artfizz wrote:

This much I do know: there are no uninteresting players on chess.com.

 Well, at least a few people have a positive view of the world.  I wouldn't be so quick to make that generalization...

Argonaut314 wrote:

artfizz wrote: This much I do know: there are no uninteresting players on chess.com.

 Well, at least a few people have a positive view of the world.  I wouldn't be so quick to make that generalization...

I have a mathematical proof for it.

Haha.  Okay, I'll bite.  Show me!

Proof

Claim: There is no such thing as an uninteresting player on chess.com

Proof by Contradiction

Assume that you have a non-empty set of players on chess.com that are not interesting. Due to the well-ordered property of being uninteresting, there must be some least interesting player in the set of uninteresting players. Being the least interesting member of a set one might consider not interesting makes that player interesting. Since the players in this set were defined as not interesting, we have reached a contradiction because this least interesting player cannot be both interesting and uninteresting. Therefore the set of uninteresting players must be empty, proving there is no such thing as an uninteresting player on chess.com.

There are, however, uninteresting posts - such as this one.

my average is 32 hours - so maybe I'm the slowest

Diana - Lol.  No prob.  This is the most activity any thread of mine has ever had.

Wormrose - Thanks for taking my crown.  I feel like the 2003 Detroit Tigers when they won the last game of the season thus staying out of the record books with the most losses in a single season.  "We're not the worst!!" - "I'm not the slowest!!"

Chrish - I don't know that I qualify as "famous" yet, but thanks for the vote of confidence.  However, since you can now go into your local video store and find me, I no longer play the "Everybody's Related to Kevin Bacon" game, I play the "Everybody's Related to Me" game.

For example: My Kevin Bacon number is 2.  Kevin Bacon was in Animal House (as Chip Diller) with Bruce McGill (as Daniel Simpson "D-Day" Day) who was in 61* (as New York Yankee Manager Ralph Houk) with me.  Give me another one. 

Jermaine Mckenzie from flight of the conchords.  That should be an interesting bit of seperation for you :D.

And to people who freak out when people take too long to move - might I suggest finding something else to do? A watched pot never boils.  Even something as simple as starting to write analysis for the game you are playing with possible variations would by no means be a waste of time ;)

And that old batman show was so awful it was good.  i still remember the shark repellant spray!

The highest time per move I have seen is 16hrs and 5min for purushothama other than you. Congratz.

exiledcanuck wrote:

Jermaine Mckenzie from flight of the conchords.  That should be an interesting bit of seperation for you :D.

 Talk about throwing me a curve ball on the 1st pitch!!  I've never even heard of Jermaine McKenzie OR Flight of the Conchords.  But that's ok.  I'm always up for a challenge!

Since we're playing a "correspondance" version of the game rather than "over-the-board," I'm going to have to assume that the use of online databases is not "cheating" (inside joke for anyone following along in the CC vs OTB debate threads).  I must also assume you mean Jermaine Clement and Bret McKenzie rather than Jermaine McKenzie (or were you deliberately trying to throw me off?).  But here goes:

4 degrees: Jermaine Clement and Bret McKenzie were in Flight of the Conchords (as Jermaine and Bret) with Rachel Blanchard (as Sally) who was in Snakes on a Plane (as Mercedes) with Samuel L. Jackson (as FBI agent Neville Flynn) who was in Deep Blue Sea (as Russell Franklin) with Thomas Jane (as Carter Blake) who was in 61* (as Mickey Mantle) with me.  Give me another one! 

artfizz wrote:

Proof

Claim: There is no such thing as an uninteresting player on chess.com

Proof by Contradiction

Assume that you have a non-empty set of players on chess.com that are not interesting. Due to the well-ordered property of the being uninteresting, there must be some least interesting player in the set of uninteresting players. Being the least interesting member of a set one might consider not interesting makes that player interesting. Since the players in this set were defined as not interesting, we have reached a contradiction because this least interesting player cannot be both interesting and uninteresting. Therefore the set of uninteresting players must be empty, proving there is no such thing as an uninteresting player on chess.com.

There are, however, uninteresting posts - such as this one.

 Impressive!  Okay, I'm a believer.

artfizz wrote:

Proof

Claim: There is no such thing as an uninteresting player on chess.com

Proof by Contradiction

Assume that you have a non-empty set of players on chess.com that are not interesting. Due to the well-ordered property of the being uninteresting, there must be some least interesting player in the set of uninteresting players. Being the least interesting member of a set one might consider not interesting makes that player interesting. Since the players in this set were defined as not interesting, we have reached a contradiction because this least interesting player cannot be both interesting and uninteresting. Therefore the set of uninteresting players must be empty, proving there is no such thing as an uninteresting player on chess.com.

There are, however, uninteresting posts - such as this one.

Very interesting comment,sincerely!

Does being asymptotically uninteresting make one interesting?  Oh man... my head hurts now! 

You are exaggerating now,lol

kingchild wrote: you are exaggerating now, lol

 Am I now?  I'll have to talk to my lawyer before responding to that accusation, Miss Leon.

Don't trust lawyers! lol

Well, at least you can play more than one game at a time. I have yet to play more than one at a time! As for speed, I'm not sure how the time is calculated but I use a board and only come back to make moves when I am done, so I suspect my move time is far longer than reflected in the time listed. I've seen people listed 23 plus hours though I don't recall where. So long as you make the time limit and enjoy the number of games you are playing, it's cool. I saw the title of your post on the front page and thought, really, someone slower than me. I'm not so sure you are...but doesn't really matter does it?

That's funny!  Robin's expression is a parody of "Holy Toledo" an English exclamation that refers to the Spanish city of Toledo. 

darius wrote: As for speed, I'm not sure how the time is calculated but I use a board and only come back to make moves when I am done, so I suspect my move time is far longer than reflected in the time listed. ... and thought, really, someone slower than me. I'm not so sure you are...but doesn't really matter does it?

chess.com categorises 3 speeds of play (for use in tournament controls):

• Above Average (<12Hrs)
• Fast(<6 Hr)
• Very Fast(<3Hrs)

According to the average time/move shown on your My Online Chess settings, your nickname should be 'Lightning'.

Move rate is quite a contentious issue - particularly in tournaments. Perception of time is relative. How long is 5 minutes? It depends upon which side of the bathroom door you're on.

artfizz

But I really take a lot longer than it shows because I move on a board, looking at variations, and then come to the site to cast my vote. Sometimes, the computer is on at the site so perhaps some time accumulates that way, and sometimes I do use the analysis board on the computer, but I am so old fashioned I still like using a real board and pieces. I still have difficulty with algebraic notation (e4 vs P-k4, but I'm getting used to it). I stopped playing a long time ago and only restarted recently. If time is counted not based on when we are online but in between real time moves, then I can't account for my time because it seems to me I am spending a fair amount of time on each move. Does anyone know how time is calculated?

artfizz wrote:

Proof

Claim: There is no such thing as an uninteresting player on chess.com

Proof by Contradiction

Assume that you have a non-empty set of players on chess.com that are not interesting. Due to the well-ordered property of the being uninteresting, there must be some least interesting player in the set of uninteresting players. Being the least interesting member of a set one might consider not interesting makes that player interesting. Since the players in this set were defined as not interesting, we have reached a contradiction because this least interesting player cannot be both interesting and uninteresting. Therefore the set of uninteresting players must be empty, proving there is no such thing as an uninteresting player on chess.com.

There are, however, uninteresting posts - such as this one.

You must be a fan of Godel. If you are a member of the set of fans of Godel, a non-empty set...