Incredible 12 month chess winning streak!
Detectorist
currently rated over 2400. During the last 12 months he has won 135
out of 136 tournament games!!
I know him personally. He owns the Orlando Chess and Games club and is
a great person with a great family and has given much to chess.
Congratulations, Alex!!!
Offramp
That is amazing; does it mean that he has won every tournament he has
been in?
Detectorist
Looks like he's won 37 out of 38 tournaments he's played during the
last 12 months. His only loss was to his wife.
This sort of shows an interesting quirk of the rating system. You can
advance in rating in 2 ways. Beating a bunch of lower rated players or
beating higher rated players. He's hammered those lower rated players,
many who were rated close to 2300.
raylopez99
Thanks for bringing this up. It shows you can game the USCF system--as
I accused Dr. Fart (SBD) in this forum of doing, as it seemed to me
that he played the same circle of cronies in Alabama, though it was
not as obvious as it is in Zelner's case. Here, Zelner in FL seems to
be paying off people to lose to him--probably it's part of his joke
routine to offer them $5 to throw their game and/or a chance to be in
on an elaborate practical joke at the expense of the USCF. Or it's
possible he is cheating by wearing a computer.
http://main.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=12400396
You can see from this graph that this practical joke started in 2003
and has been going on since. Before then his graph had ups and downs,
and looked more reasonable.
It's obvious after this that it does not pay to join or play in the
USCF--and when people ask me why I don't I can point to this example.
RL
Detectorist
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Alex Zelner
doesn't have to pay anybody off. He is a very good player, that's all.
Taylor Kingston
Looking at the actual tournament records, this may not be all that
impressive. I have appended below a sample of his crosstables from the
USCF website. In most of the events it seems to be the 2300+ Zelner
against several other people named Zelner (presumably family members)
plus a few others, all rated at least 450 points lower, some about
1000 points lower. At a differential of 450 points the probability of
the higher-rated player winning is about 95%, and at 620 points it is
99%. Therefore Zelner's current streak, with its 99.2% winning
percentage, is a bit higher than expected but not remarkably so.
Looking back at Zelner's history, I see that he and I played in a
few of the same tournaments, in Ohio in the 1990s. He seems to have
legimately earned a rating in the high 2100s to low 2200s range back
then, so it would not seem too much of a stretch for him to reach
2300-2400 honestly. But it would be more impressive if he did this
against other 2200+ players instead of relative weaklings.
OCG SUNDAY QUAD 10-03-10
1 | ALEXANDER ZELNER |3.0 |W 4|W 2|W 3|
FL | 12400396 / R: 2308 ->2310 | | | | |
| Q: 2054 ->2055 | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
2 | CATHERINE ZELNER |2.0 |W 3|L 1|W 4|
FL | 12568602 / R: 1836 ->1847 | | | | |
| Q: 1253 ->1336 | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
3 | DAVID ZELNER |1.0 |L 2|W 4|L 1|
FL | 12668585 / R: 1828 ->1817 | | | | |
| Q: 1414 ->1399 | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
4 | ALEX PETUKHOV |0.0 |L 1|L 3|L 2|
FL | 14014601 / R: 1339P4 ->1339P7 | | | | |
| Q: 1246P12->1210P15 | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUNDAY QUAD 10-11-2010
1 | ALEXANDER ZELNER |3.0 |W 4|W 2|W 3|
FL | 12400396 / R: 2312 ->2314 | | | | |
| Q: 2065 ->2066 | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
2 | CATHERINE ZELNER |2.0 |W 3|L 1|W 4|
FL | 12568602 / R: 1857 ->1866 | | | | |
| Q: 1392 ->1431 | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
3 | DAVID ZELNER |0.5 |L 2|D 4|L 1|
FL | 12668585 / R: 1806 ->1785 | | | | |
| Q: 1387 ->1359 | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
4 | ALEX PETUKHOV |0.5 |L 1|D 3|L 2|
FL | 14014601 / R: 1339P10->1374P13 | | | | |
| Q: 1186P18->1188P21 | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUNDAY FAMILY QUAD 2010-10-17
----------------------------------------------------------------
1 | ALEXANDER ZELNER |3.0 |W 3|W 2|W 4|
FL | 12400396 / R: 2317 ->2319 | | | | |
| Q: 2066 ->2069 | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
2 | GREGORY ZELNER |2.0 |W 4|L 1|W 3|
FL | 12668586 / R: 1795 ->1821 | | | | |
| Q: 1577 ->1607 | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
3 | JOSHUA S ZELNER |1.0 |L 1|W 4|L 2|
FL | 12673208 / R: 1701 ->1708 | | | | |
| Q: 1604 ->1592 | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
4 | DAVID ZELNER |0.0 |L 2|L 3|L 1|
FL | 12668585 / R: 1800 ->1773 | | | | |
| Q: 1359 ->1342 | | | | |
----------------------------------------------------------------
CAPE SURF MOVES 2010-10-30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | ALEXANDER ZELNER |5.0 |W 6|W 2|W 4|W 3|
W 5|
FL | 12400396 / R: 2321 ->2324 |N:1 | | | |
| |
| Q: 2071 ->2073 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 | CATHERINE ZELNER |3.5 |W 3|L 1|W 5|D 4|
W 6|
FL | 12568602 / R: 1866 ->1872 |N:3 | | | |
| |
| Q: 1431 ->1456 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 | MICHAEL STERN |3.0 |L 2|W 5|W 6|L 1|
W 4|
FL | 14522087 / R: Unrated->1810P5 |N:3 | | | |
| |
| Q: Unrated->1445P5 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 | DAVID ZELNER |2.5 |W 5|W 6|L 1|D 2|
L 3|
FL | 12668585 / R: 1761 ->1755 |N:4 | | | |
| |
| Q: 1347 ->1350 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 | ALEX PETUKHOV |0.5 |L 4|L 3|L 2|D 6|
L 1|
FL | 14014601 / R: 1368P18->1347P23 | | | | |
| |
| Q: 1176 ->1136 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 | CHAD DAVID STONE |0.5 |L 1|L 4|L 3|D 5|
L 2|
FL | 14510104 / R: 973P5 ->1035P10 | | | | |
| |
| Q: 783P5 -> 842P10 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOVEMBER OCG OPEN 2010-11-13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 | ALEXANDER ZELNER |5.0 |W 3|W 7|W 4|W 2|
W 5|
FL | 12400396 / R: 2324 ->2327 |N:1 | | | |
| |
| Q: 2081 ->2085 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 | CATHERINE ZELNER |3.0 |H 0|D 4|W 3|L 1|
W 7|
FL | 12568602 / R: 1872 ->1878 |N:3 | | | |
| |
| Q: 1456 ->1535 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 | WILLIAM C BOWMAN |3.0 |L 1|W 8|L 2|W 7|
W 9|
FL | 12817081 / R: 1751 ->1756 |N:3 | | | |
| |
| Q: 1723 ->1713 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 | GREGORY ZELNER |2.5 |W 8|D 2|L 1|H 0|
H 0|
FL | 12668586 / R: 1821 ->1822 | | | | |
| |
| Q: 1607 ->1603 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 | DAVID ZELNER |2.0 |L 7|W 9|H 0|H 0|
L 1|
FL | 12668585 / R: 1755 ->1742 | | | | |
| |
| Q: 1349 ->1361 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 | RODERIC VAN BEUZEKOM |2.0 |H 0|H 0|W 8|U 0|
U 0|
FL | 12910088 / R: 1446 ->1451 | | | | |
| |
| Q: 1126 ->1153 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 | NAZAR DEPUTAT |2.0 |W 5|L 1|W 9|L 3|
L 2|
FL | 13181720 / R: 1205 ->1339 |N:3 | | | |
| |
| Q: 1262 ->1345 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 | OKSANA DEPUTAT |1.5 |L 4|L 3|L 6|D 9|
B 0|
FL | 13181714 / R: 898P2 ->1082P6 | | | | |
| |
| Q: Unrated->1158P4 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 | EVAN CORTES |1.0 |H 0|L 5|L 7|D 8|
L 3|
FL | 12651896 / R: 1781 ->1722 | | | | |
| |
| Q: 1668 ->1597 | | | | |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detectorist
beaten 19 experts and 4 masters without a loss. That's a heck of a run.
Taylor Kingston
> I understand. However, on the way to this incredible streak, he's
> beaten 19 experts and 4 masters without a loss. That's a heck of a run.
That does indicate a real increase in strength. How old is Mr.
Zelner?
Detectorist
I'm thinking about 50ish. See, I have hope!!!
None
I'm thinking the "fix" was in.
MikeMurray
Some players very consistently beat weaker players, but are erratic
against their peers and very unsuccessful against stronger opponents.
Other players seem able to beat almost anybody on a given day but are
also prone to dropping a point to almost anybody on another.
If one of the super-consistent guys sticks to contests populated by
players weaker than himself, he may well become overrated.
Some geographic or age-related pools of players may be over or under
rated. For example, the set of seniors probably has a much higher
ratio of players with current strength lower than their rating or
their rating floor, for example, and the issue of the rapidly
improving under-rated juniors has been much discussed.
I suspect that rapidly improving players tend to prioritize the high
prize class events, which means rating points would be harder to come
by in those events.
So, someone playing low-prize fund tournaments in a region with a lot
of retirees and without much junior activity might glean a rating
higher than he'd get by contesting class sections of high-prize fund
national tournaments.
I'm not saying it's cheating to target events where rating improvement
is more likely, but it's naive to think two ratings of "x" have
necessarily measured the same performance.
raylopez99
> I'm not saying it's cheating to target events where rating improvement
> is more likely, but it's naive to think two ratings of "x" have
> necessarily measured the same performance.
Thanks for your insights MM. But as I pointed out, in lieu of the
fact that Zelner's results improved from a zig-zag 'random' pattern
before late 2003 to a smooth "moon shot" afterwards, you have to
conclude, as None says, that it's entirely possible that the fix is in
and Zelner is cheating.
Remember he owns some sort of computer chess paraphernalia shop, and
it's conceivable that he rigged a system, using his wife perhaps as
the assistant, to feed him moves from Rybka. Hence his ability to
always win.
RL
MikeMurray
>RL
I agree that the record is odd. In the last year, a lot of quads,
against a relatively small pool of entrants, many games against what
appear to be family members.
But it's also possible he's a "Mister Consistent" who started working
more diligently on his game in 2003.
His streak and rating would be more impressive if he played in some
strong events outside his regional comfort zone.
Detectorist
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:14:24 -0700 (PDT), raylopez99
>
To suggest that Mr. Zelner would somehow cheat is ignorant. He owns
the chess club. It's a labor of love. It loses money every year. If he
announces a tournament, he will hold it. If there aren't enough
players, his family will participate. I'm glad for his streak, 19
Experts and 4 Masters have lost to him in the last 12 months. That's
an accomplishment, for sure.
MikeMurray
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> His streak and rating would be more impressive if he played in some
>> strong events outside his regional comfort zone.
> 19 Experts and 4 Masters have lost to him in the last 12 months.
>That's an accomplishment, for sure.
It *is* an accomplishment, but perhaps not as striking as it might
seem at first glance. It's a solid, consistent performance that's
gained him 83 rating points so far this year. But, according to the
USCF statistics, he's not played a single player in what I'd call his
peer group.
He's currently rated 2423.
In the last 12 months, he's scored 98-1 against players rated under
1900. He's scored 30-0 against players rated under 2100. He's scored
6-0 against players rated under 2300. Remarkable consistency. I'm
amazed he hasn't dropped a few games through losing focus,
carelessness or over-confidence.
But he's not played anybody within 150 points of his current rating,
and most of his Expert/Master level opposition seem to be against two
individuals (Boas and Mandelkern).
Based on his current rating, I would consider his peer group to be
players rated 2300 and above. His lifetime record
(http://main.uschess.org/datapage/gamestats.php?memid=12400396)
against such players is 2 wins, 8 draws, 53 losses. Now, it's
somewhat unfair to compare a lifetime record against a winning streak
in the last 12 months, but it tells me he has yet to demonstrate he
could hold a 2400-plus rating against opposition 2300 and above.
As I've said before, I'm not accusing him of cheating. But a number
of players involved in the *business* of chess (training,
administration, etc.) have manipulated ratings to enhance credibility,
which may explain much of the skepticism evidenced in this newsgroup.
Detectorist
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:46:18 -0700 (PDT), Detectorist
>
My post was mainly on his incredible run. His rating, at least to me,
is not very important. People will try to hate on other's
accomplishments, no matter what.
Offramp
> My post was mainly on his incredible run. His rating, at least to me,
> is not very important. People will try to hate on other's
> accomplishments, no matter what...
Exactly. There are plenty of games throughout chess history where the
weaker player won (or drew) - but AZ has maintained a tremendous
concentration!
MikeMurray
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>My post was mainly on his incredible run. His rating, at least to me,
>is not very important. People will try to hate on other's
>accomplishments, no matter what.
When posting to a newsgroup, one must expect not only admiration but
*discussion*, and I think the discussion resulting from your post
sheds some light on the Elo rating system.
If the rating wasn't important, why emphasize that his results
included Masters and Experts?
At any rate, I see no evidence of "hate" in the discussion -- some
suspicion, yes, but not hatred.
None
Yes, I'm reminded of Kevin Bachler and how he was caught manipulating
his and his students rating. Likewise Jude Acer. You would think in 99
games he would have at least two or three where he made game losing
blunder.
None
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:47:56 -0700 (PDT), Detectorist
>
Yes, who is Detectorist anywa? Maybe, Zeiner himself?
raylopez99
Right on None. Indeed something is rotten in Denmark, or Florida, and
it's not the herring or the marlin. This "Detectorist" is by his own
admission a friend of Zelner, and possibly Zelner himself. The "D"
claims Z loses money--but how would he know that, unless he was Z
himself? And what if Z is lying? And perhaps because Z is losing
money, he has an incentive to inflate his ratings, using shills who
are in on the joke?
Nobody--and I mean nobody, including Fischer (except in the semifinals
to his WC run, which was a short period of time)--ever goes from a
jagged up slowly upwards sloping line to a smooth "moon shot" in Elo
ratings over the last 8 years as Z has. You look at every single one
of the Fide or USCF charts, and I defy you to find one like Zelner's.
It takes too much skill not to lose a single game--even if your
opponent is 600 points weaker. Chess is tactics, and even with a
master if the master drops a piece or more the master can lose. Or as
Kramnik in his game against a computer, overlook a mate in one. And
as TK implied (but wrongly did not state) in this thread, Z's results
are not statistically plausible (TK said the opposite but he was on
the right track, even if he reached the wrong conclusion).
Let's do a thought experiment: one that escaped our poor dimwitted
detective TK, but does not escape me: suppose Z is 620 points
stronger than his opponents. This would mean his opponents would win
1% of the time (or accumulate enough points to get a win, same thing,
such as two draws in 200 games). If 450 points stronger Z should win
95% of the time.
What are the odds of this happening in a long series of games?
Let's look at the actual results first:
"He's [Zelner] currently rated 2423. In the last 12 months, he's
scored 98-1 against players rated under 1900. He's scored 30-0
against players rated under 2100. He's scored 6-0 against players
rated under 2300. Remarkable consistency. I'm amazed he hasn't
dropped a few games through losing focus, carelessness or over-
confidence. "
Further, we have this statement of fact: "Looks like he's won 37 out
of 38 tournaments he's played during the last 12 months. His only loss
was to his wife. " (gee, what a coincidence! NOT).
If Z plays 99 games, what are the odds that he will win 98 in a row,
if his Elo is 620 points greater? Easy: (.99)^98 =
0.37346428045426946733049283396849 = 37.3%. Conversely, the odds that
his opponents will win more than just one game is 1-37% = 63%. So if
Z won 99 games in a row it stands to reason that Z is probably
cheating, though I'd have to do a Student's t-distribution to see if
it's 95% or 99% likely that he's cheating (the usual confidence
limit). (since it's possible that he's just lucky, since he can do
this 37% of the time).
Now, since we don't know when Z lost, we cannot use this. But we do
know he won 37 games "in a row" if we leave out Z's obvious
"Valentine's Day" loss to his wife.
So instead let's assume his opponents were all patzers rated 620
points lower than him (very unlikely BTW), and we get:
The probability of Z winning 37 games in a row if he is rated 620
points higher than his average opponent: (0.99)^37 = 69%. So it's
doable if his opponents are all rated 620 points lower than Z's 2150
average (pre-2004, which is to say "pre-cheating", since look at the
graph here and judge for yourself: http://main.uschess.org/datapage/ratings_graph.php?memid=12400396),
or if his opponents on average are rated: 2150 - 620 = 1530 USCF Elo.
And it's very unlikely that tournament players will average 1530--that
is too weak. Likely they are higher than this, say 1700 USCF Elo.
Thus if Z's opponents are rated 450 points on average lower, or 2150-
450 = 1700 USCF Elo, then than it's not 99% but 95% chance of Z
winning, so (0.95)^37 = 15%. So the probability of Z achieving this
feat against 1700 USCF Elo opposition is only 15%. I doubt therefore
that the distribution is such that within one standard deviation
you'll get this 15% to move closer to 50%. So, without doing a
Student's t-distribution I can still say that with a high degree of
confidence, if Z's opponents are around 450 points weaker on average,
then Z can only win 37 games in a row 15% of the time. Since 15% is
only about a one in six chance of this happening by chance along, I
say it is likely Z is cheating.
So I say Z *is* cheating. Whether using software on the sly, or,
paying or cajoling opponents to cheat, he is cheating.
RL
None
Thus if Z's opponents are rated 450 points on average lower, or 2150-
450 = 1700 USCF Elo, then than it's not 99% but 95% chance of Z
winning, so (0.95)^37 = 15%. So the probability of Z achieving this
feat against 1700 USCF Elo opposition is only 15%. I doubt therefore
that the distribution is such that within one standard deviation
you'll get this 15% to move closer to 50%. So, without doing a
Student's t-distribution I can still say that with a high degree of
confidence, if Z's opponents are around 450 points weaker on average,
then Z can only win 37 games in a row 15% of the time. Since 15% is
only about a one in six chance of this happening by chance along, I
say it is likely Z is cheating.
So I say Z *is* cheating. Whether using software on the sly, or,
paying or cajoling opponents to cheat, he is cheating. RL
------------------------------------
Nice. By any chance did you notice what the R^2 was? I'm thinking it
woulda had to be greater than one to win 98/99. :<)
raylopez99
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination
I'd have to wade through a lot of data to do a proper linear
regression analysis, but my hunch, and I suspect yours, is that the
neat and tidy moonshot by Z is too good to be true. A few losses
sprinkled in would have made his victories more believable.
Which reminds me of a way of catching accounting crooks, called
"Benford's Law" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law) where
financial crooks (aside from legal ones like bankers, but good old
fashioned con men of the classic kind that just steal money without a
legal pretext--I realize it's a subtle difference) will make up
numbers that will have too many non-1's as the leading digit.
Thus the numbers are statistically implausible, not unlike Z's Elo
"smooth moonshot jump" over the last 8 years.
RL
Detectorist
You guys kill me. How about his son's David over 400 point rating
increase in 7 months. Did he cheat, too? lol
Taylor Kingston
>
> In the last 12 months, he's scored 98-1 against players rated under
> 1900. He's scored 30-0 against players rated under 2100. He's scored
> 6-0 against players rated under 2300.
Mike, I don't understand this. A player rated under 1900 is also
rated under 2100 and under 2300. Therefore, how can AZ be 98-1 against
U1900s but 30-0 against U2100s and 6-0 against U2300s? The number of
wins should be increasing as the "under" number increases, and if the
one loss belongs to the U1900s it also belongs to the U2100s and
U2300s. Or by "under 2100" do you mean between 1900 and 2099?
MikeMurray
My post wasn't clear. I was referencing ranges, looking at the USCF
chart, working from the top (i.e., lower ratings) down. So he was
98-1 against players rated 0-1899, etc.
The chart is here:
http://main.uschess.org/datapage/gamestats.php?memid=12400396
It references last-12-months rather than year-to-date as in the
original post, but I was too lazy to go through the tournaments and
compute YTD myself.
Taylor Kingston
>
> The chart is here:http://main.uschess.org/datapage/gamestats.php?memid=12400396
>
> It references last-12-months rather than year-to-date as in the
> original post, but I was too lazy to go through the tournaments and
> compute YTD myself.
That chart has some important information. There certainly seems to
have been major changes in both his consistency against lower-rateds,
and his success rate against experts and masters.
For example, since 1991 his overall percentage against 1600s and
1700s was 94% and 93% respectively. In the last year it's been 100%.
Against 1800s he had scored 88%, and against 1900s 76%, but in the
last 12 months it's been 98.5% (+64 -1 =0).
The big change is against the 2000+ group. His lifetime percentages
had been:
vs. 2000s: 69%
vs. 2100s: 47%
vs. 2200s: 53%
vs. 2300s: 22.5%
vs. 2400s: 3.4%
In contrast, in the last 12 months he's played 23 games against
players rated 2000 to 2299, winning all of them, 100%. That's a BIG
change.
This is something that was not apparent in the sample of tournament
crosstables I looked at earlier, in which he played much lower-rated
opposition. As of 12 months ago, Zelner since 1991 had played
opponents rated 2400+ 29 times, losing 28. Now suddenly he's 2400+
himself.
As Elo himself explained, such quantum leaps are not uncommon, but
as far as I know they are almost always found in youngsters. Yet
Zelner is somewhere around middle age, right? In his 40s at least? I
have no grounds other than improbability to question his recent leap,
but genuine or not, I'd sure like to know how he's done it.
The Master
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2011 16:15:27 -0700 (PDT), Detectorist
>
Rather than assume that such a player is the villain, consider
another possible
explanation for why it is so difficult in high class prize tourneys on
the ratings of
non-cheating participants. I was shocked, yes shocked, to learn many
years
ago that some of the players I had often faced and who I believed to
be perfectly
respectable chessplayers in fact were cheaters.
One example was a case in which a player, in his quest for
Goichbergian dollars,
visited his hotel room now and then to consult his opening books
during play. This
of course only happens in events with slow time controls and lots of
money on the
line.
Another case involved a player I had faced many times who, I learned
decades
later, had tried with some success to cheat against another local
player, whose
own stories helped explain the reported experience of a thrid party
who, as he put
it, could not defeat this particular opponent 'with queen odds.'
Well, obviously if
the opponent is occasionally making illegal 'adjustments' to the
position while his
opponent is away from the board, it is possible to win with amazing
consistentcy.
The player in question even tried to nudge one of my rooks off the
board during a
blitz tourney, and he is the same fellow who cheated a drunken
DeFirmian out of
a win in a blitz tourney where I spectated by making an illegal
(double)move!
The most recent example, and one which I admit is only conjecture on
my part,
involves a certain win over a certain grandmaster in a certain local
event -- also a
B.G. slow time control special. It turns out that a computer analysis
of a long
endgame has it that while the GM kept making errors, losing ground in
the all-
seeing eyes of Rybka, his much lower rated opponent played *exactly*
as the
world's strongest engine would have, matching at every move. But
how? Well,
as I discovered quite by accident, the presumed 'helper' was actually
named in
this player's own game annotations! It isn't often that a non-
participant is so
named in annotating a win and here the fact is striking. Personally I
like to take
all the credit for my wins by naming only myself and my hapless
opponent, on
those rare occasions where I have prevailed.
So don't forget to consider the fact that there is sometimes rampant
cheating
going on at such events, before slamming a player for merely beating
up on his
inferiors at the local club (for trophies and chumpchange).
Taylor Kingston
>
> Well, obviously if
> the opponent is occasionally making illegal 'adjustments' to the
> position while his
> opponent is away from the board, it is possible to win with amazing
> consistentcy.
I am surprised that this could work very often. Personally I am by
no means like Alekhine, Tal or Fischer, who seemed to remember
practically every move they ever played, but I can always tell if the
position in one of my games has been altered while I was away from the
board, especially in a way that would significantly change the
evaluation of the position. And one can always check the scoresheet to
lay bare such a crude and transparent subterfuge.
The Master
> Thanks for your insights MM. But as I pointed out, in lieu of the
> fact that Zelner's results improved from a zig-zag 'random' pattern
> before late 2003 to a smooth "moon shot" afterwards, you have to
> conclude, as None says, that it's entirely possible that the fix is in
> and Zelner is cheating.
>
> Remember he owns some sort of computer chess paraphernalia shop, and
> it's conceivable that he rigged a system, using his wife perhaps as
> the assistant, to feed him moves from Rybka. Hence his ability to
> always win.
You are as 'insightful' as ever, Dr. Innes.
If this Zelner character were getting moves relayed to him from
Rybka his
USCF rating would easily exceed those of Kamsky and Nakamura, not
rest
at the lowly level of 2300. Rybka you see, gives odds even to
grandmasters,
much as Paul Morphy -- were he alive today -- might offer a rook or a
knight
to such rgc regulars as yourself, Taylor Kingston or Sam Sloan.
Sometimes I wonder if some of the vaccuum tubes inside your pointy
head
are not burned out and in need of replacement. Visit your local Radio
Shack
and see if you can find one of those dusty old machines that sell new
ones.
MikeMurray
It gets stranger all the time.
Son, David: eight years working his way up from 666 (hmmmmm) to a
bit over 1700, then eight more years basically bouncing around 1700,
plays a tournament where he goes from 1735 to 1733, then about ten
days later WINS the under 2000 section of the National Chess Congress,
gaining 270 points in that event, then a month later WINS the under
2100 section of the North American Open. Must have raked in some nice
prize money in those two events.
So, after 16 years of sub-1800 play, he goes from 1733 to 2096 in
about five weeks!
About six months later, he drops out of the under 2400 section of the
World Open, but not before racking up a 2342 performance rating,
scoring 3-3 against 2306, 2295, 2409, 2356, 2401 and 2286.
Amazing!
What the hell is going on?
None
> On Jul 21, 2:26 am, None <joeschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nice. By any chance did you notice what the R^2 was? I'm thinking it
> > woulda had to be greater than one to win 98/99. :<)
>
> Thus the numbers are statistically implausible, not unlike Z's Elo
> "smooth moonshot jump" over the last 8 years.
>
The point is R^2 cannot be greater than one. Therefore his results are
very suspicious. I'm going to ask Sam Sloan to look into this alledged
scandal permitted by our current board. The son's results are little
amazing too. Sam, sic 'em boy.
None
There you go again Taylor.
The Master
Well, I will say that once I became a strong enough player to
instantly tell if
the position had been changed and what legal move my opponent had
made
while I was away from the board, no such funny business has 'worked'
against
me, to my knowledge.
But there was a time when I sometimes needed to consult my
opponent's
scoresheet upon returning to the board to see what move they had
recorded
so I could copy it onto my own scoresheet, and I expect this is what
had in
fact allowed success against the player who complained he could not
beat
Mr. Funny Business 'with queen odds.' And in fact the other
complainer had
reported on illegal moves being made while he was at the board, which
he
caught only AFTER becomming aware that his opponent was a cheater, so
that he was always on the lookout.
Have you ever played someone who, after you made a move the point
of
which was to threaten his king, ignored this --because he did not see
it and
was not looking at your threats-- and say, attacked a worthless
rookpawn
which could not be captured in any case because of a fatal pin? I
have. In
these cases, even if Mr. Funny Business had played recklessly and
gotten
himself into a lost position, a minor adjustment to the position --or
a double
move, as in his game against DeFirmian-- might easily rescue the game.
This is exactly what has been reported of this player by multiple
witnesses,
not to mention his success against grandmaster DeFirmian.
As for checking the scoresheet to lay bare subterfuge, have you not
ever
played OTB ... with a ticking clock? I know of one player who
could
apparently reconstruct in his mind an entire game while looking at a
pair of
butchered scoresheets and the current position on the board, figuring
out
--Sherlock Holmes style-- what piece must have been where in order to
now
be here. Think of it as superb chess skill conjoined to fuzzy logic
and a bit
of chaos theory. His name was Loren Schmidt. He directed some local
tourneys and in fact had to do this sort of thing routinely,
especially where
both players were poor scorekeepers, usually because they were poor
at
chess all-around. Of course, HIS time was not ticking away, and he
was
not losing on the board while trying to reconstruct the final several
moves.
Anyway, thank goodness all that sort of thing is behind me. I am
now so
strong that I instantly recognize even the subtlest change in the
position --
such as when Rybka eats yet another of my few remaining pieces for
free,
or gets my king into a looming mating net despite my considerable
material
advantage.
Detectorist
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:24:19 -0700 (PDT), Detectorist
>
Maybe him and his father discovered the training secrets of Russian
Masters! Oh, Alex Zelner IS Russian born. lol
MikeMurray
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What the hell is going on?
>Maybe him and his father discovered the training secrets of Russian
>Masters! Oh, Alex Zelner IS Russian born. lol
Do you have any idea how rare it is for someone to play lots and lots
of sub-1800 rated chess for sixteen years and then rocket to 2300+
strength in about eight months ?
Even stranger, from October 2 through November 25 of last year, the
son played 11 tournaments, in the course of which his rating DROPPED
from 1837 to 1733. Then, BINGO, he wins two much higher rated
national class events in about a month rocketing to 2096.
I gotta say, Roy Lopez is looking smarter all the time.
MikeMurray
Make that RayLopez.
And Mr. Detectorist, I'm not always real quick on the uptake, but I'm
beginning to suspect you've been pulling an "In Praise of Folly" on
us. How's yer Erasmus?
Taylor Kingston
> On Jul 20, 8:32 pm, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 20, 5:17 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well, obviously if the opponent is occasionally making illegal 'adjustments' to the
> > > position while his
> > > opponent is away from the board, it is possible to win with amazing consistentcy.
>
> > I am surprised that this could work very often. Personally I am by
> > no means like Alekhine, Tal or Fischer, who seemed to remember
> > practically every move they ever played, but I can always tell if the
> > position in one of my games has been altered while I was away from the
> > board, especially in a way that would significantly change the
> > evaluation of the position. And one can always check the scoresheet to
> > lay bare such a crude and transparent subterfuge.
>
>
> ever played OTB ... with a ticking clock?
If by "ticking clock" you mean time pressure, that's a different
scenario than what you first described. You spoke of the alleged
cheater changing the position while his opponent was away from the
board. In my experience, players short of time stay put. They don't
wander away while it's not their move, because it soon will be their
move.
I'm just saying that if I, someone way below GM level in OTB skill,
can quickly recognize an attempt to cheat by covertly changing the
position, then probably many, many players can, and it's probably not
an effective method of cheating. If the player you mention did succeed
this way in big-money events, I am surprised.
None
> The most recent example, and one which I admit is only conjecture on
> my part,
> involves a certain win over a certain grandmaster in a certain local
> event -- also a
> B.G. slow time control special. It turns out that a computer analysis
> of a long
> endgame has it that while the GM kept making errors, losing ground in
> the all-
> seeing eyes of Rybka, his much lower rated opponent played *exactly*
> as the
> world's strongest engine would have, matching at every move. But
> how? Well,
CCA needs more TDs keeping an eye on things. What with pocket Fritzs,
Blu Teeth, and doors on the hoppers... A TD should be stationed in the
toilets and he better smell shit when someone uses the throne stalls.
micky
.
> ... A TD should be stationed in the
> toilets and he better smell shit when someone uses the throne stalls.
Might I suggest the ideal job for an idle troll..
Such as yourself, Schmo ?
.
raylopez99
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:24:19 -0700 (PDT), Detectorist
>
Cheating. Just like his old man. Old man in fact taught him how.
They both have the technology, selling computer PCs. And youngster
knows how to conceal electronics. Wife is the passer of information,
from the sidelines.
I'll post a statistical analysis based on TK's latest numbers in my
next post.
RL
Concerned reader..
No, this won't work - take a look @ this site:
http://www.liquidass.com/stink_bombs_fart_spray.html
Here's a testimonial:
Steve: [Liquid ASS] has substantially, accurately replicated a
sweaty, rancid swamp-ass smell.
Preston: You know, I've smelled those chemical stink bombs before.
Steve: Yeah, they're not accurate.
Preston: They smell like, like you said, sulfur. They have kind of that
egg smell. But this . . .
Steve: Not this.
Preston: . . . this literally smells like it came out of somebody's
ass.
Note: Looks like this lazy Schmo character will have to hold hands with
the suspected cheaters (while they take a dump) or his idea just won't
fly..
hth.
raylopez99
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:15:04 -0700, MikeMurray
Nice post Mike Murray, I detect shades of detective Columbo in your
detective work against Detectorist, by pretending to be dumb ("I'm not
always real quick on the uptake"). Yassir Seirawan would be proud.
Thanks too for the compliment, though now you make it harder for me to
flame bait you with insults when you do that. Stop that please.
Whatzamatter with you?
Now onto my analysis of TK's latest data: "In contrast, in the last 12
months he's played 23 games against players rated 2000 to 2299,
winning all of them, 100%. That's a BIG
change. "
Now to do this analysis we have to make reasonable assumptions, such
as the fact Z was "flat" up to late 2003 with between a Elo 2100 to
2200 average, then rocketed in a smooth moonshot fashion to over
2400+. Nobody aside from a beginner learning chess makes dramatic
improvements in such a short space of time. Let's therefore say the
real strength of Z is 2200 (actually it's lower than that, as you can
see from the graph in this thread, but let's give him the benefit of
the doubt). What is the probability that over the last 12 months Z
can play 23 games against players rated 2000 to 2299, winning 100%?
Let's do a very simple computation: one assuming the average of these
players is 2000, the lower bound. In fact it is higher, but again
this gives the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Z.
A 2200 player can beat a 2000 player (200 point rating difference) is:
75.5% of the time.
So to win 23 games in a row means: P(x) = 0.755^23 =
0.00155876227849114633538342694549 = 0.16%
Probability that Mr. Z can win 23 games in a row against 2000 Elo
opponents = one-sixth of one percent!
Let's now assume, charitably, that indeed Mr. Z, by studiously
studying Fred Reinfeld books, and pouring over the collective works of
Greg Kennedy and playing Rybka with queen odds, indeed became a 2450
Elo player during this time--and let's say he did it in a flash
(overnight), which is even more favorable to Mr. Z. Thus his rating
difference over the 2000 average Elo players is in fact not 200 points
but 2450-2000 = 450 points, meaning Mr. Z should win 95% of the time.
The probability of winning 23 games in a row is now: P(x) = 0.95^23 =
0.307 = 31%, still only a one-in-three chance with these very generous
assumptions. And remember, his opponents are not 2000 Elo on average
but higher, since some are 2299, so let's say they average 2075 (it's
probably even higher), meaning there is a 375 point Elo difference (or
90% chance of Mr. Z winning). Now the probability of a 23 game
winning streak is: 0.90^23 = 0.088629 = 8.9% Less than one in ten.
Conclusion: unless Mr. Z is the next Bobby Fischer channeled and
reincarnated, as Korchonoi did Marcozy, it's almost certain, based on
the above analysis, that Z is cheating. And his son is in on the
trick. And his wife. All in the family.
RL
raylopez99
[Monkey-like gibberish from The Minor deleted]
Hey Minor, maybe this is a project best reserved for our resident
historian, Taylor Kingston, but do games get published from minor USCF
tournaments such as the kind frequented by Alex Zelner? Can you, as a
member in good standing (cough, cough) upload some of Zelner's games?
If so, we can compare the moves he played--especially against stronger
players--with moves recommended by chess programs. If there's a
strong correlation we know he's cheating, though sometimes the only
move playable is the first move suggested by Fritz.
RL
None
wrote:
> No, this won't work - take a look @ this site:
>
> http://www.liquidass.com/stink_bombs_fart_spray.html
>
> Here's a testimonial:
>
> Steve: [Liquid ASS] has substantially, accurately replicated a
> sweaty, rancid swamp-ass smell.
>
> Preston: You know, I've smelled those chemical stink bombs before.
>
> Steve: Yeah, they're not accurate.
>
> Preston: They smell like, like you said, sulfur. They have kind of that
> egg smell. But this . . .
>
> Steve: Not this.
>
> Preston: . . . this literally smells like it came out of somebody's
> ass.
>
> Note: Looks like this lazy Schmo character will have to hold hands with
> the suspected cheaters (while they take a dump) or his idea just won't
> fly..
>
> hth.
I like this. But, I'm neither troll nor TD. In fact I rarely play in
tourneys anymore.
Detectorist
Maybe the younger Zelner wasn't really cheating, just sandbagging?!
If his father were ever caught cheating, that would be the end of his
club/business.
MikeMurray
<jwj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Look up Mr. Alexander Zelner on the USCF rating web site. He is
>currently rated over 2400. During the last 12 months he has won 135
>out of 136 tournament games!!
>I know him personally. He owns the Orlando Chess and Games club and is
>a great person with a great family and has given much to chess.
>
>Congratulations, Alex!!!
Along similar lines, here's a post I made to the USCF Members Issues
Forum on June 13 under the heading, "Unheralded Success Stories"
Post by MikeMurray on Mon Jun 13, 2011 4:07 pm #217004
It’s fitting that we devote a lot of space to the overall winners of
major tournaments, but this doesn’t mean we have to ignore the human
interest stories in some of the lower sections. Take, for example, the
Under-2000 winner of the just concluded Las Vegas International, Mr.
Robert Bagdasaryan. Starting somewhere in the middle at 1890, he
slammed out five straight wins finishing with a last round draw to
gain undisputed first place with a 2369 performance rating, picking up
a tidy $3600.
With only eight prior USCF rated events under his belt, it’s amazing
how far he’s come in only 9 months.
1. Blackstone Chess Festival (August, 2010): He earned his first
provisional rating of 1278, losing to a 1679 and a 1726 and taking a
half point bye.
2. Summer Swiss: That same month, scoring 1-2 in his next rated event,
he boosted his provisional rating to 1515, beating a 1754 and losing
to a 2095 and a 1783.
3. September Swiss: His next tourney started with a half point bye,
then he lost to a 1680, beat a 1546, and climbed to 1543.
4. Blackstone October Quads saw him losing to a 2016 and dropping out,
sinking to 1505.
5. In November’s Eastern Chess Congress, playing in the “Under 1910”
section, after back to back draws with an 1827 and an 1804, he beat an
1810, then took a couple of half point byes. His 3-2 score didn’t
place, but bumped his provisional to 1701.
But these modest performances evidently served to motivate him, and he
came back with a vengeance. Three first places in four successive
class events!
6. He closed out the year with a bang at the Atlantic City
International’s Under 1600 section, tieing for First with four wins
and two draws. His Provisional rating rose modestly to 1740.
7. The new year dawned, and in the 2011 Eastern Class Championship, he
took on the Class-B section, again tieing for First with four wins and
a draw. This earned him a promotion to Class A.
8. In April, in the Hartford Open, he suffered a minor setback, losing
to an 1875, beating a 1673, beating a 1915, forfeiting a game, then
beating a 1908. It bumped him to 1890.
9. And, now, his result in the Las Vegas event pushes him in the
Expert class with a 2025 rating.
This is really amazing and truly inspirational. Here’s a guy who only
eight short months ago was losing and drawing with B players and now
wins A-Class big money with a 2369 performance rating. The guys in the
next Expert Section better take care. How did he do it? What books did
he read? Who's his coach? This is the kind of success story we should
be reading about.
Detectorist
Just remember, there are many folks who hone their skills online.
raylopez99
>
> 8. In April, in the Hartford Open, he suffered a minor setback, losing
> to an 1875, beating a 1673, beating a 1915, forfeiting a game, then
> beating a 1908. It bumped him to 1890.
>
> 9. And, now, his result in the Las Vegas event pushes him in the
> Expert class with a 2025 rating.
>
> This is really amazing and truly inspirational. Here’s a guy who only
> eight short months ago was losing and drawing with B players and now
> wins A-Class big money with a 2369 performance rating. The guys in the
> next Expert Section better take care. How did he do it? What books did
> he read? Who's his coach? This is the kind of success story we should
> be reading about.
Mike I'm sorry to say you've been taken for a ride and duped by this
guy. Why do you think he forfeited? Probably because of an equipment
failure: the transmitter that relayed chess moves to him gave out.
See for example this wireless earplug receiver:
http://www.endoacustica.com/details_vx_radio_en.htm All you need is
one person observing the game from the outside and relaying moves to a
player by whispering the best move literally into their ear. The plug
is so small that it can look like ear wax (and colored flesh colored
making it harder to spot).
MM you are a bit behind the times if you think this is impossible.
Using technology you can fake a lot of things. Check out the header
of this message for example. If you run it through a reverse IP
lookup service you'll find it was posted from 173.244.219.177 near
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Do you really think I'm in Utah now? (in
fact I'm in Singapore--where it's nearly midnight on Thursday).
And to think you lauded this guy like a hero when he's probably a
cheat.
RL
raylopez99
> Maybe the younger Zelner wasn't really cheating, just sandbagging?!
> If his father were ever caught cheating, that would be the end of his
> club/business.
My my my. Isn't that an interesting admission? You now say young
Zelner may be sandbagging, which is a form of cheating. Certainly
down a notch in respectability from before. And why should his
father's club/business be at an end if the father was caught? Major
league sports players routinely get caught, and after a lame denial
their fans back them with a vengeance--oftentimes they become even
more popular. Same here--I'm sure Zelner if caught cheating would
tell anybody that listened that he was framed or that he never cheated
and the officials must be hallucinating to claim so, and all his local
supporters would continue to support him.
Local supporters--like you?
RL
MikeMurray
<raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mike I'm sorry to say you've been taken for a ride and duped by this
>guy. Why do you think he forfeited? Probably because of an equipment
>failure: the transmitter that relayed chess moves to him gave out.
>See for example this wireless earplug receiver:
>http://www.endoacustica.com/details_vx_radio_en.htm All you need is
>one person observing the game from the outside and relaying moves to a
>player by whispering the best move literally into their ear. The plug
>is so small that it can look like ear wax (and colored flesh colored
>making it harder to spot).
>MM you are a bit behind the times if you think this is impossible.
>Using technology you can fake a lot of things. Check out the header
>of this message for example. If you run it through a reverse IP
>lookup service you'll find it was posted from 173.244.219.177 near
>Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Do you really think I'm in Utah now? (in
>fact I'm in Singapore--where it's nearly midnight on Thursday).
>And to think you lauded this guy like a hero when he's probably a
>cheat.
>RL
Ray, how long has it been since you've worn your sarcasm glasses? Must
be a few hours at least. How soon we forget.
MikeMurray
<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Just remember, there are many folks who hone their skills online.
And some folks who hide their light under a bushel basket.... until
it's time to shine on the harvest.
None
All this makes me wonder what the TDs of big money tournaments do to
audit the winners and satisfy the participants that they weren't
cheated.
SAMMY, you may have a class action suit here.
Taylor Kingston
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:13:44 -0700 (PDT), Detectorist
>
Two things to keep in mind here, Mike.
One, Mr. Zelner's recent surge certainly is improbable, but
improbability does not prove culpability. The chance of winning, say,
a big lottery is extremely small, much smaller than Zelner's case, yet
big lottery prizes get awarded all the time. That's no proof that the
winner cheated. The probability of being struck by lightning is very,
very small, but people do get struck by lightning, and I would not
construe this as evidence of, say, divine wrath. With about 7 billion
people on Earth, a billion-to-one shot is going to happen about 7
times a day on average.
The chance of a certain chess performance may be, say, 10,000 to
one, but with 80,000 USCF members, it would be more surprising if it
did /not/ happen several times a year, than if it does happen. In this
thread, we are only looking at a single case, Zellner's case, and not
comparing it to other regular tournament players.
So while Zelner's recent rise is grounds for suspicion, even
investigation, it is not grounds for conviction. "Innocent until
proven guilty" and all that. In saying this I am not proclaiming
Zelner's innocence, merely noting the lack of grounds for
condemnation.
Two, Ray Lopez is not looking particularly smart here. In any
discussion, he almost always takes the most derogatory, insulting,
accusatory line possible against the person under discussion. If, in
this case, his insults and accusations are valid, it's more like a
stopped clock being right twice a day, than any evidence of
intelligence on his part.
MikeMurray
<ttk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One, Mr. Zelner's recent surge certainly is improbable, but
>improbability does not prove culpability. The chance of winning, say,
>a big lottery is extremely small, much smaller than Zelner's case, yet
>big lottery prizes get awarded all the time. That's no proof that the
>winner cheated. The probability of being struck by lightning is very,
>very small, but people do get struck by lightning, and I would not
>construe this as evidence of, say, divine wrath. With about 7 billion
>people on Earth, a billion-to-one shot is going to happen about 7
>times a day on average.
> The chance of a certain chess performance may be, say, 10,000 to
>one, but with 80,000 USCF members, it would be more surprising if it
>did /not/ happen several times a year, than if it does happen. In this
>thread, we are only looking at a single case, Zellner's case, and not
>comparing it to other regular tournament players.
I'd agree, if we were discussing a performance rating for a single
event. We're not.
> So while Zelner's recent rise is grounds for suspicion, even
>investigation, it is not grounds for conviction. "Innocent until
>proven guilty" and all that. In saying this I am not proclaiming
>Zelner's innocence, merely noting the lack of grounds for
>condemnation.
Sure, sure. But we ain't talkin' court of law here. Some 'splainin'
might be appropriate.
I don't think the lottery is a particularly fitting analogy. It might
be a great analogy if we were analyzing a single game where one of 'em
beat Kasparov.
A better analogy than the lottery might be a couple of investors who
played the market for 15 or 20 years, just about breaking even on
light activity, and then suddenly started taking huge positions, on
margin, in small cap stocks, going short on others, doing this over
and over and making a boatload of money. Yeah, not proof positive
yet, maybe they read some books, but they'd better have good stories
for the feds.
In the case of Zelner and son, we have players stuck at a certain
level for many years, who suddenly rocketed to new highs. The elder
Zelner, evidently in late middle age, improved virtually a whole
rating class. The younger Zelner's trajectory was even steeper -- at
least two rating classes in a month, almost three rating classes in
nine.
I can't think of anyone else who's done such a thing. Rubinstein
comes close, but his rapid improvement, after a mysterious absence,
came very early in his career.
If these guys had been very casual players for many years, and then
suddenly got vitally interested in the game -- well, it would be
unusual but easier to understand. But they'd both been regular
tournament competitors, playing a large number of rated games, for
many years. Plus, who improves this much without top-flight
competition and coaching?
So, on the chance it's on the up and up, it's still big news. Because
their training methods have to be revolutionary.
> Two, Ray Lopez is not looking particularly smart here. In any
>discussion, he almost always takes the most derogatory, insulting,
>accusatory line possible against the person under discussion. If, in
>this case, his insults and accusations are valid, it's more like a
>stopped clock being right twice a day,
Maybe it's high noon.
raylopez99
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:17:36 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston
>
I agree with you MM. And about the other post, with the fellow you
wrote about in the USCF forum, I have no idea about what sarcasm you
had in mind ("Ray, how long has it been since you've worn your sarcasm
glasses? Must be a few hours at least. How soon we forget. ") but
that's immaterial here.
This Zelner matter is not just a one in one-sixth of a percent chance
of winning so many games in a row (see my earlier post, which has the
most probable estimate: "So to win 23 games in a row means: P(x) =
0.755^23 = 0.00155876227849114633538342694549 = 0.16%", which is a 1.5
in 1000 chance)
It is further the fact that he only got beat by his wife (yes, I *am*
accusing Alex Zelner of being a wife beater in reverse, so there!),
and his son also dramatically improved in the same manner, 'like
father, like son', in a dramatic "moon shot" manner.
This is too much of a coincidence. To use the lame Taylor Kingston
analogy, it's as if somebody got hit by lightening not once, not
twice, but three times. And he was not standing on top of the Empire
State building but just walking in the countryside, and not even under
a tree. Sure, it can happen, but it's very, very unlikely to happen
just by chance. Likely somebody gets hit by lightning by skewing the
odds, such as standing under a tall tree during a violent
thunderstorm. In Zelner's case, likely he and his son are winning, as
you imply, by cheating. Again refer to my earpiece piece as one way
to cheat (if the moves are relayed through the internet you don't even
need a 'spotter' to relay the moves back to somebody manning the PC,
you just read the moves off the net, as was done in the French
cheating scandal).
If we can somehow get the moves played by Zelner in his various games
we can run them through a PC and see if they correlate strongly to
whatever Rybka or Fritz suggest. That would be further evidence of
cheating, though I'm sure TK could make some absurd suggestion that
picking the same moves as a computer can also be a matter of luck or
coincidence (but everything can be luck so you have to draw the line
somewhere).
Glad to see you're now my ally on this board. I will watch your back
too and we can both gang up on TK, partner.
RL
Taylor Kingston
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:17:36 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston
>
> > One, Mr. Zelner's recent surge certainly is improbable, but
> >improbability does not prove culpability. The chance of winning, say,
> >a big lottery is extremely small, much smaller than Zelner's case, yet
> >big lottery prizes get awarded all the time. That's no proof that the
> >winner cheated. The probability of being struck by lightning is very,
> >very small, but people do get struck by lightning, and I would not
> >construe this as evidence of, say, divine wrath. With about 7 billion
> >people on Earth, a billion-to-one shot is going to happen about 7
> >times a day on average.
> > The chance of a certain chess performance may be, say, 10,000 to
> >one, but with 80,000 USCF members, it would be more surprising if it
> >did /not/ happen several times a year, than if it does happen. In this
> >thread, we are only looking at a single case, Zellner's case, and not
> >comparing it to other regular tournament players.
>
> I'd agree, if we were discussing a performance rating for a single
> event. We're not.
>
> > So while Zelner's recent rise is grounds for suspicion, even
> >investigation, it is not grounds for conviction. "Innocent until
> >proven guilty" and all that. In saying this I am not proclaiming
> >Zelner's innocence, merely noting the lack of grounds for
> >condemnation.
>
> Sure, sure. But we ain't talkin' court of law here.
No, but one should be cautious about impugning someone's reputation.
> Some 'splainin' might be appropriate.
Is anyone putting these questions to Zellner himself? Or to the USCF
or state organization?
raylopez99
>
> > Sure, sure. But we ain't talkin' court of law here.
>
> No, but one should be cautious about impugning someone's reputation.
Stupidity by TK noted. These type conversations are not covered by
defamation because they involve a public matter--cheating in chess, or
potential cheating. This guy has thrust himself into the public
spotlight by playing in tournaments and winning more and better than a
young Robert Fischer.
>
> > Some 'splainin' might be appropriate.
>
> Is anyone putting these questions to Zellner himself? Or to the USCF
> or state organization?
Hey Einstein, or "Dick Tracy" is more like it (dick btw is slang for
detective, but in your case it's fitting for the shape of your head),
why don't you use your cyber-skilz to track down some game sheets from
Zelner's matches? Then we can check his moves against Rybka's
suggestions? Just a suggestion. Unless you don't want to know the
truth. Because you can't handle the truth. Or maybe you're part of
Zelner's team? Team chess cheat? Would not put it past you,
slimeball.
RL
MikeMurray
<raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>about the other post, with the fellow you
>wrote about in the USCF forum, I have no idea about what sarcasm you
>had in mind
Maybe "satire" would have been a better word. I wanted to imply that
sandbagging seemed like a reasonable possibility here.
>Glad to see you're now my ally on this board. I will watch your back
>too and we can both gang up on TK, partner.
I'm not on anybody's team. Just looking to thoroughly explore the
issues.
MikeMurray
<ttk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sure, sure. But we ain't talkin' court of law here.
> No, but one should be cautious about impugning someone's reputation.
Certainly. I've said several times that while these results seem
highly unusual, they aren't definitive evidence of cheating. If it's
on the up and up, I'll be first in line to buy any book he writes on
his method.
We both know that adults with 16+ years of regular tournament history
gaining hundreds of rating points in a short time is virtually unheard
of. Whether this sort of improvement is possible -- that's a question
that's fascinated me for years. It's like a middle aged 2nd violin in
a small town symphony auditioning for the Philharmonic and blowing 'em
away. It's like a high school math teacher suddently developing new
theorems.
I'd love to know that what they did is really possible and how they
achieved it.
>> Some 'splainin' might be appropriate.
> Is anyone putting these questions to Zellner himself? Or to the USCF
>or state organization?
Are you kidding? When I posted my June comment, it went "plop" like a
rock.
Detectorist
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:58:39 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston
>
One thing I've noticed is that Alex has played in a heck of a lot of
tournaments lately. 3-7 rating points each tournament add up quickly.
None
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes in 100 tournaments he might gain 500 points and only have to play
in two tournaments a week. Talk about the lost weekend.
The Master
> > As for checking the scoresheet to lay bare subterfuge, have you not
> > ever played OTB ... with a ticking clock?
>
> If by "ticking clock" you mean time pressure, that's a different
> scenario than what you first described.
> You spoke of the alleged cheater changing the position while his
> opponent was away from the board.
Well actually, I typed that. If I had merely spoken it to my
computer
you and other rgc readers would never see it because I am using a
mere
Gateway computer, not a HAL9000 series supercomputer (which BTW
can also read lips).
> In my experience, players short of time stay put. They don't
> wander away while it's not their move, because it soon will be their
> move.
You must be from some other planet then. In one of the most
recent
events in which I competed the tournament director, who was playing
me
and on move, got up from the board and as far as I can figure out,
used
the restroom off the next room. This happenned in complicated
position
with oodles of men still on the board, and the time control was, if I
recall
correctly, G/15. I might also mention that a time scramble did later
occur,
and he won (on account of my king being exposed and the fact that I
was
trying to win and as I discovered, I am not half the speed chess
player I
once was).
In the old days I used to play a lot of tournaments at venues which
sold
food and drinks, and one of these restaurants offered free drink
refills...
which invariably led to my ingesting massive quantities of caffeine-
laden
soda. I have to tell you that despite my calculated attempts to
relieve the
pressure in my bladder on my opponents' time and with them in grave
difficulties on the board, I did not always succeed. No, it often
happened
that I would return to the board only to discover that the moment I
had
disappeared from sight around a corner toward the nearest restroom,
my
sneaky opponent had deliberately made a move --any move-- just to get
my clock to ticking. And I was hardly the only one who knew about
the
free drink refills. And yes, these were all quick time control
events.
> I'm just saying that if I, someone way below GM level in OTB skill,
> can quickly recognize an attempt to cheat by covertly changing the
> position, then probably many, many players can, and it's probably not
> an effective method of cheating.
You clearly know little if anything about cheating. In a five round
event,
all it takes is a half-point 'extra' to change one's scoregroup in the
final
standings, along with your victim's. Succeed enough times and you
may
end up with quite a load of money and 'free' rating points. An added
bonus
is the fact that it is also possible to adversely affect the score of
one's
chief rivals by 'helping' one's students in their games against them.
This
assumes of course that the player doing the cheating is a quite
strong
chessplayer, and able to provide such 'help.' The people I have
been
describing fit this description nicely, but there are those who simply
lack
the necessary skills for much success as a chess cheater, or who for
whatever reason lack the ambition to compete in this area of endeavor.
> If the player you mention did succeed
> this way in big-money events, I am surprised.
He succeeded in that he gained an extra half-point against
DeFirmian.
But most of the prize money was split between D. Gurevich and
DeFirmian
anyway, as they far outclassed the field (but for one player).
Still, there is
the crosstable, to which a proud cheater can forever point as proof
that he
drew yet another a grandmaster (despite forfeiting his entry fee to do
so).
This was a speed chess event in Chicago, after the main event had
been
completed.
The Master
> ...one should be cautious about impugning someone's reputation.
Positive proof that it's never too late to reform.
The Master
> MM you are a bit behind the times if you think this is impossible.
> Using technology you can fake a lot of things. Check out the header
> of this message for example. If you run it through a reverse IP
> lookup service you'll find it was posted from 173.244.219.177 near
> Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. Do you really think I'm in Utah now? (in
> fact I'm in Singapore--where it's nearly midnight on Thursday).
Phil, when you get back to Vermont, why don't you challenge your
arch
enemy Taylor Kingston to a grudge match? It has been known since
the
time of Sigmund Freud that repressing anger over a long period can
have
devastating results. Sure, every now and then you let off just a bit
of
pent-up steam by tossing a nasty comment his way, but this may not be
sufficient to avoid permanent damage. You need to really let him have
it
(OTB I mean) once or twice per decade. And remember: if you lose,
it's
only a game.
raylopez99
>
> >Glad to see you're now my ally on this board. I will watch your back
> >too and we can both gang up on TK, partner.
>
> I'm not on anybody's team. Just looking to thoroughly explore the
> issues.
Partner, do you think we can get the actual games that Zelner has
played? Is that doable through online efforts or through your
channels, privately? Then we can run his games through Rybka and get
to the truth.
RL
Detectorist
How do you propose that folks obtain the actual games of Zelner?
Probably next to impossible. If folks think he's cheating then maybe
file a complaint with the USCF.
None
>
> How do you propose that folks obtain the actual games of Zelner?
> Probably next to impossible. If folks think he's cheating then maybe
He's your friend, ask him. Then cofirm with the opponent. Report back
next week with your findings..
Detectorist
He's not my friend. I just happen to know him and I played at his club
sometimes while taking care of my Father. Additionally, I don't live
down there anymore and I won't be a part of a wild goose chase or
destructive speculation.
raylopez99
So why is it impossible in this day and age of internet communications
to get game move sheets? Is the USCF that far behind?
RL
None
OTB and internet chess are like apples and oranges,
MikeMurray
<raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then we can run his games through Rybka and get
>to the truth.
>RL
I'm very dubious that running a set of games through Rybka would
reveal much of value. Here's why:
(1) a cheat could use a different engine such as Houdini or Fritz
(2) depending on the configuration and TC upon which the engine was
running, you'd get different recommended moves. Look at how much
variation we've had in this group from different posters'
configurations.
(3) for many positions, the "correct" move would be obvious to any
reasonably strong player, which would give a false positive for that
move
most importantly,
(4) A cheat would rarely have to choose the top engine choice, or
even one of the top two or three choices to win. Most positions
aren't that constrained. And once you have a won game, you could
deliberately choose 2nd and 3rd rate moves, with a longer win.
I just can't see this post-game analytical approach as fruitful. Gotta
catch 'em in the act.
The Master
> I'm very dubious that running a set of games through Rybka would
> reveal much of value. Here's why:
>
> (1) a cheat could use a different engine such as Houdini or Fritz
>
> (2) depending on the configuration and TC upon which the engine was
> running, you'd get different recommended moves. Look at how much
> variation we've had in this group from different posters'
> configurations.
>
> (3) for many positions, the "correct" move would be obvious to any
> reasonably strong player, which would give a false positive for that
> move
>
> most importantly,
>
> (4) A cheat would rarely have to choose the top engine choice, or
> even one of the top two or three choices to win. Most positions
> aren't that constrained. And once you have a won game, you could
> deliberately choose 2nd and 3rd rate moves, with a longer win.
>
> I just can't see this post-game analytical approach as fruitful. Gotta
> catch 'em in the act.
Quite by accident I ran across a game from the annual Bill
Goichberg
big money event in which a certain Hoosier 'mashed up' a grandmaster
by *exactly* matching Rybka on every move throughout a long endgame
phase. Now, Rybka has access to the endgame tablebases and so it
can be expected to play virtually 'perfect chess' in this late stage,
but
no human I know of has yet to memorize all the three-man tablebases,
let alone all the four, five, or six man bases.
Lest we forget, even the games of players like Jose Capablanca and
Alexander Alekhine have been shown to fall *well short* of tablebase-
perfect endgame play but perhaps this fellow from Indiana far
outclasses
both of them from having studied Eric Schiller's chess books... NOT.
So then, it is *sometimes* possible to use a post-game analysis to
unveil likely computer cheating, but not always and especially not if
the
cheater works hard to avoid detection and is a truly competent
cheater
(very few are).
The key is not over-reaching in drawing conclusions, not tossing
logic out
the window (as have so many rgc regulars in the past) in an effort to
'prove'
you are right and your rgc antagonists are wrong-- that is the way to
the
dark side.
As for your points #3 and #4 above, false positives can be
considered in
an intelligent way --no one has suggested otherwise. For example, in
the
game I was discussing above it is clear that the cheater did not
utilize the
engine to generate his every move, but at some point his moves began
to
match up perfectly with those of the world's strongest chess engine.
The
opening looks 'normal,' as does the middlegame. In fact, had Rybka
been
playing that hapless grandmaster he would likely never have made it to
the
endgame --the part in which cheating was evident-- but instead he
would
almost certainly have been forced to resign early on, having been
crushed
like a chicken in the road. Instead, he had an opportunity to repeat
the
position in midgame and his inferior opponent would almost certainly
have
leaped at the chance to chalk up a draw against a GM. But being a GM
and wanting to prove his worth as such, and being human, he erred.
I understand that the idea of considering the evidence in an
intelligent
way is contrary to any discussion involving 'Ray' Phill Innes 'Lopez,'
but
nevertheless It Can Be Done, Amigo.
raylopez99
> Quite by accident I ran across a game from the annual Bill
> Goichberg
> big money event in which a certain Hoosier 'mashed up' a grandmaster
> by *exactly* matching Rybka on every move throughout a long endgame
> phase.
I take it that was not you? You are not speaking of yourself in the third person, as befits a man of low IQ? You don't say "Greg wants to go to the bathroom" when you should say "I want to go to the bathroom"?
>
> As for your points #3 and #4 above, false positives can be
> considered in
> an intelligent way --no one has suggested otherwise. For example, in
> the
> game I was discussing above it is clear that the cheater did not
> utilize the
> engine to generate his every move, but at some point his moves began
> to
> match up perfectly with those of the world's strongest chess engine.
> The
> opening looks 'normal,' as does the middlegame. In fact, had Rybka
> been
> playing that hapless grandmaster he would likely never have made it to
> the
> endgame --the part in which cheating was evident-- but instead he
> would
> almost certainly have been forced to resign early on, having been
> crushed
> like a chicken in the road. Instead, he had an opportunity to repeat
> the
> position in midgame and his inferior opponent would almost certainly
> have
> leaped at the chance to chalk up a draw against a GM. But being a GM
> and wanting to prove his worth as such, and being human, he erred.
>
I doubt this happened this way. If possible, please post the game and strip out the headers so we don't know who the players are--and it's unlikely they will Google the game moves so they'll never know they were discussed here. It's unlikely a person would cheat only when reaching an endgame when they had the opportunity earlier. Why risk losing in the middlegame? Why not cheat there? Likely this endgame overlap with Rybka was "forced sequence".
> I understand that the idea of considering the evidence in an
> intelligent
> way is contrary to any discussion involving 'Ray' Phill Innes 'Lopez,'
> but
> nevertheless It Can Be Done, Amigo.
Eat my donkey's ass. I still say this Z character and his son are cheaters.
RL
Taylor Kingston
> Phil, when you get back to Vermont, why don't you challenge your
> arch enemy Taylor Kingston to a grudge match?
Greg, FYI, I live in San Diego, California now.
MikeMurray
<colossa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So then, it is *sometimes* possible to use a post-game analysis to
>unveil likely computer cheating, but not always and especially not if
>the
>cheater works hard to avoid detection and is a truly competent
>cheater
>(very few are).
Very few that are *caught* are. But, I suspect a much larger number
of competent cheats are flying merrily under the radar.
It's unjustified to infer that *all*( or even most) cheats are as
incompetent as the bumblers who get caught.
The Master
> On Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:56:29 AM UTC+7, The Master wrote:
> > Quite by accident I ran across a game from the annual Bill Goichberg
> > big money event in which a certain Hoosier 'mashed up' a grandmaster
> > by *exactly* matching Rybka on every move throughout a long endgame
> > phase.
>
> I take it that was not you? You are not speaking of yourself in the third person, as befits a man of low IQ? You don't say "Greg wants to go to the bathroom" when you should say "I want to go to the bathroom"?
Certainly not. When I play a grandmaster I almost always let them
win to
keep my rating low.
As for you having a low IQ, let me point out that those tests only
measure
'book' knowledge. In fact, if you reject any of the accepted dogmas
you may
well score lower than an ignoramus who accepts every stupid idea of
his day
which has been adopted. For instance, imagine that in Galileo's day
he is
given such a test and he rejects the accepted dogma regarding the
Earth
standing still as the Sun revolves around it in a circle. His score
in the test's
astronomy section? Zero.
This game score is widely distributed and thus it would be very easy
to
match it by a Chessbase or Chess Assistant search, for as I mentioned
earlier (you aren't a very attentive chap) it was played in one of the
big
money Bill Goichberg events, where a copy of the scoresheet is turned
in after each game.
> --and it's unlikely they will Google the game moves so they'll never know
> they were discussed here.
Non sequitur... anyone could tell this fellow his game is being
discussed
on the Web and in fact they probably will.
> It's unlikely a person would cheat only when reaching an endgame when
> they had the opportunity earlier.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Who said anything about him having
had
such an opportunity earlier?
> Why risk losing in the middlegame?
Forget about what I wrote regading I.Q. -- you really are dumb.
As far as I can tell this guy did *not* cheat in any of his other
games in
that particular event and so not cheating was the rule, not the
exception.
It may be that a buddy of his came up to him at some point in the
game
and started relaying information regarding his computer analysis of
the
endgame, and he may not have 'solicited' or 'planned' this in advance
but
merely listened and played the moves. I don't know... but I do know
that
the odds of *perfectly* matching Rybka over the course of such a long
ending, move for move, are exceedingly small even for a Capablanca or
a Karpov or an Alekhine. This is simple math.
> Why not cheat there?
He may not have had any opportunity to cheat there, for all we know.
> Likely this endgame overlap with Rybka was "forced sequence".
How likely? Obviously you lack any real information on which to
calculate the probability, not having seen the game and not knowing
who the two players are. LOL
> > I understand that the idea of considering the evidence in an intelligent
> > way is contrary to any discussion involving 'Ray' Phill Innes 'Lopez,'
> > but nevertheless It Can Be Done, Amigo.
>
> Eat my donkey's ass.
I dare you to say that to Bud Spencer's face.
> I still say this Z character and his son are cheaters.
You say a lot of things. Maybe you should think a bit more and yap
a
bit less, you scrawny little chihuahua.
The Master
So then, you're ducking Phil Innes. (Must have bought that line
about
him being nearly an IM....)
I once went swimming off the coast of San Diego, but much later
discovered there were hungry sharks cruzing about out there. If I
had
only I known then what I know now, I would have stayed put on the
beach. I once went motorcycle riding east of S.D. and it was so hot
and my arms (being parallel to the sun overhead) were getting so red
that I had to put on a jacket to shield my skin from further sunburn.
Yes, a jacket... and it was 100 degrees in the shade... and there
ain't
no stinkin' shade in the dessert. OTOH you can play tennis just
about
whenever you want due to the warm weather and low humidity. Try
that in Indiana and you'll keel over of heatstroke.
None
So what happened? Did you get fired and your house get short-sold and
you had to move in with relatives? JK
So what did you find out when you visited the St, Louis CC. Was Sloan
unfairly booted out?
Taylor Kingston
> On Jul 23, 1:54 am, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Greg, FYI, I live in San Diego, California now.
>
> So what happened? Did you get fired and your house get short-sold and
> you had to move in with relatives? JK
I retired two years ago, Stan. My house sold at a handsome profit.
> So what did you find out when you visited the St, Louis CC. Was Sloan
> unfairly booted out?
I did ask one of the club managers. He was aware of the incident,
but would not comment.
Detectorist
>
> So what happened? Did you get fired and your house get sh
ort-sold and
> you had to move in with relatives? JK
>
> So what did you find out when you visited the St, Louis CC. Was Sloan
> unfairly booted out?
Does anyone really care why Sloan was asked to leave?
I'm sure glad Taylor got to visit our Chess Club in St. Louis. It's
magnificent and one day I'll move closer to it so I can take advantage
of everything it offers.
raylopez99
I once went motorcycle riding east of S.D. and it was so hot
> and my arms (being parallel to the sun overhead) were getting so red
> that I had to put on a jacket to shield my skin from further sunburn.
> Yes, a jacket... and it was 100 degrees in the shade... and there
> ain't
> no stinkin' shade in the dessert.
What shade in what high-calorie dessert (sic) you sick SOB? And what
bike do you ride?
Better yet, post your games.
RL
The Master
> What shade in what high-calorie dessert (sic) you sick SOB? And what
> bike do you ride?
Why are you constantly yapping about things which have nothing to
do
with chess,in rgc? Go to rec.motorcycles.honda.CB360T.sucky_handling
or whereever to discuss that. You can post a link here and I will be
only
too happy to discuss it. And for your information, there is *nothing
but*
dessert on all sides of the San Diego area ...except where the surf
meets
the turf. Here's what you can do, Phil: wait for the peak of summer
and
head out of S.D. east along interstate ten. Don't take any water with
you
and make sure you drain half the oil from your car before departing.
Good
luck old friend -- and remember to wear sturdy walking shoes.
> Better yet, post your games.
My games? You can't handle my games. For example, do you realize
that I have now defeated Rybka (albeit with queen or rook & knight
odds)
more times than you can count on the nine fingers of your three
hands?
Yup. Sometimes convincingly, I might add. Truth is, once you
remove
the whole openings book thing along with rendering endgame tablebases
useless by way of being up a rook or more, Rybka reveals a good
number
of serious weaknesses. One of these is awful time management -- a
weakness not often noticed when playing without odds and with the
computer having a rote book to fetch cribbed answers from off the
hard
drive.
Anyway, I may soon play in another OTB tourney and then you can see
my results against actual human opponents, despite my refusal to
study
and my wasting of vast quantities of time here in rgc, bickering with
dim-
bulbs like you over the merits of the Honda 360 vs. a Triumph 2000 cc
with its engine sticking out of the bike's frame three feet on either
side.
'While it's true you have to stop for gas quite often, you get the the
next
station in a matter of seconds.'
raylopez99
> On Jul 23, 4:08 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My games? You can't handle my games. For example, do you realize
> that I have now defeated Rybka (albeit with queen or rook & knight
> odds)
Whatever. Post your games. Anybody can win with queen odds, even
somebody rated 800.
> Anyway, I may soon play in another OTB tourney and then you can see
> my results against actual human opponents, despite my refusal to
> study
> and my wasting of vast quantities of time here in rgc, bickering with
> dim-
> bulbs like you over the merits of the Honda 360 vs. a Triumph 2000 cc
> with its engine sticking out of the bike's frame three feet on either
> side.
> 'While it's true you have to stop for gas quite often, you get the the
> next
> station in a matter of seconds.'
So what do you ride? Out here in Asia I am shopping for bike.
Kawasaki is popular, Honda too but more expensive,and you do see the
exotics including Triumph and Harleys; the only issues for me are
engine size, frame layout (upright is my choice, easier on the
wrists), tires (knobby or no?). You probably drive some underpowered
sissy bike at best. Probably you haven't written in years ever since
you fell off and your doctor told you at your age you should stick to
a wheelchair playing not-too-challenging board games. Hence the
"queen odds" you keep talking about.
RL
Detectorist
> On Jul 23, 4:08 pm, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
And for your information, there is *nothing
> but*
> dessert on all sides of the San Diego area ...except where the surf
> meets
> the turf.
If that's all there is out there I'll take a banana split. Haven't had
one in a while.
MikeMurray
<raylo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So what do you ride? Out here in Asia I am shopping for bike.
>Kawasaki is popular, Honda too but more expensive,and you do see the
>exotics including Triumph and Harleys; the only issues for me are
>engine size, frame layout (upright is my choice, easier on the
>wrists), tires (knobby or no?). You probably drive some underpowered
>sissy bike at best. Probably you haven't written in years ever since
>you fell off and your doctor told you at your age you should stick to
>a wheelchair playing not-too-challenging board games. Hence the
>"queen odds" you keep talking about.
>
>RL
You kind of remind me of Bucky in the "Get Fuzzy" comic strip.
Which might be an interesting topic: who are the comic strip avatars
for the various rgcm posters?
Taylor Kingston
>
> And for your information, there is *nothing but*
> dessert on all sides of the San Diego area
Yes, to the east it's all apple pie (Julian in the east county is a
big apple-growing region). To the south, of course, it's flan, a
Mexican favorite. To the north it's mainly cobbler from Knott's Berry
Farm.
> ...except where the surf meets the turf.
That would be the Del Mar Race Track. The racing season is on right
now. Perhaps they emulate Kentuckians in favoring mint juleps for
dessert.
> Here's what you can do, Phil: wait for the peak of summer
> and head out of S.D. east along interstate ten.
That is impossible. I-10 starts in Santa Monica, in Los Angeles
County, and never traverses San Diego County. The main east-west
freeway for San Diego is I-8.
None
>
> That is impossible. I-10 starts in Santa Monica, in Los Angeles
> County, and never traverses San Diego County. The main east-west
> freeway for San Diego is I-8.
Maybe he meant 101. With that handsome profit, were you able to buy
much of a house in SD?
Taylor Kingston
> On Jul 24, 11:39 am, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That is impossible. I-10 starts in Santa Monica, in Los Angeles
> > County, and never traverses San Diego County. The main east-west
> > freeway for San Diego is I-8.
>
> Maybe he meant 101.
Except that Hwy 101 runs north-south, not east-west.
raylopez99
Probably the Hoosier The Minor has never been further west than Des
Moines on his tricycle.
As for this thread, it was interesting in that we publicly named and
shamed a chess cheat--more than one actually--and forever their names
are tarred in Usenet. Nobody plays with lifetime stats as below* and
then beats 23 players in a row. The probability of doing that (and
it's an upper bound, see my earlier post) is 0.16%, or 0.0016, and
that does not include the fact, as MM pointed out, that nobody in
history has played with a jagged steady eddy Elo and then made a
moonshot late in their years. Thus the probability of doing BOTH
those feats (winning 23 in a row AND over the last 7 years doing a
"moonshot" as shown by Zelner) is extremely small. You'd have to
assume that Zelner is one of those people who have a brain tumor that
miraculously goes away and allows them to achieve their potential
(several short stories and movies have been made about this, where an
adult goes from being stupid to brilliant overnight). And the
probability that his son also does this? Perhaps greater, since
younger and if they share a genetic flaw then possible, but also
unlikely. Most likely: as I indicated, father and son collaborate on
cheating, since both are familiar with electronics, both play chess,
and both crave publicity, as evidenced by their chess club. As I
stated even if they were caught it would not hurt them and likely
actually add to their fame--there's no such thing as bad publicity, as
Hollywood actors know.
In another thread let's talk about how these chess cheats cheat. I
say hidden microphone in ear, but that might be too obvious, though as
I referenced in this thread modern receivers that are the size of a
pea and flesh colored, and can easily fit in the ear and reached by a
transceiver that is the size of a large cell phone.
RL
* The big change is against the 2000+ group. His lifetime percentages
had been:
vs. 2000s: 69%
vs. 2100s: 47%
vs. 2200s: 53%
vs. 2300s: 22.5%
vs. 2400s: 3.4%
In contrast, in the last 12 months he's played 23 games against
players rated 2000 to 2299, winning all of them, 100%. That's a BIG
change.
micky
.
> What shade in what high-calorie dessert (sic) ?
Might I suggest:
Edible green anjelica banana umbrella with morello cherry on top..
.
(positioned not planted)
.
The Master
> > My games? You can't handle my games. For example, do you realize
> > that I have now defeated Rybka (albeit with queen or rook & knight
> > odds)
>
> Whatever. Post your games. Anybody can win with queen odds, even
> somebody rated 800.
I can hardly imagine how anyone with even the slightest familiarity
with the
game could make such a titannic blunder as this. In my estimation
(that is,
in the estimation of someone who actually plays chess on occasion)
the
average USCF rated 800 player would lose to Rybka at queen odds. This
is
because Rybka is very good at avoiding even trades when behind and
very
good at attacking exposed kings and other pieces, while the typical
800
player is simply awful at defending his king and forcing trades when
ahead.
It's akin to Godzilla, with a bad tummy ache, facing off against a
perfectly
healthy Bambi (the hapless 800 player).
Now I will grant that an 800 player might defeat *you* with queen
odds, but
that's because you are a relative putz.
> So what do you ride?
Recently I've been riding a Ford F-150 truck.
> Out here in Asia I am shopping for bike.
> Kawasaki is popular, Honda too but more expensive,and you do see the
> exotics including Triumph and Harleys; the only issues for me are
> engine size, frame layout (upright is my choice, easier on the
> wrists), tires (knobby or no?). You probably drive some underpowered
> sissy bike at best.
Well, it does lack the Triton V-10 engine and the manual says not to
try and
pull over a full grown Sequoia tree unless you have the F-350 Super
Duty model
with automatic transmission and certain gear ratio.
> Probably you haven't written in years ever since
> you fell off and your doctor told you at your age you should stick to
> a wheelchair playing not-too-challenging board games. Hence the
> "queen odds" you keep talking about.
Stop fussing so much. As luck would have it, Taylor Kingston has
fled from
your renowned swill (skill?) and you can finally relax. Even Sam
Sloan has
moved as far away from you as possible (within reason) by heading out
West.
Now you can safely imagine yourself to be the only nearly-an-IM in the
state
of Vermont, and may even consider entering a weekend Swiss once in a
blue
moon. And remember, you're not going to embarass yourself via the
online
crosstable because nearly everyone here already knows you are a
patzer!
No worries, mate.
The Master
> > And for your information, there is *nothing but*
> > dessert on all sides of the San Diego area ...except where the surf
> > meets the turf.
>
> If that's all there is out there I'll take a banana split. Haven't had
> one in a while.
The banana is good for you (though high in calories) because its
potassium
helps to regulate sodium levels in the body. However, the ice cream
and
syrup toppings are bad because they have too much sugar and fat. More
to
the point, the ice cream will likely melt before you can down the
whole thing
because of San Diego's dessert climate. This is why I usually
ordered an
orange freize for dezert. Of course, back then Honda motorcycles did
not
have cupholders so I had to steer and clutch with one hand while
holding the
frieze with the other. (Shifting and braking are handled with the
feets.)
The Master
> > And for your information, there is *nothing but* dessert on all sides of the San Diego area
>
> Yes, to the east it's all apple pie
I'm glad I'm not a pedant. What a terrible thing to not have a life
of one's own
and thus be forced into 'patroling' newsgroups for spelling errors!
Some dogs
and cats live better lives than this, having inherited millions from a
loving owner
who wished them to be looked after even after their own demise. I
suppose
even lowly pedants have to have *some purpose* in life....
> > ...except where the surf meets the turf.
>
> That would be the Del Mar Race Track. The racing season is on right
> now. Perhaps they emulate Kentuckians in favoring mint juleps for
> dessert.
I never won any money at the track. I think it's because I was
mainly guessing
at which horse was going to win, instead of studying openings and
calculating all
the possible variations and dutifully studying the horse race
endgames.
> > Here's what you can do, Phil: wait for the peak of summer
> > and head out of S.D. east along interstate ten.
>
> That is impossible. I-10 starts in Santa Monica, in Los Angeles
> County, and never traverses San Diego County. The main east-west
> freeway for San Diego is I-8.
A famous quotation well known to chessplayers goes something like
this:
'The memory plays tricks.' In this case though, no innocent
chessplayer's
reputation was impugned in the world's most widely circulated
magazine.
Note to Phil Innes: you see here that TK is *not* afraid of you. He
wants
you to be able to find your way in and out of San Diego on your new 49
cc
Chinese scooter. Your move.
The Master
> Nobody plays with lifetime stats as below* and
> then beats 23 players in a row. The probability of doing that (and
> it's an upper bound, see my earlier post) is 0.16%, or 0.0016, and
> that does not include the fact, as MM pointed out, that nobody in
> history has played with a jagged steady eddy Elo and then made a
> moonshot late in their years. Thus the probability of doing BOTH
> those feats (winning 23 in a row AND over the last 7 years doing a
> "moonshot" as shown by Zelner) is extremely small.
Rybka did it, according to those who accused the programmer of
copying
code and LEAPING from --what was it?-- circa 2300 all the way to 2900
in
but a single year.
> ...since both are familiar with electronics, both play chess, and both crave publicity
Are you suggesting that Phil Innes --a famous nearly-an-IM-- must
be
a cheater simply because of a familiarity with computers and worse
yet,
an interest in chess (very suspicious indeed) and a craving for fame?
I
don't see how this is sufficient to actually 'prove' anything.
> In another thread let's talk about how these chess cheats cheat. I
> say hidden microphone in ear, but that might be too obvious, though as
> I referenced in this thread modern receivers that are the size of a
> pea and flesh colored, and can easily fit in the ear and reached by a
> transceiver that is the size of a large cell phone.
Too easy. No challenge that way. How about a system in which a
'spectator' relates the correct move by standing at various spots for
a
moment, then movies to another coded-in-advance position. Watching
these complex movements out of the corner of his eye, the cheater
racks his brain and finally figures out the correct move and plays it
on
the board. Note the improvement of involvement of an additional
step,
which increases the odds of something going horribly wrong.
> In contrast, in the last 12 months he's played 23 games against
> players rated 2000 to 2299, winning all of them, 100%. That's a BIG
> change.
But what if the change goes in reverse? Say I used to do OK
against
a certain rating group but now they thump me handily-- am I to be
labeled
a cheater for this sudden drop? Is the explanation also a reverse of
your
wild speculations-- a brain tumor or perhaps a miracle or else a hard
blow
to the head? More of your wild speculations, please.
None
> On Jul 24, 11:39 am, Taylor Kingston <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And for your information, there is *nothing but* dessert on all sides of the San Diego area
>
> > Yes, to the east it's all apple pie
>
> I'm glad I'm not a pedant. What a terrible thing to not have a life
> of one's own and thus be forced into 'patroling' newsgroups for spelling errors!
That'll teach me to I'm drink a glass of buttermilk while reading this
newsgroup.
The Master
> > I'm glad I'm not a pedant. What a terrible thing to not have a life
> > of one's own and thus be forced into 'patroling' newsgroups for spelling errors!
>
> That'll teach me to I'm drink a glass of buttermilk while reading this
> newsgroup.
Do you think maybe the REAL reason I confused interstate ten with
interstate eight is
that deep down (i.e. subconsciously) I wanted Phil Innes' 49 cc
scooter to break down
...in the middle of Death Valley?
raylopez99
I find that hard to believe. Post then a game of yours involving
Queen odds and let us see how hard (or easy) it's to beat the PC.
RL
The Master
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:56:29 -0700 (PDT), The Master
>
> <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So then, it is *sometimes* possible to use a post-game analysis to
> >unveil likely computer cheating, but not always and especially not if
> >the cheater works hard to avoid detection and is a truly competent
> >cheater (very few are).
>
> Very few that are *caught* are. But, I suspect a much larger number
> of competent cheats are flying merrily under the radar.
>
> It's unjustified to infer that *all*( or even most) cheats are as
> incompetent as the bumblers who get caught.
I agree. This of course is why I never inferred any such thing, you
dufus! :)
My experience with chess cheaters includes a select few who, after
years of
practicing their um, art, were widely known as cheaters to those of us
who
were in a position to know such things. It also includes instances
where the
cheater was only 'discovered' via his own confession to a friend, who
later
related the tale to others. And there is one other category: those
who were
never caught --nor did they confess to-- cheating, but who
deliberately threw
games (or half-points) in order to sandbag their rating. Granted,
there may be
a few other cheaters out there-- people whose cheating is so under-the-
radar
that nobody even suspects anything is amiss. But these people would
have
to play *only* in slow time control events, for example, in order to
evade
detection for long. In sum, they just don't matter much in my area,
where the
fast time controls predominate (whether I like it or not).
After many years of playing within a certain, geographically
restricted pool of
players, the active chess player becomes pretty familiar with his
opposition. I
can not only categorize the cheaters in my area, but even explain
their various
methodologies or favorite styles of cheating. Or should I say, I used
to be able
to do this... lately I've been far less active in rated tournament
play.
MikeMurray
<colossa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After many years of playing within a certain, geographically
>restricted pool of
>players, the active chess player becomes pretty familiar with his
>opposition. I
>can not only categorize the cheaters in my area, but even explain
>their various
>methodologies or favorite styles of cheating. Or should I say, I used
>to be able
>to do this... lately I've been far less active in rated tournament
>play.
Here's Uncle Mike's Taxonomy of Cheaters:
Class-1: Those who cheat just because they can
Class-2: Those who cheat for "glory" or revenge
Class-3: Those who cheat primarily for the income. This group can be
subdivided into
Class- 3.1 Those who cheat for prize money or stakes
Class-3.2 Those who cheat for credentials
Class-1 is exemplified by the lag-cheats online. Nothing is at stake,
no reputations other than arbitrary and transient handles. Yet, they
cheat. These guys would cheat at Solitaire. They're annoying but
generally harmless.
Class-2 cheaters might cheat to win a club or state title or against
somebody they particularly want to beat. I think these primarily are
the folks you referenced above -- people get to know who they are.
Class-3 cheats make money at it, either by taking "ours" in class
tournaments, hustling us for stakes, or by convincing, on the basis
of the cheat's phony credentials, weaker players to pay for lessons
and services.
I've become convinced the credential cheats are much more numerous
than I previously believed.
If you wanted to make a matrix out of all this, you could further
categorize the cheats by *how* they cheat:
Technique-1: Accepting help, electronic or human
Technique-2: Violating the rules of the game (e.g., sliding a dark
bishop onto a light square, or shifting a rook over a file)
Technique-3: Throwing games, buying wins or draws, etc.
Technique-4: Reporting fictional events or results
Technique-5: Various forms of sandbagging (false id's, failure to
disclose foreign ratings, use of Technique-3 to reduce ratings, etc)