"I have never seen such tedious irrelevant annotations to the games. Why don't you dare do some live commentary sometime for whatever blitz time control you are strongest. Seriously I have never seen such complete verbal garbage before as "game analysis". You seem to have no clue whatsoever about chess really. That is what really comes out - and to anyone above 1500 on this site, i am pretty sure they agree if they can stand listening to even 5 minutes of your garbage.
Here is an example "I advance the pawn to have.. strong castlign here.." REALLY ?!"
I don't comment about your asthma breathing when you're play bullet like an ass without doing anything than it; maybe in sometimes you can eat some crisps but...
I'd like you comment in other language that is not yours; would be quite fun how your "english-centrism" does not let you to see that, you do not know. I just shared in that hour of analysis, my thinkings and my plans. I just could have been used the engine -as you accused me- and during the game, just reading what the engines suggests, Wikipedia articles and, it's completed. So, some people liked it, other ones -like you- did not, so, okay.
" Did you not also find his commentary completely clueless - as if someone maybe even with a bullet rating actually less than 1500 was trying to annotate the games?! I am suprised he actually has a bullet rating of 2000 after listening to this stuff for just 5 minutes."
Let's talk about master in others communities:
GM Petar Genkov: http://www.chess.com/members/view/TigerGenov
[with a difference of 300 among its classical rating and its bullet rating!] ---> According to KCs statements, cheater.
LM AdmiralA: http://es.lichess.org/@/AdmiralA ; must be a cheater, he even has not a BULLET RATING!
GM Victor20: http://www6.chessclub.com/activities/finger.php?handle=victor20 || In the most solid webpage about titles confirmations, a GM has a difference among its blitz rating (3000) and his bullet rating (2083). Oh, this GM must be a cheater indeed!
"9 Yeah of course you can't tell anything from his actual explanations of moves though can you?! Seriously is there a group of engine abusers backing him here?!. Like in Gardening, to get rid of weeds, it is best to get rid of their root system. Then the grass can be fresh and green. There might be some weeding to do here. The commentary he has done I present as clear evidence that something is really wrong here.
What is your perception exactly of the comments he made on moves - or do you not want to say exactly?! To me it sounds like completely irrelevant nonsense for the 5 minutes i could bear to hear."
Then. How you could talk about my analysis if you only watched five minutes; oh, man..., like judging a book because read only the first 5 pages!
"let him do live commentary in his own native language for the time control he has been 2400+ in. I am curious what our native Spanish players will get from it."
It would be great, and I wanted to do it, but, it's now allowed yet. In fact, I have a friend, which is my student (SantiaghoGarcia) and my knowledge, could be reflected on him. Anyways; KCs, when you show us you can stream on Spanish -better than I did on your language- we can talk about other things, but, now, your statements are just based on pure fallacies.
"#18 btw, No shame in losing to someone who plays 3 minute chess apparently with an average of 24, 26 and 28 centipawn loss as the analysis shows (and remember to note the openings were played like garbage as well - which would increase centipawn loss from these base values) :
LM Dr-Zaitzev (2380)+9
4 Inaccuracies
0 Mistakes
0 Blunders
24 Average centipawn loss
0 Inaccuracies
1 Mistakes
0 Blunders
26 Average centipawn loss
Inaccuracies
2 Mistakes
0 Blunders
28 Average centipawn loss"
First game:
1. You had the superiority on the all opening and the middle game, having you an advantage of, at least, 1.11 (thing that no engine will let against a human player, even being a super GM)
2. No engine will play 6. (...), g5; and when you show me any engine doing it -you will not find it- then, you can talk about my openings, which, in fact, have the main idea to break with the theory -common used by engines-, and have a very creative systems against the established theory -loosing a lot of games with it, Max (Kabeljaukrieger) can testify it-.
3. When you are whites and, don't play with aggressiveness -and in fact, for the center- you must know that blacks could take advantage of it and gain winnable position (more than 5000 videos, a 2100 FIDE rating and a CM title, but, not knowing simple theory). In fact, it was so cute when you said "okay, let's play this solid, to try his engine collapse"; then, don't ask nothing.
Second game:
1. Another game which you had a perfect opening and middle-game advantage but crapped at your endgame -like a good endgame theoretician-
2. No engine will play you the Zaitzev's attack (1. Nf3, ...; 2. h4), so, it's irrelevant again. In fact, it's so funny when you say "oh, this guy is a cheater because he plays weird positions, you do it for lose fakely centipawns, bla, bla...; but, the challengue is still in the air. Show me an engine that plays that kind of openings or defences.
3. A simple patzer will see by simple calculation that you gave a piece at axb3; no GM accurancy to see it at the game.
Third game
1. At move 19, you had an advantage of 2.92!!!!!; positionally, no engine will plaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay it, even you put it at less strength, no one would play with the speed I played or, play, in fact, the opening I did, but you don't still understand.
2. When you took the rook at 27; in fact, I thought I will loose easily, because, did not see the mate in one..., finally, I saw it! You, as a CM, with omniscient missed a mate in one while establishing I played with an engine accurancy! (oh, indeed, I had my missed mistakes in one, and lost those games)
___
1. So sad how you tried to manipulate users opinions about my, when you did not posted a game we played, which, is visible the crap of game I played:
http://es.lichess.org/SsEsoYWN
CM Kingscrusher-YouTube (2256)-9
5 Imprecisiones
7 Errores
0 Errores serios
53 Pérdida promedio en centipeones
LM Dr-Zaitzev (2336)+11
6 Imprecisiones
6 Errores
0 Errores serios
48 Pérdida promedio en centipeones
2. At move 14 you had a positional superiority of 4.4 pawns! not just 1, 0.5 or 0.7, even not a slightly difference! No, it was 4.4!
3. Finally..., who's throwing the garbage except you, without positional analysis, posting the games you want, and, indeed, without seeing the positional engine graph.
____
" Personally insult me as much and as long as you want. Go for it. He started this thread - and he could have let the site investigate him like other reports. But no - he starts streaming pure irrleevant garbage instead. When the truth is on your side, it is kind of on your side. That is a basic fact really. I did not mention him explicitly in a forum post yesterday and said instead ther was someone I was 85%+ sure was somehow making use of engines. That percentage confidence is now over 90% hearing these ridiculous livestream comments.
Where is the "live commentary" exactly - how comes it is apparently copyright violations and cannot be heard anymore on his twitch channel?!"
1. No, I was not banned from Twitch -in sounds terms-, I just put some Vivaldi music -without any copyright from no one!-, and, it was muted, but, I have future streams which my voice could be heard. But, indeed, still throwing garbage, and lies, as you like to do to
2. 90% of videos on my stream channel was recorded live.
3. 90%; 100%..., as you like, but you don't solid statements -talking in chess games- just a child hysteria and a little narcisist complex about loosing, no more. I lost about 215 games here and I don't go around screaming shit about my opponents, just sending a report and, if I can chat with him/her live, just saying him what I think about his game.
"I am still willing to have "reasonable doubt" he could be an FM with a low bullet rating as he mentioned to me - and has not apparently got his FM title. The thing is about that btw is that you don't need any norms - you just need to be over 2300 on a published list. I have seen him having a FIDE rating on another site approaching 2300, which stll leaves me with "reasonable doubt" of 10% so far left.
"
1. In fact, the norm to get the FM title is based on having a rating of 2300 along some games, but it also could be given because your perfomance or for an honorary way.
2. I don't like play bullet, and lots of GMS -yes, GMs, as demostrated!- don't like to play bullet and their rating are not that good, my rating is that, and, I cannot change it.
3. I showed you the difference. You are quite good at bullet, but, for example, you are not so good at classical.
4. I play strange openings with the main idea to develop the game to differents positions than theoric ones, with the main idea of taking advantage of my opponent. But, sometimes, I get crushed with those ones.
http://es.lichess.org/evWoSyJW9u2s (with an engine graph, based in continous superiority, but, no, my opponent, Max Hess, played awesomely against my game, so he could manage with it)
http://es.lichess.org/6NJTqITC/black#6
And lots of my lost games; but, certainly, you was those who said that analysed all of my games (Hah, I laugh in your face).
"So the question is - am I not allowed during a marathon event to express doubts about players or not!? If the site ;policy wants to clarify that point - I will adhere to it as much as humanly possible in my future livestreams."
Indeed! Welcome to democracy and freedom!, but, instead of throwing garbage, and telling lies; just talk with objectivity and, please..., no more bullshit about my streams with finishing it! Even if I don't have your "asthmatic" skills of streamings and commenting., just a recommendation.
Here is an example "I advance the pawn to have.. strong castlign here.." REALLY ?!"
I don't comment about your asthma breathing when you're play bullet like an ass without doing anything than it; maybe in sometimes you can eat some crisps but...
I'd like you comment in other language that is not yours; would be quite fun how your "english-centrism" does not let you to see that, you do not know. I just shared in that hour of analysis, my thinkings and my plans. I just could have been used the engine -as you accused me- and during the game, just reading what the engines suggests, Wikipedia articles and, it's completed. So, some people liked it, other ones -like you- did not, so, okay.
" Did you not also find his commentary completely clueless - as if someone maybe even with a bullet rating actually less than 1500 was trying to annotate the games?! I am suprised he actually has a bullet rating of 2000 after listening to this stuff for just 5 minutes."
Let's talk about master in others communities:
GM Petar Genkov: http://www.chess.com/members/view/TigerGenov
[with a difference of 300 among its classical rating and its bullet rating!] ---> According to KCs statements, cheater.
LM AdmiralA: http://es.lichess.org/@/AdmiralA ; must be a cheater, he even has not a BULLET RATING!
GM Victor20: http://www6.chessclub.com/activities/finger.php?handle=victor20 || In the most solid webpage about titles confirmations, a GM has a difference among its blitz rating (3000) and his bullet rating (2083). Oh, this GM must be a cheater indeed!
"9 Yeah of course you can't tell anything from his actual explanations of moves though can you?! Seriously is there a group of engine abusers backing him here?!. Like in Gardening, to get rid of weeds, it is best to get rid of their root system. Then the grass can be fresh and green. There might be some weeding to do here. The commentary he has done I present as clear evidence that something is really wrong here.
What is your perception exactly of the comments he made on moves - or do you not want to say exactly?! To me it sounds like completely irrelevant nonsense for the 5 minutes i could bear to hear."
Then. How you could talk about my analysis if you only watched five minutes; oh, man..., like judging a book because read only the first 5 pages!
"let him do live commentary in his own native language for the time control he has been 2400+ in. I am curious what our native Spanish players will get from it."
It would be great, and I wanted to do it, but, it's now allowed yet. In fact, I have a friend, which is my student (SantiaghoGarcia) and my knowledge, could be reflected on him. Anyways; KCs, when you show us you can stream on Spanish -better than I did on your language- we can talk about other things, but, now, your statements are just based on pure fallacies.
"#18 btw, No shame in losing to someone who plays 3 minute chess apparently with an average of 24, 26 and 28 centipawn loss as the analysis shows (and remember to note the openings were played like garbage as well - which would increase centipawn loss from these base values) :
LM Dr-Zaitzev (2380)+9
4 Inaccuracies
0 Mistakes
0 Blunders
24 Average centipawn loss
0 Inaccuracies
1 Mistakes
0 Blunders
26 Average centipawn loss
Inaccuracies
2 Mistakes
0 Blunders
28 Average centipawn loss"
First game:
1. You had the superiority on the all opening and the middle game, having you an advantage of, at least, 1.11 (thing that no engine will let against a human player, even being a super GM)
2. No engine will play 6. (...), g5; and when you show me any engine doing it -you will not find it- then, you can talk about my openings, which, in fact, have the main idea to break with the theory -common used by engines-, and have a very creative systems against the established theory -loosing a lot of games with it, Max (Kabeljaukrieger) can testify it-.
3. When you are whites and, don't play with aggressiveness -and in fact, for the center- you must know that blacks could take advantage of it and gain winnable position (more than 5000 videos, a 2100 FIDE rating and a CM title, but, not knowing simple theory). In fact, it was so cute when you said "okay, let's play this solid, to try his engine collapse"; then, don't ask nothing.
Second game:
1. Another game which you had a perfect opening and middle-game advantage but crapped at your endgame -like a good endgame theoretician-
2. No engine will play you the Zaitzev's attack (1. Nf3, ...; 2. h4), so, it's irrelevant again. In fact, it's so funny when you say "oh, this guy is a cheater because he plays weird positions, you do it for lose fakely centipawns, bla, bla...; but, the challengue is still in the air. Show me an engine that plays that kind of openings or defences.
3. A simple patzer will see by simple calculation that you gave a piece at axb3; no GM accurancy to see it at the game.
Third game
1. At move 19, you had an advantage of 2.92!!!!!; positionally, no engine will plaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay it, even you put it at less strength, no one would play with the speed I played or, play, in fact, the opening I did, but you don't still understand.
2. When you took the rook at 27; in fact, I thought I will loose easily, because, did not see the mate in one..., finally, I saw it! You, as a CM, with omniscient missed a mate in one while establishing I played with an engine accurancy! (oh, indeed, I had my missed mistakes in one, and lost those games)
___
1. So sad how you tried to manipulate users opinions about my, when you did not posted a game we played, which, is visible the crap of game I played:
http://es.lichess.org/SsEsoYWN
CM Kingscrusher-YouTube (2256)-9
5 Imprecisiones
7 Errores
0 Errores serios
53 Pérdida promedio en centipeones
LM Dr-Zaitzev (2336)+11
6 Imprecisiones
6 Errores
0 Errores serios
48 Pérdida promedio en centipeones
2. At move 14 you had a positional superiority of 4.4 pawns! not just 1, 0.5 or 0.7, even not a slightly difference! No, it was 4.4!
3. Finally..., who's throwing the garbage except you, without positional analysis, posting the games you want, and, indeed, without seeing the positional engine graph.
____
" Personally insult me as much and as long as you want. Go for it. He started this thread - and he could have let the site investigate him like other reports. But no - he starts streaming pure irrleevant garbage instead. When the truth is on your side, it is kind of on your side. That is a basic fact really. I did not mention him explicitly in a forum post yesterday and said instead ther was someone I was 85%+ sure was somehow making use of engines. That percentage confidence is now over 90% hearing these ridiculous livestream comments.
Where is the "live commentary" exactly - how comes it is apparently copyright violations and cannot be heard anymore on his twitch channel?!"
1. No, I was not banned from Twitch -in sounds terms-, I just put some Vivaldi music -without any copyright from no one!-, and, it was muted, but, I have future streams which my voice could be heard. But, indeed, still throwing garbage, and lies, as you like to do to
2. 90% of videos on my stream channel was recorded live.
3. 90%; 100%..., as you like, but you don't solid statements -talking in chess games- just a child hysteria and a little narcisist complex about loosing, no more. I lost about 215 games here and I don't go around screaming shit about my opponents, just sending a report and, if I can chat with him/her live, just saying him what I think about his game.
"I am still willing to have "reasonable doubt" he could be an FM with a low bullet rating as he mentioned to me - and has not apparently got his FM title. The thing is about that btw is that you don't need any norms - you just need to be over 2300 on a published list. I have seen him having a FIDE rating on another site approaching 2300, which stll leaves me with "reasonable doubt" of 10% so far left.
"
1. In fact, the norm to get the FM title is based on having a rating of 2300 along some games, but it also could be given because your perfomance or for an honorary way.
2. I don't like play bullet, and lots of GMS -yes, GMs, as demostrated!- don't like to play bullet and their rating are not that good, my rating is that, and, I cannot change it.
3. I showed you the difference. You are quite good at bullet, but, for example, you are not so good at classical.
4. I play strange openings with the main idea to develop the game to differents positions than theoric ones, with the main idea of taking advantage of my opponent. But, sometimes, I get crushed with those ones.
http://es.lichess.org/evWoSyJW9u2s (with an engine graph, based in continous superiority, but, no, my opponent, Max Hess, played awesomely against my game, so he could manage with it)
http://es.lichess.org/6NJTqITC/black#6
And lots of my lost games; but, certainly, you was those who said that analysed all of my games (Hah, I laugh in your face).
"So the question is - am I not allowed during a marathon event to express doubts about players or not!? If the site ;policy wants to clarify that point - I will adhere to it as much as humanly possible in my future livestreams."
Indeed! Welcome to democracy and freedom!, but, instead of throwing garbage, and telling lies; just talk with objectivity and, please..., no more bullshit about my streams with finishing it! Even if I don't have your "asthmatic" skills of streamings and commenting., just a recommendation.
