Patience bunny man, we're deep in the fifth set, and Wimbledon has just announced that if it gets to 12-all, we have to play a tie break. So it can't go on forever. But just as there was a little epilogue after that Gene Wilder scene you refer to (arguably the best bit of the movie, in fact), there is a little more tennis to play.
Besides, as you know, having stuck with us so long, there is a very simple solution to those who don't like what they see. Simply look away!
... thats not an honest and relevant answer ... you're not being intellectually honest
OK, thankfully the whole issue of analysis has now been solved, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. So with any luck we can soon wind up this discussion. (Patience, autobunny, we’re in the home straight). But first of all, holy sh*t, now you say I'm not being honest. As it happens I'm being totally honest, as I'll demonstrate in a minute, but since we're (hopefully) coming to the end, this might be a good time to recap some of the accusations and insults you've thrown so far. (These are just from memory). You've accused me of being "weak-minded", "overly sensitive", "ridiculous" (at least three times), "absurd" and now dishonest. You also made a snide little comment about my rating, which as well as being uncalled-for also completely misses the point I'm making. I don't give a sh*t about my rating, I'm a beginner, I barely know the rules, so this has nothing to do with your endlessly repeated point about me "taking to heart" the analysis. Even grandmasters make mistakes, just as Roger Federer misses forehands and Woody Allen sometimes tells jokes that aren't funny. So when I make mistakes, I’m in good company. The point is that, when we make these mistakes, we don't always want to hear about them. Or maybe you do, in which case good for you, but if one thing is crystal clear from this thread, it's that not everyone does. (Especially given that the analysis is a total fraud.) So why can those of us who don't want it not be allowed to switch it off?
Thankfully sanity has now prevailed on that question, but let me just address your accusation of dishonesty. My argument was entirely honest. The point I was making is that your solution (not to look at the parts of the screen that bother you) clearly doesn't work for everyone. Eg it doesn't work for my wife, who doesn't like the ads for scantily-clad Ukrainian women. Not just for our kids' sake but because, as I said previously, she herself doesn't want to look at them. She just doesn't. I assume you accept her right not to want to look at them? Or would you tell her just to look at a different part of the screen? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely interested in your answer.
I certainly wouldn't tell her to ignore them. I also wouldn't say it to anyone who objected to any ad for any reason. Eg if chess.com started running ads for Donald Trump and people objected (as I certainly would - I loathe the man), I wouldn't say, "just don't at that bit of the screen". I would consider that to be laughable advice. I don't even know how it would be physically possible - would you put your hand over the bits of the screen that annoy you? Simply pretend not to see Trump's idiotic grinning face? Try to learn to like his vile orange skin? I genuinely don't know how such a suggestion would be supposed to work.
The point is that I'm being consistent. There is no dishonesty whatsoever. This time I really do think you should withdraw the accusation. And next time you're tempted to make a similar accusation, pause for a moment and ask yourself whether you really know what the other person is thinking. Is their opinion one that you merely disagree with or are they being dishonest? I think you'll find you often don't know - certainly on this occasion. The "weak-minded" insults I can live with – they reflect more on you than anyone else, and hopefully you'll grow out of them some day. But I'm not so relaxed about being accused of dishonesty, especially since it's demonstrably untrue.
Lastly, yes, I haven't responded to your suggestion of simply closing the tab. The reason is because I don't want to be rude (that seems to be your domain) but, since you insist, I think that suggestion is just ludicrous. Partly because (on my browser at least) when you close a live chess tab and then reopen it, it runs the analysis all over again. But mainly because it's such crazy overkill. What if you want to play another game? The quickest way to do it (on my machine anyway) would be to close the tab, reopen a new tab, go to speed dial, go to chess.com, click live, check that it defaults to the correct length of game (in my case it often defaults to the length of game I played last time I logged off, rather than the previous game) and then click play. That's at least five steps (more if it defaults wrongly) instead of one step. In 2018, that's crazy, there's no other word for it.
Anyway, I don't want to open up a whole new area of discussion, I'm just addressing your point because you seemed to think I was avoiding it. Like I say, the original issue has now been resolved, you can continue having your analysis (by the way, do you still think it's genuine analysis or have you realised that it's just an ad?) and those of us who don't want it don't have to have it. So everyone's happy.
All I'd request is that you substantiate or withdraw the accusation of dishonesty, and that in future you consider whether insults in general are helpful. I can certainly give you one tip: you will never persuade anyone by insulting them. Ever. So if insulting them makes you feel good, go right ahead, but if persuasion is your goal, maybe think twice.
Oh FFS, I didn't say that you were weak-minded, I said you had called me weak-minded. There's a subtle difference. Anyway, it's evidently your style to argue by insulting people, but it's not my style. At no point in this (now extremely long) thread have I said anything about you personally.
Re: tabs, I thought you meant browser tab (I didn't even know you could close the game tab) but now see what you meant. Yes, that's quicker than closing the browser tab, though it's still an extra step, and it means you can't watch back your game (unless you open up yet another tab), but yes, it's an improvement on closing the browser tab. Better still is just to switch analysis off, which I've now done.
You also say this: "When did I talk about ur rating? I've never mentioned your skill or playing ability." Um ... yes you did. You said "your subjective sense of your playing ability probably doesn't match your rating". Like I say, a totally uncalled-for dig, and also one that happens to be untrue. My "subjective sense of my playing ability" and my rating are perfectly matched: they've both very low. Anyway, the fact is that you mentioned my rating. Would you like me to send you a screenshot of your own comment or can we move on?
Re: dishonesty, do you understand that it's possible for someone to say something you disagree with without them being "dishonest"? You don't think the Ukrainian ads are a good analogy because they're inappropriate for kids but, as I said, it's not just about kids. My wife doesn't want to look at those ads. She's not a kid. She just doesn't like them. Personally I find fake analysis more annoying than Ukrainian women but it's the same basic principle: sometimes people are annoyed at something that's on their screen. And they don't always think that the solution is to ignore the part of the screen they're annoyed with.
Look, maybe you have some strange, case-by-case approach whereby you think it's possible to look away from some things (eg fake analysis) but not other things (Ukrainian women, political figures). If that's the case then we disagree because to me the human eye doesn't distinguish whether something is appropriate or inappropriate. It either sees it or it doesn't. But it doesn't matter which of us is right. This is a disagreement, it's not dishonesty. Surely you can see that? Can you prove I'm being dishonest or do you accept the possibility that we merely disagree?
For what it's worth (evidently not much to you but a heck of a lot to me), I'm not being dishonest in any way, subconscious or othwerwise. My conscience is 100pc clear on this. You can either take my word for it or not take my word for it but I assure you, there's no dishonesty. You presume to be able to see into my mind but I assure you, you can't.
Let me illustrate with reference to your own mail. The following looks like dishonesty to me, but I can't be sure - perhaps it's just a memory lapse on your part. In your most recent post you said, "when I said 'Your subjective sense of your playing ability probably doesn't match your rating' I wasn't being specific to YOU. It's a generally accurate examination of our psychology. It applies to most chess players. WE are all going to have a higher view of our play than what it actually is. That's not a dig at you or your rating, that's an explanation of why you shouldn't care about what an engine says about ur rating. Again manipulating what I'm saying, that's all you've done this entire time." That all sounds fine and dandy. Until you go back and check your original comment in its full context. Then it becomes clear that you most certainly are not referring to most chess players. Here's the full quote: "Why does that have any effect on you? Just shows your weak minded and sensitive. To be quite frank, I think it's ridiculous to want to have a brand new option to turn it off just because it threatens your subjective sense of your playing ability, something which probably doesn't match your rating." Are you still going to claim you're referring to "most chess players"? You think they're all "weakminded"? That they all feel "threatened" by the analysis? Of course not. I think when you see your earlier quote in full it's very clear that I'm not "manipulating" it in the slightest. If anything I'm being charitable - when I re-read it it looks like quite a nasty attack. But it's certainly not some comment about human psychology in general. The only question is whether, when you claimed in your most recent post that that comment was directed at "most chess players", you were lying or had merely forgotten. I simply don't know. And that's the difference between us - I don't claim to know.
You think my analogies are dishonest because Ukrainian women are different from fake analysis. Of course they're different - all analogies are different in some way. Otherwise they wouldn't be analogies. You didn't like the Trump analogy either (because politics is different from analysis). I could also point to the gambling ads on chess.com, which bother a lot of people (and are actually illegal in many countries), but you'd presumably say they were different too. Which of course in some ways they are. But in other ways they're all the same, partly because the ads in question are all objectionable on some level (to me the analysis is the most objectionable of the lot because it's the only one that's actually fraudulent). But the key point that unites all of the above is the one that you totally refuse to address, the one that relates directly to your original argument. Which is the extent to which those ads can be avoided. Forget for a moment WHY someone might want to avoid a given ad. Just focus on what a person's options are IF that person doesn't like something on his or her screen. Your argument is, "just ignore it". But if this discussion has established anything, it's that you actually agree that it's not always possible to ignore what's on your screen. Eg you accept that my wife can't simply "look away" from the Ukrainian women. I get that you sympathise more with her objection to the Ukrainians than with mine to the analysis but what you clearly accept is that looking away doesn't always work.
At this point I could accuse you of being dishonest, because you keep focusing on the content of the ads rather than whether it's possible to ignore them. But I'm prepared to accept that you've simply misunderstood my point. You're focusing on whether a given ad should or should not annoy the viewer. I'm focusing on whether "looking away" is the solution. And it turns out that, on that question, we actually agree. We both agree that it's not always possible to look away. Your argument is, in a nutshell, "your wife can't look away from the Ukrainian women and nor should she have to, and you can't look away from the analysis but you shouldn't want to." So we disagree about content but agree about looking away. Which is the whole point I've been making for the last umpteen posts. I already know you don't think I should be bothered by the fake analysis, it was obvious at the start that you weren't going to change your mind on that so I dropped that subject instantly. What I have been focusing on ever since is what the options are for those to are annoyed, and it turns out that not looking away isn't always an option.
Incidentally, you've changed your story quite a lot with respect to this. Eg at the start you seemed to think looking away was easy, then when I mentioned cinema ads you seemed to think it was not so easy, but only if the ads took up the entire screen, and now you seem to think that even ads that take up part of the screen are hard to look away from. In other words you've gone from, "just look away" to "just look away, unless the entire screen is taken up" to "just look away, unless the entire screen is taken up, or unless some but not all of the screen is taken up - as long as it's more than the analysis". Actually, some of the ads on chess.com are very small, hardly any bigger than the analysis - possibly smaller, and I'll include a screen shot of quite a small one directly after this to demonstrate that point. But even if they all were bigger than the analysis, there's a clear change from saying that only ads that take up the entire screen are unavoidable to your new position, namely that only ads of a certain size are unavoidable. The Ukrainian ads usually take up less than 20pc of the screen, sometimes about 5pc.
Anyway, the main point is that neither the content of the ads nor their size is the issue. The point I've been trying to address for some considerable time is whether the act of looking away is enough to make the problem disappear. I don't think it is. You may not agree but whether you do or don't, there is no dishonesty in what I'm saying. None. Not consciously, not subconsciously, not unconsciously, not on any level. Like I say, I don't mind anything else you've said, but I do mind the accusation of dishonesty, for the very simple reason that it's untrue.
As discussed, here's one of the chess.com ads, this time for spread betting (the crack cocaine of gambling). I don't particularly mind it, in fact I have a spread betting account, but a lot of people think gambling is totally ****ed and should be banned, and I can see their point. Anyway, the point is that it's barely any bigger than the analysis, if at all.
Hi
That ad is significantly bigger than the analysis.
Yes, I think we're in "agree to disagree" territory, though I've been saying that for a while. You're right that progress seems impossible. Even re: the size of the ads we're on different planets. On my screen they're virtually identical in size, in fact if anything the analysis looks bigger (see below). Anyway, I'm happy with how far we've travelled on that, namely from "you can just ignore it" to "you can ignore it unless it takes up the whole screen" to "you can ignore it unless it's significantly bigger than the analysis" to, well, I don't know where we've finished up but if there's a "significant" difference between the size of the two below I'm surprised. Bottom line, as the screenshot shows, neither the ads nor the analysis comes remotely close to taking up the whole screen (barely 10pc between the two of them together), so at the very least there has been some movement.
I'm also satisfied that no evidence has been forthcoming of my alleged dishonesty. Just innuendo and opinion, and zero proof. Best of all, the analysis is no longer compulsory, so sanity has prevailed.
Have a good one.
OK, well I suppose it's appropriate that you finish with the wrongest statement that even you have so far come out with. If there's one thing that's in no doubt, it's that I've responded to your "proof" (ie incoherent and self-contradictory accusations) of dishonesty. Indeed as those side-splittingly hilarious tennis gifs above demonstrate, I've responded at considerable length. What I haven't been able to do is get you to withdraw something that I suspect even you know isn't true. Whether that's because you don't have the basic decency to admit you're wrong or actually don't understand your own argument (you certainly don't know how to construct anything that could remotely be considered a "proof") I can't say. But that I've responded is absolutely irrefutable. In fact it's possibly the most undeniable fact of this entire thread.
All in all, the computer analysis and juvenile comments at the end of games is not a good advert for chess.com. It really is rubbish, from the faulty analysis to the incapability of the machine to "understand" perfectly good moves, to calling openings it considers "weak" an "inaccuracy".
Agreed. Typical computer nerd assumption that the computer is always correct and mere 'users' would bow and kiss the ground for that beneficence, while chess players smirk and think, "What nonsense!"
Lots of good nights