Chess will never be solved, here's why

Unblocked from what?

I haven't deleted any posts on this thread, you're imagining things once again.

Your online personality is too artificial to be bothered by it. You respond in the exact same style and phrasing to everyone and everything, even including the same random rambling paragraphs about irrelevant topics and made up stuff, no matter what you're replying to. It's more something to laugh at than take personally 🤣🤣🤣

I just said you had stopped doing that.
You pretended I said something else.
You're trolling again and you also projected.
Another reason you got blocked apparently.
Nothing artificial about what I said and you know that.
It doesn't 'bother me' that I just caught you in another of your falsehoods EE.
Also you said 'in this thread'. Admitting you were deleting elsewhere.
So you just tripped yourself up on that too.
-------------------------
(does a person like EE who always pretends - always lose?)
In the larger scheme of things yes. They don't hold together well.
But maybe EE thinks he will 'protect his mental health' by pretending?
Its not working for him. So he has to continue on the Lexapro prescription medication he chose to admit more than once publically that he's on.
Yes - people who pretend all the time like EE and Opto do - have a lot of problems and a lot of things bother them.

I literally only take a tiny amount of Lexapro to avoid SSRI withdrawal. I take it once every 7-10 days on average now. It's been over 2 years since I was taking it daily. People don't understand that these medications aren't designed for long-term use, they lose effectiveness/can become neurotoxic after more than a couple years on them, especially anti-depressants.

Typing a 2+ paragraph response to a 3 sentence comment is another example lol

EE - you made mistake after mistake and got caught over and over.
Nothing you can do about it.
And this time you're not going to delete.
And you got quoted too.
-----------------
EE your stupid phobia about philosophy was noted as one of your long list of phobias.
Even Opto wouldn't have such a stupidity.
Now try and sleep. Its way past your bedtime.

Giving helpful life advice =/= phobia.

I set my own work schedule and can get up whenever I want. Might even take the entire week off since the weather is warmer and can go running again.

You've embarrassed yourself for good here with your cheating accusations. Nothing you say from now on can be taken seriously. Go ahead and look at any amount of my games you want during 4 years I've played here. I barely know any theory. But I tend to play a tricky Jobava London line that gain advantage frequently.... Either way, the formula you use is absolutely useless and so are your analytical skills.

EE your advice isn't helpful. Your phobias aren't helpful to anybody.
Nor is your boasting about exceeding the speed limit.
Nor is telling young members that a degree isn't worth anything.
Nor is your trolling your denials of climate science.
When will you ever get anything right?
Try getting something right if you can.
You might even like it !
Get something right. Somehow. Try it out.
If you're struggling to do that - others might help you.

I just ran an evaluation script on your output on this forum, heres the result:

Dubrovnik-1950

Intelligence score: 0%

Reliance on AI tools: 250%

Mental age group: 12-15

Better off banned: True

please note that this isnt slander, but merely a result of an objective evaluation tool.

Your reporting usually backfires.

No, it wasn't. Faking it is not the real thing.

I think he suspected it wasn't a result of an objective evaluation tool. I sort of have my doubts too.

These analyses are a fascinating insight into the style of great chess players (as well as being a fly-on-the-wall for behaviour of lesser ones.

For example the fact that Kasparov has the highest endgame score and Carlsen the next - both of them streets ahead of the competition. But Carlsen dominates Kasparov greatly on tenacity, a commendable characteristic, while Kasparov has higher aggressiveness and risk - neither clearly good or bad. Also interesting is how very low Kramnik is in those respects - it seems what they used to say about Kramnik being boring has a solid quantitative basis!

In case someone needs a further explanation:

Anyone can base an accusation on a formula, real or fake one, spitting random numbers to support a given accusation. Anything is just as objective.

No reason to believe his formula is more objective than my "formula".

It's as fascinating insight as something given by a random number generator... Go take a look at my games with a real analysis tool and see what "540% theory" looks like.

If I had...I certainly would not be answering to you. Have you reported the poster you warned not to use language that would get him muted? Or did you just try to help him avoid any consequences by trying to tell him exactly what to avoid, and showing him how to misspell it the way you do yourself to circumvent the filter? Rest assured, I will always tend to act more ethically than you do..

He has only recently crossed the line, by the way. The early stages where he posted your stats and congratulated you for being better than super GMs at this or that are perfectly acceptable. Pointing out unusual results is not against the TOS. Taking the next step of accusing, naming and shaming, etc. is a problem.

@OctopusOnSteroids All your 540% means is you're getting large advantages out of the opening at your elo level. i.e. we should probably consider copying the lines you're using

@DiogenesDue

Strictly speaking he hasn't accused anybody. Are "crat", "octo" and "O" anybody's ids?

Theres a low chance that could be the case but I suspect the formula is just flat out faulty. I'd guess Im lost out of the opening just as often as I get a winning position. Garry 94-2000 was an opening freak. I can't imagine my success is near 10x higher out of the opening even at my elo. Love to see gullible people considering these numbers as "insight".

The labels are clearly associated with the actual users by prior usage and "cheater" was added to each one of them. This would hold up as potential evidence of libel in a court case, so I'm going to say yes, his last post contained accusations.

I have seen worse slip by in the past, but if I were a mod here I would act on something like that immediately.