Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Solve This Puzzle


  • 13 months ago · Quote · #61

    cardinal46

    Crab-A-Blanca wrote:

    He's starting to remind me about creationists.

    +1

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #62

    Yereslov

    cardinal46 wrote:
    Crab-A-Blanca wrote:

    He's starting to remind me about creationists.

    +1

    How is that a good reply? Do tell.

    Creationists use logical fallacies in order to circumvent strong arguments.

    I simply corrected the mistakes certain users made.

    A creationists would troll a thread about a chess puzzle.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #63

    cardinal46

    logical fallacies? Undecided

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #64

    Yereslov

    cardinal46 wrote:

    logical fallacies?

    Yes, that is what they are called.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #65

    Crab-A-Blanca

    Creationists also lie and make up unprovable claims.

    It might not be a good reply, but this thread deserves nothing more. Let it dissolve into the internets graveyard, this is officially a bad thread.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #66

    cardinal46

    You sound... crabby to me but I agree with you!

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #67

    Creeten

    BigDoggProblem wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    BigDoggProblem wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    MrEdCollins wrote:

    It looks like just about anything wins.

    1...Qb8 is strong.
    1...Rg2+, as you mentioned, is strong.
    1...Qc7 also wins.

    Houdini and Stockfish both prefer 1...Qb8 over 1...Rg2+

    You should get a better engine then.

    Better than Houdini? Seriously now.

    Rybka is far more objective. I have had both analyze complex positons, and Rybka is always more accurate.

    How would you know? You're a 1300 player.

    Okay, I object, some of us may probably lose to you at chess, but that is no indication of if we know what we're talking about when it comes to software. I am impartial, I just think that is no just defence for saying you are right.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #68

    BigDoggProblem

    Creeten wrote:
    BigDoggProblem wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    BigDoggProblem wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    MrEdCollins wrote:

    It looks like just about anything wins.

    1...Qb8 is strong.
    1...Rg2+, as you mentioned, is strong.
    1...Qc7 also wins.

    Houdini and Stockfish both prefer 1...Qb8 over 1...Rg2+

    You should get a better engine then.

    Better than Houdini? Seriously now.

    Rybka is far more objective. I have had both analyze complex positons, and Rybka is always more accurate.

    How would you know? You're a 1300 player.

    Okay, I object, some of us may probably lose to you at chess, but that is no indication of if we know what we're talking about when it comes to software. I am impartial, I just think that is no just defence for saying you are right.

    The point isn't about software. It's about objectively judging complex chess positions. For that, chess ability obviously matters.

    I don't use the rating argument for things not related to actually playing chess.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #69

    Yereslov

    Crab-A-Blanca wrote:

    Creationists also lie and make up unprovable claims.

    It might not be a good reply, but this thread deserves nothing more. Let it dissolve into the internets graveyard, this is officially a bad thread.

    Which claim is unprovable?

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #70

    chessgdt

    Yereslov wrote:
    BigDoggProblem wrote:
    Yereslov wrote:
    MrEdCollins wrote:

    It looks like just about anything wins.

    1...Qb8 is strong.
    1...Rg2+, as you mentioned, is strong.
    1...Qc7 also wins.

    Houdini and Stockfish both prefer 1...Qb8 over 1...Rg2+

    You should get a better engine then.

    Better than Houdini? Seriously now.

    Rybka is far more objective. I have had both analyze complex positons, and Rybka is always more accurate.

    So why are you using Houdini in this thread- http://www.chess.com/forum/view/more-puzzles/white-to-play-and-gain-a-winning-advantage


Back to Top

Post your reply: