Hipocrite.
Remarkable Comments
Sort:
by HGMuller in
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/why-are-chess-pieces-laid-out-like-this?page=2
I guess it was considered obvious that the King and General had to be in the center of the army to effectively command it. Because the Bishop was originally an Elephant, a piece that jumped two diagonally, swapping Elephant and Knight would make them compete for d3/e3 as natural development square, making opening play quite awkward. Starting a Knight or Elephant in a corner gives them only very few choices for a first move, so the Rook is sort of a left-over to go there (as it doesn't really mind).
An interesting detail is that originally the Kings started on d1/d8, in the Arabic/Persian precursor of Chess, ('Shatranj'), and the Ferz ('General') on e1/e8. Then there appeared a medieval game Courier Chess, on a 12x8 board, where the Ferz was still standing right of the (white) King, but on the left of this King was a non-royal piece that moved as King, where Ferz moved only one step diagonally. (And the Bishops were introduced as new pieces standing inward next to the Elephants.) The non-royal piece moving as King later evolved into our modern Queen, by extending its range. (Hence modern Chess was originally known as the "Mad Queen variant".) But it has always kept its position left of the King, even on 8x8 boards.
by xming in
Not talking about mercy killing. Talking about something like hanging a cow upside down by its back legs and cutting its throat and letting it bleed out so you can have a hamburger. Why don't you start another thread about being kind to another you have harmed. Beating your child for their own good, for example.
Apr 2, 2015
0
#5
PerfectConscience wrote:
by HGMuller in
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/why-are-chess-pieces-laid-out-like-this?page=2
I guess it was considered obvious that the King
and General had to be in the center of the
army to effectively command it. Because the
Bishop was originally an Elephant, a piece that
jumped two diagonally, swapping Elephant and
Knight would make them compete for d3/e3 as
natural development square, making opening
play quite awkward. Starting a Knight or
Elephant in a corner gives them only very few
choices for a first move, so the Rook is sort of
a left-over to go there (as it doesn't really
mind).
An interesting detail is that originally the Kings
started on d1/d8, in the Arabic/Persian
precursor of Chess, ('Shatranj'), and the Ferz
('General') on e1/e8. Then there appeared a
medieval game Courier Chess, on a 12x8
board, where the Ferz was still standing right
of the (white) King, but on the left of this King
was a non-royal piece that moved as King,
where Ferz moved only one step diagonally.
(And the Bishops were introduced as new pieces standing inward next to the Elephants.)
The non-royal piece moving as King later
evolved into our modern Queen, by extending
its range. (Hence modern Chess was originally known as the "Mad Queen variant".) But it has
always kept its position left of the King, even on 8x8 boards.
Your references are all wrong, HGMuller. This often happens when history is traced back over thousands of years. The 'Bishop' NEVER moved like a knight as your reference stated. The piece represented the "bishop" in the church and the 'Rook' first represented "chariots", but was later changed to represent the "castle". There is nothing worse than to give people wrong information.
Don
[COMMENT DELETED]
@Arrakis09:
HGMuller is not wrong in any of his statements. He never stated a bishop moved like a knight. When chess reached Europe from India, the pieces Elephant and General (Prime Minister) were renamed inappropriately to bishop and queen respectively.
Uhohspaghettio1 in
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/every-fool-can-win-in-blitz-chess?page=7
Losing a clear pawn with no compensation isn't an "inaccuracy" it's a blunder. Yet this happens all the time in blitz. You're acting like this is some kind of accomplishment, but it's not even chess as it's supposed to be played if that happens. This was never how chess was supposed to be played except maybe among complete beginners. Even in the very first games of chess I ever played don't think I dropped pieces after being given a few minutes to think about the position. It's a newly invented "feature" of chess and it's a joke and a humiliation. Chess was supposed to be where one man says: "i place my knight to the queen bishop 3, now what say you?", not.... "push push push push push push... HAHA your queen is forked!!!!" "HAHA you left your own queen en prise!!!!".... such games are for idiots.
Internet blitz is really then about perception and being quick on the draw and chess becomes more of a reaction-based videogame than a true game of a strategic nature. I like videogames, but even in videogames there are few games that last less than minutes.
cornbeefhashvili in
www.chess.com/forum/view/general/study-plan-to-get-to-2100-elo
Theory and practice are two different things. Studying different aspects of the game is totally different from studying for tournament play. You'd better get a good coach because no one can see their own weaknesses.
In the words of Mike Tyson: "Sure, everyone has a plan. Until they get punched in the mouth."
79Abraxas79 in
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/wesley-so-resigned-after-6-moves?page=18
You have to find meaning in your own life. If what society deems as value is your only barometer, then I pity you. Look at Professional as example. See the insane amounts of money that is showered down on someone putting a ball into a hole.
Think about all the wasted resources as a result of the billions of dollars that is poured into sports. Imagine an Alien looking down on planet earth and seeing science, medicine, research and development neglected in favour of sports. It so common today, that we all but take it for granted.
In my mind sports should always be played on the Amateur level only. Those that love the game, will continue to play the game. Money has destroyed sports.
rtr1129 in
www.chess.com/forum/view/general/nigel-short-womens-brains-not-chess-brains?page=15
trysts wrote:
Yes. It's insulting, do you see? It's like me talking about what you're capable of right in front of you.
____________________
You're joking right? What is wrong with saying what someone is not good at in front of their face? You can tell me all day long that I am not good at performing brain surgery, and that I will never be one of the best in the world no matter how hard I try. That's not insulting. It is called "the way it is".
If someone says that people who are under 6 feet tall are not as good at basketball as people who are over 6 feet tall, that does not insult me, because it is true. It does not deter me from playing and enjoying basketball.
Why do you continue to take a general statement about women and apply it to individuals? There are 3.5 billion women on earth, and the only thing we can say that applies to all of them is that they are women (and even that's not true).
Does it insult you if you hear that, on average, women are not as tall as men?
lisa_zhang_tok in
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/carlsen-caruana-amp-yifan-a-ratings-analysis?page=2
I think its clear that men are far more visual, and they can manipulate the pieces with less effort than female... its just like arm strength.
its in every visual industry, from painting too hair and makeup .. men dominate it regardless of how outnumbered they are by the opposite sex.
but girls do mature much faster .. I experienced chess at school, it was part of our curriculum. in the younger years the girls crushed guys virtually no effort. By the time high school came it was getting to be a better balance... we were all doing well, but toward the end of high school , guys were dominating .... in the top 10 was only one female... even the top 50 was only about 8 girls.
We lack the brut strength of visual manipulation, but excel at the psychological aspects and pitting strengths against weakness, exploiting and spotting fragility on the board ... but it fizzles out at some point.
a good accurate graph of many thousand male and female students would demonstrate that so perfectly.
Fiveofswords in
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/nigel-short-womens-brains-not-chess-brains?page=36
many of the people who are upset of fictional sexism here are putting forth untestable and useless speculations that would apply equally to, say, cats. I could suggest that cats are equally good as humans at chess but they simply have superior priorities focusing on strings and getting in boxes which we cannot comprehend because of our foolishness. None of these 'alternate explanations' for poor female performance in chess are actually worth anything intellectually. Its simply feel good emotional protection/motivation. I could be equally insidious with pointless speculations by suggesting that the men coming to rescue women in this forum are simply hoping that it helps them get laid...and thats probably the only thing they think women are good for. But that is of course unfair and useless speculation on my part.
robbie_1969 in
Whites busted dude! I sent my opponent a trophy in recognition of his better play. There is sportsmanship in chess if we look for it but granted not all are of a gentlemanly disposition. This is primarily because they have as yet not learned to detach their egocentricities from events on the chess board. The result is that they have a tendency to take every loss as a personal insult rather than the opportunity to learn. We are human beings and prone to aberration, its inevitable that we will make mistakes. Its in my opinion not only illogical but irrational to assume otherwise.
shell_knight in
www.chess.com/forum/view/general/why-play-chess-there-are-unbeatable-computers-out-there?page=2
Old topic, but I'd like to give my thoughts.
People compare chess and computers to e.g. athletes and machines. Why do sprinters bother! The swimmer can take a boat!
But somehow that's not very convincing to the average person I think. I was playing in a coffee shop once when someone in line (who gave the impression that they probably couldn't set up the board correctly) told me they had a computer at home that could find "the best moves."
So why is an athlete respected? It's the work ethic, the self improvement, and the competition that people admire. People willing to test their own limits, and compete against others. And frankly, they don't realize chess takes that much effort. Oh sure, they appreciate that it's a "smart" game, just like a professional musician sounds "really good" but I don't think the average person realizes how many thousands of hours of practice go into it, and that chess is respectable for all the same reasons any professional is admired. It takes disciplined training, we test our own limits, and we compete against others who do the same!
Which is another thing I think people don't realize, that chess (at high levels anyway) is a competition! People really struggle and sweat to preform. It may be something you do on a rainy day to pass the time, but to professionals it's just a grueling as running a marathon.
The second broad reason is chess isn't only seen as smart, but also clever... that things like creativity and psychology play a huge role. I had a cousin tell me proudly that when he plays, he'll sacrifice his queen because it will psychologically throw off his opponent (even if his opponent is the computer he says) and that it increases the chances of his victory! Sounds silly to us, but this is how non-players think! And if a heartless machine can beat the most cunning humans, well then chess must not be that clever after all.
What they fail to understand here is that engines don't find the best moves... it's just their moves on average contain less errors than the best humans. Beating a professional player is similar to a mathematician forgetting to carry the 1, and a pocket calculator pointing it out. Computers beat the best humans but they fail (miserably I might add) at the planning, the creativity and beauty of the game (and there is some!)
So in summary, it's just that they don't understand the game... and it's true, chess is quite esoteric. If I mash the keys on a piano, everyone around me, most of all myself, will realize it's just noise, not music. Yet the equivalent chess player, the person who only knows how the pieces move, has no way of knowing the endless room for self improvement, the grueling competition, and the beauty chess offers to those who devote themselves to the game.
Elubas in
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/nigel-short-is-a-sexist-buffoon
I'm not sure we define sexist in the same way. You could absolutely love a woman, but, for example, you might think she happens to be really bad at singing. Now, sure, you could lie and say she's good, but you are unable to actually believe she is a good singer despite how much you love her.
This is why what one rationally believes just does not, and should not, tie in with having good/bad wishes for that person.
But sure, go ahead, judge people really quickly. Call people buffoons based on one claim, rather than on their whole life (I'm sure it was so easy for him to get to the level of chess he is at). Turn absolutely everything into a flame war because life is just too boring when you don't.
premio53 in
www.chess.com/forum/view/general/weak-players
Former Tennessee state champion (1969) James Sweets told me one time that some players are nothing but class C players and that is all they will ever be. It's a hard fact of life to realize that everyone is not equal in ability in most areas of life. Chess being one of them.
There are actually some who have posted here that anyone can become a titled player if they just put enough time and effort into it. That is a lie.
I know people in my former chess club who have played in serious tournaments for over 30 years and despite their best efforts have never gotten past Class C.
If someone really has any talent, it will show no matter how busy they claim to be.
by Firstplay in
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/where-is-my-country-basque-country?page=1
I can understand why some may feel offended. However, many of us stand under nobody's flag and see ourselves, as pointed out, as International. Flags are used to divide people, many of us in the UK don't feel good about the 'butchers apron' (Union Jack) as it's always been used to represent the most negative aspects of the country where we were born. Flags represent borders made by the wealthy, depicting 'their' property, not ours.
It was carried, and still is, by men with guns, mostly economic conscripts, to represent the wealthiest in society and never the poorest; wars are fought for the rich normally, never the poor. I suspect that there's many people in the world who feel no national pride as their country of origin treats them abysmally.
Millions of working people across Europe are thrown to the dogs, mass unemployment, poverty and few opportunituies for themselves and their children while the privileged, always proud to wave the flag, gain economic advantage.
Throughout history the UK, or England in particular, has enslaved, murdered, looted too many other nations to count. We were taught as children to feel proud of this , that 'we' were superior because of these conquests.
Bear in mind also when the UK was the richest country in the world the ruling class allowed young children to work up to fourteen hours a day in factories. Many being malnourished, didn't make adulthood, working people died in droves due to poverty and harsh conditions. Why should we feel proud of that flag; you can't eat a flag, and we have more in common with the working people of the world than we do with our own ruling class who love that cloth dearly.