just a Game . Not a War .. Do you agree ? and why ??

But there is no bloodshed in chess (thank gosh). 

If you were to catch him spitting in your coffee, there might be.

I couldn't go that far.

Remind me to avoid a OTB game with you.

I only see it as a game, but a stressfull one.

I look at it like a game. . .

So, you fellows that consider it a "war", wide your mind and compare a "game" of chess with a game of baseball, basketball soccer (real football)

And even Go which is a strategy type game Do you see "war" in it?

Now, comparing with boxing. . . is simple undermining the cultural spirit of chess.

Good point, and definitely no blooshed, leave that for the movies.

Como esta Chavez?  Todavia enfermo con cancer?  Ojala se mejore.

Chess is a game and those who say it is a war are probably putting us on.

People who think they should treat chess as a war may have psychological problems. But most people who say chess is a war may be putting us on.

chess is a game that represents war!?

Ha yes I did mean bloodshed, dang wine, lol thanks amber!

If two countries are playing each other in chess, than it is as if they are in a "war." I remember Bobby Fischer having asked this question when he was about to play Boris Sapassky and he said yeah, it's like I'm trying to destroy the man as well although it's nothing personal ;)

Ever heard of Rosalind Franklin.  It has to do with the structure of DNA and who really discovered it.  Here is the website in clickable:

 http://www.who2.com/bio/rosalind-franklin

v

She should be an icon for women's causes for equality around the world.  Her surviving family should receive a Nobel prize for her posthumously. It is no wonder some women are pissed off.

Mysogyny has to be made as politically incorrect as bashing the gay alternative lifestyle.

Try Marie Curie, the first person to win two Nobel prizes and still the only person who has won in multiple scientific fields.

___________________________________________________________________

@princessamber,

joeydvivre and I have history.

He chickened out of playing me on a thread started by Firepower8.  Firepower8 created a position which on his topic he titled:  What in the world?  The most unclear middlegame position ever?  Part #1

Ok, let' just have fun getting to the "truth" in the position.  That is what attracted me to chess in the first place.  There are very few places in life where you can get to the "truth" and hold it in your mind, and look at it, like you can in a chess position on the board.  The feeling of exhiliriation is indescribable.  And, it makes you want to do it again just to get that feeling of discovery back again.  It is what drives me now.

So, let's have fun.  What d'ya say?  

• 14 days ago · Quote · #43

  joeydvivre

  Yeah let's have fun and get to the truth.  Play the game for money.  Too hard for me to play it blindfold though.

• 14 days ago · Quote · Edit · Delete · #44

  transpo

  I am a "professional gunslinger."  I only play for money in rated USCF and FIDE tournaments. 

  Set up the position on your chess board.  This is just for fun so you can move the pieces and pawns around when your analyzing the position to make your next move. Don't have to play bindfold. 

   So, joeydvivre (joie de vivre), be a "bon vivant" and let's have fun.

• joeydvrivre wrote:
• hehe..."professional gunslinger"...sure.  Well, I'm your chickadee

____________________________________________________________________

Linus Pauling was another brilliant scientist who almost beat Watson and Crick to the discovery of the structure of DNA.  If he hadn't been sick with a cold. he would have attended the conference along with Watson and Crick.  At that scientific conference, a brilliant mind like Linus Pauling's, would most assuredly have put 2 and 2 together and would have been first before--- Watson and Crick (presumptious Cambridge "Ivory Tower Academics" PhD's--- to decipher the structure of DNA.  But knowing Linus Pauling, he would have given Rosalind Franklin due credit for her x-ray diffraction images of th structure of DNA A and B.  He would have been the firt to acknowledge that without those images. And the clinics that Ms. Franklin conducted for Watson and Crick concerning their [SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess)] theoretical models of the DNA molecule at their offices in Cambridge; they would still be building thoretical models today.  Rosalind fixed their models to reflect what the x-ray diffraction images confirmed is the true double helix structure of DNA     

The posthumous rule for the Nobel has to be changed.  Not just because of Rosalind Franklin, but because of Archimedes.  He was doing calculus 2,500 years before Isaac Newton and J. Liebnitz were even born.  So, how can Newton and Liebnitz be considered the inventors of calculus.  I am sure you have heard of the Palimpsest.  In the Palimpsest they have proof that Archimides was doing calculus in his mathematical treatise The Method.  Here it is in clickable form as it reltes direcly to calculus: http://www.matematicasvisuales.com/english/html/history/archimedes/parabola.html

Carl B. Boyer - The History of the Calculus and its conceptual development (p. 48) - Dover

Maybe a Barnes and Noble prize, instead?  @Transpo might need more books to quote.

It is named the Fields Medal!  Not only are you a chauvinist and a mysogynist you are an annoying nitpicker.  That is another game you are good at because it certainly isn't chess.