10820 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.
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".
ღ OFFICIAL 2014 Chess.com Awards ღ
by Syd_Arthur a few minutes ago
Carlsen never plays 1.e5
by solskytz a few minutes ago
Another one bites the dust.
by Conquistador 3 minutes ago
Carlsen in new video
by solskytz 3 minutes ago
Closed Accounts in Ongoing Games
by Barefoot_Player 29 minutes ago
by CrazyJae 32 minutes ago
Farting as a tactic?
by cornbeefhashvili 35 minutes ago
How do you get better at ENDGAMES ???
by radmagichat 40 minutes ago
If time travel was possible
by jesterville 42 minutes ago
mate in 3 - knights time
by XavierPadilla 43 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!