AbigailII: hehe, apologies ... I'm was lazy the day i read the posts. ;)

ColonelCrockett: Hmmm, yes. That was what I said four posting ago.

AbigailII: english descriptive notation was scrapped because it leads to ambiguity errors far too frequently ... modern algebraic notation was adopted by the international chess federation and most national federations.

Justaminute: Only if you consider "any language" to be languages that use the Western alphabet. "b1-c3" isn't easy to understand if you're used Arabic or Chinese.

Algebraic chess books can be followed in any language if they use a symbol for the piece. P-Q4 doesn't tell you much if your language uses different letters for pawn and queen. The narrative can be a bit tricky of course!

Nothingness: e4 is too vague what moved to E4?

A pawn. If in algebraic notation the piece that moved isn't indicated (either using a symbol, or a capital letter), a pawn was moved.

Now, you say "P-Q4" tells you exactly what was moved and where to, but I challenge that. "e4" in unambiguous. It's the white square, three square straight ahead of the starting square to the white King. But "P-Q4"? That could either be white moving to "d4" (the black square three square ahead of the starting square of the white Queen), or black moving to "d5" (the white square four squares ahead of the starting square of the white Queen).

Not to mention that descriptive notation allows moves like "KxP" or "Q-B4", which require knowledgement of the current position to know which move was actually performed. OTOH, using long algebraic notation, the move is always unambiguous, and never needs the current position to determine which piece moved from what square to what other square. "e2-e4" cannot be any other move than a pawn moving from "e2" (which is always the same square - regardless whose move it is) to "e4" (which is also always the same square - regardless whose move it is).

There's a reason descriptive notation only ever caught on in a few countries, and is even considered obsolete there. Virtual all modern chess literature from the past decades uses algebraic notation. Chess literature from many countries have done so for over 150 years.

yes it is very complicated using the letters and numbers of the ranks and files. e4 tells me nothing. where as P-Q4 tells me exactly what was moved and where to. e4 is too vague what moved to E4?

Nothingness: That's known as "Descriptive chess notation"; once popular in Britain and the USA. Considered to be obsolete since the late 20th century. (Abbreviated) algebraic chess notation (used in BK) uses less characters, and isn't as ambiguous as Descriptive chess notation. Algebraic notation was developed by Philipp Stamma in the first half of the 18th century (and actually predates Descriptive chess notation).

I was asking a few years ago to get a form of notation that i am familiar with. i dont use any of the version that we use here on BK. the one i use is : P-K4 P-K4 2. B-B4 N-kb3 3 P-kR4 ect... i never could get the other versions... what is up with this.?

ketchuplover: I like that link ... capablanca always does better than expected in these kinds of rankings.

to portray Bobby fischer in Pawn Sacrifices

The owner passed away in January. The site kept going but no one could get his data. I think eventually there was an unsolveable problem and no one to adequately address it.

ketchuplover: sorry to hear about it. What happened?

www.chess-knights.com has been terminated :(

I thought somebody on this chess board would be amused by these pictures:

http://xkcd.com/chesscoaster/

435152: you're still on this topic? It's four months old ... find something else to talk about ... perhaps a topic more suited to your talents.

i was a world champion.....no .who would believe that?? now..i am just an old man with no desire to beat people on line. A master won't say he is MASTER on line. a real master will hide his ID if he play online some times. IF JUST IF... ACTUALY NO MASTER WILL PLAY HERE FOR SURE.

panzerschiff: That's a good point regarding the difference of chess engines and computer selected moves. I'm glad to see a more logical approach to the problem (as compared to 435152). thanks, JV.

This has been an interesting discussion. I don't know if there is a really reliable way to test computer use. I was a 2300+ correspondence play and a Master OTB and in the ICCF where you could use computer engines legally for chess you found when using the engine often there were two or three fairly good choices and often what choice you chose was the style of play you liked. Engines also can return different results depening on how powerful the CPU and even if you had a lot of games to examine you almost would need to examine them on the type of Computer that you thought the "cheat" might be using.

ColonelCrockett: yes, but it is differnet if you do it when game is finished or during the game.

lukulus: I was going to say that - but then some other people (who will remain nameless) might figure out they can cheat that way ... because the way to detect a computer cheater is the exact same way to cheat.

What does mean good player? There must be comparison. If you compare player 1500 and 2200, than 2200 is really good. I am pretty sure there is couple of very strong players (FIDE 2300+).

There is easy test how to find computer move. Use some good engine, like Rybka and let it play instead of player who would like to investigate. Of course you must compare more games than one.

fact (5) i have said that no world champion or GM will come to this site, even a good player won't play here. I decide to quit this site, thanks to the Moderator that he did not ban me for what i have said.
the reason: I am a good chinese chess player, i found no competition here, and i hate to play this kind of correspondence game.

fact (1) a 1900 chessplayer could not know computer moves, and it can not know if it's opponent using computer program. The chance of knowing it a 1900 is not better than a 1400.
the reason is you don't know what your opponent is doing. no matter you are 1900 or 1400.

fact(2) No world champion or GM will come to this site, this site is brainking.com, a correspondence online playing site.
the reason is there are no competition and prize(money), and playing correspondence chess is very time consumeing, for a world champion or Gm, time is money.

fact (3) to day, computer won all the matches vs human
the reason, time is change, now is the computer era, the machine is so fast......himan is no match to the machine.

fact (4) GM is a short form for a Grand Master in chess, not a Grand Mother or General Motor or General Manager.
the reason is, GM could be anything if you are not talking about chess.

435152: "you said i know nothing about chess, i know more than you know."

I fail to see how you've come to that conclusion. We've never played that I can remember. I have several open game slots if you'd like to put all your cards on the table. This discussion is over from my end (because when facts and logic are ignored discussion is pointless).

Clandestine 1: yes, Kasparov has claimed that the computer was "aided" by human intervention after he lost the match.

ColonelCrockett: the chance to know if you are playing against a computer, nothing to do with your rating. this is my answer to your incorrect statement (1)
just tell me how much better chance for a 2000, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, ........than a 1900 like you.

As I recall there was some suspicion that the computer was "aided" by human intevention when it one the first game.

Long time ago, Kasparov played 3 matches vs the computer (big Blue or deep Blue by the IBM).. Kasparov was the world champion then, and he won the first match and lost the 2nd and the 3rd match.. The result is 2 to 1 , the machine won it. at that time human still stand a chance to beat the computer...but to day, human lost completely even Kasparov himself admitted human is no match to the fast machine

my rating is 1400 , it could be more.... my record is 8 wins, 1 draw and 9 loses......all my loses by run out of time ( 0. 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 moves etc.. )....because i quit this site.then....

actully, i don't care about those online rating, i don't care about win or lose. i know where i am standing....ha ha ha. i will quit soon.....so far no one can beat me in chinese chess and chess....i know that.....

rabbitoid: why you sent this message to me? i play only Chinese chess and sometimes Chess...i have never played Fisher Random and Ambassy...i don't understand those games.. i don't follow them...i don't play them...I don't understand why people play them.......

ColonelCrockett:a 1900 knows nothing about computer level moves same as a 1400...what is the point? the answer is still the same... that is... KNOW NOTHING ABOUT COMPUTER LEVEL MOVES.... what you trying to say is 1900 is better than 1400..ha ha ha..
i said "NO WORLD CHAMPION OR GM WILL COME TO THIS SITE." This site is brainking.com...do you know what i am talking about.?

to day, computer won all the matches against human, that is the fact. and you are talking about how many draws and loses of the match. what important is the result , that is ..who won?

you said i know nothing about chess, i know more than you know. one thing i want to point out that, this is a chess discussion board, any one can talk equally and freely. supposed you talk with a 2400 chess player who will say you know nothing about chess, what your chance knowing computer level moves? the answer is none...if a 2400 does not know. how could you know? ha ha ha.

as i said before, noline rating is not a true rating, a 1400 could be a 2000+, a 2400 may be a 1600...

435152: 1) if a 1900 can't know if he's playing a computer ... what chance does a 1400 have? none.

2) Kasarov is most famous for publicly admitting to anonymously playing chess on the internet. big names like Karpov and Polgar have also done it.

You said: "computer won all the matches against human, not just by winning one single game" This is only a half truth. It is true that humans have been beaten in matches in the last several years. However, matches between computers and world champions have had by far more drawn games and are usually decided by one or two games.

It's becoming obvious to me that you are someone who knows quite a bit about Chinese Chess but almost nothing about Chess.

435152: There was a guy here 2-3 years ago claiming to be Bobby Fischer. He didn't finish a sufficient number of games for us to judge one way or another, but he sure had a character nasty enough to fit the role... he got booted off the site for persistent rude behaviour. he played only Fisher random and Embassy - fitting the role too. Now, of course, we'll never know.

no World champion or GM will come to this site, even a good player won't play here.
why? the reason is very simple, there are no competition and prize.(money)...

when i click on the " Photo albums" then i see lots of public photos, some are animals as dog, cat, pig etc...i could't help laughing, once i hate to see a smiling face with dark glasses, now i just feel funny, i don't hate it any more.......any one @ this site is just a nick...any photo is just a mask.....

ColonelCrockett: 1) first time you said that a 1400 rated chessplayer could not konw computer level moves. it sounds that a 1900 rated chessplayer like you could know. Now you said you never could tell the difference between human's moves and computer's .
2) you said masters play on any number of sites, master is not GM or World champion, who is the master playing at this site? don't tell me you are JUST a master

your last statement make me laugh, ha ha any computer can beat your grandmother. computer could beat you too......computer is better than human, computer won all the matches against human, not just by winning one single game. Is this not consistently? In your opinion computer must win all the games against human to be better? Again, don't tell me any GM won any Match today. GM could managed to win one game only....

Walter Montego: I agree. I also think that what is true of dark chess is true of jungle ... under the radar.

ColonelCrockett: This whole thing about not knowing what your opponent is doing when playing on the internet is why I like Dark Chess! The board is dark for everyone except the two players, so this makes getting outside help harder. The type of thinking needed to play it well is very hard for computer programmers. Though seeing how they've figured out Poker and Contract Bridge, I'd say this is not the case any more. Which leaves it to the fact that Dark Chess is under the programmer's radar for the time being and I can still beat the computers, few that play it that is. Them machines are getting smarter everyday. It's just a matter of time before they start thinking at their own direction and initiative. Then I'm sure self awareness will be right behind that day. Will it be Terminator 2 or something good for humanity? That's the question I think we'll face soon.

435152: I never said I could tell the difference between a person's good move and a computer's ... just that you couldn't.

You said "no world champion will come to this site, no GM , even a good player won't play here." ... this is plainly wrong ... masters play on any number of sites. Why wouldn't they play here?

lastly, computers don't beat humans consistently in chess. Winning a single game is not the same as beating an entire species. Any computer can beat my grandmother ... does that mean computers are better? The last organized matches between GMs and computers were gross mismatches (GM Jaan and GM Milov got their heads handed to them ... neither has been active in top chess)

Clandestine 1: "it speaks to their character." most definitely agreed!

One game which is so far impossible to cheat at is Jungle and the variant I co-created - Big Jungle. All computers play the game poorly and lose quickly to the best humans (as the best I can say that with confidence).

chess world champion won't be here for sure, but i know some times one ex-worldchamp will do it , his name is well known. Kaspraov, some thing like this, i can spell his name exactly.

a world champion no need to use computer when playing on line. he could win every game very easily.
but if a world champion using computer to play in the championship match and his opponent did not know, no one could take his title away, he can keep it forever.

today even in the very high level chess, such as the world championship match, the player is still complainng about computer cheating. have you heard about the "toiletgate"?

online rating is not a true rating, a 1400 could be a 2000+, a 2400 may be a 1600, who knows?

ColonelCrockett: your first statemene: 1400 rated chessplayer could not know computer level moves, this is a very stupid question. do you know?

your second statement also a stupid one. no world champion will come to this site, no GM , even a good player won't play here.

your last statement is not true, to day, computer beat human in chess, but not in GO or Chinese chess.

if your every move agree with the first choice of the computer program, you are using computer for sure.


the cheater's opponent did not know he is using computer, that is why i said it is unfair.

435152: firstly, a 1400 rated chessplayer could not possibly know whether an opponent was making computer level moves.

secondly, how would computer cheaters be caught? by making good moves? What if the player you're playing is a world champion? How do you KNOW he's cheating?

I understand the frustration but humans still stand a chance against computers.

ughaibu: this site or any other site, they all said the same thing, using computer is prohibited, but they never do anything to stop it... i think it is unfair people using computer to win a game without telling his opponent, this is cheating. ...i suggest this site should add a big "c" to the nick of those player using computer....

Those interested in tournament chess in the US:

http://www.uschess.org/


Those interested world-wide

http://www.fide.com/

Some chess database sites to view games:

http://www.chesslive.de/

http://www.chessgames.com/

http://www.chesslab.com/

Real-time and tournament replays:
http://www.monroi.com/


Enjoy.