Home
Information
Login
Register
Waiting lists
Membership
Hall of fame
Tournaments
Best game
Wikichess
Rating list
Problems
Forum
Links
Help
About
| Install FICGS apps | |
| play chess online |  |
|
Game result (chess) B. Ozen, 2269 N. Wilson, 2121 1/2-1/2 See game 152323 |
Hot news Discussions Files search Social network
Here are 100 results for Jason Repa in the games.
Game_122704 Game_65802 Game_65800 Game_65798 Game_65795 Game_65791 Game_65786 Game_65332 Game_65331 Game_65330 Game_65329 Game_65328 Game_65322 Game_64928 Game_64927 Game_64924 Game_64921 Game_64917 Game_64912 Game_64667 Game_64666 Game_64665 Game_64664 Game_64663 Game_64662 Game_64521 Game_64520 Game_64519 Game_64518 Game_64517 Game_64511 Game_64301 Game_64300 Game_64297 Game_64294 Game_64290 Game_64285 Game_64271 Game_64270 Game_64269 Game_64268 Game_64267 Game_64261 Game_64237 Game_64235 Game_64233 Game_64230 Game_64226 Game_64221 Game_64149 Game_64147 Game_64145 Game_64142 Game_64138 Game_64133 Game_63796 Game_63795 Game_63794 Game_63793 Game_63792 Game_63786 Game_63588 Game_63587 Game_63586 Game_63582 Game_63578 Game_63573 Game_63405 Game_63404 Game_63403 Game_63402 Game_63401 Game_63400 Game_63077 Game_63076 Game_63075 Game_63074 Game_63073 Game_63067 Game_62636 Game_62635 Game_62634 Game_62633 Game_62632 Game_62631 Game_62624 Game_62617 Game_61837 Game_61836 Game_61835 Game_61831 Game_61827 Game_61822 Game_61740 Game_61739 Game_61738 Game_61737 Game_61732 Game_61727 Game_61478
There are at least 100 results for Jason Repa in the forum.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-24 20:36:16)
Folding in Poker
Ok, note: it could have been discussed in the forum when I announced it... Anyway the current rules may be better at the end, ratings are not dedicated to change faster than necessary. It also avoids that anyone can reach the top just by lasting a few games.
Also look at the results of Nelson:
vs. Aleksey Payzansky (2086) : 67% (56 games, 38 wins, 18 losses)
vs. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006) : 90% (52 games, 47 wins, 5 losses)
vs. Jason Repa (2095) : 58% (39 games, 23 wins, 16 losses)
vs. Yulian Kehayov (2022) : 54% (35 games, 19 wins, 16 losses)
vs. Anderson Barradas (2021) : 72% (29 games, 21 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Scott Nichols (2119) : 64% (28 games, 18 wins, 10 losses)
vs. Lubos Fric (1924) : 68% (25 games, 17 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Stephane Legrand (2187) : 54% (22 games, 12 wins, 10 losses)
vs. Rolf Staggat (2116) : 61% (21 games, 13 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Janeen Walden (2000) : 75% (20 games, 15 wins, 5 losses)
IMO he just fully deserves his rating. The reason why noone else can reach it may be just that he's the best player for a while, what do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-02 18:26:28)
Incredible poker hand
Just look at this strange hand between Jason Repa & Nelson Bernal Varela... the community cards and player's ones are really amazing... Pair of aces, pair of queens and a straight flush appears in the community cards... quite rare. And only 12 chips in the pot.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=43092&move=1023
Any comment on this one? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-29 23:01:27)
Most active players, amazing statistics!
These statistics (updated every 2 days) are available at :
http://www.ficgs.com/about.html
And the overall winner is........ :)
Players most active : General (moves played)
1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 124234
2. Rolf Staggat : 81806
3. Anderson Barradas : 55829
4. Stephane Legrand : 47936
5. Scott Nichols : 46711
6. Mark Noble : 37387
7. Findlay Murray : 35874
8. Volker Koslowski : 33241
9. Don Groves : 29539
10. Thibault de Vassal : 26104
11. Francisco Gramajo : 25281
12. Sergey Uzdin : 25256
13. Michael Sharland : 24890
14. Josef Riha : 24193
15. Jason Repa : 22765
16. Laurine Ségur : 22577
17. Alexis Bromo : 20198
18. Benjamin Collette : 20112
19. Fernando Vasquez : 19928
20. Laszlo Kis-Kos : 19174
21. Christian Koch : 18450
22. Evgeny Yarkov : 17168
23. Xavier Pichelin : 16559
24. Garvin Gray : 16388
25. Ranganathan Raman : 15750
26. Sebastian Boehme : 15190
27. Zdravko Stoyanov : 15186
28. Nick Ioffe : 15151
29. Phil Cook : 15007
30. Sean McNabb : 14572
31. Daniel Parmet : 13814
32. Ilmars Cirulis : 13118
33. Joaquim Malpalma : 13057
34. Dmitriy Panov : 12733
35. Nelson Bernal Varela : 12119
36. Marco Roncagliolo : 11741
37. Dmytro Romaniuk : 11648
38. Miroslav Rakovic : 11435
39. Nick Burrows : 11242
40. Janeen Walden : 10967
41. Claude Brisson : 10812
42. Sandor Porkolab : 10714
43. Christophe Czekaj : 10678
44. Janusz Kepinski : 10675
45. Peter Willoughby : 10634
46. Benjamin Block : 10633
47. Kate Lubeck : 10155
48. Charlie Neil : 10076
49. Darko Pipac : 10072
50. William Taylor : 10036
Players most active : Go
1. Don Groves : 17026
2. Claude Brisson : 10812
3. Nick Ioffe : 10795
4. Alejandro Suarez-Moreno : 10018
5. Mickaël Simon : 8986
6. Thibault de Vassal : 8870
7. Sean McNabb : 8666
8. Sergey Tarassov : 8236
9. Phil Cook : 8186
10. Tetsuya Kobayashi : 7816
Players most active : Chess
1. Josef Riha : 24119
2. Fernando Vasquez : 19820
3. Zdravko Stoyanov : 14523
4. Anderson Barradas : 12587
5. Ilmars Cirulis : 12200
6. Laszlo Kis-Kos : 12068
7. Janusz Kepinski : 10675
8. Garvin Gray : 10638
9. Scott Nichols : 10211
10. Charlie Neil : 10076
Players most active : Chess 960
1. Christophe Czekaj : 1224
2. Joaquim Malpalma : 916
3. Frederick Estieu : 672
4. Ilmars Cirulis : 605
5. Pavel Háse : 600
6. Sefa Sarihan : 524
7. Sandor Porkolab : 512
8. Jay Melquiades : 495
9. Christian Koch : 470
10. Rick Spangler : 447
Players most active : Big Chess
1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 5583
2. Peter Willoughby : 4368
3. José Carrizo : 3319
4. Thibault de Vassal : 3199
5. Mark Noble : 2949
6. Sandor Porkolab : 2467
7. Volker Koslowski : 1887
8. Paul König : 1790
9. William Taylor : 1706
10. Ranganathan Raman : 1620
Players most active : Poker Holdem
1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 111119
2. Rolf Staggat : 75570
3. Stephane Legrand : 41639
4. Anderson Barradas : 38671
5. Scott Nichols : 36500
6. Findlay Murray : 33008
7. Mark Noble : 31172
8. Volker Koslowski : 25829
9. Michael Sharland : 20721
10. Francisco Gramajo : 20431
Congrats Heinz-Georg, definitely you're the most addicted player ;)
Jason Repa (2008-06-17 00:45:04)
Quote
It does sound very nice. But is it really true?
Jason Repa (2008-06-10 08:34:35)
Senility is a terrible thing
How long are you going to keep whining and crying here groves? If I had any doubt about the accuracy of my comments, it would certainly be removed after this emotional protest from you. You're extremely pathetic, even for the standards of a geriatric imbecile. First you say that you won't be posting in this thread anymore, then you prove to everyone reading this that you're a bold-faced liar, in addition to everything else that has been said about you. I proved how patently stupid you are, in point by point form. You don't even realize that you've contradicted yourself repeatedly. You can't even remember your own words.
Do yourself, your family, and society a favor little man, and see someone about euthanasia.
Jason Repa (2008-06-10 07:14:50)
Senility is a terrible thing
I thought you said you were done posting in this thread, groves? In addition to being an intellectually-deficient cretin, you prove yourself to be a liar as well.
Everything I said about you is true and accurate and you know it. That's why you're so frustrated. The truth hurts.
Jason Repa (2008-06-10 04:52:22)
Senility is a terrible thing
"Ah, here they come -- the insults so typical of you"
Sorry groves, but I was simply stating facts. It's difficult to find anything to say about you that you won't construe as an "insult". Everything that has spewed out of your keyboard thus far is evidence of your complete lack of reasoning ability, and very modest IQ.
"I thought I remembered 150. If that's not correct you have my sincere apology"
You "think" a lot of nonsense that isn't true, groves. This is nothing new.
"-- add the condition that, in order to qualify for the exception, the player must be within 25 ELO of the next higher classification"
I realize that with your condition you can scarcely recall your own words from moments ago, but it was YOUR idea that the player in question be seeded into the higher rating classification event REGARDLESS of their rating. So now the little light bulb went on in that melon head of yours and you now realize what I was telling you earlier....about there being no guarantee that the tournament winner is rated near the top of his classification? If you're going to change what you proposed earlier, and only allow players who are within 25 elo of the higher classification, what's the point of it? You might as well let him get the remaining 25 elo on his own and enter the higher classification event normally.
I'm so sorry I made you repeat yourself.
You're doing an awful lot of apologizing, groves. Your very existence seems to be one big apology. I'm sure quite a few people in your life have to repeat themselves, ad nauseum, for your benefit.
"You can have the last word now"
The last word should have been my previous post. As usual, you've contributed nothing of value here. Just more pathetic whining and blabbering, as per usual.
Jason Repa (2008-06-10 01:03:04)
Free entry into unqualified tournaments
As for the discussion of allowing lower rated players to play in events with higher rated players after winning a tournament.....such a thing already exists. They're called FICGS Championships!
Jason Repa (2008-06-09 11:05:13)
Brackets - Chess and Go
"Thanks for your reasoned response"
Somehow I don't think you know the meaning of the word "reason", groves.
"(1) Having one lower rated player in a group of seven does not seem to me to be much of a dilution"
It is very much a dilution. As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.
"Also, remember that this player is at or very near the top of the next lower rated group"
Total rubbish. You just finished saying, in your previous post, that you propose to allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification REGARDLESS of his/her rating. There is no certainty that the winner of the tournament will be near the top of the next lower rated group. They could very well be at the bottom of the next lower rated group, as I often was, as were many others, when I won tournaments.
"and again, this doesn't seem like a large enough disparity to be of concern."
And AGAIN, As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.
"Thibault instituted a rule that losing to a lower rated player only counts as a loss to someone a maximum of 150 ELO below"
Where did you get the 150 ELO figure from? I was under the impression it was a 200 ELO ceiling. Not that this has any relevance in terms of supporting your position anyway.
"The new rule could easily specify that no more than one lower rated player may enter any given tournament."
I just finished explaining to you that there is no guarantee that the "M" class tournaments will end at the same time as the "A" class tournaments. Not only do "M" class players tend to take the game more seriously and move slower, but there are more "A" class players than "M" so it takes longer to fill an "M" class list, hence less "M" class tournaments are played. If you propose to have only one "A" class player sent to an "M" class tournament at a time, then you'll quickly accumulate a waiting list backlog of "A" class players waiting to be seeded into a tournament they don't legitimately qualify for, stretching for decades. The other reasons I mentioned are MORE than enough reason to ditch this suggestion. This is just gravy.
Additionally, and once again, as I just finished explaining to you, if someone is winning tournaments, they're gaining rating points and will soon be able to qualify for the new rating category through legitimate means. So there is no reason at all to provide such "handouts".
I hope I don't have to repeat myself a third time here. It seems quite silly that you don't yet understand the simple and logical truth of what has been explained to you.
Jason Repa (2008-06-09 08:12:28)
Brackets - both Chess and Go
" -- allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification regardless of his/her rating."
This idea seems interesting, on the surface, but on closer inspection it's not feasible. The FICGS tournament categories are dependent on certain rating averages that determine the level of points required in order to achieve norms for various FICGS titles, starting at class "M" and higher. Throwing in lower rated players would dilute the rating average of the entire tournament. It's also unfair to the rest of the players in that tournament who are legitimately qualified to be there. They are forced to play a lower rated opponent artificially and now THEY are at a big disadvantage in their attempt to gain the points required to get to the next level.
Additionally, I don't think groves thought about this long enough to realize that there is no guarantee that each "A" level tournament will end precisely as each "M" level tournament does. What if two "A" level events are completed in the time it takes for one "M" level event to finish, which isn't an unreasonable possibility as the "M" level players generally take the game more seriously and tend to use their time more? Should we then throw in TWO players into an "M" level event that don't deserve to be there? At any rate, it's a poor idea. If someone is winning tournaments, they're definitely gaining rating points and will qualify legitimately for the next rating level soon enough.
Jason Repa (2008-06-09 00:22:32)
Rapid chess entry rating
If you're not bright enough to figure out how to look up someone's rating, you better stick to "engine-assisted" chess. I'd probably beat you blindfolded in chess where you have to come up with the moves using your own mind. You're not even intelligent enough to figure out how to spell someone's name, when the spelling of it is right in front of you.
And for someone who doesn't want to engage in insults, you sure are doing a good job of insulting. Nice of you to "claim" I wouldn't accept your "challenge" of playing match games, before you even make the challenge. Obviously it's YOU who's backing down from match games with me, under the pretense of not having any time to play. What sheer nonsense. You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands....enough to blabber away with numerous forum posts where you whine about not being able to make it to 2300.
I'm challenging YOU to some human mind vs human mind chess on the playchess server right now. You can get a free trial account there (if you don't already have an account) in about 2 minutes. For a guy who's incessantly bickering about Rybka hurting your performance, you should love having the opportunity to prove to everyone reading this that you're not the spineless hypocrite coward I'm claiming you are and step up to the plate to play me some fast (so rybka or other engines cannot be consulted) online games.
Nice of you to tell us you have problems, but it was already obvious.
Jason Repa (2008-06-08 20:37:40)
Rapid chess entry rating
No, Lowrance, you're the one missing the point here. And you're using engine assistance as much as anyone here, so don't pretend like you're somehow at a disadvantage. I've played you, and you're 100% program. Perhaps that's the problem.
Thibault mentioned once that a weak player running Rybka can get to around 2100 or so. To get beyond that requires some chess knowledge. While he may not be precisely accurate about the number....perhaps it's 2200 instead......nonetheless, the point is accurate. Everyone who's above 2000 on this site is consulting chess engines, but in corr. chess simply running a program alone is not the strongest way to play. You make it sound as though Rybka plays the perfect chess game. If that were the case everyone on this site would be rated about the same. It should be quite obvious to you that to go from 2300 to 2400 is much more difficult than going from 2200-2300. As a higher rated player, you get less points for winning or drawing, and lose more when you lose. As for your chances against 2400 players being the same as against 2100 players, that's pure nonsense. You'd be lucky to get the occasional draw against a 2400 player, (one who's really earned their rating and not just started with an artificially high rating as is the case with more than a few on this site) whilst you will lost most of those games. A higher rated player is higher rated for a reason. They win more games.
The correct spelling of my name should also be obvious to you, as it's on the same page that you're entering text into.
Jason Repa (2008-06-08 11:09:30)
Nickel vs Hydra
I believe that Nickel used various chess engines to assist him with error-checking and analysis, similar to what any good corr. player does.
I especially liked the game where Nickel beat Hydra with the Black side of a French Tarrasch
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 21:22:00)
Poker
Here we go again eh groves? You're a bored old man with no purpose in life other than to harass and annoy people on the internet.
Ah, I get it, you couldn’t cut it in chess, so you ran to Go, lol. But you can’t play that game either, so what’s it going to be next....tic tac toe? Unlike you, groves, I don’t have all day to sit around and play games. My gaming time is limited to chess and poker.
Perhaps it’s true what has been said about how people of a very advanced age start to become like children again. It’s especially sad when you’re dealing with someone who was less than impressive, even at their peak.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 20:56:31)
Poker
I don't "think" 1300 is a mediocre Go rating, any more than I "think" 1600 is a mediocre chess rating. But a guy like you is used to being below average at the things you do, so I guess you're comfortable with that.
I've proven myself for years at live OTB chess with no computer assistance whatsoever little guy. You're only making a fool of yourself with such comments. I'm in the top 1% of all tournament chess players in my province at slow chess. And I'm a several time provincial champion at blitz chess.
Did I use any words too complex for you to understand in my previous post? I tried to explain to you what goes into making poker decisions, in the way a 4 year old should be able to understand. Was I overly optimistic?
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 20:22:20)
Poker
No, your ability to understand simple concepts is what is weak here groves. You keep whining that your paltry 1600 chess rating shouldn't matter because you haven't played chess in a couple of years, but what difference does that make? Are elo points easier to obtain now? And what about Go? You play that game regularly, yet you have a pathetic 1300 rating at that as well. You better open a window before you think up another lame excuse....I wouldn't want you to die from smoke inhalation.
I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating myself in order for the point to penetrate your skull, but your comment about "mastering the mechanics" of the game is pure nonsense. You speak as if the entirety of poker theory can be equated to memorizing basic strategy in blackjack. You seem to think the discussion of calculating EV is based purely on figuring out pot-odds and how that relates to the number of outs, etc, but if you had the incipience of a clue about the game you'd realize that there is much MORE involved than that. Poker is an information game and all the information you have at your disposal, such as the temperament and mood of your opponent(s), your perceived table image (or at least your interpretation of it), the history of the action that has occurred so far, the tells that you pick up and the false tells that you may be sending to your opponents, etc, goes into the calculation of the EV on any given play. The better a player is able to conduct these evaluations and convert them into value, at least intuitively....the better a poker player they are. Even online poker has some tell/false-tell action as the response time can be varied.
Re-read my previous post where I mentioned that mistakes can take various forms. I clearly state, and in simple terms such that even you should be able to grasp, that there is more to the game than straightforward arithmetic calculations.
And I realize that you don't work, but geez, can you not find something better to do with your time than try to provoke people on the internet? Why don't you use all that free time you have on your hands to learn how to play Chess or Go beyond the level of a rank beginner?
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 19:32:31)
Pi
I just noticed the entire movie (divided into 4 parts) can be viewed for free on utube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY1P-9xj_GA&feature=related
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 19:21:48)
Poker
As was just explained to you, groves, you're not a 1600 chess player as the result of "bad luck". You have the rating you do for a reason. The fact that you're not intelligent enough to get your chess rating up to even a modest level does indeed relate to your inability to understand concepts in other areas. Go back to your original post and try to understand what this "discussion" is all about. It's about the fact that you can't comprehend my statement that poker is a game which involves more than just knowing when to bluff and managing your money. I even went so far as to try to explain the concept of EV to you as I wasn't confident you would figure out how to look that up on your own.
What's very telling here is that all of my posts contain discussion of poker whereas your just keep trying to be offensive and whining about how you feel "insulted" when I've done nothing but state objective facts about you. I suppose referring to you as a 1600 chess player is also an "insult" Your last two posts are completely devoid of any discussion of poker whatsoever.
I'd tell you to grow up, groves, but at your age I think it's a bit too late for you.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 10:02:42)
Poker
Groves, it's pretty sad if you aren't capable of understanding what you did. But in your case I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
And I don't need to meet you in person to know what you're all about. Your words speak volumes. And FYI chess ratings aren't obtained by flipping coins. You're a mere 1600 and change player. It's not the result of "bad luck".
You equate the stating of facts with "insulting". The problem is when I'm dealing with a very modest individual like you, every objective fact I state is interpreted as an insult.
As I said, read a poker book, or get someone to read one to you so that you can learn the basics of the game. Perhaps then you'll understand that there is more to the game than simply managing your money and knowing when to bluff.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 09:22:21)
Rapid chess entry rating
I disagree with Wayne Lowrance completely. The 2300+ rapid category is an excellent idea. Obviously it's much more difficult to go from 2300-2400 than it is to go from 2200-2300. Without the 2300+ category it's ominously difficult for a 23xx player to get to the next level.
My only complaint is that the standard list doesn't have a 2300+ category as well.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 09:11:18)
Poker
As usual, Groves, you're returning to your trolling ways once again. You're the one who started with the personal attack here, not me. I simply stated that that there is more to poker than mere bluffing and money management, as you contended. You seriously don't know anything at all about the game of poker. That's not an attack, that's a fact. I was studying the value of inflection points and stack to pot ratios when you were struggling to learn the difference between a straight and a flush.
Just as you're a 1600 chess player, so you're showing your mediocrity where poker is concerned by grossly oversimplifying what the game is about. Saying that poker is more a game of psychology than math is hardly saying that all there is to poker is bluffing, as you repeatedly and mindlessly keep stating. For starters, bluffing is just one tool in a strong poker player's toolbox, and it is both a psychological, as well as a scientific/mathematical tool at that. In no limit poker, for example, sometimes a player will spend hours trying to create a certain image just to set up one single play in order to win a large pot. There are all kinds of relevant intangibles that are so far beyond your comprehension it's not funny.
And I really couldn't care less what you agree or disagree with. I know what I'm talking about. You don't. I have a proven track record over the last two decades as a winning player. I'd be surprised if you're not in the hole overall. And FYI, everything I've said is consistent with what guys like Greenstein, Skansky, Harrington, etc have been saying for years.
Do yourself a favour, Groves.....go read a poker book and learn some basics. Then perhaps you'll be able to make a contribution to a discussion about poker.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 06:48:23)
Poker
"I should have said my statement was about those who know the mechanics of the game"
Actually, you've just confirmed that you don't know anything at all about the game of poker. As is the case for you with chess. And you obviously didn't understand the expression "-EV" , so I'll explain it to you. EV means expected value. It is the sum of the probability of each possible outcome of the event multiplied by the outcome value (or payoff). Thus, it represents the average amount one "expects" as the outcome of the random trial when identical odds are repeated many times. Obviously if this value is a negative number, money-management is completely meaningless as you will lose money in the long run. Money management is actually the easiest thing to figure out. It's a no-brainer for anyone who knows anything about money gaming. It has to do with ensuring that you have enough cash on hand to keep the risk of ruin down to a comfortable level, to account for standard deviation (bad luck). If you're a losing poker player, ie, one in which the net result of all your decisions results in a negative expected value, money management is clearly totally meaningless. This simple concept is quite obvious to most people. I've never before met an adult who required it to be explained to them like this.
People who's minds go beyond the superficial understand that there is much more to poker than working out the simple arithmetic of the game, such as how many outs for a flush/straight.... pot odds, implied pot odds, etc, which is probably what you mean by "knowing the mechanics of the game". Playing that kind of mindless, one-dimensional game might work OK at microlimits, but beyond that you'll need to learn that poker is much more of a game of psychology than it is a game of math. A mathematician by the name of Barry Greenstein, who incidentally has won more than $10,000,000 playing poker, once said that also. I've got a feeling he knows a bit more about the game than you do, lol.
Don Groves (2008-06-04 06:13:07)
Poker
--- Jason Repa wrote: "There's a bit more to the game than just knowing when to bluff. Poker is all about exploiting mistakes and minimizing both the frequency and magnitude of the mistakes that you make. Mistakes can take various forms, ranging from tells, to lack of or too much aggression, to letting your emotions get the better of you, making mathematical errors, etc." -------- I should have said my statement was about those who know the mechanics of the game. Once someone can play technically correct poker, as you would find in any high-level game, then bluffing and money management become paramount.
Jason Repa (2008-06-03 08:06:37)
Poker
There's a bit more to the game than just knowing when to bluff. Poker is all about exploiting mistakes and minimizing both the frequency and magnitude of the mistakes that you make. Mistakes can take various forms, ranging from tells, to lack of or too much aggression, to letting your emotions get the better of you, making mathematical errors, etc.
Money management is meaningless if you're making -EV decisions.
Jason Repa (2008-06-03 03:14:01)
Poker at FICGS
I've never heard of poker having an elo rating system. There is too much of a luck factor in order for that to be meaningful IMO. Obviously there is some skill in poker, but the fruits of this only manifest in the "long-run". Even top professionals have had losing periods in excess of a year in duration.
Jason Repa (2008-06-03 02:47:02)
Poker
Poker is not really poker without a monetary wager, similar to backgammon.
Unlike chess or snooker, where a brilliantly played game can be satisfaction enough, the entire point of poker is to win money (cash game) or accumulate chips (tournament) by hook or by crook. Achieving this in practice has much more to do with exploiting mistakes and emotional weaknesses in your opponents than doing anything "brilliant".
As for "Play money" poker, it's for bored housewives and people who have too much free time on their hands. These are the same people who kill time by playing solitaire.
Jason Repa (2008-06-02 09:13:06)
Go game (weiqi) in films
An excellent movie called "Pi" that was written and directed by Darren Aronofsky features scenes in which a mathematical prodigy visits his former professor to discuss math and play Go.
Jason Repa (2008-05-21 21:39:46)
To be or not to be
I believe in free will when I make good chess moves, fatalism when I make bad ones!?
Jason Repa (2008-05-16 21:46:50)
Erm...
The easiest way is to just get in the habit of saving all your text in the windows clipboard every new paragraph or so. (Ctrl+a then Ctrl+c).
Jason Repa (2008-05-16 00:23:32)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
Geez Stephenson, I thought you were done stalking and harassing me and had found something else to amuse your little mind with. Something shiny and metallic perhaps? But here you are continuing your trollish ways.
Actually, what this thread is REALLY about, is a pathetic little character who doesn't handle losing at chess very well. As was stated before, it's pretty sad that you don't have any chess games of your own worthy of publication or discussion, so you post one of mine and continue to rant, and rant, and rant about nonsense. I already BEAT YOU in chess. Quite easily, in fact. Could there be anything more ridiculous than a guy who loses at chess criticizing the play of the victor?
Normally when someone obsesses over me like this it's a female doing the obsessing. But hey, each to their own.
And yeah, it's pretty obvious you're someone with a lot of time on your hands. Nice of you to share that with us. But you only speak for yourself in that regard. Even with all your free time I was still able to beat you easily when we played chess.
Just look at this latest drivel you're posting. You go on and on and on about why I shouldn't have lost a chess game I played a year ago like this is some life and death event for you. It's really not a big deal to me. So why is MY game such a big deal to you? If you're trying to make an argument that I'm such a terrible correspondence chess player based on this game, why did I beat you so easily when you and I played? I'm also higher rated than you as well. If you're going to harass me with one of my losing games, at least have enough intelligence and imagination to vary the game once in awhile. You have 5 more to choose from.
Sorry but I've never met anyone clued out enough to put DOWN LOAD and DATA BASE before. This isn’t a minor spelling mistake or typo. This is a surprising lack of education. What’s next, “COMP -UTER”? A chess player should especially be familiar with the word DATABASE. But as I said earlier, some people mindlessly trust machines, and don't have the capacity to think for themselves. People like that like to brag about their meticulous spelling, because even a chromosome-deficient inebriate can figure out how to use spelling software. Most of us couldn't be bothered, because we realize that spelling is not important when making casual internet forum posts.
And no, Stephenson, the "point" about ELO is not dead. It's your ability to learn and understand simple concepts that appears quite dead here. This has nothing to do with me not "agreeing" with you. This has to do with objective fact. An ELO rating could be talking about GO, Backgammon, or other games, that FIDE has absolutely nothing to do with, in addition to national rating organizations. You were wrong. End of story. Continuing to defend your ignorance of the meaning of ELO is just making it all the more obvious what it is you are to everyone reading this. Again, Stephenson, LOOK IT UP.
Jason Repa (2008-05-14 21:31:38)
corr. & otb
"But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength."
I disagree. But first be clear that I'm talking about correspondence chess strength. I never said that corr. chess strength has a 1 to 1 relationship with otb chess strength. I know too many guys who are better corr. players than me that I could mop the floor with at any time control in a live chess game.
But having said that, I believe that people have high corr. ratings for a reason. At a minimum they're good at employing interactive chess engine research and have good updated databases. I think overall chess knowledge and judgment are factors as well. Stronger chess moves win more games. Yes, I understand that sometimes an ambitious 1800 can beat a higher rated opponent, on occasion, but it's overall results that are important, not anomalies. The same is true otb. Sometimes experts and national masters beat GMs. That doesn't mean they're a stronger chess player than the GM.
"Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities?"
I'm not surprised you're getting differing stories. Like anything else, it depends on how you use the experience and of course on your individual aptitude. Some people will just memorize the opening theory they learn from corr. chess, if that. Others will do much more with those games, such as developing technique, increasing their strategic knowledge, learn more endgame theory, etc. I think it is without question that corr. chess can have great benefits for your otb chess game, if used properly. Just being forced to comb through opening books and game databases alone is useful.
"OTB requires the abilities to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours"
I agree that the ability to concentrate well is important for otb chess, but I think you're overvaluing calculation. The reality is that otb is all about COMPETITION. It's a mental fight. I know guys are are great analysts, and with the right hardware/software would probably be great corr. players, but they don't handle the pressures and stresses that go along with competition very well. Judgment and competence, especially while under stress and duress, are of the utmost importance in otb. You can calculate as deeply as you want, but if you're expending energy calculating lines that you should have rejected, or mismanaging your time by thinking too deeply in a spot where it's not necessary, you won't get good results in otb.
I don't have any desire to try to get anywhere near 2700 level in corr. chess. And I agree with your analysis that it would not be fun anymore and become a huge drain of time sitting behind the computer. Perhaps not unlike what a professional chess player has to go through in order to prepare for their tournaments, with the chief exception that the professional chess player gets paid for such a sacrifice.
"...for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc."
I don't see why these things have to be mutually exclusive. For me I get more motivated to study my chess books and look through my databases when the positions occur in games. I also think about what I'm doing and analyze the positions using my own mind when I play corr. chess. Maybe that's not the case for everyone, but it is for me. As for tactics, I think blitz/bullet against strong opponents can be very useful for developing that.
Jason Repa (2008-05-14 00:35:54)
Re: Hannes query
I'm not "afraid" of playing anyone, and the FICGS rating points are only a means with which to play the stronger players. As I stated earlier, and in other threads, my primary interest in correspondence chess is to do research for my otb chess. Having said that I'm interested in playing the strongest players possible.
It's simple common sense that if a rating category says 2200-2600, then it should have players who are rated 2200-2600. Lower rated players are free to sign up for the category that they qualify for.
Do you play otb chess Hannes? You don't seem to have any otb rating as far as I can tell.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 22:29:00)
Boring
And what is you posting your trash here supposed to accomplish, Hannes? If this is so boring for you why are you reading it? If you have something topical to contribute, why don't you post it?
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 21:36:18)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
What a <1500 player like yourself "has always taken" is meaningless. What is objectively true and factual is what counts. As has been explained to you repeatedly, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings, not even to chess in fact. Are you beginning to understand or still confused?
Also, there is no simple (deduct x) formula to get a FIDE equivalent. Sometimes a national rating is worth more than a FIDE rating. There are various factors to consider.
There is no "magic" about a FIDE rating. You just need to play in FIDE rated events. I've beaten many FIDE rated players otb, including FMs. It's really no big deal.
I never said 2000 was some sort of "high rating", so don't start with the lies again Stephenson. But compared to a guy like you who is rated under 1500, I'm like a more evolved being. Is that why you're so frustrated to the point of stalking me as you're doing? Is it a combination of that and the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess? When are you going to get over that? When are you going to stop whining and crying?
Why don't we play fact to face otb chess, if you have lots of Euro to throw around as you're claiming. Fly to Canada and I'll play you a match for 5000 euro. First to win 6 games or something like that. I'd probably have to spot you 5/6 just to make the match somewhat competitive.
I never challenged you to bullet chess, my <1500 rated acquaintance, but that would be the only other way to play human mind vs human mind chess. I'm certainly not about to fly to the third world country you live in, just to beat some "C" class chess player in person.
Let's take a little tally here. I've already beaten you at correspondence chess, and you've made it clear you want no part of playing chess at time controls that doesn't allow you to consult your program, so I've effectively won that as well. What is left? Arm wrestling? I kinda like my chances there too!
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 21:16:02)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
No, as I just explained to you in the way a small child should be able to understand, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings. Not even exclusive to chess in fact. I realized you weren't overly intelligent when we played chess and I crushed you, but this is ridiculous. This has been explained to you already. Do some research and see for yourself.
I normally don't go after someone for grammar, but when I'm dealing with who says down load and data base, I ask myself who's wiping the drool from their chin.
I'm not about to do any serious chess analysis with you. I don't give free chess lessons. Post whatever you like. It won't change the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess. Fair and square.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 15:25:34)
Elo rating system
I trust I didn't use any "biggie" words you were unable to comprehend Stephenson. Hopefully you now understand your error and realize that the elo system is not only peculiar to FIDE chess ratings, but indeed used by many chess organizations, as well as other games.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 15:15:32)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
You don't know any professional chess players Stephenson. Who are you trying to kid here? You don't even know that the word is "download" not "down load", and "database", not "data base", lol. This is the problem with a mental midget mindlessly trusting machines, as you are doing with the spelling software. It is for this reason it was so easy to beat you in chess. I only had to outplay a machine, not outsmart a human who has the ability to THINK.
If you're such a "whiz" at correspondence chess, as you keep trying to convince me, and have such wonderful databases, why did I beat you? I think saying that I beat you is even a bit of an understatement. It was more like a slaughter!
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 15:08:20)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a <1500 otb player, such as yourself Mr. Stephenson, wouldn't be able to figure out something that any normal 6 year old child would have no difficulty with. But then again, during our chess game in which I crushed you, I had the feeling I wasn't dealing with a mental heavyweight, to put it mildly. I'll hold your hand and explain it to you since there is probably no 6 year old child where you live to help you:
The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in two-player games such as chess, GO, backgammon, etc."Elo" is often written in capital letters (ELO), but it is not an acronym. It is the family name of the system's creator, Arpad Elo (1903–1992, born as Élő Árpád), a Hungarian-born American physics professor. The Elo rating system has been adopted by many different organizations, including the USCF, CFC, FIDE, and others, as well as various online gaming servers.
My national elo rating is indeed over 2000, Stephenson. And yours is under 1500, as you've already confirmed.
I already beat you very easily in chess Stephenson. You're the little guy with something to prove here, not me.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 14:43:09)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
No, it looks like my comment was a bit over your head, once again. By keeping databases up to date, I don't mean just mindlessly adding random games, as perhaps a <1500 otb player might do. I was talking about updating the database with current theory and critical lines.
What you're sure or not sure of is of no consequence. This is what chess players do.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 14:22:42)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
Actually, you really don't have a point Stephenson. You're a <1500 otb player with delusions of grandeur, nothing more. I've already beaten you and your chess program in correspondence chess, and I'm more than 500 elo stronger than you in otb chess, so what exactly was your "point" again?
I can't speak about what correspondence chess could do for a <1500 otb player such as yourself. But for someone with an otb rating >2000, such as myself, cc chess is valuable in many ways, not just for opening accuracy.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 14:17:46)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
I really couldn't care less what an internet troll with a <1500 otb chess rating, whom I've already crushed in correspondence chess, thinks about anything. Send emails to GM Dreev and GM Marjanovic, who have also played 13...0-0 and see if they feel differently.
Re-read my post a few times until you're able to understand what I said. Everything I stated is correct. I'm not going to hold your hand and spoon-feed everything to you.
As I said before Stephenson, it's sad that you don't have any of your own games worthy of publication, and that you need to vicariously live through me and post my chess games. I've never met anyone this obsessed with me. I don't think it's very healthy for you. In more ways than one.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 13:37:50)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
It's interesting how you feel qualified to post my games for analysis, when I ALREADY BEAT YOU in chess, lol. In fact I have a perfect score against you Stephenson. I'm also higher rated than you are to boot. So what you "claim to be a great believer in" is hardly of interest to anyone.
What IS of interest is the fact that you still refuse to answer the question of what YOUR otb rating is, after being asked three times. One can only conclude that you are embarrassed about how low it is. Under 1500?
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 12:54:06)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
My obsessive fan is quoting my game with Bucsa Ioan played last year. Actually you have it backwards Stephenson. I trusted my database, which wasn't up to date. I wasn't even consulting an engine until around move 18, when it's already lost for Black. I thought quite a bit about alternative lines in this game, but found myself agreeing with the Psakhis analysis. That line is recommended by Psakhis in his book "French Defence - Steinitz, Classical, and other Systems". Additionally, 13...0-0 has been played by the likes of GM Dreev, as well as GM Marjanovic, as recently as 2003. But alas, it pays to keep your databases up to date for correspondence chess.
The game was a valuable learning experience for me. I'm very happy that it occurred. My otb opponents will never get me in that position as a result :)
I can't help but feel sorry for you Stephenson. Firstly I'm sorry that you don't have any of your own games worthy of publication, and that you need to vicariously live through me and post my chess games. Secondly, I'm sorry that you don't play otb chess and appreciate the joy of playing chess using your own mind. But then again, in your case, maybe that's a good thing. :)
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 12:32:23)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
What's clear, Stephenson, is that you're a very sad and pathetic individual. You obviously have no life whatsoever. You've been harassing me and trying to provoke me nonstop. First you start this troll behavior in the other thread....now you're doing it here as well. Is this what you do to everyone who outsmarts you and beats you in chess, as I have done?
It's one thing to follow me around from thread to thread and harass me, but the brown-nosing and whining to the admin you've been doing has made me lose all respect for you entirely. Not that I had much to begin with.
You even go so far as to obsessively comb through all of my games, just to try to find one that you think will someone embarrass or offend me. You even start a thread featuring one of my games. Obviously none of your own games are worthy of mentioning, so you focus on me and my chess games, lol. Well I have news for you Stephenson, I'm not embarrassed at all about my correspondence chess game losses (or any losses in chess for that matter). I've learned a lot more from my losses than my wins. My 6 losses on FICGS have taught me more than my 118 wins here, including the easy win against you and your chess program.
Perhaps others can benefit from my 6 losses as well. Do the FICGS community a favor and post my other five losses, not just the French Defense I played against Bucsa Ioan, that you felt warranted starting a thread to discuss.
Unlike you, I'm a real chess player. I enjoy learning and wish to take my OTB game to the next level and I believe that correspondence chess is helping me to do just that.
What is YOUR OTB chess rating? Interestingly you didn't respond to that question when it was asked of you more than once previously, lol. Big surprise!
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 11:57:26)
How to Win against the Pin!
It was a pretty easy and straightforward win for me. I didn't have to worry about human intelligence and judgment getting in the way of my victory, as is normally the case in correspondence chess. All I had to do was outsmart a chess program being run by a very weak chess player.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 10:23:37)
Provocation
"Again I find myself in complete agreement with Thibault"
No surprise here. The brown-nosing fest continues!
Thibault, please define "transparent". The troll is continuing to harass me, even going to far as to address me by name, taking liberties and condescending with statements such as: "Jason, insults are insults, rules are rules". That is clearly both abuse AND provocation.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 08:25:55)
When will this troll stop?
This is hilarious! You've got a guy (and I use the term loosely) who goes WAY out of his way to insult, harass, and annoy, now trying to pass himself off as holier-than-thou. He's even following me around from thread to thread with the sole purpose of abuse and provocation. If I say the sky is blue, he'll say green. If I say 2+2=4, he'll say there is no proof of that. This character will not stop trying to provoke, as this thread proves.
I start an innocent thread describing an interesting game I played with someone. He immediately starts criticizing my choice of chess openings, made all the more laughable because I CRUSHED the guy in chess, and am significantly higher rated than he is. Perhaps this is what is fueling his little tirade. He then proceeds to post links to off-topic discussions that occurred 4-5 years ago as further harassment. And this is the same individual who is whining about, of all things, Netiquette? Irony to the EXTREME!
His latest tactic is to incessantly suck up to the site admin by making repeated hybrid posts which are intended to harass me while worshiping the admin. We'll see his signature phrase "I agree with Thibault" over and over again ad-nausiam. As if this somehow buys him respite for the provocative and abusive comments he CONTINUES to make towards me.
Although you're probably used to being in that position, please get off your knees and stop brown nosing Stephenson. It's pathetic. And before you start talking about Netiquette, please learn what the term means yourself. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you did.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 00:43:41)
How to Win against the Pin!
This was an interesting game I played last year. My opponent blamed his tardiness for the loss, but the position seems quite resignable for Black as far as I'm concerned.
http://members.shaw.ca/winnipeg_chess/beating_internet_trolls_at_chess.htm
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 23:26:26)
(repetition)
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 23:25:56)
Rating changes
It's amusing to witness the hypocrisy of someone who is perpetually provoking, ridiculing, and abusing to speak of there being no place for such offenses. And anyone who resorts to posting links to random, off-topic internet conversations from half a decade ago that have no relevance to the thread they are posting in, in order to try to get revenge for losing a chess game to the thread starter, is the lowest form of troll. I don't doubt that Thibault is aware of the intent of such an element, or the numerous and sundry ways they continue to try to provoke. In the end, we have to look at the results on the chess board. The fair medium for settling disputes. After all, that's why we're here in the first place (no offense GO players)....to play chess. In this arena, I have soundly defeated my opposition.
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 23:25:27)
(repetition)
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 22:10:21)
Rating changes
Thibault, I'm curious as to what the bad consequences you speak of are, with regard to removing players who's rating falls short of the category requirements?
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 21:42:44)
Rating changes
Nice of you to quote the one single solitary "M" class tournament that I was a few points short of 2200, out of the 7 such tournaments that I've played in, Mr. Lehnhoff, But my point stands. I would have had no problem waiting one more rating cycle back then if the rules were such to maintain the integrity of the rating categories.
As for the provocation that's going on here....It's amazing the lengths someone will go to for petty "revenge" after you beat them in chess.
Also, there is no point in quoting a "future rating" if you're not taking into consideration your losing games, some of which may end before the next rating cycle begins, that may indeed put someone under 2200.
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 11:53:52)
Rating changes
Its predictable that someone who expects to be falling under 2200 soon would possibly like to cheat the system and stay on a waiting list they are not qualified to be on.
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 10:14:41)
Rating changes
1) There was never a "rule" stating that a player has carte blanche to drop as many rating points as they want and still enter a tournament for which they do not meet the rating criterion.
2) Thibault has already manually removed players from rating lists for this reason. Nobody is being "penalized" except the players who are legitimately qualified to play in that category and who must play with the lower category player. The rating average is being erroneously brought down. The player who's rating was lowered is free to enter the correct waiting list for which his rating qualifies.
3) Your "C" class rating category is hardly comparable to the "M" class category where this has been an issue, so your opinion, even if it did have a shred of merit, which I proved it doesn't, is moot anyway.
Jason Repa (2008-05-12 01:14:13)
Rating changes
Could you write a script that removes players whose rating falls below the requirements before the tournament starts? It doesn't seem fair that a 2100 player should be playing in a tournament intended for 2200-2600 players.
Jason Repa (2008-05-09 06:13:49)
Chess Titans
I didn't even know about that. I just tried it at level 8 (advanced) lol. I won fairly easily, although it played the first 5 moves like a GM. I hate that annoying ICC whistle sound when the computer moves. The should have went for Chessbase sounds IMO.
There is a game I noticed in the Vista gallery that is definitely worth checking out called DEFCON. It's a game of nuclear war inspired by the movie WarGames.
Jason Repa (2008-05-08 03:13:22)
Pavasovic vs Baklan
This game was played a couple weeks ago in the 2008 European Individual Championship in Plovdiv.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1491774
It's hard to believe a GM would play this in a real game. It's an old cheapo line of the Tarrasch French where White gives up two pieces, then dangles a third, for an attack. Black's defense is simple and intuitive. He gives back one piece to diffuse the attack and wins a relatively simply endgame. I first came across this when someone tried it against me in a bullet game on playchess.com. Even at bullet time controls I was able to come up with 13...Ndxe5 (not too difficult to find) and consolidate the material advantage.
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 13:43:09)
Lasker Variation of the From's Gambit
[moderated : rule 11.1 Netiquette]
My correspondence chess game with Marc-Eric Plante finally wrapped up after over a year. It was an interesting game, IMO, and I thought that Marc had made some improvements over what had been played before by Black, such as 10...Qe7!? (instead of the usual 10...Bf5). However, it's been my thought that the Lasker Variation of the From's gambit might, at the end of the day, be lost for Black with perfect play. I'm not sure of Black could have done anything different in this game. http://chessmusings.blogspot.com/2008/05/from-night.html
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 13:10:18)
Declining the From
"From's Gambit ... Hi, is there a valid way to decline the From's Gambit without falling onto the Kings Gambit?"
That's the usual way. Although I can't see why anyone would want to decline the gambit. All variations indeed seem to be quite good for White.
"Even if the Froms Gambit may not be sound, I do not like to be defending, especially against players stronger than myself."
In that case you might want to switch to 1.Nf3 or 1.b3 with the idea of transposing into the Bird's Opening later. This is what I often do in OTB play. Of course Black doesn't necessarily have to allow you to transpose, though.
-------------
Moderator : This topic is closed. As a reminder :
11. 1. Netiquette
(...) No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Doing so may lead to being immediately and permanently banned. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and will lead to get a limited access to the server during one month a first time, two months the second one and so on. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.
-------------
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 13:05:40)
I am not amoused!!
Nobody is amused with YOU, Aigner! You're contributing nothing of value here. Go find someone else to be a troll!
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 12:50:12)
Pablo BACKS DOWN!
And you're the one who started with the insults Pablo. You don't run around calling people "arrogant" because you're frustrated at your own inability to comprehend what
"and in the line with 4...Nf6 (called the Mestel Variation), there is no clear way for Black to win his pawn back."
means. And challenging someone to a chess match then backing down as you have done is BEYOND PATHETIC!
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 12:45:03)
Pablo BACKS DOWN!
Your OTB rating is NOT stronger than mine, liar. If it were you'd step up to the plate and play me, instead of backing down as you're doing. You're probably a 1500-1700 elo OTB player. Considering your rather beginnerish question about the Lasker From, I might be giving you too much credit at that. You know as well as I do that you'd be lucky to get a single draw in ten games against me. I'd probably just win all ten.
Do you always run around challenging people to a chess match on the internet, then retreat like a frightened animal, with your tail between your legs, when they accept your challenge? How pathetic is that? I was looking forward to playing some human mind vs human mind chess with you, but the idea of actually having to THINK and use your own mind to come up with the moves was too much for you to deal with, so you BACKED DOWN like a little girl!
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 06:57:07)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!
"Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4"
Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.
My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.
In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.
Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!
Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.
Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:
I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.
""Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny "
You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?
" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"
This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.
Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 06:52:38)
Don't be a poor loser Stephenson!
The conversation was civil, until you flipped your lid when I reminded you about the beating I gave you over the chess board. You also couldn't handle being proven wrong about what you said about the Bird's Opening.
Can anyone guess why this coward won't post HIS national rating???
Go ahead, repost my loss to Torsten Opus a few more times. Until everyone reading this thread knows what kind of a waste of skin you are. See if posting that game over and over again gets them to forget about the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess and am much higher rated than you are.
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 06:46:43)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!
"Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4"
Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.
My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.
In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.
Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!
Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.
Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:
I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.
""Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny "
You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?
" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"
This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.
Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 01:09:36)
Step up, or shut up!
"I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site" Yeah, on this site... I began here as a 1700 (the first rating here)"
Join the club. I started as a 1700 player also. You've lost over 25% of your games. And to weak opponents at that. So I'm quite justified in assuming that I'm a better chess player than you, and by a very wide margin also. The fact that you couldn't figure out on your own why 10...Bf5 is no improvement over 10...Qe7 is just icing on the cake.
But anyway, I've had enough of you whining about your low rating and making excuses for your poor performance in chess. Excuses are for losers.
And there was nothing "arrogant" in any of my statements. The problem here is your stupidity and incapability at understanding what has been said to you. I've already explained to you TWICE that you were wrong in assuming that there was an implication that "material is everything" when I was discussing the recovery of material. That was not said nor implied. What part of this isn't sinking into your skull? How many more times does it need to be repeated for you to be able to understand???
I don't normally give free chess lessons to insolent patzers like you, but I'd be willing to have you a few bullet games on a secure server like playchess.com where in bullet time controls you won't be able to use your chess program to do the thinking for you like you do here. I've already had this type of thing go down with another motormouth on this site. I beat him 100% of the games and posted a link to them. At least he was man enough to step up to the plate and play me. You made the challenge so don't back down with any excuses, like the excuses you used to explain your paltry 1912 rating. And obviously if we're going to play real-time chess with the assumption is that its going to be human mind vs human mind chess, it's going to have to be fast bullet games. Not standard blitz where you have time to see what rybka running on your other computer suggests. Let me know what your playchess.com account name is and when you're able to play.
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 23:41:40)
Pablo
"I realize that Pablo, probably a lot better than you do. 'What? How do you know? You know nothing about me and you say that...'" Actually you're wrong once again Pablo. I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site. And I also know that you have difficulty understanding the difference between a discussion of dynamic compensation for material, and one of simply whether or not material can be recovered. Only in your mind is there the implication that "chess is all about material". Material is one parameter, and that is the parameter that was being discussed. You need to learn to understand that. Nobody was saying that was the only parameter to consider, or that it was the most important parameter to consider.
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 23:41:13)
(deleted)
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 23:37:58)
(deleted)
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 23:08:30)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!
"I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable"
You would. But we all know what happened to you when you and I played chess. I beat you in 33 moves. And we can see how not only do you not provide a game that's at least somewhat representative of the critical lines of the opening, but you can't even figure out when the supposed game was played, or whether or not White or Black won, and you only post a tiny fraction of it to boot. So evidently, what YOU think is not exactly to be regarded in high esteem here. Most people wouldn't have required my explanation where I described quite clearly how there have been many books written about the Bird's Opening. It has it's own discrete chapter in MCO, and its played in serious games in professional chess still today. They would already understand on their own, or would at least be intelligent enough to look up the information without having to have their hand held and have it spoon fed to them. But even after all this, you STILL don't understand. And you mention Christian Bauer who only pissed around with 1.b4 when he was playing opponents 400 elo LOWER RATED! One of his fabulous wins this year, that you were alluding to, was against 1861 rated Jacques Decamps, lol. The rest of the time they were 2100-2300. Has he ever played 1.b4 against another GM? (never mind super GM, as 1.f4 has many times been played against)
An opening move like 1.b4 might be fairly compared to something such as 1.g4. You won't see any dedicated chapter in MCO to either of those openings, but they're at least interesting enough to warrant some discussion in the "misc flank openings" chapter. 1.f4 might better be compared to something like Larsen's 1.b3. A sound sideline.
You want to talk about ratings? I've had to build up my rating from starting at the default of 1700, by winning 117 games (one of them against you), because I wasn't aware when I opened the account that the admin would let you start with your established elo. It's not surprising I played Sandor Porkulab a lot of times, as we both were very active playing a lot of games. Unlike you who started with the advantage of an inflated rating, which was somewhat tempered after that beating I gave you last year.
Sometimes in correspondence chess people abandon games and don't log in again. This was the case with Sandor Porkulab, although I had already beaten him a few times in games that were played to completion, and he wasn't better in any of the games that were abandoned. You're lying through your teeth there, or perhaps you're just too incompetent and dishonest to assess the games objectively. Why would Porkulab have 7 games against me where he was "level or better" when I had already beaten the guy every time we played before that? Did you even look at those games? Or is this just your pathetic way of trying to "score points" by using lies and deception? Additionally, the way the elo system works is that even if you do get a few easy points from say a win from an abandoned game that perhaps might have ended in a draw, that gain is quickly diluted and your rating naturalized as you play more games, because you win less points when you win,(or draw a higher rated opponent) and lose more when you lose (or draw a lower rated opponent), than you would have if you didn't receive those points. I've played many games since then and my rating here is probably where it would have been If I had not played Porkulab at all. Or if not already will soon be. So this is a pretty weak argument from you. A better argument is the fact that I CRUSHED you in 33 moves when we played. Porkolab at least gave me a decent fight when I played him. That's more than I can say for you. I felt like all I had to do was outsmart a machine when you and I played. I didn't have to worry about any human judgment from a real chess player getting in the way of my victory!
As for me getting a lost position after 17 moves against someone? For starters, I've played about 190 games here. What have you played.....32? And I think that's a testament to the fact that, unlike you, I'm a REAL chess player, so my goal here isn't to simply try to win the most online CC games to try to give myself some artificial illusion of ability. I don't always play what I consider to be the objectively best moves because I like to experiment and LEARN SOMETHING from the time I spend here. But having said that, I STILL outperform you greatly, and crushed you when we played last year. I'm also higher rated with a higher future rating, even though you had the advantage of started with a boosted initial rating. So much for what you "think" you know about the strongest moves in cc, lol. And your future rating is only 2247, not 2300+. If you want to discuss what might happen after some of your current games are resolved, don't sell me short at 2316, which is already a given. Talk about the 2370+ I expect to have after some of MY current games are resolved. If you want to argue/debate with someone, learn to do it in an intelligent and fair way. So far all you've accomplished is to lose the paltry amount of credibility you once had.
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 22:07:42)
From's Gambit
"And when you say that after 4..Nf6 you don't see how Black can get the pawn back, I want to say that chess is not all about material but activity"
I realize that Pablo, probably a lot better than you do. I didn't state, nor imply that White was up an entire pawn or that Black didn't have some compensation (albeit probably not enough) for the pawn. If you re-read both my thread and the one I was responding to, you will see that we weren't discussing the amount of dynamic compensation that Black gets for sacrificing the pawn. We were discussing whether or not Black gets his pawn back. End of story.
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 22:01:25)
10...Bf5
A good question Pablo. This is one of the points where I felt that Frenchie made an improvement. The main line used to be 10...Bf5, which I believe is worse than 10...Qe7, because White is a move up after the Bishop on f5 must move again soon.
For example; 10...Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 13.Be3!+/-
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 21:54:09)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!
"Obviously playing the From or the approach adopted by black in these games is not an accurate response!"
That's not obvious at all. What's obvious is that I beat you quite easily when you and I played cc so you're far from being any kind of authority whatsoever!
"1f4 does not lose or lead to a worse gane for white - it just allows black to get equality very quickly and easily"
I just finished trying to explain to you, in the way a young child should be able to understand, that there is more to think about in chess than trying to play what current theory considers to be the best try for an opening advantage. Yet here you are rambling on about the same nonsense you were in your previous posts. Was Fischer's 2.d3 against the French the objectively strongest move? Even against (and perhaps especially against) computers, it can sometimes be better to play sidelines or moves which may serve to confuse an opponent. Is the King's Indian Attack the best try for an opening advantage for White? Probably not. But it was used by Kasparov to defeat Deep Blue. If you still can't understand the concept I've been trying to teach you, after several posts, I don't know what more I can do for you. Just keep mindlessly playing what established theory tells you are the strongest lines,(without having even the incipience of an understanding as to why) and keep mindlessly trusting the evaluations your program gives you, and you'll keep getting CRUSHED by guys like me.
"1 f4 doesnt develop any piece (except the king!) and is a bit committal and slightly weakening of the king side."
After this statement, if I didn't know better, I would have thought you were someone who just learned how to set up the pieces. It might be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone say. Does 1.e4 develop a piece? How about 1.d4? I suppose those moves are "a waste in cc" as well. We should all be playing 1.Nf3 and 1.Nc3 according to you, lol.
1.f4 grabs space. It stakes out influence both in the center and on the kingside. It effectively prevents 1...e5 (lest White goes into a dubious gambit system) as an alternative to other moves which achieve this. There are also other intangibles that are part of the picture, such as the psychological effect the move may have, the lack of preparation an opponent may have against it, etc. If you ever began to understand chess at a level beyond just plugging moves into a program, you might start to appreciate that allowing concessions (such as the slight weakening of the White kingside resulting from 1.f4) is all part of the game. Fischer's famous quote: "you gotta give squares to get squares" is a famous example. If allowing static liabilities were something to be avoided at all cost, you'd never see a Sicilian Scheveningen. It allows all sorts of weaknesses.
As for your so called "analysis". It's a complete joke! For starters, you're "analyzing" a game resulting from the Leningrad Variation of the Bird's Opening. I line I've never played in my life, let alone here on FICGS. Is this how you try to win an argument/debate? By misrepresenting the facts? An intelligent person who genuinely felt that their argument had a leg to stand on, would simply take one of the 4 games I provided to you and do some analysis from there. Showing where Black could have improved. Then finally, after trying to "score points" with examples of the Leningrad Variation of the Bird's Opening, which I have never played, you post a game where White played poorly and lost to a lower rated player. As if that's never happened before in chess, lol. You don't even know enough to post the date of the game. I couldn't find this game on any of my databases(totally over 4,000,000 games), so if you didn't just make it up out of thin air, perhaps you got more wrong, such as the actual moves that were played, in addition to incorrectly stating:
"Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta."
Is it Black that lost here or White?
I took a brief look at the game, and it's hardly representative of proper play by White. 7.h3 was dubious at best. I prefer 7.Ne5. White then misses another opportunity to play the knight to e5 after 7...c5. Then 9.g4? is a gross thematic mistake. The only thing this game proves is that you're completely incapable of discussing chess in an intelligent way. Real chess players look for games that illustrate the critical lines for both sides, and try to arrive at some actual insights.
There is a reason I crushed you when we played cc last year.
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 04:24:31)
Bird's Opening
Here's a few more wins played on this site I obtained with 1.f4 http://members.shaw.ca/winnipeg_chess/birdsopening.htm I've actually never lost a single game with this opening. Hardly seems like a "waste" to me.
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 03:59:45)
Bird's Opening
Comparing 1.b4 to the Bird's Opening is just revealing your lack of chess knowledge. There have been many books written about the Bird's Opening. It has it's own discrete chapter in MCO, and its played in serious games in professional chess still today, as I've already mentioned to you. I wasn't making an argument that it should be someone's "main weapon", and I don't use it as a "main weapon" myself. Your original statement that I was contesting was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white".
I'm significantly higher rated than you are on this site, and I beat you quite easily when we played last year (only took me 33 moves if I recall), so I don't think you're any authority in cc either.
And you shouldn't equate a lack of an "opening advantage" with winning potential. Chess is a complex game, and its not about simply trying to make the best theoretical move all the time. It's about defeating your opponent. Theory suggests that 3.Nc3 is the strongest objective continuation for White against the French Defense, yet you still see 3.Nd2 quite regularly and even 3.e5 sometimes. There is more to think about than trying to get an opening advantage when it comes to winning a chess game. There is positional maneuvering and jockeying, as well as psychological factors to consider.
Additionally, trying to win the most games on an online correspondence chess server isn't everyone's goal. Some of us play real chess and use the information garnered here to assist us in our over the board play.
Jason Repa (2008-05-04 11:54:53)
Lasker Variation of the From's Gambit
One correction. My comment about 5...Nc6?? 6.Bxg5 was from the line:
1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.d4
But I still don't believe that 5...Nc6 holds any more promise than 5...g4, even from: 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3. The reason 4...g5 is played is to play to "g4" and dislodge the knight on f3. I don't believe delaying "g4" is going to benefit Black, as was evidenced in:
Malaniuk,Vladimir P (2600) - Tseshkovsky,Vitaly (2510) [A02] RUS-Cup Krasnodar (3), 1998 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 g5 5.g3 Nc6 6.c3 g4 7.Nh4 f5 8.d4 f4 9.Qd3 Nf6 10.Bxf4 Bxf4 11.gxf4 0-0 12.Nd2 Be6 13.0-0-0 Bxa2 14.h3 Nd5 15.Ng2 Qe7 16.hxg4 Rad8 17.e3 Rd6 18.Rh5 Ncb4 19.Qe4 Qd7 20.Bb5 c6 21.Bc4 Bxc4 22.Nxc4 Nf6 23.Rg5+ Kh8 24.Qf5 Nbd5 25.Nxd6 Qxd6 26.Rh1 c5 27.Nh4 1-0
Jason Repa (2008-05-04 10:27:37)
How fast is your computer?
I think I'm a bit out gunned here. I'm running BATTLE CHESS on a Commodore 64. Luckily I just acquired a 5.25" floppy drive (rendering my cassette tape drive obsolete) so I can now store my games on removable media.
I believe its running at 1.023 MHz.
Jason Repa (2008-05-04 08:17:16)
From??
FYI,
5...Nc6 doesn't "put up more of a fight". It loses immediately to 6.Bxg5. I rarely have anyone play that badly against me in an online bullet game, let alone a cc game.
and in the line with 4...Nf6 (called the Mestel Variation), there is no clear way for Black to win his pawn back.
Jason Repa (2008-05-04 07:45:33)
From??
I agree with most of what you said, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to conclude that all variations of the From's Gambit are busted. We might end up finding out that some variations of it are fine for Black.
I also disagree with your statement that "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". Assuming I'm willing to hypothetically go along with the argument that there's supposedly something "wrong" with 1.f4, even though it's at worst a Dutch Defense a move up......you're not taking into consideration the fact that some people actually do more than "play" correspondence chess and want to practice lines they play in live tournaments. 1.f4 has been played by many of the world's greatest players, and in serious competitive tournaments. Fischer, Kasparov, Lasker, and many others have played 1.f4 occasionally, and there are many current IM's and even a GM (Henrik Danielsen) who have played it quite frequently.
Perhaps your idea of "playing chess" is to simply plug a position into various chess engines and mindlessly relay the moves your program suggests, but as for myself, I use the data I acquire from my cc games to prepare for my real chess (chess between human mind vs human mind). Anything other than that is just analysis or group study at best.
Jason Repa (2008-05-03 07:23:18)
Rating List
Only players 2400+ are shown now?
Jason Repa (2008-05-02 22:36:29)
Lasker Variation of the From's Gambit
My game against Marc-Eric Plante is finally over after more than a year. I've been dabbling with the idea that this line of the From's gambit may be losing by force. If someone can find an improvement for Black with some supporting analysis, I'd love to see it. http://chessmusings.blogspot.com/2008/05/from-night.html
Jason Repa (2007-12-31 07:34:18)
Kramnik is question about cheating
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=6775818301&oid=18105380992
Jason Repa (2007-09-15 13:03:20)
FIDE World Championship 2007
Well there is some doubt there, most remarkably from Anand himself who considered Kramnik to be the favourite here in a pre-tournament interview, despite Anand's higher elo.
I predict Kramnik to win, not out of any personal admiration for the man. Quite the opposite is true actually. I would rather see Anand or Leko win.
At the close of Round 2, Anand and Kramnik are tied for the lead.
Jason Repa (2007-09-14 01:20:55)
[moderator : partly deleted]
(...) You might have noticed my M.O. of starting a new topical chess thread or trying to revive communication in an existing thread that is about chess when mayhem was going on before. This time I decided to just avoid the forums for awhile but apparently that's not good enough. I'm asking you to remove his post.
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 23:50:45)
chess engines
What about shredder 10 as far as wild positions go?
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 23:25:57)
Chat Rules
It sounds good, just as long as you're not going to make a policy of rewarding weasels and cowards who like to needle and insult with indirect and surreptitious means. An honest and direct person should not be chastised for possessing good qualities and being upfront. Being offensive is being offensive. Taking liberties with someone and trying to condescend is just as, or more offensive than calling someone a name, especially if that name that you call them is true.
In the end, it will of course be up to your judgement.
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 22:48:06)
chess engines
I don't think it's a coincidence that the strongest commercial program was designed by a strong IM chess player.
It's always amazed me that the majority of chess engine programmers know very little about the game of chess itself, such as Stefan Meyer-Kahlen's Shredder. I think there comes a point in the decision making process where your human chess knowledge because an important factor.
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 22:39:03)
Chat Rules
Calling someone a hypocrite, who is indeed a hypocrite, as evidenced by their behavior, is neither provocative, nor is it an insult, any more than calling someone who steals for a living a thief.
The best way to prevent chat abuse is to punish the party who STARTS it. Obviously a coward will use various devices in order to try to get away with it, such as trying to pass off the insult as a joke, etc. Thibault, despite English not being your primary language, you're clearly an intelligent enough guy to figure out when someone is trying to start an argument by being offensive. My belief is that this is the party at fault, not the person who is defending themself. But if your policy is to limit access to the first person who starts the ad-hominem or disparaging remarks, then there would not be a need for responding. But I'm not sure why you seem to be placing the focus on the the responder to an offensive post, and not the real culprit who starts the flaming in the first place. Nothing happens until someone starts something.
Obviously butting into a conversation that has nothing to do with them and ordering someone to "cool down" is clearly both provocative and offensive. (...) [moderator : partly deleted]
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 22:20:52)
chess engines
Couldn't you have waited until our game is over before buying Rybka? lol! Fruit 2.3 is the strongest free UCI engine that I know of.
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 03:43:00)
New Rule
I just wanted to let you know that I composed my last post before you posted about the new rule. I now have read and acknowledge it.
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 03:14:13)
[moderator : partly deleted]
"I also don't find ELO ratings to be a valid measure of a man."
Of course you don't. (...)
Your "supposed" intrusion? (...) Garvin was way out of line and posted pure harassment that had nothing to do with the thread, or my post. I replied and gave it right back to him. It could have, and should have ended there, as Thibault pointed out. (...)
My post was indeed topical and perfectly legitimate for this thread. It was a valid question to ask what the reason for scanning the server might be.
(...)
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 00:55:34)
[moderator : deleted]
(...)
Jason Repa (2007-09-10 00:32:28)
Mladen
YOU cool down buddy! You need to learn to keep your mouth shut and mind your own business. There was no reason for you to get involved in this. Just stick to asking questions about the FICGS server.
Jason Repa (2007-09-09 22:48:45)
To: Garvin Gray
I don't "think" you're a troll my mentally challenged little friend. I KNOW you're a troll. This thread was about FICGS Hardware + Software. Your post here had nothing whatsoever to do with that. You posted only to harass and annoy. That is what a troll does.
Gray, I'd play you for $100 a game anytime, but playing against your program is not playing chess with you. You would never dream of playing with me wtihout having your program make the moves for you. You know it, and I know it. I'd beat you even easier than I beat llmars Cirulis, when he decided to try some HUMAN ONLY chess with me.
Jason Repa (2007-09-09 15:15:18)
to: Garvin Gray
Run along little 1800 rated troll.
Jason Repa (2007-09-09 09:26:13)
Scan
Scanning the server, geez, what next, you want to look over his source code?
What is the reason for all this?
Jason Repa (2007-09-08 12:26:56)
"No engines" Tournaments
I suspect you'll get a whole new breed of forum posts where accusations will be disguised as compliments such as: "Johnny So and So really played an excellent game! He was accurate like a machine against me", etc.
You'll also hear allot of twisted soapbox rants about how "morally superior" the allegedly non engine consulting players are.
This is what the forums on second rate sits such as RedHotPawn, ChessHere, etc are filled with, in addition to absurd claims of so-called "engine detection technology", which is obviously impossible. On RHP in particular, the site admin are software developers with extremely modest uscf ratings in the C-class range, yet somehow they deem themselves qualified to make such difficult judgment calls, which are at best a probability guess, even for a strong chess player.
I thought it was precisely this kind of nonsense you were trying to avoid when you decided to make it an up front policy of "freestyle" chess at will at FICGS.
Jason Repa (2007-09-08 08:27:57)
To Christophe
[moderator : partly deleted]
You refuse to accept the reality of the modern corr chess experience and prefer to bicker instead of simply seeking OTB (or fast online) chess to get exclusively human vs human play. I've spelled out this theme repeatedly here.
Jason Repa (2007-09-06 22:30:19)
Canada
We can't leave Canada out of this thread. After all, we're home to the guy (the late Abe Yanofsky) who was Canadian champion many times, and who gave Fischer the longest game of his career. Fischer had the black end of a Najdorf and finally ground poor Abe down to get the full point in the 112 move marathon. It was RNPP vs RBP way back at move 55
Yanofsky was able to hold Fischer to a draw with the black end of a Caro Kann in their next (and final) encounter six years later. Even getting so much as a draw against the great RJF, especially with the black pieces, is quite the accomplishment. Just ask GM Bisguier, who lost 13 straight games to him.
Getting back to the present, the current Canadian champion is the young Nikolay Noritsyn.
There are 0 results for Jason Repa in wikichess.
[Chess forum]
[Rating lists]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Legal informations]
[Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
Social network : create your photo albums, discuss with your friends...
Hot news & buzz : discover the latest news and buzz on the internet...
Discussions : questions and answers, forums on almost everything...
Seo forums : search engines optimisation forums, web directory...
Play the strongest international correspondence chess players !
|
Tsenkov, Ljubomir (BGR) [member # 57] Correspondence chess : 2521 Ranked # 13 in the rating list. Rating history : No change this year. Big chess : 1686  This member may have a profile in the social network. |
 | Correspondence chess World championship Play chess games Go (weiqi, baduk) Advanced chess Play big chess Chess trainer apk Rated tournaments Poker texas hold'em Fischer random chess |  |