Fencer was spoke to about it, but wether he will or not I dont know.

Its ok Rose, the reply I was refering to was the one in a game from you, not on here :o) I knew what your post here was about

Steve, Hope you didnt take my posted reply to what LJ said as a negative towards your ladder idea.. Sorry It wasnt meant to be.. it was in regards to him saying everyone here will go back to IYT.

A manual ladder is going to be a lot of work in my opinion. Not that I dont want a ladder I think it would be awesome to have. I dont recall any one asking Fencer if this is on the development list. Has it been asked?

I find that the random reversi players I play against on Gold Token are the best overall, it does seem that IYT does have the generally weakest players.

Maybe you could do a ladder by personal invite?
I would help if you want. You take the top 50 players, and I will take the next fifty, or something like that, and send them personal invites.

There are quite a few, and I find them better players than on iyt

LOL.. about the gammon players. That does seem to be the most popular game, as their tournaments get 100 or more players easily. How many ctive reversi players do you suppose we have here?

Most players who chat I have found to be gammon players LOL
thats a debate board, not a game board, this is for reversi, so this is where it should be

Count me in steve... I wonder why your response has been so low? Try posting on the debate boards about it...they seem to have lots of active players around, maybe we can drum up some support for manual ladder games

yep, 7 posts down, and on each reversi fellowship I belong to

Thanks.... I think I may have de actived that feature when I first came here, as I had no interest in it. I will look into reenstating it.

I will join a reversi ladder run manually on this site. here did you post the idea? Maybe you could try again :)

in your settings you can activate most mover list, so it shows at top of your main page. It will only show number one mover until you click on the link next to it.

I would like a reversi ladder here, and offered to run a manual one, but only Rose commented on it

It was started here...I just posted on the un censored debate about it though, so as to keep this board only about reversi..

Steve, what do you think of a reversi ladder system?

BTW..where is the 'moves' list? Can i see how many moves people make, or myself, for thet matter? I have never been able to find that info... Thanks :)

If you look at the moves list upchuck, you will see plenty of games being moved, not just chat.
But what has that got to do with reversi?

Its true LJ..... I have begun playing in the reversi ladder over there. This site does seem to be becoming more and more a chat site... currently on my game page there are only 22 games waiting to be played, and none of them are games I even play! It has taken almost 3 weeks for my 9 reversi games to be accepted. It is sad, but this so called 'game site' has more people chating than actually playing games...hence the long game times some people, who chat more than play, have.

Keep in mind THAT is your opinion only not what will actually become of this site.

I was thinking about setting up a simple ladder for the BK reversi players similar to the GT ones, one ladder per variation.
If you are interested, please let me know in one way or another.
It would be set up on my website and accesable from BK. But the games would have to started manually etc.

Steve

I was thinking about setting up a simple ladder for the BK reversi players similar to the GT ones, one ladder per variation.
If you are interested, please let me know in one way or another.
It would be set up on my website and accesable from BK. But the games would have to started manually etc.

Steve

Personally I am more interested in the European rating list -http://othello.federation.free.fr/fede/class.php3 than the one here - this is for otb play where any temptation to cheat (i.e using Zebra) is removed. Some of you will know who I am and if you don't then it is not that hard to find this out. I would like to play some of the players (especially those based in Europe) from this site in such events.

If you really want to improve your gameplay, you have to fill the holes in your strategy and tactics repertoire. A program is usefull since it can help you find the holes you were unaware of.

Call me old fashioned, but why not analyze moves with your brain??? I wouldn't go as far as calling it cheating, but I personally would have much more respect for a "top player" who DOESN'T use a program, in any part of his/her game playing.

Just an opinion!
:-)

Well, the player in question is a bit stubborn, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the advantage in evaluating past moves with AI-aid.

I don't know what to think of using a 'passive' board to look at your moves... In other games (hex/twixt/go) it's accepted. But the lookahead is what's so hard with reversi, and using a viewer for you lookahead makes it a alot easier (and gives a huge advantage in the endgame). I'm not sure where I stand in this, but I would definately prefer a player who doesn't use a passive board.

Personally, I think that, while playing a game, evaluating past positions with a computer gives you a huge advantage. Being suggested a move always means asking "why", and often leads to a change of strategic objectives that often have impact in the endgame, much later. Often Zebra suggests a certain move several times during a game played on the board, and if players knew that would certainly have changed their point of view. Even looking only at past opponent's moves, IMHO, gives a lot of hints on how to play. When playing on IYT I discussed a lot if it can be considered "cheating" just evaluating with a -passive- board instead of pure brain thinking on the position!

I never played this variation, but I feel that it would be much too strategic. The presence of the edged some how perturbates strategy with tactic elements. Even reversi 10x10 has got IMHO a too long midgame due to the long time needed to reach edges and corners' perturbation and, hence, the endgame...

Oh they do. I thought I was inventing a new Reversi variation lol

Sounds like alot of fun to me! I believe Richards PBeM-server already has something like that.

What about a Reversi game that starts with the classical setup but then the board isn't limited. The board keeps expanding until 64 pieces are played or one player takes all of the other player's pieces. I think this would require a different strategy. What do you Reversi experts think about this?

I'd say this would be a very slippery slope. Let's say the game has evolved to move 24. Analysis until move 23 certainly gives additional insight into the position, but also you are only one click away from seeing the actual position and see what really would help you out. I wouldn't like it. Analysis after the game has been completed is more then fine of course.

In the start of the subject, usage of zebra to check for cheating has been mentioned. Someone playing zebra perfect for 100 games, perhaps this means something, but saying someone cheats because the beginning of the game is very zebra like is rather nonsense. Good players know lots of patterns and sometimes complete openings (sometimes: i.e. not klaashaas :-), so of course these would be played perfectly. Only solid way of finding cheaters online (IMNSHO) is talking about the game and commenting on past moves.

Ah, i see. Although, does the software tell you about these areas? Otherwise, it still wouldn't be helping you.

I don't think you understand what I mean, Kevin. Ofcourse, playing against a program for fun isn't cheating. The program uses its own algoritm, and is not using any external source (as you would expect from anyone/thing you play a game with!).

The point that I'm trying to make is that looking at a certain position with computer AI actually gives you a greater understanding of that position. If you use that advantage in an ongoing game, I consider that as unfair. Fact is that understanding of a position in, let's say, move 24 is still usefull at move 26, cause many aspects of that certain position at 24 are still there at move 26 (like parity areas, swindles, etc.).

Well do you consider it cheating to play games against a computer opponent (such as zebra) just for fun, and to improve your game? Because that is essentially what you are doing by analyzing previous positions. I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

No, they can't change previous moves, but in a game, the same patterns often keep on returning, and analysing previous moves can give an advantage. So if you miss something at move 22 and you find that out at move 24, it certainly helps you understand that current position better. Maybe it's not as bad as I picture it, but I'm really *beep* off by this.

I'de rather don't receive compliments in this rude form.

Thanks for your opinions!

i dont consider it cheating, as long as they dont plan present/future moves with it. but, i say if someone accuses you of cheating, and your not, then take it for what it is.... a compliment to your playing ability. :)

I think if the position has already passed in the game, i think figuring out what move would have been better is fine, because they can't change their previous moves (if that's what you mean).

I've been accused of using Zebra and now I'm having a difference with that player. I'de like to know your opinions.

The point is that she used zebra to check on me. Now, can this be considered as using AI aid in a game? Ofcourse, only previous played moves have been evaluated by zebra. But it's not unlikely that previous moves/patterns still are there on the board! That's actually very likely. I think analysing previous moves in an ongoing game certainly gives an advantage. So, the question is: when a player analyses previous positions with zebra, can that be considered as a form of cheating? Opinions, please.

I've seen implements of blackhole reversi variants on other sites. Nowhere I've seen variant that i have been thinking: balck holes in every 4 corners of game board. I've not playtested this version, but I think it might work. Opinions?

I have formed a fellowship for all serious (new or well versed) reversi players..
It is called 'Rose's Reversi Raiders ' The goal is to create the best Reversi team here and to share reversi tips and tricks with fellows within the fellowship...

The first time I played blaickner must have been at least 6 or 7 years ago. Cheaters don't last that long. I'm convinced your wrong here, Arnie.

No reputation in otb play that you know of... I do. What is worth more: privacy or having to prove you don't cheat against all costs?

The facts of the situation is that blaickner seems to have a near perfect record, has no reputation in over the board play, seems reluctant to participate in any over the board competitions - which appear to be characteristics of players who DO cheat. Having analysed the midgame section of one game I played against blaickner, most of these moves were identical to a strong program, and were also made as a quick response to a move I made. I haven't yet had the time to analyse any other of her games. If blaickner has achieved this record without a program then she should really be on the European tournament circuit (I would also recommend it to any European based player here), which would give her the competition she seems to want. At the moment it would mean that she would have to travel quite a long way but that is the way things are at the moment - as I have to travel long distances for over the board competition. I have suggested Amsterdam at the end of the month - as this is an event I will be taking part in. As a lot of people will be there it will also give her the chance to meet other players in the flesh.

i can understand people resigning, but in general i prefer to play a game through.

I've not played blaickner but in my opinion I would not accuse someone of cheating unless you have solid proof. Some people are just that great at a game. And i'm sure if you gave those people the chance they could help to improve your game as well.

And Gary, yes people do use cheating materials for the games at Pogo. I knew someone who was a pro card player and she played one of the games there (i don't remember which one) they said they had only played once or twice and totally beat her and not by luck...i mean the game went on for like an hour or so. She said she had pro tactics but got beat anyways.

This is strictly my opinion but when someone has got me backed into a spot where all my moves are spent passing and I know there is no way i'm even going to get a move in the next 10 turns I usually resign. And if an opponent is in the same situation I don't take it against them to do the same. I guess its all up to you whether you would like to play out the game and see where it goes or learn from the experiance or if you think that you will not benefit from the game then resign. I know that I don't take offense to it when people resign and I usually write a message to the person i'm playing if I resign the game.

for me that depends on the game, and how the other sections are going. If there are still other games going, I may keep going, and also if I am playing a much better player, sometimes I like to play a few more moves out to see how they close a game out. In chess I used to resign, but I played on in one game and managed to force a draw.

there is no right answer, I don't mind either way if I am playing someone and beating them. It is upto them if they want to play a game out, or resign.

It is you choice and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

This is a general question to tournament players. When you know there is no chance to win do you play it out or resign? Is it good sportmanship to drag out the obvious or bow out.

The best way to tell if someone is as good as his her rating is to find evidence of results in an environment where cheating is not possible and where such a rating isn't flattering. An environment such as over the board play. On here I consider my rating to be a little flattering.

What evidence is there of blaickner's over the board standard when she does not appear on European rating list.

I asked Blaickner earlier about representing Austria in the World Championships for which I got no reply. With no Austrian national championships, she would clearly be eligible to participate in such an event.

As Blaickner has not played in any over the board tournament and she also shows reluctance to participate in any such competition.

Gary, if you got thrashed at Pente by someone you had never heard of, had never played in an over the board tournament (and was reluctant to do so), had a near perfect record, and whose majority of moves matched that of a strong program (which has spotted moves top players miss) - wouldn't you be suspicious that your opponent was cheating?

And to answer Blaickner's question - by setting the time to one minute or less. A strong program (even at small depth) will produce good moves at speed without a user having to waste seconds thinking up one.

Smaughster, Blaickner, and all -

GREAT comments Smaughster! The best way to tell if someone is as good as his/her rating is to talk to him/her and find out what he/she knows about the game.

For instance, I could talk until I would bore you all to tears about opening strategy, end game strategy, keystone pairs, triangles, skews, elongated triangles, offensive pairs, etc. at Pente because that is my game and I am one of the best at it.

I also have played some real-time Chess at www.pogo.com. The cheating there is amazing!! I am decent at Chess, U.S. Chess B class over-the-board and a master in postal play so I have a good idea of 'just a few' concepts. :-)

At pogo.com, if I see a player rated over 2100 (about my Chess rating there), I simply ask them what they know about the Najdorf and Sicillin as well as some basic concepts of end game play, which anyone over about 1900 should easily be able to talk about. I'm amazed at how many people don't even know that the Najdorf and Sicillin are OPENINGS!

I'm always polite when asking my questions so the truly good players will sometimes go to great lengths to talk about them and an interesting conversation usually follows. But if they can't answer them, I ask them if they have played in real-time U.S. Chess tournaments. If they haven't or can't quickly come up with a reasonable answer, then I pretty much know they're cheating. If they're bold enough to continue talking, I'll ask them what software they're using. I actually have had TWO tell me!

My point is, Arnie, before accusing someone of something, get more information first instead of saying inflammatory remarks about him/her. If you have substaintial evidence to prove your theory, THEN people will listen to you and not think that you are whining.

One last thing here. I have also had a person accuse me of cheating because something like 15 of my 20 moves in a Pente game matched the best Pente playing software on it's highest level. My comment to that is: If I'm one of the best players and the software is some of the best software, then OF COURSE a high percentage of moves are going to be the same.

So my suggestion would be to ask Blaickner what she knows about the opening, middle, and end-game strategies of Othello/Reversi. If she knows little, you have a case. Otherwise I think that the accusations should stop.


Gary Barnes

hey smaughster!
i recall playing you, we had some great games at GT :)
and Arnie: please show me how someone could cheat on 1 min game! (for those of you who dont know the rules of it: its 1 min per player and game, not per move, so if you can't handle at least 50 different openings at least 10 moves deep the game is over before you really start)

blaickner

Arnie,

I played blaickner online several times after getting sorely beaten in Goldtoken and I can tell you she has a very solid grasp of this game. Checking out a cheater with wzebra does not tell all, the best methode is talking about strategy and checking whether the opponent knows human strategy and acts like it. Blaickner does.

I have looked at blaickner's previous moves by using WZebra in my most recent game against her and ALL but two of her moves they are identical to what WZebra (on maximum search). This along with record that seems to be too good to be true and the fact there has been no Austrian otb players causes me to be very suspicious. The thing is Gary Barnes, you went out to prove that you were not a cheat - and no doubt you obtained an over the board reputation where previously you had none. Gary, you also say that it sounds like blaickner is an excellent 1 and/or 5 minute player but even on realtime sites people do cheat. I am inviting blaickner to do the same by participating in one event on the European tournament circuit. If she really was committed to this, then I very much doubt that she would find distance no problem, or for that fact money as there are several companies offering rock bottom european air fares. Or what about blaickner hosting an event in Austria? But all blaickner seems to be posting is excuses, which doesn't really help her credibility.

I don't consider myself very strong player, typical club player if even that. Although my 8x8 rating is 2100ish and that puts me 4th in the rankings. To me this looks like there aren't many good players or they haven't played enough games to get their rating up to their level. I think we would need more established rankings and some more top players to make the BKR more comparable to real life. But most of the top players will probably avoid this site until the real rules are applied.

How do BrainKing ratings (roughly) correspond to real-life playing strengths? How strong would be
(in BKR)
- a typical club player?
- the best player of a local club?
- a national champion?
- a world class player?

The previous posts seem to imply that a 2200+ BKR player would not need to be ashamed of him/herself in any level of a tournament. Is this correct?