Finally, since I haven't tried using the opening explorer, can someone tell me the specific rules on the use of it, or provide a link? I cannot find a link on the subject at the moment.
https://support.chess.com/customer/portal/articles/1444857-how-do-i-use-the-game-explorer-
I always knew that we Jews excel in many fields. And you Peter are yet another proof. You are a living proof that we can even excel in the field of human stupidity. You are stupid Peter, this is a personal attack and a well deserves one.
Claiming again and again that there is some kind of general tradition or principle of game playing is stupid.
Not understanding that correspondence chess over the internet in its current form is a chess variant with its own set of rules is stupid.
Playing chess for years and not understanding what rating measures is stupid.
Assigning rating to moves is stupid.
Communist-like claims that stronger players are obliged to share their knowledge is stupid.
And finally – appealing to God and Government when talking about board game played for pleasure and entertainment is way beyond stupidity.
let me clarify...in this debate, I'm not judging argument based on rating, though if a master or above chimes in, I'd take note. in other issues, like when asking about chess, I'd respect rating. But no haven't been refuted. example is cc allows ref material because otherwise you wouldn't be able to read chess books ever. I gave counterarguments. Those weren't refuted.
Peter you claimed that CC rating can be misleading - but that's normal. Rating measures past performance. It only appoximates chess strength. In OTB this approximation is quite close, in CC - not.
As for history of CC and why it allows ref materials - it doesn't matter so much. When databases appeared and CC was taken to internet the use of databases was made legal. Call it a "variant of a variant" if you want. But it has gained huge popularity. That's all that matters. Calling is "corrupt" is meaningless. I have no clue what's the meaning of "corrupt board game". It's an abuse of English.
Another counterargument not refuted, uri, is your list of four things you use GE for that I said could be done in post game analysis without introducing this accessing of assistance during the game.
I don't know, the Soviet Union's government from where you emigrated thought chess mattered enough to care about it. Perhaps regulate it. Governments now fund chess in schools and after school chess clubs for a reason. What government funds, it has a reason to care about and regulate.
PeterB1517 wrote:
" I gave counterarguments. Those weren't refuted."
The only counterarguments you gave were that you and g_d don't like it. Not much of an argument.
Another counterargument not refuted, uri, is your list of four things you use GE for that I said could be done in post game analysis without introducing this accessing of assistance during the game.
Yes that could be done. Many things could be done. That doesn't mean it should be done. So it's not a counterargument at all Peter.
I don't know, the Soviet Union's government from where you emigrated thought chess mattered enough to care about it. Perhaps regulate it. Governments now fund chess in schools and after school chess clubs for a reason. What government funds, it has a reason to care about and regulate.
Government doesn't fund CC over internet and I hope it never will. Anyway as for now we are free to choose the rules we like.
PeterB1517 wrote:
" I gave counterarguments. Those weren't refuted."
The only counterarguments you gave were that you and g_d don't like it. Not much of an argument.
PeterB1517 wrote:
" I gave counterarguments. Those weren't refuted."
The only counterarguments you gave were that you and g_d don't like it. Not much of an argument.
PeterB1517 wrote:
" I gave counterarguments. Those weren't refuted."
The only counterarguments you gave were that you and g_d don't like it. Not much of an argument.
To y'all, there is no logic behind rules, there are just rules. But if you cut away the BS, ask yourself, what is the reason why engines are not allowed during any games on chess.com? It's the same reason that the GE should not be allowed.
"Merriam-Webster": game - a physical or mental activity or contest that has rules and that people do for pleasure.
"Pleasure" is a key word. Majority of players don't think it's pleasure to play against engines. Those who think differently play advanced chess. At same time majority of players think it's pleasure to play CC over internet with databases allowed. Those who think differently are free to create their own group, server, website, federation, whatever...
Uri, over and over, you make assertions about the number of people believing something. The number of people believing what I'm saying, the number of people agreeing with your position. You do not know this information, and there is no way you can know this information, so I'm not going to buy your statements in this regard. You can say that all the people who have made statements supporting the GE on this thread and similar threads support your position, or other people you have discussed it with. But there is no way we can assess the opinion of the majority of chess players, or the majority of chess players on chess.com if they are aware of these issues as someone like NomadicKnight wasn't totally.
In any case, not always should the rules be decided based on popular opinion. It may be a factor, but there may be other factors at play that make a group decide on what the rules should be.
What amazes me is that so many people haven't figured out that arguing with this psycho is pointless, he is just going to keep saying the same stupid things over and over. The only thing worth doing is insulting the creep, and that pretty much lost its value ten pages ago.
So somebody tell me, why are you still wrestling with the pig?
You reveal yourself.
Uri, over and over, you make assertions about the number of people believing something. The number of people believing what I'm saying, the number of people agreeing with your position. You do not know this information, and there is no way you can know this information, so I'm not going to buy your statements in this regard. You can say that all the people who have made statements supporting the GE on this thread and similar threads support your position, or other people you have discussed it with. But there is no way we can assess the opinion of the majority of chess players, or the majority of chess players on chess.com if they are aware of these issues as someone like NomadicKnight wasn't totally.
In any case, not always should the rules be decided based on popular opinion. It may be a factor, but there may be other factors at play that make a group decide on what the rules should be.
I am just judging by huge success of CC over internet and rules are practically same everywhere. But as I said you are free to create a competing server, website, federation with your own rules and convince people to switch. But it looks like you prefer to forbid, regulate and destruct.
I am one of the most transparent people you will ever meet. It says something that it took you forty pages of nonsense to figure that out.
No, I don't think you are so transparent. You are one of the main agents who try to tamper this conversation down when anyone brings it up. I haven't really read the other threads, just saw your name, and see some of your tactics. Perhaps you are a true believer in the GE. I believe that you see it as your role to prevent this discussion from being big enough from this rule being threatened. As I said before: you're old; you're retired; you don't have enough to do; you're disgusted at yourself that you never progressed enough in chess, that you didn't have what it took; you talk like you're a postal chess expert but hadn't played a game in 10 years (I looked at your profile weeks ago); perhaps you're disgusted at other aspects of yourself; wouldn't be surprised if you are divorced, bad relations with your kids, but who knows, maybe your life is blessed and that's why you're so charming on here.
In any case, you are frustrated beyond belief, that no matter what you do, you can't get this conversation to stop. But you know what, when this thread stops, in a few weeks or months, someone else will bring it up because some people realize it's not right and have the bravery to say so.
let me clarify...in this debate, I'm not judging argument based on rating, though if a master or above chimes in, I'd take note.
Would you really? You have NOT demonstrated that. Jesus, A former US Correspondence Champion with a peak rating above 2500 chimed in and you insulted him and failed to take note of a single thing he said.
Peter, You appear to read every third word of a post and then fail to get the point. What are we to conclude? You seem to recognize when you are being insulted but not much else.
In any case, not always should the rules be decided based on popular opinion. It may be a factor, but there may be other factors at play that make a group decide on what the rules should be.
Rules are decided by a hosting website (in this case chess.com). They are free to propose any number of chess variants. Just if they fail to attract people it's not so good for business. The fact that there is no single site proposing your variant of CC is speaking for itself - they don't see any potential to attract people. But you are free to prove them wrong.
To y'all, there is no logic behind rules, there are just rules. But if you cut away the BS, ask yourself, what is the reason why engines are not allowed during any games on chess.com? It's the same reason that the GE should not be allowed.
The logic to me, and apperantly to everyone else is pretty clear. You have not demonstrated a basic grasp of logical thinking. If you had the ability to think logically, you would find that nearly every rule in every game that gives equal chances to both sides are quite logical.
Just becasue you don't get it, does not mean there isn't logic.
What amazes me is that you are so devoid of logic yet can still play chess.
Ask yourselves the following questions: Does chess.com want you to learn? (Yes). Is using the openings explorer allowed in correspondence chess? (Yes). Is it meant to provide you with a resource to help you learn? (Yes). Are you allowed to use it throughout the entire game? (No).
...
At the same time, I see one other view from the other side of this argument: If you sat down with someone at a coffee shop to play a game of chess, how would you feel if, after the first few moves, your opponent whips out a gigantic book to pinpoint what kind of opening you have in mind? I would be against that.
...
The answers to your questions are 1. who cares? ,2. yes, 3. yes, 4. yes.
Actually, in a coffee shop I wouldn't care. If I were playing a tournament I would cite the appropriate article in the laws of chess to the TD.
More to the point, if you were playing in a coffee shop, assuming you were in the same coffee shop, you would not be playing correspondence chess. The rules for correspondence chess, much like chess itself are well established. Its worth knowing what those are.