So why do you make personal attacks on those who disagree with you?
Quote some.
Your definition of "attack" includes anything that you find objectionable. Since you find anyone that observes the slightest fault with anything you say objectionable...
You can connect the dots.
One thing I will cop to is that objectionable people in general often find me objectionable.
@Optimissed, as I (honestly) see it, while earlier you said about 1.e4 e5 2. Bh6. that "it's a win by best play and the fair test is to have equal contestants", you are now saying this is not a test that can provide any hard results about a general position (which is true), but it does work for 1.e4 e5 2. Bh6 because you already know the answer.
Also, my earlier point was that if you rely on the results of a player who is incapable of getting the result against the strongest chess player possible to tell you the value of a position, then, by definition, you are saying you are making inferences from results that depend on the opponent making errors. (I assert this is so for a typical amateur playing against 1. e4 e5 2. Bh6).
Don't get me wrong here. I would say that it is true that the results between equal players of some given standard from a chosen position are strongly correlated with the true evaluation of that position. This is because, in some crude sense, errors tend typically to occur randomly to either side. But it is very clear that there are positions where such a result would be entirely misleading (a close approximation to 100%, 50% or 0% while the true result was something different to what this would suggest). Wouldn't you agree? The simplest way this can happen is if there is a crucial path to the best result which is easily missed and inferior paths which are usually taken.
[Also, in the extreme, errors tend to swamp the true value of a position. Give two beginners positions with one of them having an extra piece and the results will be nearer 50% than 100% for the side with more material, IMO].
Don't ICCF games get defaulted if a player dies? If so, any ICCF player who thinks there is no hope in a game is ignoring reality.
Any ICCF player who thinks there is no hope in a game is ignoring reality whatever the state of their opponent's health. Well over 90% of those games are agreed drawn in positions where neither side knows what the theoretical result is.
Just quote the text you wish to critique and you should see you're mistaken.
A test between equal players is meaningless and I mentioned it only in answer to the equally meaningless challenge, that a person who thinks it a win should be able to play it against the strongest opposition. So your criticism is completely out of context, to the extant that you've become quite confused.
I think that we should both keep our distance from btickler, who has obviously become a troll, even if he wasn't previously. Maybe he's actually confused you. I don't know why or how but this is the second time I've explained to you that you're misrepresenting my comments. It's par for the course for him and to be frank, you seem allied.
I don't think anyone believes Elroch is the one confused here.
Yes they do. @Optimissed does.
I don't think that's true. Optimissed is aware of his issues at some level. He's just trying his best to contort and hide them...witness the post above.
Reread my post and learn from it, psycho.
Oh, I did 
. I learned that you are so twisted as to use your brother's death as some kind of faulty proof that you are okay, and toss him a backhanded "I told you so" posthumously, as well.
Are you the smartest person in the room? You're certainly the angriest.
There is just one person here who consistently claims to be the smartest person in the room, no matter what the subject. That person also claims to have the greatest amount of knowledge on most subjects, unrivalled skill in analyzing questions and providing the most cogent arguments, and a superhuman capability to psychoanalyze anyone from just a few brief samples of their their thoughts on various chess-related questions.
Naturally, arguing against such a person automatically qualifies one as an angry, miserable troll. And, although being the most prolific purveyor of vitriol on the site, they are the quickest to take umbrage at any criticism.
By the way, it seems strange that the "many others" and "everyone else" routinely cited as supporters or sympathizers never seem to speak up.
I don't care to "protect" anyone else, it's just that I get annoyed by constant condescension, boasting, and name-calling.
Who do you suppose the "one person" I was mentioning might be?
So I quoted this. I like a good quote and I want others to read it. They can draw their own conclusions.
It wasn't about me, but about you. Mentally. you're going downhill rapidly and more and more you're losing any ability to disguise your trolling. Everything, to you, has always been about the failings of others. You have no failings at all.
What happened to my brother should be a warning to you, because I can see him in you. Everything was everyone else's fault. Just like you. You may have early onset dementia.
What an incredible intellect you must have to diagnose me sight unseen in a field you are not an expert in. Can you diagnose Fischer next? I'm sure you will be just as accurate.
They do speak up but I know that most people prefer not to engage him. Many people consider him the worst and most unpleasant troll on the entire site and they can't cope with it and don't want to try. They want a quiet life and they keep clear of him. He isn't the only one.. Remember that small club I mentioned?? There aren't many but there are some. There's no point your trying to close ranks and protect your own.
When are you going to realize your "many" friends (by which I mean barely a handful of people, the majority also known for trolling, like yourself) are not "most people on the site"?
If chess.com gave a hoot about the forums you'd have been gone long ago.
@4350
"Don't ICCF games get defaulted if a player dies?"
++ No, they are adjudicated.
3.17.1.1 'The TD will accept the following reasons for the withdrawal as adequate:
(a) Death of the player*'
2.13 '1. If no result has been determined by the date set for close of play, or in the event of
accepted withdrawal the TD will start the adjudication procedure.'
https://webfiles.iccf.com/rules/2022/ICCF%20Rules%20update%20for%201-1-2022%20-%20correction%201-25-22.pdf
@4354
"over 90% of those games are agreed drawn in positions where neither side knows what the theoretical result is."
++ No.
93% of ICCF WC games end in draws
Of the draws, 74% are agreed, 16% are 3-fold repetition, and 11% are table base draw claims.
Most of the agreed draws are in positions where both sides know that the theoretical result is a draw and where both sides are confident that their opponent will not make any mistake.
They do not agree on a draw in the initial position, though they both know that the theoretical result is a draw, because in 7% of games one player will make a mistake and lose.
There are a few exceptions, where players agree on a draw for convenience because of tournament standings, like coasting to victory with draws after a couple of wins or ending a bad tournament with draws after a couple of losses.
Here is the most recent finished ICCF WC game. It is 99% sure to be a perfect game with no errors. It ends in a draw because of a forced simplification to a 7-men table base drawn rook ending.
https://iccf.com/game?id=1164280
Chess CAN never be "solved". There is no "best move".
You can never predict what kind of move will tick, inspire, amuse, or bore your opponent. Since you don't know how your opponents deep game psychology might work. You don't know what his game strategies are, what kind of blundering tactics he might fall pray to. The "best move" to them is not the same "best move" to the next opponent.
Or, say even that a player did know exactly what would provoke one of these emotions from his opponent. Consider that the player played a "tricky" move. Even if it wasn't considered optimal by FIDE rating standards. For instance, player may intentionally sacrificed his Queen to gain better checkmate position. FIDE analysis would have regarded it a "dumb" move. Despite this, the player knew that he could use it to trick his opponent into thinking about making a tempting follow-up. The opponent didn't know the move he was baited into was going to be a blunder.
In both situations of knowing and not knowing your opponent's psychology which influence his moves, the "right" sequence of moves that would lead to the "best game" is completely fruitless and inobtainable.
Entièrement d'accord avec toi !
C'est d'ailleurs aussi pour cela que l'ordinateur décrète les supers coups et les coups brillants car ces derniers ne rentrent pas forcément dans la logique classique du jeu à un moment précis du jeu. Ces coups sont d'ailleurs souvent des sacrifices de pièces ou des coups qui vont à l'encontre d'un jeu dit "classique". Ces coups sont d'ailleurs considérés comme des erreurs si la suite n'apporte pas de gain de pièce ou de gain de position.
@4354
"over 90% of those games are agreed drawn in positions where neither side knows what the theoretical result is."
++ No.
93% of ICCF WC games end in draws
Of the draws, 74% are agreed, 16% are 3-fold repetition, and 11% are table base draw claims.
Most of the agreed draws are in positions where both sides know that the theoretical result is a draw and where both sides are confident that their opponent will not make any mistake.
They do not agree on a draw in the initial position, though they both know that the theoretical result is a draw, because in 7% of games one player will make a mistake and lose.
There are a few exceptions, where players agree on a draw for convenience because of tournament standings, like coasting to victory with draws after a couple of wins or ending a bad tournament with draws after a couple of losses.
Here is the most recent finished ICCF WC game. It is 99% sure to be a perfect game with no errors. It ends in a draw because of a forced simplification to a 7-men table base drawn rook ending.
https://iccf.com/game?id=1164280
The reason we say things like "99% sure to be a perfect game with no errors" is because methods to evaluate that are crude and archaic.
The solution to chess does not lie in the 99% we think we are sure of, it lies in the 1%. The undiscovered that waits for centuries if necessary. Decent computers have only been around for about 50 years. So they are only beginning to scratch the surface of what's possible.
The solution to chess isn't important. But it will follow the same path as discoveries and solutions that are important. They all build on what's been learned in the past. But no matter how sure people are of the outcome, only that unforeseen unpredictable discovery leads to the answer. Probably all significant discoveries work that way.
@4372
"The reason we say things like "99% sure to be a perfect game with no errors" is because methods to evaluate that are crude and archaic."
++ No, the 99% stems from statistics and probability.
"The solution to chess does not lie in the 99% we think we are sure of, it lies in the 1%."
++ The 1% are drawn games with 2 errors that annihilate each other.
"The undiscovered that waits for centuries if necessary."
++ A lot has been discovered during centuries.
"So they are only beginning to scratch the surface of what's possible."
++ Also before computers much knowledge about chess has been accumulated.
"The solution to chess isn't important." ++ There seems to be an interest: 4373 posts.
"They all build on what's been learned in the past."
++ Yes, to solve chess it is beneficial to use knowledge acquired by humans and engines.
They do speak up but I know that most people prefer not to engage him. Many people consider him the worst and most unpleasant troll on the entire site and they can't cope with it and don't want to try. They want a quiet life and they keep clear of him. He isn't the only one.. Remember that small club I mentioned?? There aren't many but there are some. There's no point your trying to close ranks and protect your own.
When are you going to realize your "many" friends (by which I mean barely a handful of people, the majority also known for trolling, like yourself) are not "most people on the site"?
If chess.com gave a hoot about the forums you'd have been gone long ago.
Oh là là, that’s the end of these oversized ego battles.
You got us all worked up!
You always want to be right, you end up being ridiculous
Oh là là
[snip]
ridiculous
Your post neatly condenses down.
My purpose here is not to be right all the time.
Don't ICCF games get defaulted if a player dies? If so, any ICCF player who thinks there is no hope in a game is ignoring reality.
Nice! Let me bring my potassium cyanide to the tournament tomorrow!
Don't worry, it's only in case I'm losing.