< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 55 OF 55 ·
|Mar-04-14|| ||schweigzwang: More of the royal "we." Or is it "wee?"|
|Mar-04-14|| ||Overgod: @ <john barleycorn>
The number of moves it takes to mate is not the issue here. I already asserted that it can be done with a single move (see my above post).|
The issue is that the king cannot be involved in the mating net (which is the only way to mate the opponent king when the two rooks are on the same file, on the open board).
The first solution provided by <OBIT> was a mate in two, which required the opponent king in the mating net. We could have, however, had a mate in 1, by the example I provided above.
So, the solution is trivial, if you involve the white king.
Sally's original problem was to try to mate the black king with the two rooks, where the white king didn't play a role in the mating net (which is why he took the white king off the board in his original illustration).
He argued that nobody tries to mate the king with the rooks on file. They always do it by placing them on mutually different files.
I responded by stating this to be a no-brainer, because there is no other way to mate the king legally, providing his setup (the king being off the board is not a problem, because you can simply bring him back and put him in the corner of the board).
Sally's problem was not to show how a king can be mated with two rooks (we can already do this with just 1 rook). The problem was to place your rooks with legal move order, to mate the black king with the two rooks alone (no mating net, which requires the white king).
That is how the original problem was formulated.
<Perfidious> is simply not intelligent enough (nor does he have the lucid memory) to associate these crucial facts with the relevant transition of events transpiring on this forum.
He doesn't have the mental equipment to form a coherent, unified view of the central problem in his brain, which is why he resorts to his impotent and irrelevant droning; like a petulant child, who hasn't received the attention it craves from the adults.
That's what lower intelligence does for you. Higher intelligence gives you the tools to network concepts and all the *relevant* interrelationships into a unified picture. He clearly lacks this ability, which is why he resorts to cheap and unfounded accusations.
In short: weak minds are helpless, and their only comfort comes from violence (verbal/physical) and content-free gossip and petty trolling. If mental capacity is lacking, trivia and juvenile amusements help pass the time.
And so it is and remains for the majority of mankind. Let's wait a few million years, ere the peasants have evolved beyond the barbarian stage of development.
|Mar-04-14|| ||john barleycorn: <<Overgod>: ...Sally's problem was not to show how a king can be mated with two rooks (we can already do this with just 1 rook)>|
I don't find your example. I grew up at a time when you mated a king with a king and a rook. A rook alone? Kindly, show the example again.
|Mar-04-14|| ||Jim Bartle: In my opinion, another sign of a weak or undisciplined mind is using fourteen paragraphs to make a point which could easily have been stated in two short ones.|
|Mar-04-14|| ||Overgod: @<john barleycorn> |
Sigh. I am going to make this simple for you and for myself: read the post directly above yours again. Once you have done this, try reading it again, but this time a little slower and with taking notes.
After this, re-read it another 25 times. Then go to sleep. Wake up, and re-read it one more time. Check your notes and see if you've understood your notes, checking them as you go along. Once you have done this, please make sure you've understood everything written, by reading it all over again (just to be on the safe side).
After this, your homework is to try to answer your own stupid question(s), without wasting my time again. If you do happen to have further questions, consult somebody who deigns to give you his time by teaching you basic thinking- and English literacy skills.
|Mar-04-14|| ||Overgod: @<Jim Bartle>
Error. That only indicates how one must speak with fools, who still don't seem to understand the issue after it's been exhaustively repeated and rephrased numerous times.
The fact that you haven't managed to notice this yet, says more about your (lacking) intellect, than mine.
Think about it.
|Mar-04-14|| ||perfidious: <Big O: He doesn't have the mental equipment to form a coherent, unified view of the central problem in his brain, which is why he resorts to his impotent and irrelevant droning; like a petulant child, who hasn't received the attention it craves from the adults.>|
Bust-a-gut humour....best laugh I've gotten today!
Maybe <Ovie> should peruse this at leisure:
<Jim Bartle: In my opinion, another sign of a weak or undisciplined mind is using fourteen paragraphs to make a point which could easily have been stated in two short ones.>
Have to agree with <Jim>, but <O> gets off on this sort of thing, that much is clear.
|Mar-04-14|| ||Jim Bartle: I've thought about it. I'll stick with my opinion.|
|Mar-04-14|| ||Overgod: Anyway, to those who still haven't figured out the issue at hand, please follow my instructions given to <john barleycorn>.|
If queries persist, you may consult encyclopedias and/or friends/experts to assist with the comprehension.
|Mar-04-14|| ||Jim Bartle: I don't even want to imagine what it would be like to take one of <overgod's> classes.|
|Mar-04-14|| ||john barleycorn: <Overgod: @<john barleycorn>|
Sigh. I am going to make this simple for you and for myself: read the post directly above yours again. Once you have done this, try reading it again, but this time a little slower and with taking notes.>
What you miss in preciseness you make up with arrogance.
|Mar-04-14|| ||Shams: <JB> I doubt they really exist.|
|Mar-04-14|| ||john barleycorn: <Shams: <JB> I doubt they really exist.>|
<Shams>, you are not alone.
|Mar-04-14|| ||Starkraven: <schweigzwang: More of the royal "we." Or is it "wee?">|
Foirst a "wee" then teh "wave" - innit!...
|Mar-04-14|| ||haydn20: I always figure that if a student comes into my class deficient in background knowledge, the fault if any lies with their previous teacher. It does not pay to be arrogant toward your students as they will resent you and fail to learn if only to spite you. This is why I doubt OG is a teacher at any level. BTW, in this matter, my role model is Paul Halmos.|
|Mar-04-14|| ||schweigzwang: <I don't even want to imagine what it would be like to take one of <overgod's> classes.>|
Scary, scary thought.
|Mar-04-14|| ||john barleycorn: < haydn20: BTW, in this matter, my role model is Paul Halmos.>|
Halmos excellent. Polya is also an example to follow. Than Hardy, Courant, Griffiths and Hilton. Wonderful teachers. Overgod does not yet qualify for that league.
|Mar-04-14|| ||perfidious: <john b> Maybe next month--till then, the crashing bore will have be content with a lower place in the firmament.|
<Big O> would do well to heed <haydn20>'s remarks; though I rather doubt the arrogant twat considers the latter poster worthy of his notice.
|Mar-04-14|| ||Jim Bartle: <perfidious>, why do keep blaspheming the name of such a great basketball player?|
|Mar-04-14|| ||perfidious: <Jim> Not meant that way at all-the reference intended is rather different.|
Robertson was indeed the goods.
|Mar-04-14|| ||Jim Bartle: OK, <maybe> I'll accept that...|
|Mar-05-14|| ||john barleycorn: Hey <JimBartle> I had another question for you in my forum. Maybe you overlooked. So here: When you attach a CD with let us say xls files to a book would you need permission from Mr. Gates?|
|Mar-05-14|| ||Jim Bartle: I don't understnad your question. If your question is, do you need permission to use a certain technology in producing a book or electronic additions to the book, I think the answer is no. It's the "intellectual property" of the material which is proteccted.|
|Mar-05-14|| ||john barleycorn: thanks <JimBartle>. If I understand correctly this means when doing the calculations for expected values in "baccarat" using excel then I can simply attach the cd to the book, and no problems.|
|Mar-05-14|| ||Jim Bartle: I would assume so. You don"t have to pay the enventors of digital printing, do you?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 55 OF 55 ·