I'm not here to make anyone believe anything. Nor take insults either. LM Lightsss and Toadofsky are very polite, but qweasdzxc88 is very rude. I am tired of discussing stupid things. I just wanted your opinion on the game, not the person. I must have said I found it writen on a paper on the middle of the street. Because of that I will stop talking. but answering them:
@Toadofsky He is totaly against playing games for money. And I think he would play very well with clock. Bullet and blitz he would be terrible. But classical he would be a monster. But he absolutely refuses to play with clock. He says clock ruins the game.
@LM Lightsss I know why do you call Occam's razor. I know it since I was a child. I already talked with him about playing correspondence online, and he is totally ok with it. He said maybe someday he will start. He lose interest if the opponent is weak. What do you think is the strongest? The centaurs? You don't need to explain what a centaur is in chess, I know. And I am only person who knows his level in chess. Because I am the only one who knows that he play against engines. He play against people but they are very amateur and cannot recognize high level in chess, including me.
yah centaurs on iccf (
www.iccf.com/) are definitely the strongest, though the time control might be very slow, even for his standards.
as far as the game is concerned, after a suboptimal opening white catches black on a "deep trap" (Qxh2??) and navigates the complications on the following moves extremely well. fun fireworks, for sure.
it should be good to add that the fact that black fell for the dubious O-O and later Qxh2 isn't really a sign of "oooh there is hope for humans! we are good!", but most likely of insufficient search depth.
but even if komodo 5 just can't see any of it (i don't have a copy to confirm either way), komodo 9 can choose better moves and evaluate these as mistakes right after they are played, and stockfish 7 also can.
Even if you accept that a human can consistently defeat a computer, the statement that he has done so without the past centuries of human theoretical achievement is laughable. To play well enough to defeat a calculation monster, you need to be able to play lines that have held the test of time.
@Lightsss: I don't know if I'd punish Qxh2 with ??. It speeds up the collapse significantly, but if I were going to hand out ?? I'd probably give it to Ba7, as it seems black is losing after that move.
If it were a game I played and I wanted to remember my mistakes, the moves I'd focus on would be 0-0? and Ba7??.
If I wanted to be picky, I'd add in Qh4+?!, Qh3?!, along with Qxh2?!. None of those changed the objective evaluation of the position, but the first two dropped Black's margin for error considerably, and the last just made the win very easy.
umm yeah fair point. i just call Qxh2 the point of no return, though it actually turns out that the previous moves made the position too hard for the engine :o
Yeah, it's a strange, interesting game. Certainly instructive to go over, and gives me something fun to show to other players, so I'd say this thread has been a net positive for me :)
On the subject of the actual moves, the more I think about it the more I think I'd also throw a ?! at Nb6.
Initially it looked to me like Nxc3 was just simpler than Nb6, but the more I look at lines the more I think Nxc3 was also a lot stronger.
If I get a lot of free time maybe I'll do some really thorough analysis; the opening is virtually never played, and seems to contain some nice ideas for both sides in practical play. In correspondence or TCEC-like conditions I would expect black to score heavily, though.
#21
Please don't lie.
At least not about things that one can easily verify.
Your post is clearly about the person.
You didn't ask for any game analysis.
You just provided the game as an example in your own words.
PS I called you a kid because I thought that this was the best way to discover your age.
has this person got a lichens account?
If so can i play him?
dont worry about all the ignorant people here who dont believe you.
I believe you and this is all that matters.
I have also met this guy and I know who he is, its all true.
He is a bit of a boem type of guy , so he does not care if he could make millions on chess, he sticks to his regular job and keeps chess as a hobby.
He also has solved Erdos conjecture on arithmetic progressions and Whitehead conjecture but he keeps them on a small notebook and he is not interested in publicising them.
I mean I could copy-paste them for you here but this post is just too short for them.
He has conducted a huge logical expeiment,which btw took him 2 years to navigate correctly, and thus disproving the cosmic string theory.
He is a really amazing guy , a true genious, and no he is not Chuck Norris.He is actually a bit better than him, and he is my friend, his first name is Casper but I m not gonna reveal more.
Anyone is free to be skeptical about my post but the truth is you cannot dissprove anything from what I say, can you?