A key reason @BigChessplayer665 has been able to show he is smarter than you in his responses to the posts here is his lack of your massive psychological handicap. Insulting him should be a motivation for you to be concerned why you are wrong so much more.
Where are those who back you up? Is it that your communication skills are too weak to convince anyone?
[Hint: the crucial thing is that you are wrong a lot].
Both coded signals to Dio have now been deleted. This is interesting since it confirms my suspicion that it's a signal and it tends to support the belief that they are prearranged signals. I have seen him employ them previously. There is no doubt that although Elroch portrays tygxc as intellectually dishonest, our eyes should not be on tygxc. It isn't mere intellectual dishonesty but consists of a willingness to do anything to win an argument, which includes deliberately confusing onlookers so they may wrongly imagine that he is winning.
Lol...coded signals? You are completely daft.
And Bayesian analysis is statistical analysis, Elroch. I'm discussing equation creating and solving. And you have shown yourself too slippery for you to expect that your protestations will be believed by anyone. You shouldn't have used the tactics you tried to use to discredit my arguments, which are good ones.
Nah as much as I dislike playerafar and how he handles politics he has a point
You seems to be saying that Playerafar is Elroch's alt. You really shouldn;t go round saying stuff like that you know!
Elroch was taken apart, cooked and served on a plate yesterday. He has no credibility here today, except with the trollish ones ....
You see how many people agree with you?
No, I can't see anyone either.
Note carefully, it's not that @MEGACH3SE, @playerafar, @MARattigan, @DiogenesDue, @llama_l, @BigChessplayer665 and myself (sorry if I missed someone) are ganging up on you. It's that we are on the side of what is true. You are lost somewhere else in a frenzy of ego-driven nonsense.
I have found this rare video of @Optimissed having just discovered that he got something wrong (again).
You have no need to be quite so silly or/and dishonest to give people the impression which you must clearly want them to have.
All you can find is a collection of known trolls and Llama, who seems to be keeping sensibly out of it ... why are you depicting him as being involved? Is it to bolster your numbers and make it seem that a credible person is on your side? I wasn't aware that RATMAR has commented either and he isn't credible so it wouldn't matter. Excluding Llama you mention only incompetent people, who are known to be incompetent, except Megachess. He seems competent. If indeed he is an independent person, then if he is competent he will see that my comments have merit. If he doesn't see that, then he may not be credited with being gifted with too much independence of thought by the people who have been watching and who are cleverer than your buddies and who know I've already won.
sorry is not a giveaway is a free lottery in
guys! I have seen a very interesting free lottery from a certain Alexchess. They are interactive chess books converted from pdf to chessbase etc. There are also videos. I'll give you the link, I've already signed up!
It is in Spanish but the operation and so on are perfectly understood and there are books in English!
And it is something that was being searched a lot in the forums, such as having the pdf books converted and being able to study them in chessbase for example.
[link removed]
And also :
[link removed]
They could be downloaded here but now it won't let me, the links must be dead but they can be requested and he sent me one!
Enough with the spamming...all three of your posts reported.
@Optimissed, @llama_l has good understanding. See https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/chess-will-never-be-solved-heres-why?page=627
where he addresses some ways you and @tygxc go wrong. (Specifically, he addresses your confusion about mathematical induction).
Note that he has on occasion used irony. This may have gone over your head.
Only your last comment, which was obviously based on desperation. Deleting those pictures; well, you shouldn't have posted them in the first place because they were offensive. Dio took them as a cue to start trolling and he made many off-topic attempted attacks. I realised I'd seen it before and then your mistake was to delete the pictures. I knew then that I was right, not about the bogus Theorem but about you.
Still daft. I don't even know what images you are talking about. I certainly need no prompting or cues...you provide those yourself when you hopelessly mangle logic and science and/or insult everyone around you...and I far from the only person that sees your antics for what they are.
None of his comments have been about my comments. I'm not saying he hasn't got a good understanding. I've been focussed on showing that you made conflicting claims at various points in your arguments, which you most certainly did and now all you want to do is to cover it up. In your own threads you flood them with trolls who back you up. This is no different except you can't block people for dishonest reasons. So unfortunately for you, one good poster who is more than your equal showed your arguments for what they are.
I haven't read your comment, any of it
Finally, you reveal a reason why your replies make no sense!
Only your last comment, which was obviously based on desperation. Deleting those pictures; well, you shouldn't have posted them in the first place because they were offensive. Dio took them as a cue to start trolling and he made many off-topic attempted attacks. I realised I'd seen it before and then your mistake was to delete the pictures. I knew then that I was right, not about the bogus Theorem but about you.
Still daft. I don't even know what images you are talking about. I certainly need no prompting or cues...you provide those yourself when you hopelessly mangle logic and science and/or insult everyone around you...and I far from the only person that sees your antics for what they are.
Do you think anyone is going to believe you? Your trolling started straight after the images were posted and then he deleted the images. A person who claims to be as observant as you do cannot possibly have missed them. You're just dropping yourself further and further in it. A moderator can find the images.
None of his comments have been about my comments. I'm not saying he hasn't got a good understanding. I've been focussed on showing that you made conflicting claims at various points in your arguments, which you most certainly did and now all you want to do is to cover it up. In your own threads you flood them with trolls who back you up. This is no different except you can't block people for dishonest reasons. So unfortunately for you, one good poster who is more than your equal showed your arguments for what they are.
Conspiracy theories ...I like it !
I haven't read your comment, any of it
Finally, you reveal a reason why your replies make no sense!
Only your last comment, which was obviously based on desperation. Deleting those pictures; well, you shouldn't have posted them in the first place because they were offensive. Dio took them as a cue to start trolling and he made many off-topic attempted attacks. I realised I'd seen it before and then your mistake was to delete the pictures. I knew then that I was right, not about the bogus Theorem but about you.
Still daft. I don't even know what images you are talking about. I certainly need no prompting or cues...you provide those yourself when you hopelessly mangle logic and science and/or insult everyone around you...and I far from the only person that sees your antics for what they are.
Do you think anyone is going to believe you?
You know I got the "nobody believes you speech before about me cheating " even though I was innocent
Sounds like denial at this point
Sounds like trolling at this point. Do you get a free box of chocolates or a toy? Unrelated argument.
I haven't read your comment, any of it
Finally, you reveal a reason why your replies make no sense!
Only your last comment, which was obviously based on desperation. Deleting those pictures [snip]
For clarity, I have not deleted any pictures.
Do tell us about the imaginary pictures in your head!
Sounds like trolling at this point. Do you get a free box of chocolates or a toy?
Conveniently examples are now trolls !
Better make an example out of...
I haven't read your comment, any of it
Finally, you reveal a reason why your replies make no sense!
Only your last comment, which was obviously based on desperation. Deleting those pictures
There were some imaginary pictures in your head? Do describe them for the rest of us.
You're denying you posted them?
I think I have enough to report you now.
They are still visible to moderators.
The fact you're making an issue of denying it proves your guilt. They are your coded messages. I've seen you do it before.
They are still visible to moderators.
The fact you're making an issue of denying it proves your guilt. They are your coded messages. I've seen you do it before.
Huh your denying stuff to think before you speak
Do you think anyone is going to believe you? Your trolling started straight after the images were posted and then he deleted the images. A person who claims to be as observant as you do cannot possibly have missed them. You're just dropping yourself further and further in it. A moderator can find the images.
Your confirmation bias is showing again. You really do have bats in your belfry...what were these images exactly? Would anyone else who is sane like to explain this newly hatched nonsense?
I haven't read your comment, any of it
Finally, you reveal a reason why your replies make no sense!
Only your last comment, which was obviously based on desperation. Deleting those pictures
There were some imaginary pictures in your head? Do describe them for the rest of us.
You're denying you posted them?
I think I have enough to report you now.
Of course you do. Be my guest!
None of his comments have been about my comments.
For example post #12521 quoted and reinforced my helpful post to you explaining the difference between mathematical induction (a method of rigorous deduction) and inductive reasoning (which is always uncertain).
You could learn from his words, where he gives a simple illustrative example.
[Silly me, of course you couldn't, your psychological barriers are way too high].
^^ Ah, finally a conversation between two intellectual giants.