) she
: : was able to defeat, in very decisive fashion, a national master.
:
: Hi, I have defeated, in a 10 game match, by a 9-1 score, an
: International Grandmaster. Prove I didn't.
:
: Do you swallow everything you read, you wascally wabbit?
First of all, NatalieR did not claim to have beaten a national master by
16-4. The national master made the claim to have been beaten by that
margin. I certainly don't think he did that to bolster his own ego. But,
to answer your question, unless there is some reason to disbelieve someone
, I tend to assume people are telling/writing the truth. It makes it a lot
easier to get along with people as well as to simply communicate. I'd be a
very unhappy person who couldn't talk to anyone if I assumed everyone was
lying.
Now, if you have some reason to believe the story is false, by all means
please come forward. But you'll have to do better than you'eve done so
far. That is to say that I (and I hope most others) will require actual
evidence. Your suspicions and disbelief are not evidence. Evidence must be
factual.
You Wascally Wabbit
On 5 Jan 1998 da...@taic.net wrote:
: You Wascally Wabbit <asd...@UAA.ALASKA.EDU> wrote:
:
: : OTB tournaments do not have some sort of magic spell about them that helps
: : a person become a strong player, nor do they have some sort of forcefield
: : that does that.
:
: Excellent surgeons are not necessarily only those that have
: graduated medical school and gone through a surgical internship, but
: that's where I'll put my money. Even if are plenty of opportunities to
: play surgeon in 3rd world countries and using $35 PC programs.
The two situations are not analogous. A surgeon with no experience and a
surgeon with experience is not comparable to a chess player with
experience in situation A and a chess player with experience in situation
B.
: We have not had the internet for more than a few years. It's very
: unlikely that anyone has become a 2400 level player by just hanging out
: there, and reading a few books. Really. Try to understand how strong a
: 2400 player is before you make such ridiculous claims.
Actually the internet has been around for a very long time. In its present
form with widely available access to it it is new though.
I agree that one cannot become a 2400 player by just hanging out there and
reading a few books. However, I see nothing wrong with the notion that one
could become a 2400 player there by carefully studying a great many books
very carefully and playing on the servrs a lot against strong opposition.
Of course that would also depend a lot on where one starts from. I think
it would take most (but not all--and surel yof the 10000 or however many
players there are on fic there would be one or two that are this talented)
people more than a few years to rise from rank beginner to 2400. However,
we know that this is NOT what has happened in the case of NatalieR.
First of all it was stated that Natalie was considered by the chess
leadership there to be someone without promise. In order to make that
judgement she had to have received some chess training already. In the
USSR this could easily have beenquite considerable because of the
seriousness with which chess was viewed there. Granted that it would not
haeve been the same as that lavished on a potential world champion such as
Karpov. Nonetheless, it is hardly unlikely that NatalieR started from a
position of within 200 points of, let's say, 2000.
As for the strength of 2400 players, I suggest that while I'm considering
that, you could consider their limitations andd the fact that they were a
dime a dozen in the USSR and remain that way in Russia. Indeed, a soviet
candidate master is to be considered the equivalent of a US senior master
according to the USCF rule book. I'll spare you any mention of the fact
that many of our strong US Grandmasters are people who were regarded as
unpromising players in the soviet union.
: : noted that other players such as GM Jaan Ehlvest (a GM who comfortably and
: : firmly resides in the FIDE 2600s) also populate the chess servers.
:
: They didn't get that way by playing on the internet. I'll bet
: they've played a few OTB games on the way to becoming GM's. And a player
: does not become a 2400 player by either playing a GM a few times a month
: (if you even get that lucky) or a 2400 player by playing computers. Sorry,
: not in real life.
Please don't be silly. According to *your own statements*, the internet
did not even exist in its present form when such players became so strong.
Obviously they didn't get that way by playing on the internet. Perhaps the
fact that this opprotunity didn't exist at that time had something to do
with it. If you'd like to address my point about the internet being a
place where people can become strong players *now that it exists and is
available*, please feel free to do so. This doesn't even pretend to
address that question.
I also agree that one does not become a 2400 player by playing a GM a few
times a month. But I think one might become one by playing FMs or other
2400 players or even IMs on a daily basis. And that's not hard to do.
: : It should also be pointed out that NatalieR comes from a part of the
: : former USSR. We all know that chess has never been popular in that part of
: : the world and there was never any sort of training available there nor has
: : there ever been any chance for anyone to play in tournaments there (heavy
: : sarcasm intended.)
:
: If was not me, but rather her, that claimed she'd never played
: OTB chess. And in the Soviet Union, if you are at all promising, you will
: quickly be playing OTB chess, to get the benefits (real $$ benefits) of
: your skill. In the Soviet Union, you took whatever opportunities you could
: get.
She's probably never playeed OTB chess in the US. I'm not at all convinced
that she never played in the USSR. I sincerely doubt that the USSR judged
the potential of chess players on the basis of their ability to play the
ukelele.I know, from having read about the careers of soviet players, that
they often reach quiet a high level of play (at least in the USA it would
be considered quite high) before such a judgement was made.
Jeff Otto
da...@taic.net wrote:
>
> fn...@uaf.edu wrote:
> : Even though I agree that it is highly, HIGHLY unlikely
> : that one can become a 2400 level player with only books, it is at least a
> : tiny bit more probable that one could reach that level via things like
> : ICC, etc.
>
>
> : And who knows who she has been playing at home, etc. Her claim
> : is that she has never played RATED OTB, right? And she did verifiably
> : beat an NM over the board, which is something.
>
> he's a master who lost to her? Where's the verification in all this? I'll
> post a message saying I'm a 1600 who bear her. What now? Will you average
> it out?
Well, I checked the guy's name (wish I could remember it now) and found
that
he was in fact an NM, although he no longer seems to reside in DC. This
of
course doesn't prove that he actually played her, but it isn't like he
is
claiming to be something he's not. The question remains as to whether
or not these games took place. He claims that they did, and Natalier
confirms
this. Now, either he is somehow in collusion with her, or the games
took
place. As a scientist, I usually go along with the simplist explanation
unless
there is substantial evidence to suggest otherwise. In this case,
rather than
doubt the ethics and integrity of two individuals who I have no reason
to mistrustt
I choose to accept the story essentially as presented. Now, this said,
it does
nothing to prove that she hasn't, doesn't or won't use computers to
enhance her
play online. It merely suggests that she is strong enough to have
beaten an NM
at blitz chess on one fine day.
There is enough ancedotal evidence that has also been presented to
suggest that
she doesn't cheat with computers. But so what? If some loser has such
low self
esteem that they need to use computers to artificially elevate their
rating so that
they can feel better about themselves then it is they who are losing
out. These
servers provide an invaluable service in that they permit training 24
hours a day
against all levels of competition, whether it be silicon or carbon
based. I play
for the enjoyment, for the competition, and for the excercise. Whether
I win, lose
or draw against anyone (thing) doesn't diminish my experience. The only
place where
I feel that this cheating hurts others is when prizes are involved. But
for this
reason, not only will I not play in any online tournaments, I will not
play in any
of the big prize opens: I have no desire to be spanked by a "1600"
player who really
is around 2100 strength, and is competing for the same prizes as I am.
In the end, I am quite suprised that this thread hasn't yet died out.
Jeff Otto
> : As a scientist, I usually go along with the simplist explanation
> : unless there is substantial evidence to suggest otherwise.
>
> to hear your definition of "simplest". What is your field of science?
My definition depends on the situation. In this case, either the woman
is a strong chess player based on 1) ancedotal evidence of an OTB
performance, 2) her performance at 3 0 blitz which unless she has a
direct computer interface precludes cheating 3) her comments, advice
on how to play against computers and 4) games that were presented here
and that were subsequently analyzed by so called computer experts, the
other possibility is that she isn't the strong player that she claims
to be and is a cheat based on 1) the match between her and the NM never
took place 2) she has a direct computer interface 3) in the soviet union
she was "a player with no promise" In my mind it is simplest situation
to accept that the blitz match took place - we have two people who
confirm it and a third who claims to have played the NM. Since the name
associated with the so called NM is in fact a 2200+ player, I accept
that
such an occurance could have taken place. This is far different from me
claiming to to be an NM who played her, etc. As soon as anyone checked
and found me out, my credibility would be shot. Anyways, based on this
I suspect that she is probably a fairly strong blitz player. Again, I
would like to point out that this doesn't prove that she hasn't, doesn't
or won't use computers to enhance her play - but it does suggest that
she may not have to.
As for my field of science, it is molecular genetics, but I specialize
in transgenics.
>
> : In this case, rather than doubt the ethics and integrity of two
> : individuals who I have no reason to mistrust I choose to accept the
> : story essentially as presented.
>
> Faith has no role in science. Statistics and probability do. But
Faith has a huge role in science! This is where all new assumptions
begin.
We just don't stop at this point. Sometimes data becomes difficult to
interpret, or contradicts other dearly held beliefs. We take it on
faith
that the experiments were done correctly, but still try to prove them
wrong :-)
> if you wish to rely on faith, let's start with the games that resulted in
> her being banned. I have faith that organizers on a chess server are
> probably the absolutely most experienced (next to chess programmers) in
> detecting the use of computers. When they see patterns in both moves and
> time used that resemble those of computers, and they act, I have "faith"
> that they have done so based on substantial evidence and utilizing
> professional skill.
And with no other evidence, I would be enclined to agree with you here.
Especially since I lack the experience and skill to make such assesments
myself.
>
> I also know a little of human nature. Given the above, if some guy
> leaves a message about how he'd like to have spanked her, and describes
> her beautiful eyes, and then also states that he lost to her, I have to
> consider the possibility that this has been conjured after the ban by a
> friend of hers.
Well, I have had two separate opportunities to watch the effect that
women
can have on men in chess. The first instance took place at the North
Central
Open in 1993 (or 1994) an A class woman player performed quite well.
She
was quite attractive with a full chest and a low cut blouse. She would
lean
on the table using her forearms to evelate her cleavage. Care to guess
what
the discussion was in the skittles room? The second event took place at
the
Milwaukee Chess club in the spring of 1994. A Yugoslavian woman came,
joined
the USCF, and said only that she had played "some" in Yugoslavia. The
TD gave
her a provisional rating of 2200 to play in the tournament. This turned
out
to be a bit high, but she was clearly at least 2000 strength.
Interestingly
afterwards at the bar across the street, the talk wasn't about her chess
strength, but what the various players would like to do with her. She
didn't
come around much after that.
I grant you that the event involving natalier could have been
fabricated,
but I have also seen the effect that women can have on men chess
players.
What does this prove? Nothing at all.
>
> This, to me, appears a simpler explanation than the chance and
> timely recollection of a chessplayer of a blitz session with a woman a
> while back, who may or may not have been this person, and which session
> may not have happened at all.
Well, I am not so inclinded to discount such a chance and timely
recollection.
I wouldn't be suprised if someone reading this NG could confirm either
of the
two stories I described above either by playing at the specific
tournament, or
by encountering a similar situaion in the Milwaukee area at the time.
The
internet reaches a very wide audience.
I also recall an event several years ago where a person appeared on
fidonet
(the internets poor stepsister in the days before the www) who claimed
to be
a strong junior female chess player. Games were provided from
ficticious
tournaments, and on and on and on. Eventually the person was found out,
but
only because of the wide geographical range of the people who read that
echo.
I fully expect that people will come forward to either provide direct
evidence
for or against any claim that someone may make.
Jeff
Bruce Draney
Implied in this post which has been going on for some time is the hint
that NatalieR is a victim of discrimination because she is a woman. At
least that's the impression I'm picking up.
I guess what I would like to know is, are there cases of other players
(male players) who have achieved extremely high internet ratings and yet
do not play OTB? If the answer to this question is yes, then my next
question would be, have they been suspended for cheating? If the answer
to that question is no, then perhaps NatalieR is being questioned
because of her gender rather than her high rating. Since I don't play
Internet chess, nor do I have any particular interest in it, I am
wondering what evidence they require to suspend someone? I am guessing
that first of all it would take several complaints by different people
of suspected cheating and then submission of gamescores that suggest the
moves played are very computer like in their character.
Perhaps someone in the know could answer some of these questions.
John Penquite of Iowa at one point had a postal rating over 2900 and had
not played in an OTB tournament for over 20 years. Yet I don't recall
anyone ever suggesting that John was using computers or that his postal
rating was too high to have been earned legitimately. It seems to me
that charges of cheating against someone ought to be fairly investigated
and that significant evidence should be presented to prove that cheating
has really occurred. The silence in this case on the part of FICs and
the failure to present games to back up such a serious charge, suggests
that perhaps large amounts of evidence may not exist in this case. It
seems to me that if an organization wants to ban someone from playing
they ought to show the people on what basis they are making such a
decision.
Best Regards,
Bruce
Rafael Katz
Hi !
Right after I decided not to care about users on an ICS possibly
cheating by using a chess-playing program instead of the client only
I played blitz and lightning on A-FICS.
After one game I played, my opponent asked me
"are you a computer ?". I sayd "no", but the next thing I read was
"you are a computer !" I told him (his login-name was helmet) that I am
not,
but this could not prevent that I was called an "abuser" and a
"cheater".
Thanks a lot.
Seconds later he disconnected while I felt like having the
'Quad-Damage'.
What's that for a sportsmanship ?!
I think I will go much more often to the cafe where our chess-club meets
and play over the board chess.
Here the mentioned game:
[Event "fics rated lightning game"]
[Site "fics, Oklahoma City, OK USA"]
[Date "1998.01.02"]
[Time "22:51:44"]
[Round "-"]
[White "helmet"]
[Black "geisha"]
[WhiteElo "1973"]
[BlackElo "1823"]
[TimeControl "120+0"]
[Mode "ICS"]
[Result "0-1"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c3 g6 3. Bf4 Bg7 4. Nf3 d5 5. e3 O-O 6. Nbd2 c5 7. Bd3
Nbd7 8. Qe2 Nh5 9. Bg3 Nxg3 10. hxg3 e5 11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Bxe5 13.
Nf3 Bg7 14. Nd2 Re8 15. Qf3 d4 16. cxd4 cxd4 17. e4 Bf5 18. g4 Be6 19.
Qh3 h6 20. Kf1 Qd7 21. f3 Rac8 22. Qg3 Qc7 23. Qxc7 Rxc7 24. Ke2 Rec8
25.
b3 a6 26. Nc4 Bf8 27. Ne5 Kg7 28. Nc4 Bb4 29. a3 Be7 30. Rab1 b5 31. Na5
Rc3 32. a4 Bb4 33. Nb7 R3c7 34. axb5 axb5 35. Bxb5 Rxb7 36. Bd3 Rc3 37.
Rhc1 Rbc7 38. Rxc3 Rxc3 39. Rc1 Rxc1
{White resigned} 0-1
bye
RAF
helmet
In article <rmoskEM...@netcom.com> rm...@netcom.com (Ron Moskovitz) writes:
>Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
>Path: ihug.co.nz!nntp.flash.net!peerfeed.ncal.verio.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!206.214.99.1!ix.netcom.com!rmosk
>From: rm...@netcom.com (Ron Moskovitz)
>Subject: Re: The Spanking of NatalieR
>Message-ID: <rmoskEM...@netcom.com>
>Organization: Netcom
>References: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9712201...@UAA.ALASKA.EDU> <68m900$8...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net> <acummin.36...@es.co.nz>
>Date: Sun, 4 Jan 1998 21:21:14 GMT
>Lines: 25
>Sender: rm...@netcom16.netcom.com
>Xref: ihug.co.nz rec.games.chess.misc:30204
> Just like I've argued with you, Helmet, over your willingness to accept
>similar moves as evidence of computr use, I'm going to have to argue
>with you here. The same factors which make it hard to have confidence
>in the fact that a player picks the same moves as a computer
>(is it the same program, running on the same platform, under the same
>conditions?) make it almost impossible to be confident that someone
>isn't using a computer simply because the moves don't match.
> Maybe her moves didn't make any sense to Fritz3, but were made
>by Genius?
> -Ron
its fairly easy to see when someone isnt using a computer ,and
in the games i looked at of sundaygirls(natalier) she definatly wasnt cheating
using a computer.Maybe she was playing better than computer!!
it makes little difference which computer you analyse it with.Sure
chess genius would often play different move from fritz, but only when the two
moves are almost equal in evaluation.
in her games her evaluation on comps was up and down like a yoyo.
No way was it computer. At one point she started throwing her h pawn down
the board in aggressive manner .fritz would never do it,and it thought it was
bad,it didnt understand that kind of attack.
She drew that game against womens grandmaster virtually none of her
moves were same as computer. Whoever played the game was human ,no
doubt
helmet
da...@taic.net
You Wascally Wabbit <asd...@UAA.ALASKA.EDU> wrote:
: On 5 Jan 1998 da...@taic.net wrote:
: : One can start by never using a computer again, and making human
: : errors frequently (Even Anand-Karpov missed Qe8!--but no computers did).
: :
: : Patterns, Ron, patterns. Don't play whole games missing few
: : tactics, like a 3200 level player, and then only at the end all of a
: : sudden "miss" 2000 level tactics, when the game's already way wrapped up.
: :
: : It's real easy.
: Perhaps Mr. Data is unfamiliar with the Deep Blue vs. Kasparov match in
: which DB and Kasparov both missed a not-to-terribly complicated draw.
: Obviously Kasparov was cheating with a computer for the first part of the
: game according to this line of "reasoning."
This statement is so lacking in logic that I don't know where to
begin to correct it.
: As for Deep Blue, it must have
: been cheating by using a 2000 rated human, otherwise it would not have
: missed the draw.
When you learn to read, review the Dejanews on this topic, and
you'll learn why DB missed it.
: For some reason people seem to have this idea that strong players (NMs,
: GMs, IMs, whatever) don't make blunders. The fact is that they don't make
: them as often as weaker players do but it isn't terribly difficult to find
: some stunners. I suspect that the illusion comes about as a result of
: playing over too many collections of "best games" that don't have the
: blunders. :) For those who are interested in the above game, which is one
: of my favorites except for the blunder, you can find it as game 517 with
: notes by Petrosian in volume 1 of The Games of Tigran Petrosian by E.
: Shekhtman.
Which has as much to do with this discussion as the price of tea
in China.
da...@taic.net
You Wascally Wabbit <asd...@UAA.ALASKA.EDU> wrote:
: On 5 Jan 1998 da...@taic.net wrote:
: : You Wascally Wabbit <asd...@UAA.ALASKA.EDU> wrote:
: :
: : : Well, obviously you haven't been vollowing this thread for long. Otherwise
: : : you'd know that in real otb chess (although not a rated tournament) she
: : : was able to defeat, in very decisive fashion, a national master.
: :
: : Hi, I have defeated, in a 10 game match, by a 9-1 score, an
: : International Grandmaster. Prove I didn't.
: :
: : Do you swallow everything you read, you wascally wabbit?
: First of all, NatalieR did not claim to have beaten a national master by
: 16-4. The national master made the claim to have been beaten by that
: margin. I certainly don't think he did that to bolster his own ego.
Of course you are right. It's against his own self-interest. If I
spent a million years thinking about it, I could not come up with one
reason, not a single one, why any guy would, after NatalieR was accused of
cheating using computers, post an article saying "Hey, I'm a master, but I
lost badly to her."
I just can't come up with any reason why someone would do that if
it wasn't the whole truth. If it wasn't as good as the word of God on
Mount Sinai. Nope, I sure can't. Perhaps someone else might, however?
: But,
: to answer your question, unless there is some reason to disbelieve someone
: , I tend to assume people are telling/writing the truth. It makes it a lot
: easier to get along with people as well as to simply communicate. I'd be a
: very unhappy person who couldn't talk to anyone if I assumed everyone was
: lying.
You know, you are right. By the way, I won 15 million dollars last
night in the lottery. If you come to New York, I'll treat you to dinner,
and give you $50,000 to make up for my reckless suspicions. When will you
be showing up?
: Now, if you have some reason to believe the story is false, by all means
: please come forward. But you'll have to do better than you'eve done so
: far. That is to say that I (and I hope most others) will require actual
: evidence. Your suspicions and disbelief are not evidence. Evidence must be
: factual.
Statistically, it is unlikely almost to the vanishing point that
someone who has played no OTB games, and just read books and played
offhand games, is at the level of a 2400 player.
da...@taic.net
Ron Moskovitz <rm...@netcom.com> wrote:
: But there are enough people playing on the internet servers to make
: it likley that you would see the improbable every so often. Because
: we have a fairly large sample size (there are a /lot/ of people playing
: on the servers who don't have OTB ratings) it's entirely reasonable
: that one or two of them would be very, very strong.
: I understand, and agree with you, that it is "very unlikely" that
: someone would become that strong. But given a large enough sample
: size, you expect to see the very unlikely.
I don't expect to see this very unlikely scenario with a player
who also, just coincidentally, plays incredibly tactically sharp
computer-like moves. That is unlikely to the vanishing point.
Geoffrey E. Caveney
You Wascally Wabbit (asd...@UAA.ALASKA.EDU) wrote:
: On 4 Jan 1998, Geoffrey E. Caveney wrote:
: : I don't think Natalie is using a computer either. But the fact is, she
: : can't *prove* her strength by playing *only* on a medium where the
: : possibility of cheating cannot be ruled out. A blitz tourney on ICC won't
: : prove it. Only OTB tournament play will. Why exactly won't she play OTB
: : chess? Until she does, or gives a compelling reason why she doesn't, she
: : will remain just a curiosity.
: : (Even human-like games on ICC don't prove she's not cheating -- how do
: : we know some titled player isn't sitting next to her making her moves? She
: : *HAS TO PLAY OTB CHESS* to prove she's for real. Period. End of story.)
: Well, obviously you haven't been vollowing this thread for long. Otherwise
: you'd know that in real otb chess (although not a rated tournament) she
: was able to defeat, in very decisive fashion, a national master.
: [...]
: As for the trash in this post about her having some sort of silly
: obligation to play otb rated chess, I won't respend except to say 1) maybe
: she did in the former USSR somewhere and 2) she is under no more
: obligation to play in otb tournaments to prove herself than I am to do
: prove that my 1900ish rating on the 'net (as compared to 1241 USCF) is the
: result of some sort of cheating. That is to say, absolutely none.
Let me be clear: I *DON'T* support the FICS banning of NatalieR, and I
said above I *DON'T* think she used a computer. I *DON'T* think she has
any obligation to play otb rated chess. BUT, *if* she wants to *prove* she
is who she says she is, she'll have to play serious otb chess to do it. I
agree, she is under *NO OBLIGATION* to prove such a thing, but *if* she
wants to prove it, she has to play otb.
The reason I posted was in response to Tryfon, who suggested that some
sort of official ICC blitz tourney could prove she was genuine. I was
pointing out no internet chess can prove any such thing, for obvious
reasons, unless you have a TD physically present at the site where each
player is logging in from, a la the Amateur Team playoffs.
Jeff
da...@taic.net
fn...@uaf.edu wrote:
: Even though I agree that it is highly, HIGHLY unlikely
: that one can become a 2400 level player with only books, it is at least a
: tiny bit more probable that one could reach that level via things like
: ICC, etc.
It is a tiny bit more probably. But only a tiny bit.
: And who knows who she has been playing at home, etc. Her claim
: is that she has never played RATED OTB, right? And she did verifiably
: beat an NM over the board, which is something.
What is this "verifiable" stuff? Someone posts a message saying
he's a master who lost to her? Where's the verification in all this? I'll
post a message saying I'm a 1600 who bear her. What now? Will you average
it out?
: This is simply not true-- a gross generalization that is often true, but
: certainly not true all of the time. My SO is from Russia. I have met many
: Russians because of her. One of them is a young woman who was regularly
: beating her brother when he was 2200+. She was not picked up as a chess
: player for various reasons (this was 8 years ago), mostly family and a
: little bit political. Interestingly, she had never played a rated OTB
: game either-- but she regularly played strong players such as her brother
: and others. Now he has far surpassed her, but that is to be expected.
Let's see. We have a woman who "regularly beat" her 2200+ brother,
and now he has "far surpassed her" What's he now, top 10 in the world?
da...@taic.net
Tryfon Costas Gavriel <try...@gtryfon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: *Testimony from a US Master on over-the-board chess*
: -------------------------------------------------------------------
: A US Master has indicated that she was beaten by her at blitz chess by quite
: a large margin. Did he just make this up ? :-
: 1997/12/12
: "
: I am a USCF master, usually rated about 2250 or so. I met NatalieR about
: three years ago when I was eeking out an existence playing speed chess and
: backgammon in Harvard Square.
: When she approached my table, I thought I would have no trouble taking
: $5.00 or $10.00 from this cute little fish. My expectations increased as
: she fumbled in setting up the pieces, and then asked how the clock worked.
: Twenty games later I was down 4-16, and was attempting to talk her out
: of not walking off with my last $60.00. I pointed out that she had unfairly
: pretended to be a novice, and that her looks had been a distraction. She
: kind of reminds me of the Xena warrior-princess chick from TV, with dark
: hair and big blue eyes. She responded coldly with something to the effect
: of, "If you can't concentrate, you need to find a new job." Then she took
: my last $60.00 in the world, and split.
: If she is to be spanked, I would love to help.
: Brian Wall, Boston
: "
Sounds like something a boyfriend would make up, sorry to say.
Tryfon Costas Gavriel
da...@taic.net wrote in message <68rvg1$q...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>Tryfon Costas Gavriel <try...@gtryfon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>: *Testimony from a US Master on over-the-board chess*
>: "
>
>Sounds like something a boyfriend would make up, sorry to say.
Yeah, and your sounding starting to sound like the FICS administrator that
banned her :-)
Geoffrey E. Caveney
You Wascally Wabbit (asd...@UAA.ALASKA.EDU) wrote:
: OTB tournaments do not have some sort of magic spell about them that helps
: a person become a strong player, nor do the y have some sort of forcefield
: that does that. The benefit comes from playing strong players. This is the
: beneit o a) pactice and b) making mistakes that you get punished for and
: can learn from. In order for your assertion to be true, it would have to
: be demonstrated that these same benefits do not apply to internet chess.
We need to distinguish between strength at *blitz* chess and strength at
*real* chess, that is, the 40 moves in 2 hours kind. Of course this has
nothing to do with banning NatalieR, but here you're going beyond that
question and asserting OTB and Internet chess are pretty much the same
thing. How often can anyone ever get a game at 40 moves in 2 hours on the
internet? Never. So yes, it is possible to become very very strong at
blitz or quick chess (what the servers call "standard" though 15 15 or 30
30 is no such thing) by playing Internet chess -- maybe this is what
Natalie R. has done. But very very strong in real chess? No.
Of course her domination of a USCF national master at blitz was otb, but
it was blitz chess, not real chess.
You might ask what evidence there is that blitz chess strength and real
chess strength are separate things, and why it matters for Natalie R. OK.
The evidence is that there are many many example of players whose strength
at blitz chess and real chess is as much as 400 points apart. Ron once
mentioned here a USCF senior master who barely plays 2000-strength at
blitz. I know very very strong blitz players who perform at 2300 level,
who can't crack 2000 in slow chess. There was an undistinguished master in
Moscow who could give GM Kaidanov *5 MINUTES TO 1 MINUTE* time odds and
they would have an even score at it!
Now, why it matters. Again, it doesn't matter at all when the question
is banning her from a server. But it does matter when the question is the
respect of the chess-playing community. Again, she's under no obligation
to care about that respect, want that respect, or seek to earn that
respect. But that respect is inseparably connected to ability in otb, 40
in 2 style, chess. We don't call the best 40/2 player "world slow otb
chess champion", we call that player "world chess champion," period.
Everything else is a sideline, a curious diversion. So I am justified in
calling it real chess, implying that blitz chess is something less
significant and less important. If I am 2100 in 40/2 chess and 1900 in
blitz, and someone else is 2100 in blitz and 1900 in 40/2, the community
of chess players will consider me the better chess player. Always has,
always will.
Personally, I am amazed and impressed by the blitz and quick chess
talent of Natalie Radosevich. I wish she would make a name for herself and
earn the respect of the chess community by playing otb 40/2 chess.
Obviously that's her decision.
Jeff
da...@taic.net
Geoffrey E. Caveney <cav...@wwa.com> wrote:
: We need to distinguish between strength at *blitz* chess and strength at
: *real* chess, that is, the 40 moves in 2 hours kind. Of course this has
: nothing to do with banning NatalieR, but here you're going beyond that
: question and asserting OTB and Internet chess are pretty much the same
: thing. How often can anyone ever get a game at 40 moves in 2 hours on the
: internet? Never. So yes, it is possible to become very very strong at
I won't even go as far as you will, by requiring her to be a 2400
at 40/2. If she can beat players on her own, "Woman Grandmasters" even, as
some here have claimed, even at blitz, without using a computer, that's
good enough.
But I still have extremely strong suspicionsa about such a player
having developed without playing OTB *and* exhibiting computer-like moves.
That *too much* of a coincidence.