HalfPawn: I think you need to be 'brave' because you basically said Ed's 161-0 was 'not as good' as the Smirfengine's 32-5,

No! I didn't say that....!
I repeat what i said: "The rating someone has depends on the definition of the rating system and the ratings the opponents had. And that it is possible and very logical that someone with even 876 wins and no loses can have lower rating than someone with 18 wins and 5 loses...."
I didn't make any statement about if the 32-5 is superior or not from the 161-0. It may be it may not....



and from the crosstables that were posted, Smirf played some weak players and Ed played the best of the best.

Again that proves nothing! You have to be more analytical.....
For example I play and win 2 strong players and 712 monkeys. And have 714-0.
You play 4 weak players and 28 strong players and have 28-4 with 4 loses from the strong players.
The conclusion? Is 714-0 better than 28-4? No.
I don't say that happened in any way! I just prove that your quoted statement is false.

Yet if you said: "and from the crosstables that were posted, Smirf played against an opposition of some level and Ed played against a higher rated opposition."
then my answer would be: "Ed's rating below Smirf's is not correct and should be above it."



And, Pythagoras, you have even told me, and showed me, some of the weak play of the Gothic Vortex program. If Ed did use that on here, wouldn't those same weaknesses be obvious?

No they need a good at anti-computer like me to exploit them and there are not many here.....




You claim to be a 'man of logic' yet you fail to make any remarks showing you can 'think outside of the box.' One of the truest tests of intelligence is intuitive improvisation. And comparing 161-0 to 32-5 really isn't that big of a stretch.

I can't think ouside of the box as i'm deliberately inside the box!
Also consider the example: "161 wins and no loses. All wins against 3-years old childs. And 32 wins and 5 loses against 2400 rated people."So here is an example that we can compare it. The fact that there are examples we can't compare it is irrelevant.....




GothicInventor will play the Smirfengine a 1 game match. You get to write down who you think will win the game. If you are wrong, you will be shot and killed. If you are right, you will be paid one million dollars. To make it fair, let's say Smirf's programmer would be paid one million if it wins and GothicInventor would be paid one million if he wins, and they do not know about your situation at all. That way, everyone is properly motivated.

I will only answer this question if instead of being killed, nothing serious would happen.
Then:

Who would you pick to win?

No need to give me an explanation about how this hypothetical situation will never arise.

I just want your answer, Smirfengine, or GothicInventor.


I'm the last person on earth that would not answer on hypothetical questions! I always answer them.....

Well it depends highly on the time controls! As there are many numbers of different time controls i'm too lazy to arrange it into different time-controls categories for each case.
So please tell me in what time control the match would be......?

HalfPawn: I would be very surprised if Ed admits he did such a thing?!?!? I don't know the truth but i'm very curious what Ed he will say....

If Thad is saying that Ed told him he is using a computer to play, while Ed comes and denies it, i can't make any conclusion at all since both Thad and Ed are serious persons and i don't want to take the side of anyone....

Pythagoras: So when Hermes gets back to Zeus about the doings here on earth the heavens will roil and boom with thunder and lightening? Yes, I can see the storm clouds forming now.

Though I prefer another analogy:
Nice fishing, looks like you got a live one or two.

HalfPawn: Brave enough? I didn't accuse anyone and of course i didn't accuse Ed.....
I just say the facts and combine the facts to produce logical statements....Nothing more!

Also although i won you in the 100% of the games we played Gothic Chess, i saw a very good even an amazing improvement from game to game, so i guess you may be extremely good at Gothic Chess right now.... Maybe, maybe not of course..... Also my characterization to you, as one that has evolved to a God and specifically to Hermes, maybe unfair or wrong! Don't feel offended in any way, but if you do then i trully apologize for it....!

Also about the: "And all I did was ask who Pyhagoras thought was the strongest player, and I still don't really have an answer."

I already answered....See a little above.


Walter Montego: Yes Hermes is the God i was refering. Mercury is the name of the planet that is closest to the sun and in my language Hermes=Mercury so you are right.
For your information God Hermes is the son of Zeus(the King of the 12 Olympus Gods) and Maia. He is Zeus’s messenger. He is the fastest of the gods. He wears winged sandals, a winged hat, and carries a magic wand.....

HalfPawn: Kindly delete that post there, please. You make several untruths (some about me!) in it. Perhaps after you get the full picture, you can repost an updated version of it in which I don't look like a complete *******. I would be happy to discuss this further later, but I have to go to work now and will be away from my computer until this evening.

Again, I respectfully ask you to (at least temporarily) remove that post.

Thanks,
Thad

Pedro Martínez: Thanks. That's interesting! I know little of the Olympus Gods. Hermes and Mercury aren't the same God? I guess I got confused with Romans and Greeks, eh?
Zeus and Jupiter and all.

I used to bank at Mercury Savings years ago and they used to pitch a mutual fund called "Hermes Fund". I guess I missed the evolution that Pythagoras noted. :)

Anyways, if anyone else would like a game or two of Embassy Chess, just let me know.

Edit: Or Janus Chess

Walter Montego: Hermes.

Pythagoras: Mercury?

Because at the beginning of this conversation i thought HalfPawn has been evolved into one of the 12 Gods of Olympus!
The one with the winged sandals if you know....
But his last post perhaps made me to change slightly my opinion although i'm not convinced yet.....

Pythagoras: Why do you keep addressing your replies to GOD?

GOD: Well Ed Trice played the highest level of Gothic Chess above all others in my opinion at Brainking, considering of course ONLY the games i have seen here....

I note again of course that this doesn't mean he should be first in the rating list. Also that this doesn't mean he shouldn't be first in the rating list. The first in the list comes from the definition and execution of the Brainking's formula.


Also note that:
If someone doesn't know to explain his moves while his moves are on a high level, this would imply cheating from his part.
But if someone does know to explain his moves while his moves are on a high level, this would NOT imply a NON-cheating from his part.
With other words: He could cheat even if he can play at a high level and explain the moves he played....
Note also that i don't speak about Ed or another specific person.....

HalfPawn: In the meantime, are you up for a game or two of Embassy Chess?

HalfPawn: You are showing a lot of naivete and a lack of the history of that game and its "inventor" on this site. Perhaps you should get to know Ed a little better and ask him yourself.

Pythagoras: Oh, right, Ed wasn't at the top. My bad. So maybe he wasn't the strongest player here. I leave it to you to decide who you think it was.

SMIRF Engine, I respect that your program plays/played here and that you use(d) it openly. We know you were using games played here to test it and find out its strengths and weaknesses. I don't think anyone else begrudges you for doing that either. Keep up the good work. :-)

Pythagoras: You know, I've heard it said in plenty of places that machines have an advantage in speed Chess. I'm think what Colonel Crocket is also doing is having the guy using the computer to help with the moves also having to enter them into the online site. This would cost some of the advantage afforded the machine because of the human part of entering the move. If the moves are entered directly into the machine and then displyed immediately it seems the machines almost always win in speed Chess no matter how strong the opponent if they're good programs.

ColonelCrockett: if you can beat the best computer programs at Gothic...why use them to cheat? that makes no sense.

And why do you think he beats the best programs at Gothic Chess? At GothicChessLive where you say he is the champion, he doesn't beat the top computer Gothic Chess programs, but only humans.....


Also 1-2 years ago he made the statement:

"I am rated 2331 at Gothic Chess, and in fast games (1 min per move or less) the program outperforms me without too much difficulty."

Note that he refers to Gothic Vortex with "the program".
Also note that at GothicChessLive the games have a time level of much less of 1 minute per move so this is an additional advantage for the computer.
So your statement that i quoted appears to be completely false....!

Pythagoras: Very happy to oblige with answers to very thoughtful questions.

1st - Blitz on Gothic Chess Live = usually a time limit of around ten minutes per game (with a 5-12 second delay). this is not enough time to cheat (successfully, anyway) and the games are all databased by the site.

2nd - I was working on the premise that someone cheats because they have to . . . if you can beat the best computer programs at Gothic . . . why use them to cheat? that makes no sense.

ColonelCrockett:
1st: What Champion of blitz time level means? Where is the data for this?

2nd: Even if someone is the champion of at a specific time level by playing on his own, that doesn't imply that he doesn't cheat at another time level by using a computer. Of course that also doesn't imply that he cheats at another time level.

Thad: It is well known that to "weed-out" computer cheaters you decrease time limits ('blitz') because the would-be cheater can't input data into his program fast enough to make much difference. Ed is the champion at blitz Gothic and that makes any thought that he might cheat moot in my opinion. As to your question as to "who is the best" I really can't answer . . . I can only tell you who isn't the best . . . me . . . that's the extent of my knowledge (and it is true strength to "know thyself") you too can only know your personal limits . . . any other attempt to calculate fails because nobody ever set out to play everyone who played the game . . . that would be the only true decision maker.

Thad: Ed Trice is a very strong player, I am sure. And I never would make an attempt to challenge him playing myself, because I would not have any chance.

I never have hidden the fact, that I use a (self written) program to improve it by playing some games here. Moreover I renamed my membership to underline that fact, and hope to have played games only when being invited to.

So it will be no problem for me, when SMIRF loses a game. The reasons for being not always successful are differing, and mostly changed beta versions are involved to gather appropriate experiences. Thus there is no need at all for SMIRF to become a number one here, whereas I am of course happy to succed with it from time to time.

But other players feel uncomfortable when not being top, thus searching reasons for to prove being misplaced or misestimated. But the solution to climb any ladder successfully is simple: try and improve and try, and you will find your place in every ranking system.

Thad: Smirf was the top rated when Gothic Chess games disappeared from this site and not Grim Reaper. That of course to answer your false statement that he was rated first here. But that (that Smirf was first) doesn't mean Smirf is the strongest Gothic Chess player.

The second statement you said is quite interesting.....But i can't comment it since Grim Reaper can't answer....

Pythagoras: Well, I don't know for sure that he was the strongest, but he was rated first using both rankings and he was undefeated. Draw your own conclusions. Frankly, I'd gladly state that anyone else was stronger. State your case. ;-)

I know he cheated becasue he told me in a message in a game we played in a BK tournament.

Pythagoras: two very good questions.

Thad:
1st: How do you know he was the strongest? Did you look at ALL the games of ALL players that played this game....?
2nd: How do you know he has cheated? Did you see that with your eyes or do you have any other kind of definite proof.....?

HalfPawn: Grim Reaper/Gothic Inventor/Ed Trice was the strongest, but he cheated. He used software in every game without admitting it. According to the rules here, that is cheating. It's pretty unsportsmanlike too, but that's another subject. Anyway, the guy's gone. Can we move on? Gothic Chess is dead here.

GOD: Well if this just a question with NO CONNECTION of which should be first in the rating lists, then my anwer is this:
Sorry but i can't answer this question since i haven't examined ALL the Gothic Chess games played on Brainking.....
Tell me if you want to answer your question for the games i have seen only....

HalfPawn: gameid=444 Well, SMIRF has lost a game in 109 moves. So what?

GOD: .
.
.
My opinion or yours or Fencer's or Reinhards or anyone else's doesn't matter. It's the way the ratings are calculated and the opinion of the numbers that decide!
You or i may think that we deserve a better ranking but the numbers state otherwise. That's the point!

The way Fencer has defined the formula for the ratings, Smirf was first!
I, you, he, she, were in X,T,U,I place! That's what the numbers said! On this site.
If someone doesn't agree with that then he should complain! If his complaints don't have a result then he should stop complaining and accept it or stop playing here.....Simple!

HalfPawn: No, that is not what I said. And I also did not mention the argument, that a want-to-be-no-1 has to win against the de-facto-no-1.

Moreover, what the design of a ranking has to do with ChessV is not clear to me. ChessV two times was afraid to continue a match against my SMIRF engine in a world tournament by blocking the reentering of broken matches, which could not be continued otherwise. That makes me leave that tournament being unwilling to participate in such kindergarden quarrels.

P.S.: Anyone, who is interested in this, could download ChessV and SMIRF (beta) from http://www.chessbox.de/Compu/schachsmirf_e.html and start to gather own experiences in having one play the other (but be aware to use a non expired testing key set, which is bundled with SMIRF beta).

HalfPawn: So you are saying 32 wins and 5 losses should be rated higher than someone with 161 wins and 0 losses?

It depends on the definition of the rating system and the ratings the opponents had. Period!
So yes it is possible and very logical that someone with even 876 wins and no loses can have lower rating than someone with 18 wins and 5 loses....

Also we have 2 facts here:
Smirf Engine was rated higher than GrimReaper with the Brainking formula while with the formula it is used on the page you gave, it is rated lower....
This is indisputable!


If that is math that makes sense, no wonder Smirfengine lost to ChessV!

This is completely irrelevant as far as i can see.....!


Prove to me the BK system make sense based on what I have just shown you.

I highly disagree with how the Brainking system works, but that doesn't mean your use of the word "LOOK" was correct.... You've put the subjective factor of a human's opinion/instinct about if a list makes more sense than another, and that is what i criticize here.....

HalfPawn: SmirfEngine was rated 2253, and GrimReaper was rated 2241!

Well indeed, not to be the number one might be something not easy to bear. But as SMIRF already has experienced, there also is a life beyond being the leader of the pack, even without reinventing a rating scheme to one's taste.

Reinhard.

HalfPawn: and you have to admit those ratings look more accurate

LOOK MORE ACCURATE???????????????????
Why oh why?
Can you give one or more reasons about the "LOOK"....?

I know from a statistical point of view that the Glicko2 system i suppose it is used on the ratings you gave, is better than the Brainking's, but the word "LOOK" you used means what looks better to us.
And the opinion of any person can't be by any means a criterion of which list is more accurate!!!!

HalfPawn: Those ratings are not the official rankings from this site. They may be valid on the GC site but here we have BKR on Brainking.

Anybody out there ever try Carrera's original version of this type of variant? The arrangement with the minor pieces closer to the center always seems a little more logical and Janus chess does take that approach. For what it is worth ancient and medieval commanders tended to put there cavalry on the flank rather than in the middle of the army and classical chess reflects this. Variants with the R+N piece might also benefit from such an arrangement. Maybe Carrera's version might be another option to test on BrainKing?

No, i think he was 1900 according to Brainking rating system. The page you gave shows the ratings according to another system.....

HalfPawn: Looks like Pedro was rated 1783 at Gothic Chess.

Yeah, so....?

ColonelCrockett: It's hard not to. It is a part of the header of this board and the story of it is a big part of the reason that Capablanca Random Chess, Embassy Chess, and Grand Chess are on this site. Though I can see a reason to avoid it from the trouble such discussions caused in the past. It is still a good game, though I'm liking to play the other games more each day. I also have personal reasons not to play it.