Is it really a defence when the bot just dithers around shuffling pieces on and off the back row? Hardly surprising that black crumbles if they don't even feign putting up resistance.
Post your best miniatures here
Sort:
Another game with Rg1.
Apr 5, 2025
0
#16844
This opening plays like the Breyer slav in all the lines... or just a better Colle. It should be played much more.
Apr 5, 2025
0
#16846
@AngusByer
As lukeluke00 points out in post 16817, there isn't really a set definition of miniature, and what gets called a"miniature" can depend upon where you look.
Actually no. It’s like trying to define a kilometer being greater than 1000 meters because someone might claim it is, depending how it looks to him.
“Within the context of this thread, the general consensus (though not universal), is that a game of under, but not including 30 moves (so 29 moves or less) is in the spirit of the thread.”
How would you know? Did you ask everyone in this forum? And even if that is the case, that does not change the definition of a miniature. You still are making an error.
“Personally, I think if the game ends in mate on the board in 29 or fewer moves then it's a miniature (for this thread), but for a win by resignation (without a forced mate under 30), that probably should be under 25. But that's just me.”
Where are you getting your conclusion from? Can you justify it? I am basing my definition by the Informant series of periodicals, chess.com (where this forum is located in), Chess Life, BCM, GM Soltis, CCGM Tim Harding, Bill Wall’s terrific series of miniature books (500 King’s Gambit Miniatures, etc. GM Yasser GM Yasser Seirawan, IM Minev, P.H. Clarke (100 Soviet Miniatures), and a number of other writers, magazine editors, and more. I could go on, but my fingers get tired after typing so much 😉
(And I have so much to type! ;)
The definition of a miniature has already been solved. Not by me, nor by you, nor by anyone in this forum. Why go through all this hard work trying to reinvent the wheel?
@crazedrat1000
“Because what people do in a thread, and what the title of the thread says, do not always remain in alignment, especially after 840+ pages... because we are not librarians.”
That is what is known as non sequitur. The fact that you are not a librarian or that this thread is over 840 pages do not affect the definition of a miniature. Not does it explain your lack of even trying to follow the basics of contributing to a forum.
"A woman who is unconscious of her masculine side, but identifies with her animus, soon loses contact with her feminine nature and behaves as an inferior man. She becomes opinionated, rigid, and aggressively bitter, becoming more interested in power than in relatedness. Jung said that a woman overtaken by her animus is obstinate, lays down the law, harps on principles, is a word-mongerer, and is argumentative and domineering."
Too bad Jung is not the final word of the world of psychology. His greatest contribution to psychology was the proposal of synchronicity, but his proposal is now mainly discarded. He, like Freud, lived in a world where misogyny was common, accepted, and it sometimes made it into their writings. You should really study psychology if you are going to reference psychologists in an ad hominem argument.
@lulu,
“...there are plenty of GMs and official commentators that use the miniature term for games with the length I mentioned ...”
If it is not too hard for you, please just give us some GM names so can look them up on the Internet. I did. Why can’t you? Supply us a link. Sounds fair to me.
I am not asking for official commentators, because I don’t know what an official commentators is. How does one become an official commentator?
“If far more stronger and experienced players use the term loosely, who are we, low levels, to contradict them? Unless of course you're some color font guy here that believe he's the "master" at gatekeeping nonsense.”
But the stronger players actually do use the limit of 25 moves. Unless you want to proposed that GMs are not that strong (see above).
And I like colors. That’s the reason I type in color. About gatekeeping. I am using the definition that has already been established by GMs and IMs, chess writers, publishers, and editors. Call them “masters at gatekeeping nonsense” if you want. I only repeat what they tell me via their writings, interviews, DVDs, and videos.
Apr 5, 2025
0
#16847
Analysis gave this one a 2500 rating.
@Barefoot_Player for the 3rd time, I am not disputing what the definition of a miniature is - I simply do not care what it is.
You're trying very hard to construe me as disputing the definition of a miniature, since it seems to give you a point, but it's a failed attempt - I simply am not arguing that.
I studied psychology at university for 3 years, until I got wise and switched to a STEM field. In terms of scientific standards and rigor psychology is not in the same league as other sciences.. the field is in a peer review crisis... most of the biggest medical scandals of the last 100 years have occurred in psychology. The psychology institutions of the West are widely mocked... the average psychology students IQ is about 20 points lower than students in the other STEM fields... It's essentially a pseudoscience full of poorly educated mental cases, who have a need to pose as scientists to bolster their credibility. There are exceptions but they're rare, and they're generally ignored by their peers.
Psychology should quit trying to be a science and embrace its roots in philosophy. Those roots are inescapable. Jung was as much of a philosopher as a psychologist - in admitting as much he remains on firmer ground than the modern quacks practicing today. He certainly has you nailed, in any case.
Carry onward!
Apr 6, 2025
0
#16848
@Barefoot_Player
“for the 3rd time, I am not disputing what the definition of a miniature is - I simply do not care what it is. You're trying very hard to construe me as disputing the definition of a miniature, since it seems to give you a point, but it's a failed attempt - I simply am not arguing that.”
“I studied psychology at university for 3 years, until I got wise and switched to a STEM field. In terms of scientific standards and rigor psychology is not in the same league as other sciences.. the field is in a peer review crisis... most of the biggest medical scandals of the last 100 years have occurred in psychology (you are wrong here. but let us go on). The psychology institutions of the West are widely mocked...”
“It's essentially a pseudoscience full of relatively low-IQ and poorly educated mental cases, who have a need to pose as scientists to bolster their credibility. There are exceptions but they're rare, and they're generally ignored by their peers - Jung was as much of a philosopher as a psychologist (so what?) in admitting as much he remains on firmer ground than the modern quacks practicing today (how so?).”
So you downplayed psychology with a strong passion, then quote from a psychologist that few people follow anymore (or at least get wrong). Interesting, perhaps even revealing, and certainly confusing . But even more confusing is that you believe what he says. Or do not you believe him?
What would you say if I was to say you are immature and classical case of male narcissism (“I simply do not care what it is”)? After all, you don’t care to follow the basic guidelines of posting in a forum and liberally publish sexist remarks that has nothing to do with the definition of a chess miniature.
But I have to ask you this question. Why are you on this forum? Is it show off your masculine tendency of not following rules and regulations b/c you believe you are superior in some way?
This is probably the most brilliants I ever got in an online game. I annotated it and feel free to check it out!
Apr 6, 2025
0
#16850
Barefoot_Player wrote:
@Barefoot_Player
“for the 3rd time, I am not disputing what the definition of a miniature is - I simply do not care what it is. You're trying very hard to construe me as disputing the definition of a miniature, since it seems to give you a point, but it's a failed attempt - I simply am not arguing that.”
“I studied psychology at university for 3 years, until I got wise and switched to a STEM field. In terms of scientific standards and rigor psychology is not in the same league as other sciences.. the field is in a peer review crisis... most of the biggest medical scandals of the last 100 years have occurred in psychology (you are wrong here. but let us go on). The psychology institutions of the West are widely mocked...”
“It's essentially a pseudoscience full of relatively low-IQ and poorly educated mental cases, who have a need to pose as scientists to bolster their credibility. There are exceptions but they're rare, and they're generally ignored by their peers - Jung was as much of a philosopher as a psychologist (so what?) in admitting as much he remains on firmer ground than the modern quacks practicing today (how so?).”
So you downplayed psychology with a strong passion, then quote from a psychologist that few people follow anymore (or at least get wrong). Interesting, perhaps even revealing, and certainly confusing . But even more confusing is that you believe what he says. Or do not you believe him?
What would you say if I was to say you are immature and classical case of male narcissism (“I simply do not care what it is”)? After all, you don’t care to follow the basic guidelines of posting in a forum and liberally publish sexist remarks that has nothing to do with the definition of a chess miniature.
But I have to ask you this question. Why are you on this forum? Is it show off your masculine tendency of not following rules and regulations b/c you believe you are superior in some way?
There is no rule against posting games longer than 25 moves in this thread. Try showing me where in the forum rules such a rule exists, you can't. You've come up with that rule and tried to establish it, but you simply have no authority to, and so you are ignored. You are ignored not only by me, but by countless others in the thread, as you've admitted.
It is predictable / amusing that you believe people refusing to obey you are behaving as "male narcissists" - but this is illustrative of the kind of credibility crisis psychology is in, and why many people including myself do not take it very seriously. When psychologists brand things with medical terminology while really they're just asserting their personal values, they are not really doing science. Just pretending.
And psychology is also just, by nature, philosophical - since the mind is intangible.
Keep trying
Don't feed the troll, my rat friend. Actually I'm not even sure if he's trolling or with serious mental issues. I mean who could get so worked up and everytime this subject comes up, write walls and walls of text about such a trivial matter? It's kinda sad really.
Apr 6, 2025
0
#16852
I had not considered the additional element of gender which you've just introduced, but it would explain what I regarded as the female Animus on steroids earlier. I don't know if this explanation is accurate or not, but the possibility exists. Could actually be mental issues, now that you mention it, you make a fair point here. I suppose it is sad, though also can be very annoying for others to have to deal with. But I do believe in the power of reason to prevail over even mental disorders, and possibly be curative of them. But maybe that is me being naive.
Apr 6, 2025
0
#16853
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Analysis gave this one a 2500 rating.
@Barefoot_Player for the 3rd time, I am not disputing what the definition of a miniature is - I simply do not care what it is.
You're trying very hard to construe me as disputing the definition of a miniature, since it seems to give you a point, but it's a failed attempt - I simply am not arguing that.
I studied psychology at university for 3 years, until I got wise and switched to a STEM field. In terms of scientific standards and rigor psychology is not in the same league as other sciences.. the field is in a peer review crisis... most of the biggest medical scandals of the last 100 years have occurred in psychology. The psychology institutions of the West are widely mocked... the average psychology students IQ is about 20 points lower than students in the other STEM fields... It's essentially a pseudoscience full of poorly educated mental cases, who have a need to pose as scientists to bolster their credibility. There are exceptions but they're rare, and they're generally ignored by their peers.
Psychology should quit trying to be a science and embrace its roots in philosophy. Those roots are inescapable. Jung was as much of a philosopher as a psychologist - in admitting as much he remains on firmer ground than the modern quacks practicing today. He certainly has you nailed, in any case.
Carry onward!
Is any of this relevant?
Will you estimate my IQ if I tell you my college degree was in history?
How will it change if you learn that I studied history, literature, and anthropology in graduate school, earning a PhD?
Will the estimate increase when you learn that the end of my 30 years of college teaching was as an instructor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and that my course was crosslisted as Honors?
Apr 6, 2025
0
#16854
Historically, as @Barefoot_Player documents well, a miniature is a game ending by move 25 or a game ending by move 20.
Streamers cannot even correctly distinguish the Fried Liver Attack from the ways players avoid it. They have spoken so loosely that every early move of the king is called the Bong Cloud. What happened to the Hammerschlag?
We live in an era when definitions no longer matter. You can say anything. If you attract an audience, your words are judged to be true. That’s tragic and caused some deaths in Texas this weekend.
Apr 6, 2025
0
#16855
Ziryab wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Analysis gave this one a 2500 rating.
@Barefoot_Player for the 3rd time, I am not disputing what the definition of a miniature is - I simply do not care what it is.
You're trying very hard to construe me as disputing the definition of a miniature, since it seems to give you a point, but it's a failed attempt - I simply am not arguing that.
I studied psychology at university for 3 years, until I got wise and switched to a STEM field. In terms of scientific standards and rigor psychology is not in the same league as other sciences.. the field is in a peer review crisis... most of the biggest medical scandals of the last 100 years have occurred in psychology. The psychology institutions of the West are widely mocked... the average psychology students IQ is about 20 points lower than students in the other STEM fields... It's essentially a pseudoscience full of poorly educated mental cases, who have a need to pose as scientists to bolster their credibility. There are exceptions but they're rare, and they're generally ignored by their peers.
Psychology should quit trying to be a science and embrace its roots in philosophy. Those roots are inescapable. Jung was as much of a philosopher as a psychologist - in admitting as much he remains on firmer ground than the modern quacks practicing today. He certainly has you nailed, in any case.
Carry onward!
Is any of this relevant?
Will you estimate my IQ if I tell you my college degree was in history?
How will it change if you learn that I studied history, literature, and anthropology in graduate school, earning a PhD?
Will the estimate increase when you learn that the end of my 30 years of college teaching was as an instructor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and that my course was crosslisted as Honors?
Well when we have millions of practitioners passing off personal anecdotes as science... when the field of psychology is in a peer review crisis and has no real philosophical justification for calling itself a science... and when those practitioners aren't even cognitively equipped to recognize or correct the problem - yes, it matters - since it means we get widespread medical malpractice / medical scandals, and a large part of the naive public takes psychology seriously because it presents itself as a science. Furthermore, the youth have been most scandalized by this. So yes, it matters.
Considering how lackluster higher education is, and especially in a domain where the science is very muddy... to practice psychology well requires an independently strong intellect. If it were a hard science it'd actually require less intelligence to practice properly. On a mass scale this is not happening.
I was at the very top of my class in psychology, and I did not do homework or study at all... I was playing starcraft 2 for 12 hours a day back then, and only a few hours before the test would I do the most minimal review. I didn't even take notes. I got all As... often I scored the highest in the class. The class were probably just as lazy, but many of them were simply dense. But that is how dumbed down the psychology curriculum is. For the most part, the material is stuff you can just answer based on common sense / listening to the lecture and hearing it once. The contrast between psychology and a real STEM field is impossible to overstate. These people are not scientists, and never will be.
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Analysis gave this one a 2500 rating.
@Barefoot_Player for the 3rd time, I am not disputing what the definition of a miniature is - I simply do not care what it is.
You're trying very hard to construe me as disputing the definition of a miniature, since it seems to give you a point, but it's a failed attempt - I simply am not arguing that.
I studied psychology at university for 3 years, until I got wise and switched to a STEM field. In terms of scientific standards and rigor psychology is not in the same league as other sciences.. the field is in a peer review crisis... most of the biggest medical scandals of the last 100 years have occurred in psychology. The psychology institutions of the West are widely mocked... the average psychology students IQ is about 20 points lower than students in the other STEM fields... It's essentially a pseudoscience full of poorly educated mental cases, who have a need to pose as scientists to bolster their credibility. There are exceptions but they're rare, and they're generally ignored by their peers.
Psychology should quit trying to be a science and embrace its roots in philosophy. Those roots are inescapable. Jung was as much of a philosopher as a psychologist - in admitting as much he remains on firmer ground than the modern quacks practicing today. He certainly has you nailed, in any case.
Carry onward!
Is any of this relevant?
Will you estimate my IQ if I tell you my college degree was in history?
How will it change if you learn that I studied history, literature, and anthropology in graduate school, earning a PhD?
Will the estimate increase when you learn that the end of my 30 years of college teaching was as an instructor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and that my course was crosslisted as Honors?
Well when we have millions of practitioners passing off personal anecdotes as science... when the field of psychology is in a peer review crisis and has no real philosophical justification for calling itself a science... and when those practitioners aren't even cognitively equipped to recognize or correct the problem - yes, it matters - since it means we get widespread medical malpractice / medical scandals, and a large part of the naive public takes psychology seriously because it presents itself as a science. Furthermore, the youth have been most scandalized by this. So yes, it matters.
Considering how lackluster higher education is, and especially in a domain where the science is very muddy... to practice psychology well requires an independently strong intellect. If it were a hard science it'd actually require less intelligence to practice properly. On a mass scale this is not happening.
I was at the very top of my class in psychology, and I did not do homework or study at all... I was playing starcraft 2 for 12 hours a day back then, and only a few hours before the test would I do the most minimal review. I didn't even take notes. I got all As... often I scored the highest in the class. The class were probably just as lazy, but many of them were simply dense. But that is how dumbed down the psychology curriculum is. For the most part, the material is stuff you can just answer based on common sense / listening to the lecture and hearing it once. The contrast between psychology and a real STEM field is impossible to overstate. These people are not scientists, and never will be.
I'd ask questions about the American educational system. The fact that some Harvard students think the Moon is bigger than the Sun says a lot. But it's not only America. Education systems everywhere, including my country, keep getting dumbed down to create sheep, not free thinkers. The motto seems to be: Study more and learn less! Your hatred of psychology exists because of that, not because psychology is useless. You'd probably be thinking the same about anything else if you studied it instead.
Apr 6, 2025
0
#16857
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Ziryab wrote:
crazedrat1000 wrote:
Analysis gave this one a 2500 rating.
@Barefoot_Player for the 3rd time, I am not disputing what the definition of a miniature is - I simply do not care what it is.
You're trying very hard to construe me as disputing the definition of a miniature, since it seems to give you a point, but it's a failed attempt - I simply am not arguing that.
I studied psychology at university for 3 years, until I got wise and switched to a STEM field. In terms of scientific standards and rigor psychology is not in the same league as other sciences.. the field is in a peer review crisis... most of the biggest medical scandals of the last 100 years have occurred in psychology. The psychology institutions of the West are widely mocked... the average psychology students IQ is about 20 points lower than students in the other STEM fields... It's essentially a pseudoscience full of poorly educated mental cases, who have a need to pose as scientists to bolster their credibility. There are exceptions but they're rare, and they're generally ignored by their peers.
Psychology should quit trying to be a science and embrace its roots in philosophy. Those roots are inescapable. Jung was as much of a philosopher as a psychologist - in admitting as much he remains on firmer ground than the modern quacks practicing today. He certainly has you nailed, in any case.
Carry onward!
Is any of this relevant?
Will you estimate my IQ if I tell you my college degree was in history?
How will it change if you learn that I studied history, literature, and anthropology in graduate school, earning a PhD?
Will the estimate increase when you learn that the end of my 30 years of college teaching was as an instructor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and that my course was crosslisted as Honors?
Well when we have millions of practitioners passing off personal anecdotes as science... when the field of psychology is in a peer review crisis and has no real philosophical justification for calling itself a science... and when those practitioners aren't even cognitively equipped to recognize or correct the problem - yes, it matters - since it means we get widespread medical malpractice / medical scandals, and a large part of the naive public takes psychology seriously because it presents itself as a science. Furthermore, the youth have been most scandalized by this. So yes, it matters.
Considering how lackluster higher education is, and especially in a domain where the science is very muddy... to practice psychology well requires an independently strong intellect. If it were a hard science it'd actually require less intelligence to practice properly. On a mass scale this is not happening.
I was at the very top of my class in psychology, and I did not do homework or study at all... I was playing starcraft 2 for 12 hours a day back then, and only a few hours before the test would I do the most minimal review. I didn't even take notes. I got all As... often I scored the highest in the class. The class were probably just as lazy, but many of them were simply dense. But that is how dumbed down the psychology curriculum is. For the most part, the material is stuff you can just answer based on common sense / listening to the lecture and hearing it once. The contrast between psychology and a real STEM field is impossible to overstate. These people are not scientists, and never will be.
So, no.
BTW, psychology is scientific in its methodology. Of course, what you learn in 101 is quite basic and does not get into the heart of the matter.
It is ironic that you judge as low IQ practitioners of the discipline that invented IQ.
Apr 6, 2025
0
#16858
IQ is known for being the most statistically validated construct psychometricians have produced. It's more of a statistical construct than a psychological one, due to the way it's produced... It has an underlying philosophical basis with forms of intelligence, but it's justified using correlations.
"psychology is scientific in its methodology"
It's not, if it was it wouldn't have a reproducibility crisis. It just pretends to be, but you can insist otherwise - your opinion is irrelevant, the numerous medical scandals over the last couple decades are evidence of what I'm saying. And I can name a number of prominent psychology professors who've said the same thing publicly.
On another note, I don't especially want to derail this thread since it's more interesting seeing peoples games than arguing with you matters which you don't understand.
Apr 6, 2025
0
#16859
@ crazedrat1000
“There is no rule against posting games longer than 25 moves in this thread. Try showing me where in the forum rules such a rule exists, (it’s in the title!) you can't. You've come up with that rule and tried to establish it, but you simply have no authority to, and so you are ignored. You are ignored not only by me, but by countless others in the thread, as you've admitted.”
How am I being ignored when you keep talking to me? Countless others? I think both of us can count up to 10. But I suspect that number of people is way less than that. And where did I admit that countless people ignore me? I think you are putting a personal spin on statements of people who disagree with you. I simply remined you that a quantity of people agreeing on something being true does not make a conclusion or statement true or accepted by others more knowable about a subject. This is one of the things that STEM incorporates in its philosophy.
“It is predictable / amusing that you believe people refusing to obey you are behaving as "male narcissists" - but this is illustrative of the kind of credibility crisis psychology is in, and why many people including myself do not take it very seriously. When psychologists brand things with medical terminology while really they're just asserting their personal values, they are not really doing science. Just pretending.And psychology is also just, by nature, philosophical - since the mind is intangible (I do not think so. It seems that the mind is a product of the brain and it does respond to electrical stimuli, and because we have not figured out every about it yet, does not mean it is intangible.)
Seriously. I never asked anyone to obey me. I’m just one person who is using a well-used, and well accepted definition of a chess miniature. I’ve provided evidence of this definition by citing the works of writers of NMs, FMs, IMs, and GMs as well publications of national and international organizations.
You have not. Nor has lukeluke. Nor has anyone else who has perpetuated as different definition of a miniature.
It is a recognizable fact, at least by most people with a workable knowledge of STEM, is that the side which provides the most evidence, in quality and quantity, is the side that is most likely to be correct.
When I asked lukeluke about his evidence to back up his claim, he has either has no evidence and is lying or he refuses. But if he refuses, one has to ask why.
Based on his response, which is calling me a troll and suggesting I have a serious mental issue, he simply does not have the evidence. When one resorts to insults and attacking the other side, it means he cannot think of a more appropriate response.
But again, you who are working with STEM, should know this already.
“When psychologists brand things with medical terminology while really they're just asserting their personal values, they are not really doing science. Just pretending.”
Sounds like some people in this forum.
Lukeluke, are you now ready to send us the wonderful GM names and links for us?
Apr 6, 2025
0
#16860
^ Once again, what I've disputed is not the definition of a miniature, but whether I should care what that definition is. I've told you 3 times already that I'm not disputing the definition of a miniature. Since you've once again portrayed this as the essential argument... I have no reason to bother with that wall of text, it's pedantic, confused babble.
You are deeply confused in many respects, it seems.
rocknmetalforever45 wrote:
I'd ask questions about the American educational system. The fact that some Harvard students think the Moon is bigger than the Sun says a lot. But it's not only America. Education systems everywhere, including my country, keep getting dumbed down to create sheep, not free thinkers. The motto seems to be: Study more and learn less! Your hatred of psychology exists because of that, not because psychology is useless. You'd probably be thinking the same about anything else if you studied it instead.
No, I studied computer science later on for 4 years. Today I work as a software engineer. The difference between the curriculum was like night and day. The STEM curriculum needs improvement, but its still a serious course of study, it's not a total joke like psychology.
Psychology doesn't have to be useless in principle, but in practice it is. There are great psychologists, they're rare but they're philosophers as much as they are psychologists. To even produce a framework for simple concepts such as "mental disorder" requires a vast philosophical foundation. It's alot of philosophy with a little topping of weak empiricism on top, which alot of the time practitioners ignore or interpret however they see fit. And philosophy is opinion, ultimately.
Reproducibility is the ultimate test of scientific validity, lack of reproducibility is very discrediting. Back in 2015 there was a study which attempted replicate 100 studies from major psychology journals. So these are the gold standard journals in the field, if we can't replicate these... we're in trouble. Well, it found that a large portion of the original findings could not be replicated.
There are many reasons for the problems in psychology, some of which I named - poor education system, the minds intangible nature, etc. In addition, researchers often have personal motives which undermine the conclusions. Part of this is due to psychology just requiring some philosophical basis, which leads to people injecting their own values / beliefs, or at the very least motivated by them. Psychology researchers also often rarely have a good grasp of statistics - the types of people who enter the field are not proficient in math, by temperament and by capacity. The other thing is psychological phenomenon are often very context-dependent. They're dependent on a very large number of factors which are hard to control for and distill.
A crazy game with 2 brilliancies and 4 great moves. (This game was played in Arena GUI)