Sorry for writing slightly off-topic, but why does Brandon Jacobson not play more OTB blitz tournaments? He is right that there are many ungrounded accusations in online chess (along with many cases of cheating), but he could just convince his critics by performing similarly well in over-the-board blitz.
@RealDavidNavara said in #11:
> Sorry for writing slightly off-topic, but why does Brandon Jacobson not play more OTB blitz tournaments? He is right that there are many ungrounded accusations in online chess (along with many cases of cheating), but he could just convince his critics by performing similarly well in over-the-board blitz.
I think he (The Reddit Post) mentioned that he had health issues.. I'm not sure..BTW the author of this post @NDpatzer giving Levy the GM title before he actually gets it eh?
> Sorry for writing slightly off-topic, but why does Brandon Jacobson not play more OTB blitz tournaments? He is right that there are many ungrounded accusations in online chess (along with many cases of cheating), but he could just convince his critics by performing similarly well in over-the-board blitz.
I think he (The Reddit Post) mentioned that he had health issues.. I'm not sure..BTW the author of this post @NDpatzer giving Levy the GM title before he actually gets it eh?
@king-Monti said in #12:
> I think he (The Reddit Post) mentioned that he had health issues.. I'm not sure..BTW the author of this post @NDpatzer giving Levy the GM title before he actually gets it eh?
Gah - good catch! Editing now. This is what I get for writing quickly.
> I think he (The Reddit Post) mentioned that he had health issues.. I'm not sure..BTW the author of this post @NDpatzer giving Levy the GM title before he actually gets it eh?
Gah - good catch! Editing now. This is what I get for writing quickly.
Playing Nxf2 or Nxf7 on the third move lowers my blitz rating 200-300 points and bullet 100-200 points. That's after knowing the opening really well and playing different opponents every time. I would expect the exchange sac to lead to slightly better results. I would also expect a match format to cost me dearly.
@Craze said in #10:
> I tried this system in casual bullet against 2700-2800 rated players as an experiment. Kept getting owned.
Thanks for trying this crazy gambit. I wonder if it's possible to master it against unsuspecting opponents... unlike the Jerome gambit, which seems entirely unsound (but has a cult following).
> I tried this system in casual bullet against 2700-2800 rated players as an experiment. Kept getting owned.
Thanks for trying this crazy gambit. I wonder if it's possible to master it against unsuspecting opponents... unlike the Jerome gambit, which seems entirely unsound (but has a cult following).
Regarding the "Stockfish" research proposal... Stockfish isn't tuned to play these sorts of positions. You'd need to tune it, for example:
www.chessprogramming.org/Stockfish%27s_Tuning_Method
www.chessprogramming.org/CLOP
www.chessprogramming.org/SPSA
www.chessprogramming.org/Stockfish%27s_Tuning_Method
www.chessprogramming.org/CLOP
www.chessprogramming.org/SPSA
@Toadofsky said in #16:
> Regarding the "Stockfish" research proposal... Stockfish isn't tuned to play these sorts of positions. You'd need to tune it, for example:
> www.chessprogramming.org/Stockfish%27s_Tuning_Method
> www.chessprogramming.org/CLOP
> www.chessprogramming.org/SPSA
Thanks for these pointers!
> Regarding the "Stockfish" research proposal... Stockfish isn't tuned to play these sorts of positions. You'd need to tune it, for example:
> www.chessprogramming.org/Stockfish%27s_Tuning_Method
> www.chessprogramming.org/CLOP
> www.chessprogramming.org/SPSA
Thanks for these pointers!
Ahhhhhh Very godd blog
@wannabe2700 said in #14:
> Playing Nxf2 or Nxf7 on the third move lowers my blitz rating 200-300 points and bullet 100-200 points. That's after knowing the opening really well and playing different opponents every time. I would expect the exchange sac to lead to slightly better results. I would also expect a match format to cost me dearly.
By curiosity for the first statement, how many games over what kind of duration, did you get that association? Not doubting just curious about that level of reasoning. And that one or 2 moves from a position (I have yet to look at), versus an other one (or was it a comparison of those 2, don't answer that, it is up to me, to go find out in previous posts and blog, i work backward a lot, and find ways to compartimentize and understand somethings that might have their own level of associations to learn, enough with self justification, but I thought, it helps understand that I can ask my question, at a more general curiosity level). more than one birds being verbalized.
so. rating amount of the order of 100 points is a perceptible thing, in relation to a few move alterniative set. That is my focus. What do you think? is that the limit of rating increments one can make a self theory of the board move candidate value (self, as in it is your rating difference estimated).. The other point is about how many games with various contiuations and opponent contexts for each of those move event getting the weight of rating difference, did you go trhough to be able to make that trust it enough to share here.
I guess my most basic curiosity that might be making me ask those 2 questions.. but more the last one, is how does opening theory population dynamics proceeds over time and players feedback about the board. In that sense I would have more understanding of the methodology over the ages... It must come from somewhere. The players themselves having each their own world of theories about the board and themselves evolving through the 1D rating many games end-point. I am not a HMM or a lorem ipsum mutating engine.
I might be a bit twilight zone, but that does not make my questions not genuine.
> Playing Nxf2 or Nxf7 on the third move lowers my blitz rating 200-300 points and bullet 100-200 points. That's after knowing the opening really well and playing different opponents every time. I would expect the exchange sac to lead to slightly better results. I would also expect a match format to cost me dearly.
By curiosity for the first statement, how many games over what kind of duration, did you get that association? Not doubting just curious about that level of reasoning. And that one or 2 moves from a position (I have yet to look at), versus an other one (or was it a comparison of those 2, don't answer that, it is up to me, to go find out in previous posts and blog, i work backward a lot, and find ways to compartimentize and understand somethings that might have their own level of associations to learn, enough with self justification, but I thought, it helps understand that I can ask my question, at a more general curiosity level). more than one birds being verbalized.
so. rating amount of the order of 100 points is a perceptible thing, in relation to a few move alterniative set. That is my focus. What do you think? is that the limit of rating increments one can make a self theory of the board move candidate value (self, as in it is your rating difference estimated).. The other point is about how many games with various contiuations and opponent contexts for each of those move event getting the weight of rating difference, did you go trhough to be able to make that trust it enough to share here.
I guess my most basic curiosity that might be making me ask those 2 questions.. but more the last one, is how does opening theory population dynamics proceeds over time and players feedback about the board. In that sense I would have more understanding of the methodology over the ages... It must come from somewhere. The players themselves having each their own world of theories about the board and themselves evolving through the 1D rating many games end-point. I am not a HMM or a lorem ipsum mutating engine.
I might be a bit twilight zone, but that does not make my questions not genuine.