Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:04, 12 August 2008

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pennsylvania Low‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ed Trice. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ed Trice at the Reference desk.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs)

A fact from Ed Trice appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 July 2007. A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2007/July.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Comment Removed

The comment that was previously here was entirely uncalled for.

1. Since when has it been permissible to re-order comments on the page, inserted one higher up so as to draw attention to it?

2. I found nothing supporting of the snide remark at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines where it lists the purpose of the talk section as being used to

Communicate, Keep on topic, Stay objective, Deal with facts, Share material, Discuss edits, and/or Make proposals.

I am suprised the editors have allowed it to remain IN PLAIN VIEW and MOVED TO THE TOP, and, being the Living Person associated with this page, I object to the such material.

GothicChessInventor (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The entire content was as follows: 'This "Biography" Is A Joke; At the end one may read (quote): " 500,995,484,682,338,672,639 unique legal positions, checkers is " How ridiculous can it get?!'. I don't see any factual statements, poorly sourced or otherwise, which would violate WP:BLP. I just see a (poorly formed) opinion that this biography is a joke. That in mind, I'm restoring the material. Just to clarify (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have gone to the talk page for the user who posted the inappropriate comment which has hurt Trice's feelings, and told him the comment was inappropriate. That said, I don't think the comment should be removed because it doesn't violate WP:BLP nor does it insult Ed Trice himself; it only says negative things about the quality of the Misplaced Pages article (without suggesting improvements nor saying what exactly is wrong with the article). Just to clarify (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This "Biography" Is A Joke

At the end one may read (quote):

" 500,995,484,682,338,672,639 unique legal positions, checkers is "

How ridiculous can it get?! -- Wlod (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If the biography was a joke, it would have been improved. There are enough contributors. Apparently no one (including myself) has anything to say that would be significantly different. If you disagree with any particular parts of the biography, you are welcome to contribute and make changes. Otherwise, you are welcome to go away. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Insulted?

I noticed this

chief programmer Feng-hsiung Hsu insulted his commentary

(underscore mine) in the article. I'd rather not {{fact}}-tag it before here giving someone a chance to substantiate the claim that Feng-hsiung Hsu insulted the commentary. But I do think that a claim of insult needs to be substantiated (by a reference in the article), or the language needs to be toned down to something such as “chief programmer Feng-hsiung Hsu challenged his commentary”. —SlamDiego_←T 11:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Feng wrote a book about Deep Thought/Blue and the text was a direct quote from the book.

ChessHistorian (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

USCF tournament history for Edward A. Trice

I have added a link to the USCF tournament history for Edward A. Trice. There is no doubt that this is the "correct" Ed Trice and not a cousin of his with the same name, as was suggested by ChessHistorian when a similar link was removed some months ago. For proof of this, see the comments by the Ed Trice that this article is about which he added to a game played by the still active Ed Trice at chessgames.com. Gallicrow (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the game above comes from this tournament where trice scored 2.0. And, oh, there's nothing wrong with being a 1300 player. Just to clarify (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

One win, one loss, two half-point byes, and an unplayed game. The two half-point byes account for one of the two points scored. Bubba73 (talk), 02:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Whilst there's nothing wrong with being a weak chess player, I thought it should be cleared up that Trice is not an expert at regular chess, despite what he has claimed in the recent past: http://usacheckers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=726&p=3892 Trice's comment (posted on 25th July 2006): "In 1989 I played in my last chess tournament, and with 2 wins, 3 draws, and 4 losses in the Under 2400 section, my rating hit bottom at 2207. I never played chess after this." Gallicrow (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Gallicrow HAS FABRICATED A BLATANT LIE about me. He is claiming I am being sued for $21,200,000 at this link here

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/chessvariants/message/2723

Therefore, I would like everyone to know that he is an adverse party and he is not interested in contributing anything to this article.

GothicChessInventor (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Trice said a lot of really dumb things on message boards, and that he really needs to stop doing that. There's a lot more I would say about Trice, but I'm keeping to WP:BLP. Someone's USCF rating can be easily looked up and verified. There is plausible denial for things said on message boards; there is the remote possibility that someone is just pretending to be Trice on a message board. Just to clarify (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor 76.124.113.197 added information on Ed Trice's Gothic Chess rating and games history as a replacement for his USCF chess rating and tournament history. Since Ed Trice is the inventor of Gothic Chess, this information would seem relevant to the article in addition to the information concerning Ed's USCF rating. However, USCF ratings are administered by a neutral 3rd party (USCF). It is unclear how Gothic Chess ratings are administered, so a further comment on the validity of the Gothic Chess rating might be warranted.98.204.199.179 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is disturbing that editors 76.124.113.197 and 72.78.136.184 repeatedly deletes discussion material from the Talk page. This is clearly against the guideline regarding striking the comments of other editors without their permission Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Deletions from the Talk page are not the way to get one's viewpoint across. If 76.124.113.197/72.78.136.184 have a differing viewpoint, please post those to the Talk page for discussion.98.204.199.179 (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy Of Ratings

As of July 11, 2008 I had played 293 games of Gothic Chess, which can be counted easily enough here

http://www.gothic-chess.com/one-players-games.php?id=63

Some of these games were played "at odds".

I offered Archbishop Odds in 2 games, winning 1 and losing 1

The win was a mate in 38 moves (the first 4 moves create the lost Archbishop) http://www.gothic-chess.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=129

The loss was 64 moves (again, the first 4 moves create the lost Archbishop) http://www.gothic-chess.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=2735

My opponent that beat me in the Archbishop Odds games offered a rematch where he was giving me Archbishop Odds.

I checkmated him in 7 moves (the first 4 moves create the lost Archbishop) http://www.gothic-chess.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=2737

As for the rating, the 293 games of Gothic exceed the sum of "regular chess" games I have played, I'm sure. I've corresponded with Mark Glickman, author of the rating system used by the United States Chess Federation. Since 2001, we have used his formulae, and he CERTIFIED the Gothic Chess Association's proper use in a paper that he wrote. You can see an ONLINE version of his paper here at his website at Boston University (quite frankly I'm surprised that none of you do SUPPORTING research for me, everyone of you looks for CONTRADICTING information, and using anonymous Discussion Boards, where anyone can post as anybody, as "proof" of things I say. Whatever happened to Misplaced Pages "reliable sources" ??)

http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/glicko/glicko.doc/glicko.html

Back to the list of my Gothic Chess games at http://www.gothic-chess.com/one-players-games.php?id=63

It's easier to tally the win-loss-draw counts up until you see draws (1/2-1/2). I'll do that, including the draw, to see if the count is correct.

W-L-D 9-1-1 (the one loss was the Archbishop Odd's game, so was one of the wins)

Next there is a run of 40 wins to my second draw bringing the total to...

49-1-2

It should be pointed out that some of the people in this range also play on ICC with the same handle

vaporlock vs. me

http://www.gothic-chess.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=2665 http://www.gothic-chess.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=2664

botchvink vs. me

http://www.gothic-chess.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=2667

Also, the second draw I experienced was due to a bug in this site. Replay this game

http://www.gothic-chess.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=2570

And you'll see something weird was happening.

Next 5 wins 2 losses to the next draw, bring the total to

54-3-3

Next 4 wins 2 losses to the next draw, bring the total to

58-5-4

This has to be my most humiliating defeat, just 16 moves to a newcomer, where I "totally fell asleep" and missed a smothered mate by a Knight:

http://www.gothic-chess.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=2268

But, in this range, I also beat Yaacov Norowicz, the extremely strong blitz player from ICC who did well in the U2200 section in the 2008 World Open (everyone expected he would win, he finished "in the money" but 2 points from 1st place)

http://www.gothic-chess.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=2064

Yaacov obviously forgot how the Archbishop moved, and I picked up his Queen in exchange for it. So, you see, Gothic Chess has very different patterns than regular chess, which is even more evident by the next game

I had also invited ICC's yoda2006, another strong ICC blitz player, and I won 2 games against him

http://www.gothic-chess.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=1696

He simply dropped his Queen in completely unfamiliar territory. Does this mean he lacks tactical vision? No, of course not. It means his board vision is not tuned to the Gothic Chess board's unique configuration and he's unfamiliar with the patterns that come up throughout the course of play.

In this next game

http://www.gothic-chess.com/javascript/game.php?gameid=1695

yoda was hit with an early flank check from my Bishop that he could not block, so he started out on bad footing. My Bishop pair was able to tie down key regions of real estate, ultimately assisting to set up a fork winning his Queen. Again, no tactical wizardy on my part, just an opponent struggling with the unfamiliar.

There is more "pattern recognition" that constitutes your rating than anything else. Skill is mostly perception, as DeGroot discovered in his landmark paper from the 1930's.

I think I'll stop the tally here at 87 wins 6 losses and 4 draws. You guys get the point. The 2000+ Gothic Chess rating is legitimate. It's tied to a high winning percentage. It uses the Glicko system, and it is accurate. Come play me a game on the site if you want to test me out. Back up your conjecture with your own experiences.

As for the USCF tournament history, I contacted the USCF about it after entering the Holly Heisman Memorial in 2004 when Dan Heisman had me listed as 2187 at round 1. Their database had been ascribing games to the USCF for me, that is certainly true. I have "taken over" and continue to play under that ID. I asked Bill Goichberg if I could play in the U1400 AND U1600 simultaneously at the World Open. He said a "peak" of 1430 was associated with my rating, which is the exact "high" that is permissible to still "tank your rating" and play U1400, so, "there might be some grumblings" should I on to do well in both sections. For that reason, I elected to "remove all doubt", and I will be returning to the World Open next year to play 18 games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GothicChessInventor (talk • contribs) 16:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're contesting here! (if anything). The article now lists both standard chess and Gothic chess ratings; are you stating that either of these is listed incorrectly? Oli Filth 18:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying that other people are basing "claims" they read about on other discussion boards, yet discussion boards are not "reliable sources" acccording to Misplaced Pages. Anyone who posts information here should constrain themselves to reliable sources. I'm saying that people who have said that the Gothic Chess rating is inaccurate do not know what they are talking about. I've documented that it is accurate, and the INVENTOR OF THE RATING SYSTEM has acknowledge this. I'm saying that the USCF rating was deliberately "tanked" to become under 1400 for the purpose of playing in the World Open for large amounts of money, but only AFTER I advised them of their own post-1991 error, and they said that I am PERFECTLY ABLE to play in the Under 1400 section in ANY tournament. So, when I "beat up" on some U1400 people at next year's tournament, I don't want to hear any complaints when I get that $15,000 check. How's that? Clear?

GothicChessInventor (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I don't see any other comments pro or con about the Gothic Chess Rating system, you must be referring to these comments above: "Editor 76.124.113.197 added information on Ed Trice's Gothic Chess rating and games history as a replacement for his USCF chess rating and tournament history. Since Ed Trice is the inventor of Gothic Chess, this information would seem relevant to the article in addition to the information concerning Ed's USCF rating. However, USCF ratings are administered by a neutral 3rd party (USCF). It is unclear how Gothic Chess ratings are administered, so a further comment on the validity of the Gothic Chess rating might be warranted." My stress here is not the inherent validity and soundness of the rating system. I took that for granted as Ed Trice is a smart guy and probably worked out a nice smart rating system. My comment was only related to it being "unclear how the Gothic Chess ratings are ADMINISTERED". USCF ratings are administered by USCF. FIDE ratings are administered by FIDE. And the Gothic Chess ratings are administered by the Gothic Chess Federation which is... Ed Trice! This may be great when we are talking about Susan Polgar's rating in Gothic Chess (how did she do in the game pictured, by the way?) but when talking about Ed Trice's Gothic Chess rating, this seems... questionable. Not that there is anything wrong with Ed Trice's Gothic Chess rating, it may be completely fine. But having Ed Trice administer his own ratings... well that wouldn't be seen in a lot of competitive sporting activities because of the inherent conflict of interest issue. 98.204.199.179 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the prospective winning of $15K, that would be great. I'm sure when Ed does so, this page will be edited to proclaim it to the world.98.204.199.179 (talk) 22:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I second what you say. Concerning what should go in to the article, we have reliable sources (WP:RS) stating that Mr. Trice has his UCSF rating; we don't have any reliable sources stating that this rating is because of an error on the USCF's part so adding any information of that kind to the wikipedia is inappropriate. Just to clarify (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is doubting the inherent accuracy of the rating system. However, (1) the pool of players for Gothic Chess is very small (2) the bulk of the players on the rating list have their initial 1500 rating, and (3) I haven't seen anything that correlates those ratings to USCF of FIDE ratings. The ratings are meaningful only for that pool of players. And that's all I have to say about that. Bubba73 (talk), 22:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then why don't you find someone with an ACCURATE chess rating to log onto the site and play as many games of Gothic Chess against me as they desire? Then you will have your own metric by which to judge the two systems.

GothicChessInventor (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Letter from the late Don Lafferty, World Checkers Champion

For those who have posted here (and elsewhere) that I did not make the World Championship Checkers program...

Here is a link to a scanned letter from the late Don Lafferty.

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/lafferty.jpg

It is dated June 30, 1997 and reads:

<text redacted as a copyvio, people will have to follow the link. Please don't post emails to Misplaced Pages. Sarah 10:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)>

GothicChessInventor (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, Ed Trice's co-author, Gil Dodgen, would also agree he was a co-author of this program. A joint paper (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.85.582&rep=rep1&type=pdf) has the statement that they are coauthors of this program in its bibliography.98.204.199.179 (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also on the WorldChampionshipCheckers.com page here, so I don't know why all the "nay-sayers" are so outspoken against something so obvious.

http://www.worldchampionshipcheckers.com/database_paper.html

GothicChessInventor (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect-Class Pennsylvania pages
• Low-importance Pennsylvania articles
• Articles with connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles