Worst player?

Sort:
andy-inactive
jona004 wrote: Very good point fleiman. I think it means our universe . i.e. The 8 or so planets that orbit the sun that we know about like saturn, mars, jupitor, pluto, etc...

They really do mean the "whole universe" (specifically, the"observable universe")

 

These two links should clear things up:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe 

alec94x
Knatted wrote:

Hands down I gotta think I'm the worst player on this site 


Nah, 

You have to think positive if you think your terrible I promise you there is always someone out there who is far far worse proof? just look at my game against Jermaine and Paula Rabino in my blog.

 

 

 

 

 

cliffhanger407

My advice would be to play someone who's better than you, in any way you can, with the condition that they help you see where you make good moves, where you make bad moves, and what you can do to make your moves better. Coaching is really, in my book, the only thing that you can do. Until you get good enough to coach yourself (which, really, no one ever is), you have to have help, or you won't ever progress.

 Whether the help comes through just playing a bunch of games or having someone destroy you over and over and over, both are useful learning tools. Make friends who play chess, challenge them to either rated (if you're brave and just don't care) or unrated games, and most of all just have fun and don't get discouraged when you lose. Everyone loses. Everyone has lost a lot of games.

cliffhanger407
fleiman wrote:

Many times I see this argument "the number of possible chess games is bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. I'd like to undestand, if the universe

is endless, why the number of  universe's atoms is less than number of games ?


Well all modern science points to the universe not being so endless. Granted, this is only what we can observe, so in the universe that we have observed, the number of games are greater than the number of atoms. Even if you consider an endless expanse of space, that does not mean that it's filled with stuff though, and again, unless things have been moving faster than the speed of light since within microseconds after the big bang, we can see it, or some variation of it. 

This is actually my field, and while I don't want to derail this topic any more than this, if you have any questions, drop me a pm or note or whatever they are on this site.

Scorpion

Are you trying to make me cry or what I am the worst player on this site,

ok d'ont try to steel my spot.See you soon.


ziplinekitkat

I clearly deserve the worst. May I ask, how old are you? Me? Ten. Oh yeah and what's your rating? Guess mine. Oh, you can't?It's 750.

ziplinekitkat

A good way to improve is to vers yourself.

Akshi1102
fleiman wrote:
shadowc wrote: Actaully, the number of possible chess games is bigger than the  number of atoms in the universe. So, it's a little more than a 90 page notebook, hehe...

Many times I see this argument "the number of possible chess games is bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. I'd like to undestand, if the universe

is endless, why the number of  universe's atoms is less than number of games ?

Observable universe, light has only travelled from a specific point since the big bang, allowing us to only see up to a certain point in space. The number of possible chess games is larger than the number of atoms within this area.

WalangAlam

Still it's just a game.

DrSpudnik