The A.R.B Chess System v The Hippopotamus Defence - Differen

[Anthony.R.Brown]

Quote: duncan roberts

what percentage of your games are wins ?

A.R.B

Before the System was Fully Developed!...I of course lost Games trying to Play Computers in the Normal? Open Game type of Play...which Computers Love!

Once everything was in Place...I sat down with an empty Stomach with only light Chocolate & Mineral water (Important because a Full Stomach...diverts Blood away from the Brain!)

Then I Played Game 01...which makes My Win Percentage Score 100 %

I am of Course looking & Analysing the Game even more Now which is Why I am delaying Game 02 (I'm after Perfection!)
The Main reason for this is because of the Improvement to the Move 19. B-b3 for White
If Houdini or other Computers Play for 120 + Seconds Instead of the Actual 60 Seconds as in the Game...then they will find the Move 19. Bxb5 for White!

[gerold]

Plus .o2

[gerold]

Peter Skinner wrote...

I've shown this opening IS in a database (If you must know, it is from a Chessbase database).


Can you show us the Game?

Then we can see if it's anything like The A.R.B Chess System

You state:

The Main (A.R.B.C.S) Opening line...
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d6 3. Nf3 h6 4. Nc3 a6 5. Bd3 g6 6. O-O b6 7. Be3 Bg7
8. Qd2 Bb7 9. d5 e5 <-- is YOUR opening line and NOT in any official database. I have already shown that not only is it in a database, but it also already has an ECO Code.

I state:

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d6 3. Nf3 h6 4. Nc3 a6 5. Bd3 g6 6. O-O b6 7. Be3 Bg7
8. Qd2 Bb7 9. d5 e5 = ECO C00 Lengfellner System



Is this any clearer for you? Do you need me to post it from Chessbase and other databases as well that state the EXACT same ECO code for your opening.

Now go away and try to make a buck elsewhere. That is where this is leading right? You want to sell your "system"?

Peter

Plus one.

[Anthony.R.Brown]

Looks like Mr Cryptic Clues (gerold daniels) has Joined us!

Guess He want's to Join Proved Wrong (Peter-Piper Skinner)

[Anthony.R.Brown]

Looks like Mr Cryptic Clues (gerold daniels) has Joined us!

Guess He want's to Join Proved Wrong (Peter-Piper Skinner)

[Peter Skinner]

Now (Peter-Piper Skinner) has been Silenced!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Piper

I can Move on and Answer other Normal Persons Posts!

Silenced? Do you accept my challenge or not?

Peter

[Peter Skinner]

Quote: duncan roberts

what percentage of your games are wins ?

A.R.B

Before the System was Fully Developed!...I of course lost Games trying to Play Computers in the Normal? Open Game type of Play...which Computers Love!

Once everything was in Place...I sat down with an empty Stomach with only light Chocolate & Mineral water (Important because a Full Stomach...diverts Blood away from the Brain!)

Then I Played Game 01...which makes My Win Percentage Score 100 %

I am of Course looking & Analysing the Game even more Now which is Why I am delaying Game 02 (I'm after Perfection!)
The Main reason for this is because of the Improvement to the Move 19. B-b3 for White
If Houdini or other Computers Play for 120 + Seconds Instead of the Actual 60 Seconds as in the Game...then they will find the Move 19. Bxb5 for White!

Keep chugging along.. repetition is the best way for a lie to become truth in one's mind.

When you do try to sell this, please post the name of your first paying customer. I want to submit him for a Darwin Award.

Peter

[Uri Blass]

Now (Peter-Piper Skinner) has been Silenced!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Piper

I can Move on and Answer other Normal Persons Posts!

Silenced? Do you accept my challenge or not?

Peter

Note that I do not claim that Anthony R.Brown won honestly against houdini and I do not know.

Note that houdini is not deterministic so having a move that houdini does not play in 60 seconds in analysis mode does not prove that houdini did not play the relevant moves in a practical game.

I find your challange to be unfair and the problem with it is that even if a player won honestly a single game against houdini it does not prove that he can win every game.

My opinion is that telling him to disappear if he lose is simply not fair and if you want to prove that the opening does not work against houdini then playing a match of 10 games against him without losing a single game is going to be more convincing that the system does not give him significant winning chances against houdini.

This is not that I assume that Anthony is telling the truth when he says that he won the only game that he played against houdini so the result is 1:0 for him but suspecting that somebody is maybe cheating is not a good reason to treat him in that way.

[Peter Skinner]

Note that I do not claim that Anthony R.Brown won honestly against houdini and I do not know.

Note that houdini is not deterministic so having a move that houdini does not play in 60 seconds in analysis mode does not prove that houdini did not play the relevant moves in a practical game.

I find your challange to be unfair and the problem with it is that even if a player won honestly a single game against houdini it does not prove that he can win every game.

My opinion is that telling him to disappear if he lose is simply not fair and if you want to prove that the opening does not work against houdini then playing a match of 10 games against him without losing a single game is going to be more convincing that the system does not give him significant winning chances against houdini.

This is not that I assume that Anthony is telling the truth when he says that he won the only game that he played against houdini so the result is 1:0 for him but suspecting that somebody is maybe cheating is not a good reason to treat him in that way.

It you take his claims as the truth (which I obviously don't), this system has been in play since 1980. If a person was able to defeat computers with any sort of consistentsy over the past 33 years we would have not only heard about it, but Computer Chess as a whole would be _vastly_ different.

Imagine if Kasparov used this "system" against Deep Blue. According to A.R.B, Kasparov would have _destroyed_ Deep Blue. There would have been no rematch, as Kasparov would have just destroyed it again. There would have been no Man vs Machine matches, as this system would have made the computer looks completely stupid. That is IF you believe A.R.B.

To be fair, I will modify my challenge. If he loses, he just admits this is nothing more than pre-advertising for a system he intends to try and sell to sheep across the World. Sound fair? How about if he wins 1 game out of 20? One draw out of 20?

Peter

[fern]

I have not a dog in this issue, but that statement about the extraordinary proofs etc always has seemed to me a bit too much theoretical and irreal. I say this because rarely he have the chance to reach that laboratory conditions in the course not only of daily life, but even in the realm of science. This last would not be what is it if for any new idea the guy that proposed it should wait for that conditions. You discover and advance, many times, on the ground of a lot of guesses. There is something called intuition and intelligence that many times replaces well the so called "proofs" of the kind you ask.

All that said, there is also another argument. Not necessarily an extraordinary fact or statement about it requires all the time such extraordinary proofs. If i see a alien spaceship landing in my backyard and I just take a vulgar photo, it is nevertheless enough to prove the fact. I have the impression that in common life what needs more extraordinary efforts are lies and falsity, which you must envelope with many things to make it appears as truth.

All this said just to widen the field of this discussion. The matter in itself about the system of chess of this pal here does not interest me.

fern