5,000 Signs You Don't Know Enough About Chess
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
ClavierCavalier wrote:
LoekBergman wrote:
2896. You will have difficulty mentioning 5000 signs someone does not know enough of chess.
2897. You are surprised to learn that the knight is the animal. You always thought it was the human on the horse.
Where were you raised at? Everyone knows that a knight is an old English word for horse.
The name of the piece is actually referring to the knight that rode on the horse. They just stopped making the knight ride on the horse in the piece designs. And this is information I received from a historian who specialized in the Middle Ages.
ClavierCavalier wrote:
RSzgvYzxpizmp wrote:
FancyKnight wrote:
2890. You are a ginger kid who thinks he's good at chess. You and your two friends must win a giant game of wizard's chess to save the world, and you must each physically play as a piece. Being a great player, you put yourself and both your friends in danger by not choosing any of you to play as the king. Additionally, you play the Scandinavian.
Haha I never realised that. Also worth mentioning is that the final position in the game wasn't checkmate; the king had one move left because the other bishop was blocked off.
As such:
2891. You were in charge of the chess game scene in thye firat Harry Potter movie and didn't realise that the final position you designed wasn't checkmate; therefore all of the characters should have died.
Did they have to play until mate, or could the game decide to resign? It's been ages since I've seen it, so I don't remember the details.
It was never specified if resignation was possible. But either way, Harry claimed checkmate. I checked it when watching the movie at home and there was a pawn in the way of one of the bishops, leaving the king able to move. But the position definitely wasn't checkmate, so Harry is an idiot. I guess that's why he's not in Ravenclaw.
Sep 13, 2013
0
#2685
2892 You think that you are the idiot when your opponent resigns for the wrong reason - but he resigned anyway.
Explanation: in poker you have bluff. It is not custom in chess, but it can happen too. Furthermore are the games known in which the resigning side was actually winning. If Harry Potter claimed checkmate although it wasn't and his opponent believed him, why should Harry Potter be blamed for that?
2893. You think that a player is stupid when he makes one wrong claim about a chess position. Even more, he is stupid and not his opponent, who is losing as a result, because he is believing the false claim of the player.
Unrelated to chess:
You think that the henchmen of Draco Malfoy are more intelligent then Harry Potter, because they are in Ravenclaw.
2894 you think that after consuming alcohol you would at least still be able to solve the most basic tactics
Sep 14, 2013
0
#2687
RSzgvYzxpizmp wrote:
ClavierCavalier wrote:
LoekBergman wrote:
2896. You will have difficulty mentioning 5000 signs someone does not know enough of chess.
2897. You are surprised to learn that the knight is the animal. You always thought it was the human on the horse.
Where were you raised at? Everyone knows that a knight is an old English word for horse.
The name of the piece is actually referring to the knight that rode on the horse. They just stopped making the knight ride on the horse in the piece designs. And this is information I received from a historian who specialized in the Middle Ages.
I don't know what language you Australians speak. To me, it sounds very close to the strange language the English speak. Either way, all properly educated people know that the knight was what the horse rode on.
If these are typical of Australian scholars, and obvious it is, I'm not sure that one can trust their knowledge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA
LoekBergman wrote:
2892 You think that you are the idiot when your opponent resigns for the wrong reason - but he resigned anyway.
Explanation: in poker you have bluff. It is not custom in chess, but it can happen too. Furthermore are the games known in which the resigning side was actually winning. If Harry Potter claimed checkmate although it wasn't and his opponent believed him, why should Harry Potter be blamed for that?
2893. You think that a player is stupid when he makes one wrong claim about a chess position. Even more, he is stupid and not his opponent, who is losing as a result, because he is believing the false claim of the player.
Unrelated to chess:
You think that the henchmen of Draco Malfoy are more intelligent then Harry Potter, because they are in Ravenclaw.
I'm not saying that the resignation made Harry stupid, I'm saying that he's stupid because he thought it was checkmate. It was a lost position for him and he thought he won. That makes him an idiot, or at the very least, not good at chess.
i.e. 2895 You are Harry potter
2896 You believe Harry potter is good at chess and hope to one day be almost as good as him.
2897 you know who harry potter is
2898 you have pics of mr t on your computer
2899 you know obamas propaganda
ClavierCavalier wrote:
RSzgvYzxpizmp wrote:
ClavierCavalier wrote:
LoekBergman wrote:
2896. You will have difficulty mentioning 5000 signs someone does not know enough of chess.
2897. You are surprised to learn that the knight is the animal. You always thought it was the human on the horse.
Where were you raised at? Everyone knows that a knight is an old English word for horse.
The name of the piece is actually referring to the knight that rode on the horse. They just stopped making the knight ride on the horse in the piece designs. And this is information I received from a historian who specialized in the Middle Ages.
I don't know what language you Australians speak. To me, it sounds very close to the strange language the English speak. Either way, all properly educated people know that the knight was what the horse rode on.
If these are typical of Australian scholars, and obvious it is, I'm not sure that one can trust their knowledge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA
I apologize kind sir/madam. Your wisdom is bountiful and I shouldn't question your knowledge. What would any Australian scholars know? Pshh. Idiots. XD
Sep 15, 2013
0
#2693
Well, sir with the unpronouncable name. I agree with you that telling a checkmate when it is not is indeed a sign that one is not good at chess. However, to believe that it is a checkmate when it is not, is in my opinion even a bigger sign that one is not good at chess. That was my motivation.
If bluff is the last resort to win a game and thereby saving the life of your friends, what would you do?
I am amazed however that the whole crew of that film did not notice that it was not checkmate and actually a lost position for Harry Potter.
LoekBergman wrote:
Well, sir with the unpronouncable name. I agree with you that telling a checkmate when it is not is indeed a sign that one is not good at chess. However, to believe that it is a checkmate when it is not, is in my opinion even a bigger sign that one is not good at chess. That was my motivation.
If bluff is the last resort to win a game and thereby saving the life of your friends, what would you do?
I am amazed however that the whole crew of that film did not notice that it was not checkmate and actually a lost position for Harry Potter.
My point is that it wasn't a bluff. Harry actually thought it was checkmate. You see this is why he's not in Ravenclaw.
I think the position was going to be a checkmate position but someone decided to put some more pawns on the board, one of which stopped a bishop from taking away one of the king's squares.
'Most unpronounceable name' - lol it's a code for something that used to be relevant to my chess playing ability, namely the fact that I fell to the back-rank checkmate from a rook in way too many won positions.
Sep 16, 2013
0
#2695
RSzgvYzxpizmp wrote:
ClavierCavalier wrote:
RSzgvYzxpizmp wrote:
ClavierCavalier wrote:
LoekBergman wrote:
2896. You will have difficulty mentioning 5000 signs someone does not know enough of chess.
2897. You are surprised to learn that the knight is the animal. You always thought it was the human on the horse.
Where were you raised at? Everyone knows that a knight is an old English word for horse.
The name of the piece is actually referring to the knight that rode on the horse. They just stopped making the knight ride on the horse in the piece designs. And this is information I received from a historian who specialized in the Middle Ages.
I don't know what language you Australians speak. To me, it sounds very close to the strange language the English speak. Either way, all properly educated people know that the knight was what the horse rode on.
If these are typical of Australian scholars, and obvious it is, I'm not sure that one can trust their knowledge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA
I apologize kind sir/madam. Your wisdom is bountiful and I shouldn't question your knowledge. What would any Australian scholars know? Pshh. Idiots. XD
This got me thinking. I really wish I could hear what my accent sounds like. Actually, I wish I knew what English sounds like. There was some video I saw that was supposed to sound like English to those who don't speak it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt4Dfa4fOEY
I'll never know for sure, though.
TetsuoShima wrote:
2897 you know who harry potter is
That is Yoda, sir. I've gotten many lols from Obama memes, and I used to watch the A-Team when I was a kid. I always got a kick out of Mr T interacting with Murdock. You are right I don't know enough about chess. That's why I'm not a GM!!
Sep 28, 2013
0
#2698
@Akatsuki64: that is rule 2898 indeed.
2899: you always forget if chess is played on 64 fields or 100.
2900: you are not convinced that chess is a draw.
Let it be good or not, but a lot of GMs think that chess is a draw when played without errors. That does not mean that chess is a draw, but that there is a correlation between being good at chess and the conviction that chess is a draw.
Sep 29, 2013
0
#2699
LoekBergman wrote:
@Akatsuki64: that is rule 2898 indeed.
2899: you always forget if chess is played on 64 fields or 100.
2900: you are not convinced that chess is a draw.
Let it be good or not, but a lot of GMs think that chess is a draw when played without errors. That does not mean that chess is a draw, but that there is a correlation between being good at chess and the conviction that chess is a draw.
Are the squares called Fields in your native language? Are fields and squares the same in your language?
Sep 29, 2013
0
#2700
ClavierCavalier wrote:
LoekBergman wrote:
@Akatsuki64: that is rule 2898 indeed.
2899: you always forget if chess is played on 64 fields or 100.
2900: you are not convinced that chess is a draw.
Let it be good or not, but a lot of GMs think that chess is a draw when played without errors. That does not mean that chess is a draw, but that there is a correlation between being good at chess and the conviction that chess is a draw.
Are the squares called Fields in your native language? Are fields and squares the same in your language?
Yep, that is a direct translation. No, we don't use the word square for a field.
In Dutch are both words 'veld' and 'vierkant' for field and square respectively. The Dutch word for square requires much more effort to pronunciate than the word for field. The word 'field' is also used with other board games, hence more natural to use.
2901: when you hear the word square your first association of the meaning of that word is another one than 'one of the 64 elements of a chess board'.
nice ones