Milos wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:27 am
(Bullshit about the definition of arrogance and Milos' superficial thoughts on my understanding of game..snipped!)
It just demonstrated that chess coaching without engines is irrelevant in today's world.
Whaaaaat?
PATZER WITH AN EXPENSIVE COMPUTER ALERT!
I can imagine you giving a chess lecture to a class of 15 primary aged kids under 1200 Elo...
Kid 1: Teacher! What are we learning today?
Milos: We are going to spend 25 minutes looking at a key position in a TCEC game between Stockfish and Komodo... Komodo is now *OFFICIALLY* a
patzer because it missed 37.Rc1 Qa5 38.Qa1 Nf6 39.Bh1 g6 40.Kg2!! with mate in 37! So WEEEEEAK, right?
Advanced Kid 1: Why don't we look at some cool attacking games from Tal instead?
Milos: Tal was a PAZTER! Haven't you checked his games with Stockfish dev on a 32 core......
Kid 2: ...Can we go outside and play?
Milos: No! You have NO IDEA how to play chess yet...stay here....wait...wait...COME BAAAAACK!
*classroom empties*
I'm sure prospective students would be HURLING wads of money at you for lessons.
Especially the parents of little beginning kids wanting to get an edge over the kids in their league.
Especially the parents of advanced kids who already have Stockfish, but want to UNDERSTAND chess, not just read variations from a PV.
You'd soon be a rich man.
Milos wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:27 am
You seems like a relic of the past angry that you became more less irrelevant.
36 years old is a "relic of the past" to you? Aren't I one of the youngest people on this forum? I'd be curious to know of the people who are substantially younger.
Irrelevant? When Chinese parents are paying
you $70 USD (the equivalent of 500 CNY, which I charge) for a single hour of coaching (which I have them lining up to do), give me your opinions about what is "relevant" in chess coaching...until then, YOU are irrelevant.
And by the way, here's one for you...
If chess coaching without engines is irrelevant, then why do most math teachers refuse to allow their students to use a calculator when solving problems?
Any ideas? Think about it... Take your time...
Correct. Because a prospective student must learn to analyze
themselves before using aids.
The same goes for chess and engines. The same goes for sportspeople and "supplements".
To build competence in anything, you have to build a foundation alone first.
Debate this all you like, you'll only expose your own ignorance.
When your coaching can take students from 1300 to 2000/2100 in 1.5 years (as mine has in several cases), I'll take your advice into consideration.
While you're merely shitting on people on a bulletin board out of sheer mean-spiritedness, it means nothing to me.
Milos wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:27 am
If you are looking to find some poetry and art in chess sure you can have your subjective feeling and that's perfectly fine.
I wasn't asking for your permission. This is your problem, assuming that people need your agreement in order for them to be okay.
Your opinions have the weight of an ant's turd when it comes to the appreciation of chess and chess coaching in general...so drop the attitude.
Milos wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:27 am
Lc0 played pretty crappy opening and that queen sac was the best move at the given point in time.
The opening is fine in human to human games, and this is why I test these openings, for
myself to play if nice ideas come up.
Regardless, if the opening was so "crappy", it wouldn't have survived or especially defeated such a strong opponent...queen sac or not. Your logic is flawed.
Milos wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:27 am
The game was not decisive at that point by any mean, but Ethereal had a really good advantage which would be, and I have no doubt about that in my mind, converted to a win in a high level correspondence game no matter the effort you put on the defending side.
High-level correspondence game? Who cares? This is the equivalent of saying "Assuming perfect play, I think x"...it means nothing in the big picture of things. How many of Tal, Kasparov or even Carlsen's opponents had "really good advantages" before being brutally outplayed? Many of them.
This "assuming perfect play" bullshit is irrelevant. It's like saying "If Germany transferred tanks from here to there in WW2, assuming nothing went wrong, they'd have won WW2" - who cares! They lost and your speculation about other possibilities or "very good advantages" means nothing.
Milos wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:27 am
Everything that happened after that point was trading blunders on both sides in 100% drawn game until move 64.Qd8 that is instant game loss...
This is literally how chess works, Milos. The game is perfect, then mistakes are traded, then someone makes a losing move.
If you played more often (instead of passively watching engines) you'd be well aware of this.
Milos wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:27 am
And your claiming that Ethereal lost because of Lc0 queen sac just shows the level of ignorance.
Milos, use that convenient little quote function and show me where I said Ethereal lost "because of the queen sac".
I don't think you can, because I didn't say this. You know someone is losing an argument when they start making shit up.
You are being combative (as usual) just for the sake of it, but this entire thread was to appreciate a beautiful idea.
I have met people like you in OTB tournaments. They're on the losing side of a nice game and then refuse to shake hands or say stupid shit like "I only lost because you know the theory" (in a non-theoretical opening with Nf3, g3, b3, c4 or something) or such things. I remember a guy who I beat who came up to me with his laptop bothering me after the game (during lunch) and was crying about "Stockfish says I was +2...you were LUCKY!".
I assume you'd be similar in an OTB encounter. Your behavior here sort of confirms this.
Milos wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:27 am
Lc0 on Titan RTX IMO is very close if not above 3800 Elo in human terms in FIDE TC. Problem is it's almost impossible to verify this.
Wow. I'm so impressed.
Milos wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 1:27 am
One can only speculate about it.
Indeed. You speculate about a lot of things, as we've seen.