chess online
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Computer Analysis SuggestionI'd also like to be able to delete the CA for any game where I was the one who originally requested it. Some reasons for this might be wanting to hide my stupidity. Or if it's a game in which I won, having CA seems like rubbing salt into my opponent's wound. |
||
|
bhidragon 05-Feb-11, 15:43 |
Hide My CA Games |
||
|
I don't mind other players looking at my CA games (and if anyone wants to CA one of my games, then knock yourself out). But if I later decide I don't want CA on one of my games then there should be some way for me to delete the CA. |
||
|
If I had my way,i'd have the option to make any or all my games never available for anyone to view!That way,I could play the same killer out of book moves indefinitely with a new player,then place it on lock down again,until one day it is figured out! This will never be,of course,but I can dream about it,can't I? |
||
|
baronderkilt 09-Feb-11, 19:55 |
The objection ... (Back in my day of Postal, we really had to DIG to even find some few sample games of all but the most famous or prolific opponents. And to find a half dozen examples was a major plus to me. Seeing their style if naught else. Now it ia given on a platter and one can even gain expectations and error lines of the opponent. Back then one could use an improvement in at least all ongoing games, and start another series of games before it was published. Or often avoid its appearing for years, if ones opponent was not hot to show their loss to it, lol. "Hey world, look at the great new move I lost to~!" yeah, right haha) But the solution of not showing the CA you order, is not a solution (as TA suggests) since they can simply order a CA of any GK game of interest to them. In that regard, i think it would be nice if GK DENIED a CA of anyone that a player is currently playing at the time. So they must order it before or after ... |
||
|
Well... Actually, I believe there is a selection criterion used: some minimum rating level of the games. It's a fairly arbitrary cutoff point, and no doubt people would like to see it adjusted up or down... But what about a database of master games? Ought there to be one of them? You might find the majority of users would like it to remain. If we have a Masterplay database, then why not a GK database? Again I think most would prefer to retain it than otherwise. I also think it well to access others' games. I refer to the dtabases and others' games fairly often, but rarely, if ever, to research what people play in order to gin some advantage thereby. My own attitude is that such advantages as might be obtained are nigh negligible. Others will no doubt take a different view. How about analysed games? I like to show off something I'm fairly proud of, or maybe an interesting idea or play. Something interesting in someone else's game, that might lead to annotating the whole thing (and in any case I have annotated a few games 'on request'). You know: it is my firm belief that the games of intermediate level players - say 1300-1700 - are sadly neglected in chess literature. Of course such games will contain several inaccuracies and mistakes, but they will contain some very good moves as well. What they will show are ideas more accessible to beginning and intermediate players than master games will be. Occasionally such games are greatly entertaining, full of incident, withal containing a lot of food for thought. Keep the databases and games histories (except maybe private, unrated games if you like). As for the argument presented by markb56 in respect of his CA games, what is the objection? That his opponent might obtain some advantage thereby - having seen how you play a certain line? But that can be a double-edged weapon at that. Suppose in a given game (against aweaker opponent, say, you select what you consider to be a second-best move, and go on to win. Joe Schmuuck, investigating your past record sees this line, finds a good continuation against it, and gets ambushed by your preferred choice... There ain't all that much advantage in looking up people's history. |
||
|
I will agree with you mostly,but not completely.In regards to not gaining much advantage in looking up people's history of games,I feel I have won many games by doing just that!One of the things my opponents overlook many,many times is their OWN weakness at certain middlegame stages of their past games and FAIL to even bother researching their own past losses!And this is even with 2200+players!Take a 2200+player that has played 600 GK games. I will look way way down his list from perhaps years ago and pick one game that his positional weakness on move # 33 lead to his loss on move #50.Now,that player could easily "correct"his positional weakness if confronted in the same scenario again,but never checks and does not care!So he losses again under similar or exacting conditions. Now,yes,it can be double edged as you say,BUT I personally keep my game load down to a minimum and DO check all my "small"amt of losses 100% of the time(now at only 6 losses in 137 games),unlike some of the heavier bulk game players that have 600-1000 past games.So the odds of me lossing a 2nd time in the same midgame scenario is next to 0% unless i'm drinking too many margaritas! |
||
|
Too many margaritas |
||
|
A material disadvantage... |
||
|
Observation.. but i was looking at this game and the computer analyses  game And as you all can see white is loosing the game. but the computer scores tell us that white is winning.. Do i have it all wrong or is the GK Engine Confused ? |
||
|
Huh? as Black? |
||
|
|
Log in 
