I am the slowest player on Chess.com

That's funny!  Robin's expression is a parody of "Holy Toledo" an English exclamation that refers to the Spanish city of Toledo. 

darius wrote: As for speed, I'm not sure how the time is calculated but I use a board and only come back to make moves when I am done, so I suspect my move time is far longer than reflected in the time listed. ... and thought, really, someone slower than me. I'm not so sure you are...but doesn't really matter does it?

chess.com categorises 3 speeds of play (for use in tournament controls):

• Above Average (<12Hrs)
• Fast(<6 Hr)
• Very Fast(<3Hrs)

According to the average time/move shown on your My Online Chess settings, your nickname should be 'Lightning'.

Move rate is quite a contentious issue - particularly in tournaments. Perception of time is relative. How long is 5 minutes? It depends upon which side of the bathroom door you're on.

artfizz

But I really take a lot longer than it shows because I move on a board, looking at variations, and then come to the site to cast my vote. Sometimes, the computer is on at the site so perhaps some time accumulates that way, and sometimes I do use the analysis board on the computer, but I am so old fashioned I still like using a real board and pieces. I still have difficulty with algebraic notation (e4 vs P-k4, but I'm getting used to it). I stopped playing a long time ago and only restarted recently. If time is counted not based on when we are online but in between real time moves, then I can't account for my time because it seems to me I am spending a fair amount of time on each move. Does anyone know how time is calculated?

artfizz wrote:

Proof

Claim: There is no such thing as an uninteresting player on chess.com

Proof by Contradiction

Assume that you have a non-empty set of players on chess.com that are not interesting. Due to the well-ordered property of the being uninteresting, there must be some least interesting player in the set of uninteresting players. Being the least interesting member of a set one might consider not interesting makes that player interesting. Since the players in this set were defined as not interesting, we have reached a contradiction because this least interesting player cannot be both interesting and uninteresting. Therefore the set of uninteresting players must be empty, proving there is no such thing as an uninteresting player on chess.com.

There are, however, uninteresting posts - such as this one.

You must be a fan of Godel. If you are a member of the set of fans of Godel, a non-empty set...

As long as you don't regularly go beyond the "agreed day per move format", you're ok, I think.

I will attest to Billium's statement...he will make the moves if you catch him on....I have played him and he does take his time but Billium, do not worry and no apologies needed.

That's why we have the time set the way it is...if you want to take the time then take it.

No problems here

and kingchild...it's Holy S _ _ T

if you can't fill in the blanks then messsage me and I'll message you the uncensored word

merkel-wootjot wrote:

If you thought Billium248 was slow, see Ekina. But like Darius said, it doesn't matter.

 Wow!!  5 days 10 hours!!  I don't feel so bad anymore.  We have a new champ!

I have certainly taken longer than that on a number of occasions, but the time spent playing an opponent who is online obviously helps bring my average down.

Also, since I spend so much time figuring out my next move by playing thru various possible lines on the analysis board, I like to program in a bunch of conditional moves before moving on to the next game.  Sometimes I program in a dozen different variations just to help the game progress a little bit faster regardless of what they move.

I can't swear to it, cuz I'm not a staff member here, but I think the "average time per move" is calculated by a clock that starts ticking when your opponent clicks "submit move" and ends when you do likewise.  I'm also guessing that when an opponent triggers a conditional move, that move would count as 0 seconds (or maybe 1 second) which should help lower the average as well.

???

This thread claims to have 67 posts, the last one by me, but I can only see up thru post 65.  I can't see the last post I made, or even this "post your reply" box at the bottom of the last page.  No list of recent forum topics on the right, no game alerts window, nothing - but only on page 4 of this thread, not the other 3.

What's going on?  Is anyone else in the Twilight Zone with me?

I am looking at your last #68- It is OK here?????

Test

It's good to be back.

 darius wrote: You must be a fan of Godel. If you are a member of the set of fans of Godel, a non-empty set...

Indeed, via Hofstadter - whose Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take Hofstadter's Law into account" (cited in his 1979 masterpiece - Goedel, Escher, Bach - an Eternal Golden Braid)

may shed light on why Billium248 (like the famous Tortoise) is one of the slowest moving (though graceful) players on chess.com. Remind me again: who won in the race between the Tortoise and the Hare? (Hofstadter's paradox is best viewed at twilight).

Hofstadter's book is sitting to my left now. I have only read a little bit of it (sooner or later I will get to it), but read his earlier book explaining Godel's brilliant proof (which I understood when I read it and then promptly it slipped out of my mentation as my mind is a null set). Here's a thought--can you make a mathematical representation of chess? Since the moves are within a given field that seems like a matrix, and the patterns are predetermined with some rules, can a formula be created that recreates the game in mathematical terms that have some functional use. If so, we can use our math to beat computers. Not being a good mathematician (I can add and subtract but division, hm...) it's beyond me, but I wonder if someone in the field, especially something that crosses matrices and algebra, could figure something out. All computers do is calculate moves and then use an algorithm to judge a position. Mathematic formulae may be superior. Again, beyond me. 

Theoretically, I think you could model chess mathematically.  But it would be so hideously complicated!  It makes me shudder just thinking about trying.

It's good to be able to post again! 

But let me know... being the slowest player here is something good? I thougth there was only one thing where being slow was good and that's not playing chess lol

*Rolls eyes*  Yeah, I suppose you have a point there, Soyelkapo.  Though I don't think fast or slow is what matters; it's how good a player you are.

Soyelkapo wrote: But let me know... being the slowest player here is something good? I thought there was only one thing where being slow was good and that's not playing chess lol

"Slow and steady wins the race."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tortoise_and_the_Hare

darius wrote: ... All computers do is calculate moves and then use an algorithm to judge a position. Mathematic formulae may be superior. ...

Just so. The functions used currently evaluate a sequence of moves (the number of moves depending upon how far the computer can look ahead) are based on estimating key factors such as: number of squares controlled, mobility, material advantage, control of the centre, avoiding doubled pawns, etc. Each of these factors is given a weighting and the move is chosen which scores best under this system. (c.f. checkers - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_(draughts_player)

The true evaluation function would be one that determines goodness of a move based on, first: does this move lead to a forced checkmate or a draw? (even if that is 40 moves away) and then secondly, does it improve my chances of winning?

Argonaut314 wrote: Theoretically, I think you could model chess mathematically.  But it would be so hideously complicated!  It makes me shudder just thinking about trying.

An algorithmic approach to solving chess seems deceptively easy.

1. Start with the set of all chess positions (including all legal and illegal ones) - your Unsolved Positions set.
   
2. Create a second set of chess positions: the ones where the outcome is known (This is the set of positions covered by Ending Tablebases). This is your Solved Positions set.
   
3. Grow Solved Positions while shrinking Unsolved Positions - as follows.
4. Remove from Unsolved Positions any positions that are in Solved Positions.
   
5. Extend the Solved Positions by considering each element (position) in turn. For each such position, generate all possible new positions reachable from that position in a single move.
   
6. If you are unable to generate any new Solved Positions, STOP. The remaining Unsolved Positions should all be illegal! (i.e. unreachable in normal play).
7. Otherwise Go To Step 5.

Soyelkapo wrote:

But let me know... being the slowest player here is something good? I thougth there was only one thing where being slow was good and that's not playing chess lol

 hmmmm........  while keeping the king erect is most important......movement that is too slow can diminish the excitement and put one to sleep I should think.