richie_and_oprah wrote:
hard to play on the internet without one
anything else?
Are computers really a good thing for chess?
Sort:
richie_and_oprah wrote:
yes, i'll have a glazed donut and a bottle of anything
to go
what?
both
yes
crazy...
TheGambitKing wrote:
Computers will be the death of society someday, automating tasks that once provided jobs and livelihood for the proletariat; the resulting freedom and resources being stolen from labour by their corporate overlords. Of course, computers have already been the death of chess, so we could see this coming. Arno Nickel stands as the last bastion of hope for mankind, although were they still very active, I would guess that Kasparov, Karpov, and Kramnik (in that order) might also be capable of defending our honour.
sounds more resonable than any other argument so far
chess_gg wrote:
You can:
a. Ride your bicycle to the village square and play a few of the locals.
b. Use a computer to get on the internet and play 7,000,000 (well, that may be a slight exaggeration...lol) from all over the world while still in your pajamas.
Difficult choice.
I have a feeling (unverified) that banned players remain on the list of total members. Inasmuch as there are several hundred members who have had three or four or more accounts that were subsequently closed, the seven million figure must be slightly inflated. Then, there are far more people who log in once, start some games, and then never return. That number probably exceeds one million.
if there wern't computers.......
I don´t know about chess itself, but they´re better for forums about it. Or would anyone care to sift through all the bound volumes which would comprise the complete content, printed out, of all contributions here since chess.com started up? 
Is it really the most effective way?