[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by RobertoLavieri
I have tried to see the ongoing game between Topalov and Anand, but the Corus server is, perhaps, over-charged, and it seems to be difficult the access. Has anyone information?
You can see the games at Corus site: Anand-Karjakin and Topalov-Aronian. It must be said that, at the moment of resignation of the opponents, the material advantage of Karjakin and Aronian were notorious, and even Karjakin promoted a Pawn (To Knight!) in a position in which his Queen was also with dangerous chance of attack Anand´s King, and Karjakin did it without success, as previously must be analyzed Anand. Karjakin and Aronian have had to resign after more than 20 moves from the surprisingly first sacrifices. Aronian was obligated to fall in zugzwang, in an incredible game by Topalov.
Topalov won, Anand divided the point, so Topa is ahead again by a half of point. I think Chess is losing some charm by cause of home-prepared moves, regardless its espectacularity. A few days ago, Anand left people with the mouth open, after a series of sacrifices without a clear positional advantage, and won 20 moves after. Yesterday Topalov performed an amazing rook sacrifice, enough for his opponent´s resignation 26 moves after. There is not doubt about the move: it is almost impossible that anybody would be tempted to make that move without a previous exhaustive analysis, perhaps with the help of Fritz or another super-program. Anand and Topalov are playing some games looking for the application of impressive home-made surprises, they are both really strong, but they are showing, mainly, an excellent home preparation and an incredible memory, more than Chess skills, although there is not doubt both are really strong.
Andreas suggestion makes sense, it is ideal you can play the game, and it is supposed that an 8x8 chess board and a chess set is easely available. The problem is, perhaps, that there is not too much space to explore looking for great impact, we (and others) have almost exhausted the best ideas. But there is always space to go into. In every case, I think it can be nice a new type of contest, apart from the usual: 'design a Chess variant in N squares'.
Topalov and Anand won today amazing games, both are tied on the top with an entire point over the third position occupied by Gelfand and Adams. We can expect something interesting when Topalov faces Anand on Saturday the 28th.
The Travelers. Missing description (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I´m guilty, I remember I have typed the blank after 'zcherryz' considering it can´t cause any effect. Sorry.
It would be interesting a contest for a Chess-like game with unconventional objectives, by example: connect all the remaining pieces, or something like that. Any good ideas?.
Topa and Vishy are tied again in first place. Anand beated Bacrot in a complicated end in which all could happen, and Topalov battled trying to beat Gelfand, in a slightly superior position in the ends for Topalov, but Gelfand´s defense was fine. Draws. In group B, Carlsen continues ahead with one point of advantage. In the Corus official site you can see the games live when they are being played.
Gata Kamsky beated Anand, and Topa is now tied with him in first position. In gruop B, the boy Magnus is ahead with an entire point of advantage!.
The Travelers. Missing description (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Christine, I´ll prepare a Preset, perhaps tomorrow or on Sunday. If you want we can test the game the next week, with its original rules, playing a couple of simultaneous games out of 'rating'. I don´t expect we are going to play inmortal games of extreme beauty and precision, but at least we can test it with some detail. 'Taking back the last move' is going to be permissed, of course, as commented analysis of possible moves by both bands.
Updated, changing some pieces names. I would appretiate opinions about the rules for victory: Adding the 'capture both Travelers or reach the last rank with the remaining Travelers' rule, the game is clearly a Chess variant, but I´m afraid it would be more complex. Nevertheless, I can try some tests. It would be also good a Preset in Courier (for tests, out of 'rating statistics', please, or it is not going to be useful enough for the purposes).
OH, what a mistake!, thanks Michael, I´ll try another names for these pieces. Christine: I am planning a ZRF, and for it I have to imagine a good manner to implement the Traveler movement, I have had some troubles with the command 'attacked?' in other opportunities in which there are different piece movements, and I doubt it works well here, more considering the Displacers (a Traveler is not 'in check' if it can be 'displaced'). Suggestions?. I´ll be happy with all possible help for the ZRF. Answering Michael: Is this game a Chess variant?. I have also my doubts, but the 'check' concept is used here, although in a different way. If you allow the Travelers to be capturable, and add a new rule for a victory: 'You can also win the game if you capture both enemy Travelers before they reach the last rank', and change the original first objective saying: 'You win the game when all your remaining Travelers reach the last rank', the game should be considered a Chess variant, being the Travelers the royal pieces, but it adds much more complexity to the game play, and it is enough as is, so I am not very tempted to change the original rules, even if the game is not clearly considered a Chess variant. As for now, the game play is very interesting, as I have tested, it seems that Travelers must advance hightly protected, and exchange of pieces are not trivial, and the piece values are definitely relative to positions: it makes not sense an 'approximate generic value' of each piece in this game, but I have not doubts about Displacers: they are very powerful pieces, more than any other. A good sequence of exchanges and displacements can be decisive sometimes, but the end can come in a few moves and you can lose after a 'material-oriented' although bad sequence of exchanges, and sacrifices seem to be very common in the ends of game. Yes, the game play is very unusual, I believe unique, and it needs training.
Game Courier Tournament #2. Sign up for our 2nd multi-variant tournament to be played all on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The Rococo Tournament LOG I have had to play against G.W.Duke was deleted, but I have played another Rococo game against George, and it has finished, and he won in a very good game. Please consider it as it was the Tournament game, for the Tournament statistic purposes.
Anand and Topalov (It is not a surprise, of course) lead group A: 1. V. Topalov V. Anand 3 3. B. Gelfand V. Ivanchuk 2½ In group B, the top positions are, after 4 rounds: 1. A. Naiditsch 3½ 2. G. Vescovi D. Navara M. Carlsen 3 The boy Carlsen continues playing very well.
Adams won against Topalov!. In group B, Magnus Carlsen won again, the boy continues with his good performance. He is now easely in the top-100, and ascending. Take also in account brazilian Vescovi and the Indian girl Humpy Koneru in this strong group.
I was impressed by the game in which Anand beated Karjakin. I believe it was a home-made analysis, I can´t figure how anybody can calculate so far, making very risky moves and tons of sacrifices since 20 moves before the end and without clear superiority in the position. Amazing.
Game Courier Ratings. Calculates ratings for players from Game Courier logs. Experimental.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Other weakness I see is that You don´t know how many games are needed to consider a rating to be 'somewhat confident'. It is very possible that a player with only a few games played, say less than ten, but with almost perfect score against 'well rated' players, show a rating that does not reflect the player´s force, being the rating, perhaps, much less than other player´s rating with a lot of games played but much less average and relatively worse record against others. It has been said that the rating must stabilize with time, but I´m not sure how many games are needed, and the disparity in number of games may introduce a bias that can give ratings that could be not so easy to compare with accuracy. But once 'stabilized', the whole history introduces another bias, product of very old games considered with the same weight as new ones, this is the main reason I insist with the weighted history idea.
I think GCR is an alternative good method, although it has its weaknesses, as ELO also has. Both are not very sensitive to drastic changes in a person´s game play, I know it is unusual, but not impossible. But I insist that weighted history must be considered, weighted history (for each game,I mean) can reflect some evolution in player´s game force, it is expected to happen in our site, because many of the games we play are new games, all of us are gaining experience with little theory as help, and results are less indicative in the first contacts with a game. GCR main weakness is that it does not reflect with the best accuracy the actual real force, but it tends toward an average over all the time.
I used 'inedit' in a past comment, this is not an english word. Use 'new' instead.
THe link is not available. And talking about Greg Strong, there are not new comments from him in this site since some time. What´s new, Greg?.
Game Courier Ratings. Calculates ratings for players from Game Courier logs. Experimental.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The Age filter and some other filters don´t work yet.
You are right about the use of the age filter to reflect 'current' ratings (this is not enterely true, but it can be a better approximation), although I still disagree with you about the weighted history, I think it can be good for our purposes, but I recognize it is not easy give the weights in every case. This site contains many games for which people is learning and constructing some basis for better play by experience, and this is a step-by-step proccess, perhaps long in time; all of us must be considered real novices in many games, this is a reason to consider weighted history, precisely by the nature of this site. The case is other if we are talking about old, popular games widely played since a lot of time, but TCVP contains many new games, and the list is expected to grow in the future. I insist with other claim: not all games must be rated, or the rating system can be a tool which mainly reflects how good is someone to play in an inedit scenario. The list of 'rated' games can grow, but with games that become 'relatively popular' with time.
I think that a 'weighted history' makes sense in every rating system. Recent played games must have more importance in the rating calculations than old ones. This may help to reflect drastic changes in real player´s force. Illness, temporary desinterest, and other factors can make players skills fall down, and experience, progressive knowledge of a game, high interest and other factors can help to increase rating quickly in some cases.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.