That's impossible. She is evil.
Why did Bobby Fischer Quit Chess
Sort:
There is a rumour Batgirl can capture your pawn en passant even if you only move one square. I think it involves a helicopter and rappelling down from a rope
I need to learn en pe passant, because I’ve done it two times, trying many, and not knowing what the circumstances have to be to do it.
How do people not know how to castle though, that’s one of the simples. It’s just en passant that’s hard….(for me)
December_TwentyNine wrote:
You're a sweetie pie and you made me very happy Ubik
That was wonderful.
I usually just time cheat if my opponent gets really grumpy over the Castling or En Passant rules
"You call ME a cheater? Well, hunnie, I'LL SHOW YOU!!!"
ha ha ha
I notice that you say “sweetie” or “hunnie” a lot, not calling you out on it. Just noting it.
I know it’s meant to be nice-wait how is it taken badly?
December_TwentyNine wrote:
It's meant to be energetic, friendly, and outgoing.
Due to reality, it's not always taken that way - because of the different stokes for different folks nature.
I know it’s meant to be nice-wait how is it taken badly?
Well thanks December, now get vaxxed please so you don't leave use prematurely!
DefenderPug I explain en passant historically. Way back when, pawns could only move one square. Players decided to speed up the game by letting them move 2 squares, but the purists hated the idea that pawns could then sneak past each other without the chance to capture.
So they made the rule that if you move 2 squares, on the next turn and the next turn only an enemy pawn could capture you as if you had only moved one square.
The idea behind it being next turn only was that if you had another turn you could have moved past the capture square by then anyway.
DefenderPug I explain en passant historically. Way back when, pawns could only move one square. Players decided to speed up the game by letting them move 2 squares, but the purists hated the idea that pawns could then sneak past each other without the chance to capture.
So they made the rule that if you move 2 squares, on the next turn and the next turn only an enemy pawn could capture you as if you had only moved one square.
The idea behind it being next turn only was that if you had another turn you could have moved past the capture square by then anyway.
Let him recover.
Oct 9, 2021
0
#311
Just because you're a great chessplayer doesn't mean you can't also be a whackadoodle fruitcake. There's a lesson in there for all of us, if only we were great chessplayers.
December_TwentyNine wrote:
DefenderPug2 wrote:
December_TwentyNine wrote:
It's meant to be energetic, friendly, and outgoing.
Due to reality, it's not always taken that way - because of the different stokes for different folks nature.
I know it’s meant to be nice-wait how is it taken badly?
There are some individuals that will just say "please don't call me that." They have their reasons - this is out of my control.
Could you imagine Someone calling Bobby Fischer that?
Could you imagine me playing him. a 1000 vs. a 2785 game is over in 4 moves
"Bobby!!! Thank you sweetheart for the very short game!!! Care for another?"
ha ha ha
I don’t see what’s wrong with it…
Oct 10, 2021
0
#313
In his first book on Paul Morphy, "Morphy's Games of Chess," Philip Walsingham Sergeant wrote:
"There will always be two extreme schools of thought among chess-players concerning Paul Morphy, that which considers Morphy perfectly justified in his confidence and looks on him as the greatest genius at the game there ever was or ever is likely to be, and that which——while, of course, admitting him to be a genius——refuses him a class to himself and attributes his phenomenal success to the weakness of his opponents and the poor form of others. In the former school is naturally found the 'laudator temporis acti,' in the latter, many a would-be Morphy of to-day who is not free from that worst fault of chess-players, jealousy."
Now, a century later, it feels like the same can be said for RJ Fischer.
He was just afraid to lose his title. That's it.
Murphy definitely played bums but Fischer did not. Murphy had REAL mental problems but Fischer was just an A-hole.
😉
All players are underestimated by some and overestimated by some. It can be connected to flag waving or nostalgia or personal taste, but there will never be any total consensus on who the greatest players are. The GMs at chess24 ranked the top players as 1.Kasparov 2.Carlsen 3.Fischer 4.Lasker 5.Alekhine 6.Karpov 7.Capablanca. I think they underestimated Lasker and Karpov a little, but it’s a reasonable top seven even if most would change the order a bit based on personal preference.
Definitely true. The old design for the silver eagle is way better.