LET ME TURN IT OFF!!

itsnotyoboikade
Longest text ever
haroldschris

Thanks, do I get a prize?

haroldschris

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.

null

RedGirlZ
haroldschris wrote:

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.

 

That ad is significantly bigger than the analysis. Also it's clear you don't understand my quote in reference to you claiming that it's a dig at you. Showing it in its full context just proves my point. It's not an attack, it's an explanation of why negative engine analysis shouldn't bother you, as well as explaining why the engine analysis disappoints you. Again, not just aimed at you, but at anyone who plays chess. It was pretty self explanatory, so u trying to put it in the "insult" hole is just wrong, and thats why i call u manipulative. . Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous.  Anyway I think we should stop. An option has already been added to turn it off. I'm not conceding my points and I still think ur wrong but the responses are getting too long, I cant be bothered to read that mountain of text and have to send one as big back, it's getting tiring and tedious, so im sure we can just agree to disagree.

happy chess games

seb835123

Hi

haroldschris
RedGirlZ wrote:

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.

null

RedGirlZ
haroldschris wrote:
RedGirlZ wrote:

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.

 

Why u trying to keep the argument going. I provided proof of your dishonesty, period. You just won't respond to it cuz deep down you know you are being dishonest. 

 

I'ms satisfied as you haven't responded to my points and just run in a circle cuz u know ur wrong.

 

Have a good one, I'm unfollowing this thread

haroldschris
RedGirlZ wrote: You just won't respond to it cuz deep down you know you are being dishonest.

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.

autobunny

Unfollowed? Noooooo! 

null

But the game must go on

null

Optimissed

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".

chungle
Optimissed wrote:

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!"