A bunch of chess players were bragging about their games in the front of a hotel. They got so loud the receptionist had to quiet them down. After she got them quiet, she mumbled, "I can't stand chess nuts boasting in an open foyer."
Chess Jokes anyone?
Sort:
lol i found that in a blog called "share an image relating to your online play"
Here's a quote from Boris Spassky:
Which do I prefer, sex or chess? That depends on the position.
It's 9/12/2001 and George Bush is playing chess with Osama Bin Laden. Who is on the lead right now?
Osama.
And why?
Because Bush has just lost his rooks.
Lady Gaga and Madonna are playing chess and Madonna is constantly threatening Gaga's king with checkmates. Madonna says: "Ha! I beat you in just "Four Minutes"! I'm going to make a "Celebration"! "Why don't you make, "like, a prayer"?
"It was my first time! Why did I play at the beginning, since I can "Just Dance" and play "Poker? Face" it, I shouldn't even have considered playing" wonders Gaga.
"You feel "Like a virgin", huh?"
"Yes, it's my first time playing, and I so "Love (this) Game". It's like a "Bad Romance" to me"
"I'm "Sorry?" "Hung up" and "Give it to me" again, cause I can't have heard well".
And then Gaga says: "It's true, I've left my head and my heart on the chessboard."
(That last one depends on your knowledge of pop music to get)
hic2482w wrote:
Chess encourages racism by having a 'war' between a white army and a black army.
Chess reinforces current racist tendencies in our society by always having the white army move first.
Chess glorifies war.
Chess oppressively reinforces heterosexual stereotypes. It does this by forcing each army to have a king and a queen and by not allowing the game to be played with either two kings or two queens.
Chess is guilty of breaking the separation of church and state by allowing a bishop to be a belligerent in war.
Chess destroys self-esteem. When children play the game, one always loses. Losing causes a child to feel dumb and inadequate.
I found an anti-chess thing on the net.
Chess is irrelevant to our society because it was created by dead white guys.Chess encourages racism by having a 'war' between a white army and a black army.
Chess reinforces current racist tendencies in our society by always having the white army move first.
Chess glorifies war.
Chess oppressively reinforces heterosexual stereotypes. It does this by forcing each army to have a king and a queen and by not allowing the game to be played with either two kings or two queens.
Chess is guilty of breaking the separation of church and state by allowing a bishop to be a belligerent in war.
Chess destroys self-esteem. When children play the game, one always loses. Losing causes a child to feel dumb and inadequate.
Did you? I found it further up this thread.
A scientist stationed at the North Pole spent half the 1960s playing postal chess with a scientist stationed at the South Pole. Once every few months a dog sled would arrive with supplies, and the scientist would send off his move. (No satellite phones or Internet in those days.) After a few years, the play had reached a critical stage in an ultra-sharp line of the Sicilian Najdorf (Poisoned Pawn Variation). Three months went by and there was no reply. Six months, no reply, and the long Arctic winter night had set in. The scientist wondered what had happened to his counterpart. Then, suddenly, he heard the faint sound of barking across the snow. He stepped out into the bitter cold and peered into the starlit darkness. There it was! A sled speeding across the ice, its fearless Eskimo driver grinning as he whipped up his huskies. Soon the sled drew to a halt by the research station and the supplies were unloaded. Then the Eskimo handed over an envelope, gave a cheery wave, and was gone into the dark. The scientist hurried in, dropped the envelope, scrabbled for it with clumsy gloved hands just before it could fall into the stove, pulled his gloves off and with trembling hands fumbled at the envelope. Finally he managed to unseal it and took out the folded slip of paper. He hurried over to the chessboard and turned up the little oil lamp to read the long-awaited reply. Taking a deep breath, he unfolded the paper and read:
"J'adoube"
i don't get it ...what is j'adoube
FlowerFlowers wrote:
i don't get it ...what is j'adoube
The touch-move rule in chess specifies that, if a player intentionally touches a piece on the board when it is his turn to move, then he must move or capture that piece, if it is legal to do so. The accidental brushing of a piece does not count as intentionally touching it. This is a rule of chess that is enforced in all games played "over the board". If a player's opponent violates the rule, he must claim the violation before making a move. A player may not touch the pieces on the board if it is the other player's turn to move. If a player wants to adjust a piece on its square without being required to move it, he can announce "adjust" or "j’adoube" before touching the piece (Hooper & Whyld 1992).
FlowerFlowers wrote:
i don't get it ...what is j'adoube
The point is that the touch-move rule has no application in postal chess...
May 27, 2010
0
#91
ChessSoldier wrote:
Any chess riddles? Yeah. Head over to the puzzles forum, they've got lots!
You opponent points to one of you pawns, "Looks like I can't stop him."
"You mean 'she'. It's a girl."
"How do you know?"
"Because it's about to become queen."
could still be a he
[COMMENT DELETED]
lunatiec wrote:
chess in queite difficult game to play and usully people give up to play chess .
<DELETED>
Hey my computer has more than 1000 virus and malware now.
Still worth it though.
Can anyone remind me please- whereabouts of chess story about fracas when narrator concludes "I was playing black"?
May 31, 2010
0
#95
xqsme wrote: Can anyone remind me please- whereabouts of chess story about fracas when narrator concludes "I was playing black"?
That's a tad vague. Can you offer any more specifics?
BasicLvrCH8r wrote:
demuxer wrote:
from the refered page I quote this
2 friends see themselves by the street and one of them says:
- My wife says that if tomorrow I go to the chess match, it will take my children and it will leave me.
The other friend asks to him:
- And what you will do?
And the other answers to him:
- E4, how always!
This doesn't make sense. This is because the guy who posted it wrote it in Spanish and used an online translator to convert it to english.
In spanish it would say: (if this is wrong, forgive me: I'm taking spanish 1)
Dos amigos se ven por la calle y uno de ellos dice:
Mi esposa dice que si mañana voy al partido de ajedrez, tomará mis hijos y me salirá.
El otro amigo le pregunta:
¿Y qué hacerás?
Y el otro le contesta:
¡E4, como siempre!
Let's dissect the first part.
Dos amigos se ven por la calle y uno de ellos dice:
Two friends see themselves by the street and one of them says:
In spanish, "se" is a reflexive pronoun. That means that when "se" is used, it is an objective pronoun referring to the subject of the sentence. That means that the subject of the sentence is the object. Because of this, "se" usually means "itself". But when the "se" refers to more than one thing, the "se" can mean themselves or each other. Either way, the subjects are still the objects. The people doing the action, together, still see both people doing the action. In the case of the joke, each other makes more sense. But online translators will translate it as themselves.
Let's dissect the next part.
Mi esposa dice que si mañana voy al partido de ajedrez, tomará mis hijos y me salirá.
I'll break this into two parts.
Mi esposa dice que si mañana voy al partido de ajedrez...
My wife says that if tomorrow I go to the match of chess...
Most people would not structure the sentence like that. Instead: My wife says that if I go to the chess match tomorrow...
In spanish, people generally put an adverb before a clause. In English, people generally put adverbs after a clause, though it is not incorrect not to do so.
As for the "match of chess" and "chess match", either it was entered "ajedrez partido," or the translator was smart enough to change it.
...tomará mis hijos y me salirá.
He/she/it/you will take my children and he/she/it/you will leave me.
In spanish, one does not need to say the subject before a verb. So if I were to say "He is a dog," I could say either "Él es un perro," or "Es un perro." (Él means he and es means is.)
So with the verb tomará, the subject has already been stated (my wife). Therefore, the speaker feels no need to state the subject again, or to use a pronoun (ella/she). Yet when translators see the verb without a subject, it looks at its conjugation. The verb tomará is conjugated for él, ella, or usted. (Él - he/it. Ella - she/it. Usted - (formal) you.) So the translator assume that "it" is the subject, and translates it as "it will take," when the correct translation is "she will take."
The "salirá" being translated as "it will leave" is the same thing.
Here's another line:
"El otro amigo le pregunta:"
The other friend asks to him.
In spanish, if a human or a pet of anything in english that would not be referred to as an "it" is the direct object of a sentence, it needs an "a" in front of it, which means "to".
So because "him" is a human, and he is the direct object of the sentence, he needs an "a" in front of "him". Then "him" would be translated as "él". But for there to be an "a él," there needs to be a "le". So the sentence could be translated as
" El otro amigo le pregunta a él:"
Now, because the "le" is present, the "a él" is no longer necessary, but it can specify to whom the "le" refers. But because there are only two people mentioned, the "a él" is not necessasry, because it is obvious to whom the other friend is talking. But the translator does not know the differences between english and spanish grammatical structure, and sees "le" as "to him".
The section after that is the same thing. (And the other answers to him.)
The last line:
¡E4, como siempre!
E4, how always!
This part is the easiest to understand. This should be like always, but in spanish, "like" and "how" are the same word: como. Translators always choose how over like.
That's it. If you did not understand this, ask me about it.
Oh, jesus christ. We got the joke, it made sense even though it was a shitty translation.
yo hablo espanol tambien, but I ddn know Norwegians took everythin' so seriously 
though met one or two tourists in Tobago, an' neither of 'em had a proper sense of humour either
The touch move is not applicable in live chess also.
sorry artfizz , vague indeed, point being made was that narrator was a solitary coloured person under attack from whites. " I was playing black " was great finishing line.
A man was playing chess during his regular Sunday chess match which he never missed in the park with a friend and two other friends who were watching.
As he was deep in thought and about to move, in the nearby cemetary a
funeral procession went by slowly.
The man stood up from the chessboard, took off his hat, and put his hand over his heart. So his friends joined him until the procession passed.
"You know", said one of his buddies, "that was a really classy thing you did there
for that person".
"It was the least I could do", said the man, "After all, I was married to her for
over fifty years."
The reason why I gave chess a go is because I was pawning people in every other game so why not in chess where I start off with 8 of them. Besides, I like forking queens, if you know what I mean.