Chess games

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    link me if there's pinta
    my notifications aren't working
    will do, about 10 mins to wait sorry!
    link me? Do you mean quote u ?I have tried to raise this issue to the mods but no luck lel
    Spoiler:
    Show
    cos they also have no notifs
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    You made four major blunders whilst i only made one, according to the computer analysis. I am not being arrogant, but factual. There is actually no chance in chess believe it or not. And just as Kramnick turned down Kasparov's request for a rematch, i am turning down yours. Also remember we were playing outside of the 15 minute playing zone, which i usually play in.
    Wait a minute did you just write this: "You made four major blunders whilst i only made one."
    Love the fact that white is better for the whole game and that what you said is not what the computer analysis says.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Ugh, not only do you say that you don't use 'machine analysis' and do anyway, you go ahead and say that.

    Qc2 was not 'the winning reply.' Qc2 isn't some crazy tactical combo that wins the game. It is a positional move which is equalled by a couple of others in the position. Certainly it is not the one 'winning reply.' There are many combinations white has here on the kingside in order to convert his winning advantage.
    Also my ability to switch to the king side was much better than yours. My Rooks could have swung over in a single move, but you seem to be rather blocked up over there, with only your king and knight, holding the fort?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    Also my ability to switch to the king side was much better than yours. My Rooks could have swung over in a single move, but you seem to be rather blocked up over there, with only your king and knight, holding the fort?
    I still don't understand how you can't see, even with the computer analysis, how badly you played up to move 17.
    I don't really care about anything else in the game, I just want you to understand that you didn't play better like you're saying.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    There's actually a way on the kingside, perhaps somewhat difficult but it's there.
    Point is though that I don't like how he's trying to assert that he played more accurate chess for the whole thing. Yes I resigned but that is irrelevant.
    I don't see it but that's me; if there is then fair enough lol. Well if you go down it says you made 1 mistake and 1 blunder and he made 3 inaccuracies and 2 mistakes, I'd call it more accurate on your part I suppose (noting that the "blunder" still maintained an advantage)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Wait a minute did you just write this: "You made four major blunders whilst i only made one."
    Love the fact that white is better for the whole game and that what you said is not what the computer analysis says.
    the computer analysis gives you the better position, which in this case means you had a better opening. But also you made major blunders. And yes it is the machine analysis which told me this. I am not playing you again because i don't know if i could win another against you. So thanks but no thanks.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CheeseIsVeg)
    will do, about 10 mins to wait sorry!
    link me? Do you mean quote u ?I have tried to raise this issue to the mods but no luck lel
    Spoiler:
    Show
    cos they also have no notifs
    Well erm link me on this thread the thread where the details are (also what was the website again I forgot lol)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    I don't see it but that's me; if there is then fair enough lol. Well if you go down it says you made 1 mistake and 1 blunder and he made 3 inaccuracies and 2 mistakes, I'd call it more accurate on your part I suppose (noting that the "blunder" still maintained an advantage)
    And the fact that the evaluation was always better for white! That is definitive evidence. To say that black played more accurately would make literally no sense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    the computer analysis gives you the better position, which in this case means you had a better opening. But also you made four major blunders which were flagged up by the machine with... 'Inaccuracy' , 'inaccuracy' 'mistake' and 'blunder'. And yes it is the machine analysis which told me this. I am not playing you again because i don't know if i could win another against you. So thanks but no thanks.
    "I am not playing you again because i don't know if i could win another against you"

    I knew that was the reason. I knew it. Good to hear it from you though.

    As for the fact that you seem unable to read numbers, I will parrot the computer analysis to you:

    Me: 1 mistake. 1 blunder, AFTER WHICH I was still much better.

    That is not four major blunders. What the hell...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Well erm link me on this thread the thread where the details are (also what was the website again I forgot lol)
    pinturillo2.com
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...rimary_content
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    And the fact that the evaluation was always better for white! That is definitive evidence. To say that black played more accurately would make literally no sense.
    Yeah. I suppose the best measure is average centipawn loss.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    I don't see it but that's me; if there is then fair enough lol. Well if you go down it says you made 1 mistake and 1 blunder and he made 3 inaccuracies and 2 mistakes, I'd call it more accurate on your part I suppose (noting that the "blunder" still maintained an advantage)
    A game of chess is also decided by factors other than accuracy, such as time, pressure and originality. The first two of which, lichess computer analysis doesn't accurately reflect!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    "I am not playing you again because i don't know if i could win another against you"

    I knew that was the reason. I knew it. Good to hear it from you though.

    As for the fact that you seem unable to read numbers, I will parrot the computer analysis to you:

    Me: 1 mistake. 1 blunder, AFTER WHICH I was still much better.

    That is not four major blunders. What the hell...
    yes sorry i misread the data when i said that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    A game of chess is also decided by factors other than accuracy, such as time, pressure and originality. The first two of which, lichess computer analysis doesn't accurately reflect!
    Look, if you want to say that you actually played well enough to deserve a win because of 'factors that a computer does not take into account', then go ahead.

    But until you reflect and look back at actual play rather than results, you won't get much better. Your play was very inaccurate, you seem too arrogant to admit it, so there's nothing more I can do here.

    The one thing I'm happy with is that I got you to admit you won't give me a rematch because you don't think you could win another game. So I'm alright now.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    yes sorry i misread the data when i said that.
    Nope. Nice try.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IrrationalRoot)
    Look, if you want to say that you actually played well enough to deserve a win because of 'factors that a computer does not take into account', then go ahead.

    But until you reflect and look back at actual play rather than results, you won't get much better. Your play was very inaccurate, you seem too arrogant to admit it, so there's nothing more I can do here.

    The one thing I'm happy with is that I got you to admit you won't give me a rematch because you don't think you could win another game. So I'm alright now.
    You played well, i'll give you that. There is even a case for saying you should have won, and you did have the clear advantage from the opening. But I played defensively and you weren't able to find the break through. Plus you were getting in to time trouble if i remember.

    Let's try and end this on a good note okay?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Well I can't register lol, registration email didn't send
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    Well I can't register lol, registration email didn't send
    u dont need to register!U just press union jack
    enter ur nickname
    and ill give u room no and code when i've made it
    (in about 5 minutes now)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    A game of chess is also decided by factors other than accuracy, such as time, pressure and originality. The first two of which, lichess computer analysis doesn't accurately reflect!
    True.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 13 1 20 8 42)
    True.
    Do you wanna have a game at some point (not today)? Dw I won't make a big deal of it, that was only because I was a bit frustrated with his false claims.
    You seem to have a decent understanding of chess, so I think it'd make for an interesting game.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 4, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

Quick Link:

Unanswered Forum Games Threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.