Wordless Action
Handle Rating RD Highest Tries Success Latest (CET)
1 rudal 1658 85 1658 23 100% Jan 15 - 15:24
2 satanspawn 944 90 1045 60 100% Jan 20 - 00:25
3 BernardW 1293 66 1303 569 99% Jan 22 - 00:21
4 LookTwice 1236 39 1301 3,399 99% Jan 20 - 14:31
5 nune 1335 46 1351 303 98% Jan 19 - 16:51
6 smart 1442 68 1587 1,028 98% Jan 21 - 05:07
7 chessnerd 1487 65 1514 212 97% Jan 19 - 21:37
8 Smartmove 1078 92 1078 29 97% Jan 21 - 12:31
9 gilfer 1427 42 1434 87 97% Jan 21 - 01:09
10 Kobes 1365 45 1510 3,609 96% Jan 22 - 00:25
11 dogWaste 1316 18 1564 5,465 96% Jan 22 - 07:15
12 chessdog 1310 24 1403 37,100 96% Jan 21 - 21:20
13 tjeulesbetes 1532 53 1691 3,862 96% Jan 16 - 01:18
14 kuzumaki 1338 40 1388 5,210 95% Jan 19 - 10:27
15 TinDrum 1536 60 1536 43 95% Jan 19 - 03:40
16 hrnicek59 1338 86 1382 255 95% Dec 31 - 16:09
17 mauricio 1383 26 1383 1,263 95% Jan 20 - 14:49
18 AJLaN 1299 77 1332 97 95% Jan 16 - 20:07
19 Slowmouse 1340 87 1465 19,435 95% Dec 20 - 18:31
20 FireGarden 1469 55 1509 10,525 95% Jan 15 - 20:53
posted by transformation at 10:31 PM
5 Comments:
haha, congrats on defeating your arch enemy! :)
well done dk, however i will protest that your using an alternate handle to achieve your 95.8% whilst i have logged 37K "tries" with chessdog pushing for a balance of rating vs. perfection. if you had obtained this with your "dktransform" handle then it would be far more legitimate. also your alternate handle is still far behind my alternate handle "satanspawn" -100.0% which i only created to show how easy it is to cherry pick low rated problems. that handle has no value and i will of course not pursue putting any effort into it. i do plan to try and reach 96.0% before i hit 40K while at the same time keeping my rating up around 1300...i'm no mathematician but i think it is possible if i redouble my efforts for absolute perfection.
also, i finally got around to getting some of the books you talked about. i got the ones you seemed to like the most...
shereshevsky, endgame strategy
seirawan, winning chess str.
alburts, chess training pocket book
soltis, pawn structure chess
averbakh, chess endings
pandolfini, endgame course
ive been perusing them and i'm totally pumped about digging into them hardcore! if ya got any tips on some good books i left out please let me know.
peace, Cdog out
a. thank you chessDog. im glad you checked those books.
b. if you think that 'cherry picking" is what i have done here, then we can ask why no less such persons as temposchlucker or mousetrapper have done similar rating and percentages under also different handles i have done here also, some more, some less, but all similar, as you have also done, and SO FEW OTHER PERSONS have done here out of thousands, then why THIS is cherry picking? 1316 at 95.65% at 5,465 tries, or 1480 at 94.0% across 3,000 tries, or 1530 at 93.0% as chessWaste was earlier at 800 tries, or dkTransform at 1560 at 85.0% at 22,000 tries, or 1581 at 84.9% at 23,495 tries all equate.
throw out this ego nonsense. this is learning. practice. personal practice. learning to learn. If you wish to compete, as is silly, then go ahead: you need to do the next 78 in a row perfect to get to 98.9% and you must do 81 in a row perfect to exceed me. go ahead. Now that im here, I can luxuriate, doing 18 problems a day perfect, at a ratio of 37,320/5,483 at 100%, to see you do 4f/216s=220 tries @ 98.182% (trust me, I know how to deftly record and assiduously reverse engineer data, if data is what you ‘seek’ and know EXACTLY WHERE it is at, believe you me), to get an inch past me. Knock yourself out; I will LOL daily now. or, you can drop ‘this’ now. the choice is yours. i know you now understand. As Arnold says, germanically, ‘ill be bach’. Like the many men or heads of hydra in matrix II.
c. this is of course, as is by now more than appropriate, our last communication, if you wish to call it that, baring changes or modification under your own control. till now, ok, I have allowed what has been. i have read zero messages at cts since september, i have better things occupying my mind and heart and soul. BUT, if, in the future, you wish to post or exchange ideas here at my blog, then you will need to be unilateral, and open your blog to comments in kind—in this case, from me or others. i do not accept your posting here while hiding behind complete annonymity. understand?
d. ducking a fight? Ducking a challenge?? cherry picking? is that why jim e. et al. apache of beaumont texas, as is reported to me plays at ICC mostly lower rated players (900 to 1200 elo?) with a near positive win loss ratio of 12:14 for 5/0 and 18/14 for blitz? where i play, i take a big challenge, mostly only playing folks rated above me. my win/loss ratio is decidedly negative 25:43 for blitz and 29/36 for bullet and im darn proud of it. sometimes i loose eight games in a row--facing folks superior to me daily and weekly.
e. if you wonder the sort of person i am or what are dealing with, if it isnt clear by now, then the ONE SINGLE time i went to the cts message board since, like september, i think it was, was immediately in december after you posted one single comment: "dktransform, i miss you". do you know what remote viewing is? sensative? yes, i know when to see what i do not see. i take thirty seconds, and there you are.
f. you wish to compare? can you? really. go look at "Trophies" this will show you how many watts, ergs, volts, foot/pounds, joules, or Standford-Binet coefficients a man or woman exerts to his or her chess. when i go to recent activity, as i have done to your id occasionally several times since december, and in so doing at a glance see where you stumble, i see that i can do all the higher difficulty problems you fail at--i can do them all, and easily. the issue here is not what we can do, but how fast, and how consistent. but i do what you do not. go and visit the top 20 cts leaders, and see their trophies, and this will tell you the true bicip size, if that is what you wish?
g. if you want, let me know that i can write Jim E. privately, if you wish to take this outside public eyes. but no more. we are done. if you wish to have a conversation, then this is the last one, baring your allowing more unilateral transparent communication. but snipping on the side wont do it.
h. i have friends who take it upon themselves to report that you have adopted an insulting tone, which i dont read but they bring it to me—i don’t and have never asked them, as caring, moral folks elect to let me know, and this does not speak well of you.
i. if you wish to grow, here it is. but if you wish to stay the same and be and do as the same, then i have no time or patience or tolerance now. i will be 50 in 1.8 years and who has time? really now.
j. the sun is but a raising star.
k. :) take care jim, dk
i'm sorry dk, you seem to have completely miss-interpreted my note. i was simply responding to your post in which you have stated publicly that you were trying to surpass my success%...and then in your last post you HIGHlIGHT your handle above mine...which is fine...there is nothing wrong with a little good natured competition to help motivate us. all i was trying to say was that comparing you success % to mine is like the "apples to oranges" thing...you are taking a different approach with your handle than i am with mine...there was no malice intended. and yes ,i know others are doing the "split" handle thing, and i dont mean this in an offensive tone but i dont see how it helps them improve at chess to do problems that do not push there minds...i am just trying to make what i feel to be a valid chess point. i would be very curious as to what others think about this dual approach strategy on CTS.
I have always readily conceded that you are a FAR stronger chessplayer than me so no need to rub it in. but i do aspire to reach your level someday...who knows!?
so allow me to extend the olive branch and call for a cease fire! let us engage the new year and embrace the challenge of improving at chess in an open community of sharing and knowledge!
troy
"chessdog"
Ft. worth TX, USA
thank you. i am on my way to work, at this hour, as usual, but sincerly appreciate the thoughful note.
it is sunny today, here, and the skys are calm.
dual id. ok: dktransform found real resistance at 1530 and 1540. as dogWaste fought his way as to learning to do problems at 95%+, dktransform kept hitting 1560 with minimal tries, not massive exhaustive effort, a sign of increasing strenght. when our handle, whichever it is, hits resistence, no amount of effort will raise a rating, if that is what one tries to do at a particular percentage.
and while i did a thousand or so tries, only as chessWaste, dktransform does a few tries and hits 1570, then 1580. i see 1600 pretty soon. this is my next step after 96.0%.
i dont mean to pull your chain, but with fifteen or twenty minutes, for one move, i can calculate at a 2200 level, according to ct-art 3.0
my point is, is that the practice of many, many problems AT A HIGH LEVEL of accuracy, such as you practiced and now i practice, which you showed us how to do and what is possible, so you get all the credit from us, if you ask me, such work is precisely what make me a better player at 1581 or so.
1580 at 75 to 83% fully equates to 1480 at 93%, and 1300 at 96%. it is a mathematically function, and elements of a necesarily constant curve connect according to a formula.
take care, dk
ps, pls check your email from an email from dk_experiment@...
pss please consider reading pandolphini's endgame course without a board, practicing calculation. i thereafter did this with chernevs practical chess endings. many endgame books are sought by our readers, at a high faluten level (i am not suggesting in any way that this is you, but others), but these basic books are golden, when taken slowly.
done without a board makes this an exercise that will inhere to the brain like firm glue, binding and weaving the elements into ones memory, burnishing the content into the circuits of your brain.
Post a Comment
<< Home