11675 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Why the ridiculous complication?
Fold or crumble=Does it make that much diference
I am a Folder. While I recognize that Crumplers produce myriad random folds, and the end product is essentially as useful as that crafted by a Folder, the aesthetic discord present in one compared to the harmonious planar symmetry of the other is enough (for me, at least) to substantially differentiate between the two approaches. This, and also that one method is substantially more resistant to unwanted poke-through accidents.
First of all, "harmonious planar symmetry" - Bravo! Excellent. I would not have, until subsequent plagiarism, ever come up with that (or so I think).
As for folding. I'm a fidgetter and folder. In fact no stack of square Post-It note sheets is safe when I am near. I'm always folding it into all kinds of stuff.
I'm too timid.
Thanks! Actually, I've been trying to come up with real-life examples of cases where "some A are B, some A are C, some A are neither B nor C, and no A are both B and C", and the old fold/crumple argument was the best one I found on short notice. You could say I'm trying to help you out.
Yes, I noticed that you are quite the good sport and novel humorist of the pleasantly bantering variety. It shall not go unrewarded in Heaven if not on Earth.
I have yet to find a way to satisfactorily agree with your disagreement. Though we have not agreed to disagree, which in and of itself is not a disagreement, unless you explicitly refuse to make that agreement, I have neither explicitly disagreed with your reply itself; that is, until now. Here's where I differ with you - it is within the category of chess that I'm saying there are two subcategories, the fact that chess in and of itself is a category notwithstanding. It's a hierachical thing. Now, were you to take issue with some other fundamental premise, you might gain some ground, and I would most likely have more work to do refuting your rebuttal, or rebutting your refutation, as it were, and hence may be. Time will tell.
Heh-heh...you said butt.
All this sounds a lot like "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve".
12/5/2013 - Too Many Attackers, Too Little Defenders
by makabay 4 minutes ago
Carlsen is mediocre - my analyses
by Ubik42 5 minutes ago
A Classic Alekhine win
by ClarkDMerrifield 5 minutes ago
my favourites about chess.com:
by Timothy_P 5 minutes ago
What's the catch?
by Samsch 8 minutes ago
what is this whole "carlsen plays like a computer" nonsense
by Ubik42 9 minutes ago
by MrDamonSmith 13 minutes ago
by LongIslandMark 15 minutes ago
CONTEST: Caption this Image of Anand & Carlsen
by winerkleiner 20 minutes ago
why d4 is better than e4
by ajian 25 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!