chessgames.com
 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum
Jambow
Member since Aug-03-10 · Last seen Apr-18-14
Love the game of chess and hence I'm here, the players games that always bring a smile are the master pieces of Morphy, then Capablanca and Fischer. So many other players I enjoy Kasparov, Carlsen, Anand etc... Today I mostly cheer for Nakamura perhaps because he is one of the few top players I have watched play OTB, he also has a distinctive style.

Beyond and above chess I'm a bible believing Christian and love God's word. I'm very thankful for my 5 children and lovely wife too. I have at times lead an interesting life traveling around the world aboard the USS Missouri. Later getting a heavy fix of adrenaline repossesing cars and things of that sort.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   Jambow has kibitzed 1182 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Apr-17-14 Carlsen vs Karjakin, 2013
 
Jambow: This game looks more like Karpov than Karpov's own games.
 
   Apr-16-14 Flear vs Plachetka, 1984
 
Jambow: Played it out and followed the exact same line in seconds, so it's all pretty much forced.
 
   Apr-16-14 B Tuvshintugs vs Yifan Hou, 2014
 
Jambow: So a king in the center is still a liability.
 
   Apr-16-14 FIDE Women's Grand Prix Khanty-Mansiysk (2014) (replies)
 
Jambow: Hou Yifan continues to impress, every move has purpose and creates a problem large or small that must be addressed. Great chess I expect her to break into the 2700 club, maybe more if she plays the top players. Will she ever reach Judith's peak? Who knows but I hope she does well.
 
   Apr-10-14 Paul Morphy (replies)
 
Jambow: If you calculated their respective performance against all players they played in common Morphy's record against the same opposition was significantly better. I have done it before and it is very one sided. Thinking Steinitz was his equal none the less superior seems to be wishful ...
 
   Apr-10-14 L Dominguez vs Dreev, 2014 (replies)
 
Jambow: Is it by chance, design or simply inevitable that he reminds me of Capablanca?
 
   Apr-10-14 Leinier Dominguez Perez
 
Jambow: Your elo is much higher than mine, but I just logged on to say he has somewhat the same style as Capablanca himself, which agrees well with being Karpovian in some ways too. To my eyes Capablanca was more straight forward and to the point than Karpov, he just kept simplifying when ...
 
   Apr-09-14 Viswanathan Anand (replies)
 
Jambow: <kinghunt> All three points are well made and well taken. Anyone who thinks Anand is a favorite must ignore almost all of the data. Not impossible for an upset, but it would be a rather large upset indeed. What I find interesting is that Anand probably has better chances this ...
 
   Apr-09-14 R Rapport vs Nakamura, 2014
 
Jambow: I'm at an utter loss on this game, might be brilliant, could be a blunder fest I'll probably never know. ;0]
 
   Apr-09-14 Richard Rapport
 
Jambow: Saw that he broke into the 2700 club today.
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Word of God

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 29 OF 29 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Apr-04-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <OhioChessFan> Your previous admissions as a young-earth-creationist implied to me at least a tacit acknowledgement of the calculations of Bishop Ussher.

However since I did not want to wrongly assume anybody’s position on this matter, I asked yourself and <Jambow> for clarification.

<Jambow> responded candidly and had no qualms about making his position clear.

I think I can respect <Jambow>'s position more than <OhioChessFan>'s.

At least <Jambow>'s fair dinkum!

Apr-04-14  Colonel Mortimer: <OhioChessFan> is a master of slipperiness and probably the only person on this site who has no qualms denying statements he's made.
Apr-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <optimal: Your previous admissions as a young-earth-creationist implied to me at least a tacit acknowledgement of the calculations of Bishop Ussher.>

The King's English fails me.

<However since I did not want to wrongly assume anybody’s position on this matter, I asked yourself and <Jambow> for clarification.>

Riiiiiiight. "Is it true you still beat your wife? I only want to clarify." Maybe someone else believes you were asking a sincere question. I don't.

<<Jambow> responded candidly and had no qualms about making his position clear.>

Bully for him. I am rather impatient with people I think are behaving dishonestly.

<I think I can respect <Jambow>'s position more than <OhioChessFan>'s.>

Losing no sleep over that.

Apr-05-14  Colonel Mortimer: ..see?
Apr-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <OhioChessFan> So you equate belief in a 6,000 year old universe with wife-beating???
Apr-05-14  Colonel Mortimer: <OCF> <..the world is up to 11,000 years old. In terms of practical debate, the possibility can't be refuted.>

That settles it then. Interesting that the creationist arguments focus on cherry picking 'anomalies' in the scientific method.

Yet they don't offer scientific evidence to substantiate a young earth theory.

Science is fallible therefore God created Earth 6,000 to 11,000 years ago. Nice reasoning right there!

Apr-05-14  Jamesbowman: <My argument is against your flawed methodology which consists of looking for 'facts' that shore up your pre-conceived conclusion.>

So your preconcieved conclusions are good because you agree with them. The only difference is I actually use facts to support my position, you should try it.

Apr-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Gregor Samsa Mendel: <Jamesbowman>--You are making a false comparison; this not a battle between competing dogmas. Read up on history and what you will find is that your view is one where the worldview shapes the evidence to support it, and that mine and the Colonel's is one where an unbiased study of evidence shapes the worldview.
Apr-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: Well stated, <GSM>.
Apr-05-14  Everett: <Colonel Mortimer: <OCF> <..the world is up to 11,000 years old. In terms of practical debate, the possibility can't be refuted.> That settles it then. Interesting that the creationist arguments focus on cherry picking 'anomalies' in the scientific method.>

Just to add: Tree ring data seems to ensure at least 9,000 years of (plant) life on earth. And since radiocarbon dating results of fossils have matched so well with tree ring data, it essentially validates the C14 measuring, and thus allows for extrapolation beyond the life of trees.

Apr-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jambow: <Gregor Samsa Mendel: <Jambow>--The first two articles in this link refute the notion that carbon-14 dating can be used to come up with reliable estimates of the ages of fossil dinosaur bones:>

<GSM> First off the primary use of C14 dating is for organic material which includes both plants and animals. The other forms of radiometric dating are for mineral samples.

Now dinosaurs are carbon based life forms, which to be dated correctly presuming the methods are not flawed would be done by the C14 method. So why then haven't dinosaurs been C14 dated.

Answer is because since they assume they are 70 million years old they should not have a single isotope of C14 since it's half life is 5750 or there about.

Ok then the not using C14 as the dating method is not based upon observation but unverified presumptions. Keep in mind that the entire reason that nobody looked for intact soft tissue was for the same reason and that too was grossly incorrect. Countless articles were written by multiple scientists trying to explain how it wasn't really dinosaur soft tissue, but it is. None of this is a problem for those of us who believe the biblical account, those conundrums are for Darwinist's.

What happens when you use C14 dating on dinosaur bones? You get dates, in evolutionary terms you get remarkably young dates. Indicating that dinosaurs are very recent. This coincides well with the soft tissue samples found inside multiple bones now that they are actually looking.

<What this means, though, is that any formerly living thing which has no remnants of C14 must be over 50,000 years old. Exactly how old beyond this is determined through other methods, as listed above.>

<Everett>'s statement is fundamentally correct with a few caveats, life forms over 50,000 years should have no <detectable> C14, there would be some left just below the threshold of detectability. Actually that information is a bit dated as Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, has extended the theoretical range of carbon dating to about 70-100ka.

No matter when ever dinosaur tissue and bones are subjected to these methods they yield dates of between 20-40k years. That clearly indicates that the presumption of millions of years cannot be correct, and the amount of C14 is well within the measurable quantities of the instruments being employed. To attempt to argue that it can't be used one must ignore the results. Like saying that person is to light to be weighed on that scale because it doesn't yield reliable results below 200lbs. Albert steps on the scale and it says 600lbs. You can't therefor argue it doesn't work and he really isn't 600lbs, because his weight just like the C14 measures are well with in the systems range of operation.

This is yet another example of evolutionary assumptions curtailing scientific inquiry. Just like scientists not looking for soft tissue inside of dinosaur bones. Just like operating under the presumption that all non protein coding DNA was evolutionary garbage or junk DNA, when in fact it turns out that we are discovering that not only does the genetic code have a purpose, it is necessary to the organism.

C14 works for dating dinosaurs, the results blatantly contradict the paradigm from which evolutionist operate. I've asked multiple times for answers as to why C14 would be there and all of you fail to give an explanation.

<GSM> the articles don't refute anything they explain why C14 dating isn't normally used. The answer is because there shouldn't be a single isotope of it in any sample, but there it is relatively speaking in copious quantities.

Apr-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jambow: <Just to add: Tree ring data seems to ensure at least 9,000 years of (plant) life on earth. And since radiocarbon dating results of fossils have matched so well with tree ring data, it essentially validates the C14 measuring, and thus allows for extrapolation beyond the life of trees.>

<Everett> First off it is well known that under certain circumstances trees will produce more than one ring per annum, usually this occurs there was a spring event that starts to get warm and the temperature quickly plummets again. Second I believe the tree you refer too is on the edge of a northern continental climate where this weather pattern is rather typical and could produce two or three rings in one year.

The C14 tree ring calibrations you speak of were performed on trees from a Mediterranean climate and calibrated from 4800 rings or right after the time of the flood. So as not to mislead anyone C14 calibration from verifiable events do not go back 9,000 years, there are some trees with 9,000 rings.

BTW calibrating instruments using known events that have some degree of certainty is good science. Unfortunately that doesn't apply to other dating methods, that operate upon unverifiable initial conditions. This is why the gross failures of these methods when tested against known events is so important. The scientific method of inquiry is predicated upon falsifying one's hypothesis, not ignoring inconvenient results. The other mineral radiometric dating methods when tested have epic failures and therefor are essentially useless and should be considered unreliable. The fact that scientists calibrated C14 dating the way they did verifies my point. If they found tree rings in great contradiction it would falsify C14 dating, and it doesn't.

Apr-05-14  Everett: <Jambow> I think, from reading the articles I've posted, most would get the sense that scientists are very conscientious about their work. They want to get it right. So, the fact that sometimes a tree produces more than one ring per year is known, very well. The effect of magnetic fields on atmospheric carbon throughout history has also been noted and adjusted for.

When you responded to the post discussing radiocarbon dating, you mentioned Morris' work, yet the article was <refuting> Morris' work, and that part was only the first part of one-fifth of the article.

Here it goes on to say various things, such as <Tree-ring data gives us a precise correction table for carbon-14 dates as far back as 8,000-9,000 years. The above study by Stuiver shows that the C-14 fluctuations in the atmosphere were quite reasonable as far back as 22,000 years ago. The earth's magnetic field seems to have the greatest effect on C-14 production, and there is no reason to believe that its strength was greatly different even 40,000 years ago. (For a refutation of Barnes' argument see Topic 11.)>

And further corroboration of tree-age data here <When did the volcano that destroyed Thera (and probably the Minoan culture as well) explode? Radiocarbon dating of seeds and wood buried in the ash, done by scientists at the University of Pennsylvania, pointed to no later than 1600 BC. Being that this was one of the biggest volcanic eruptions in recorded history, it almost certainly caused worldwide cooling which would, in turn, affect tree growth. Sure enough, the growth rings among oaks buried in Ireland's bogs show the effect of unusual cooling from 1628-1618 BC. Nor was that just an effect of local weather conditions. The bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of California show the same thing. A third estimate came from studies in Greenland. "In 1987 Danish geologists examining signs of volcanic acidity in the Greenland ice sheet concluded that the Thera volcano erupted in 1645 B.C., give or take 20 years." (Biblical Archaeology Review, Jan/Feb 1991, p.48). Thus, we have a remarkable agreement between three different methods, all within two or three percentage points of each other!>

These kinds of "calibration" support the original calibration of C-14 and tree-age dating. There are other examples. Scientists cross- check and verify constantly. They want to get it right.

If you read the entire article here, you will see some of the pains scientists take to try to clarify things, to get consistency. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hov...

It addresses contamination, the resiliency of C14 decay rates, neutrino activity influence, etc. it is All very interesting

<Jambow> please site your source of a dinosaur remains carbon-dated to 20,000 years ago. I would like to read the source material.

Also, please provide the source for the claim that scientists do not attempt to C14 date suspected dinosaur remains. I would like to see in fact that this is not done with source material.

Apr-05-14  Everett: This part is particularly compelling, regarding stratification: <Perhaps Dr. Hovind is not aware of the fact that by 1815 the broad outlines of the geologic column from Paleozoic times onward had been worked out by people who were mostly creationist geologists. The relative order of the strata was first determined by the principles of stratification. (The principle of superposition was recognized as early as 1669 by Steno.) Reverend Benjamin Richardson and Reverend Joseph Townsend were a couple of early geologists involved in this work. By 1830 Lyell's famous textbook, Principles of Geology, came out. The captain of the H.M.S. Beagle, a very strong Bible believer, made it a point to have a copy of Lyell's book for the ship's library. Obviously, even Lyell was not pushing evolution at the time. Such was the age of the great creationist geologists!> and continues <The principle of faunal succession in the geologic record was established by direct observation as early as 1799 by William Smith. By the 1830's Adam Sedgwick and Roderick Murchison established a correlation between the various types of fossils and the rock formations in the British Isles. It was found that certain fossils, now referred to as index fossils, were restricted to a narrow zone of strata. Studies done on the European continent soon demonstrated the universal validity of index fossils. That is, an index fossil corresponded to a very specific point in the geologic column. Once the worth of index fossils had been established on the basis of stratification studies, they could logically be used to extend the correlation of rock formations to other continents. At this point in time they were simply a useful tool for correlating rock formations.

One can hardly accuse these pioneers of evolutionary prejudice. Nearly a half-century would pass before Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, was published! By then, the relative ages (order) of the geologic column had already been worked out in some detail. Radiometric dating would later confirm the relative ages of the strata and tie them to absolute dates. (Far from being a rubber stamp, radiometric dating would go on to revolutionize our understanding of the Precambrian.) Thus, it became possible to date strata directly from index fossils.

Note that evolution has nothing to do with how the index fossils are used to date strata! Any kind of object clearly restricted to a specific point in the geologic column would do just fine. If green dice were found only in the middle Ordovician strata, they would make excellent "index fossils." Evolution should be seen as an explanation of the faunal succession, a succession which was worked out long before evolution dominated the scene. Evolution, working in tandem with geologic ages, can explain why we have index fossils, but evolution is not needed to make the index fossils useful for dating strata.>

The website goes through and addresses most of the major creationist and young earth arguments.

Apr-05-14  Everett: Here is something of interest, from the exact same article, further along, discussing the use of different radio-metric methods: <Dr. Hovind (G5): The assumed age of a sample will dictate which radiometric dating method is used. One method will only give results for a young age; another will only give results for a very old age. Thus, the assumed age of a sample dictates the method which, in turn, gives the assumed age! G5. That seems to be Dr. Hovind's complaint, one that has been made by other creationists. Are we to believe that the world's leading geologists cannot recognize an elementary case of circular reasoning? Is that the real explanation behind their choice of isotopes in radiometric dating? Of course not! Those creationists arguing thus have been grievously blinded by their religious prejudice, against which even a Ph.D. is no defense.

The problem lies with Dr. Hovind and many other creationists who haven't the foggiest idea how radiometric dating works! They are the last people who should be criticizing it. The explanation is so easy that quotations from specialists won't even be necessary.

If you test an old sample with a radiometric method geared to young samples, you would find that all the "parent" radioactive atoms have decayed. Your conclusion would be that the sample has a minimum age which corresponds to the smallest amount of the "parent" nuclide you can detect. You would not conclude that the sample was "young."

If you test a young sample with a radiometric method geared to old samples, you would find that none of the "parent" radioactive atoms have decayed. Your conclusion would be that the sample has a maximum age which corresponds to the smallest amount of the "daughter" nuclide which you can detect. You would not conclude that the sample was "old."

The realities of the laboratory, of course, mean that there are no sharp cut-off points. Instead, there will be ranges, and at the extremes the results can only give a rough maximum or minimum age. Dates landing in that zone would be considered unreliable.

It's a little like weighing a flea on a truck scales or weighing a brick on a scales designed to weigh envelopes. If the brick depresses the envelope scales all the way to the highest mark, you conclude that the brick weighs at least that much. If the flea doesn't depress the scales at the truck stop, you conclude that it weighs less than a weight which barely moves those scales.

Consequently, the choice of scales will not dictate the result. Of course, if the truck scales isn't perfectly calibrated, you might get a 50-pound flea! Similarly, the envelope scales would indicate that the brick only weighs a few ounces. However, no one who is familiar with such scales would take those readings too seriously. A similar situation holds for radiometric dating. Readings falling in the minimum or maximum zones are not taken too seriously. Thus, there is no problem.>

Apr-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Gregor Samsa Mendel: <Jambow>--Did you read the articles in the link that I provided? You seem to be assuming that the fossilized dinosaur bones are original unaltered material, when it is far more likely that the carbon in the fossils arrived by permineralization, and was not present when the fossil material was first buried.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/pcies...

Using C-14 to date dinosaur fossils is like using a stopwatch to figure out when the Pyramids were built. The dial might give you a reading, but I wouldn't trust what it said.

While you have copiously responded with a veritable Noachian deluge of verbiage to what I said about C-14 dating of dinosaur bones, I note that you did not say anything regarding your actual scientific experience. Science is a process practiced by scientists to learn about the real world, not a tool used by armchair debaters to prop up the chronologies implied by their pet superstitions.

Apr-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jambow: <Everett> You can get incensed and go on a tirade if you like, but you are jousting with windmills and molesting scare crows not remotely addressing my arguments and responding to a position I don't hold. Not that I think C14 dating is infallible, only that I'm not now disputing it and actually citing it as direct physical evidence that dinosaurs are relatively recent.

The trees you gave as an example as far as I can tell HAVE NOT been carbon dated. The ones that HAVE been carbon dated and used as a means of calibration are dated to approximately 4500-4800 years. You can't use one to argue for the other one was tested one was not.

So your logical refutation would be to link us to where scientists performed the same calibration procedure on the spruce trees you cited, not a diversion into C14 dating calibration which isn't even an element of my argument. At this point I don't care if Dr. Morris or talk.origins is in error as it isn't relevant and appears to be a red herring.

I believe calibrating C14 dating methods based upon verifiable events is good science, what is it you don't get? I'm NOT arguing that C14 dating is useless as are other forms of radiometric dating. I'm asking you and your cohorts to explain why C14 exists in dinosaurs that are alleged to have died out 65 million years ago? Problem is exactly the same whether Dr. Morris is correct or not, it shouldn't be there in either case period, so why is it? No less soft tissue should not be their either yet it is now known to be typical, now that the assumption that it shouldn't be there has been shown invalid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgM_...

About 3:25 you will see the test Accelerated Mass Spectrometer test results from by the University of Georgia. There were 8 distinct samples tested which yielded dates from 22,000 to 39,000 years old.

Apr-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <Jambow> The Bible provides no explanation for the existence of aboriginal Australians (and please don't say they're descended from Ham or Japheth).

<The first Aboriginal genome sequence confirms Australia's native people left Africa 75,000 years ago.>

http://www.australiangeographic.com...

<A century-old lock of hair, given by a West Australian indigenous man to an anthropologist, has led to the discovery that ancestors of Aboriginal Australians reached Asia at least 24,000 years before another wave of migration that populated Europe and Asia.

Studying his DNA, the researchers found that the ancestors of Australian Aboriginals had split from the first modern human populations to leave Africa, 64,000 to 75,000 years ago.>

Apr-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jambow: <GSM> Thank you for confirming C14 exists in dinosaur fossils, <Everett> did you catch that.

I find the contamination theories to be poor excuses, these are bones entombed in sedimentary rock layers some of the bones were not even permineralized at all, which is to say not fossils per say rather just dinosaur bones.

Did you look at the link of the Cambodian temple or not, is that a stegosaurus or a daisy?

How about that Schweitzer video what is your opinion on that? There are now countless scientists that also say it was totally unexpected, flies in the face of science, confirmed as actual dinosaur soft tissue despite the countless protests and banal theories that tried to explain it away.

Maybe paleontologist didn't check for C14 initially because their theory says it shouldn't be there, maybe they don't do it now because they understand the implications? There are thousands of dinosaur bones in museums world wide, lets have a look I'm not afraid of the results, are they all contaminated? If none of them contain C14 we can right off all the positive results so far. I mean you just want to follow the evidence right, let's invest in science and have a peek.

Apr-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jambow: <Using C-14 to date dinosaur fossils is like using a stopwatch to figure out when the Pyramids were built. The dial might give you a reading, but I wouldn't trust what it said.>

Unfortunately you ignored the answer in my post, which is not surprising.

The concentration of C14 was well within the range of mass spectrometry, the results themselves validate that as a fact. It is when the concentrations are to low that instruments would not yield accurate results or become unreliable which anyone can see is not a problem here.

You can't invalidate lab results with your own assumptions, real science doesn't work like that. I think <Everett> might want to direct his tirade about carbon dating at you as you are the one arguing it is not reliable. ;0]

Apr-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <Jambow> <Did you look at the link of the Cambodian temple or not, is that a stegosaurus or a daisy?> It looks like a cross between an armadillo and a pig!

Probably just some kind of mythical animal.

Apr-05-14
Premium Chessgames Member
  Gregor Samsa Mendel: <Jambow>--You might consider the contamination theories to be poor excuses, but contamination of the carbonate found in bone samples can be a real issue:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/rat...

A single temple carving of something that sort of looks like a stegosaurus is not exactly convincing evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. Ancient cave paintings show recognizable depictions of horses, rhinoceroses, elephants, and other ancient mammals, but none that I know of show dinosaurs. Do you know of any?

Your silence on the issue of your scientific training and experience is most intriguing.

Apr-05-14  Everett: <The trees you gave as an example as far as I can tell HAVE NOT been carbon dated. The ones that HAVE been carbon dated and used as a means of calibration are dated to approximately 4500-4800 years. You can't use one to argue for the other one was tested one was not.>

This is strawman. I've never discussed specific trees, I've brought quotes from the talk.origins website, which sites many leading scientists on the matter. There for you to read. What is your source material?

No tirade here. Wonder what makes you say that, perhaps some Jungian projection on your part. Just adding material to the debate in case you don't bother reading the links thoroughly yourself.

My last quote addresses one part of your main question, which is why scientists don't radiocarbon date dinosaur bones.My answer was a quote from talk.origins, which indicates that they likely do, but because if the results using either the "old" method or the "young" method would indicate immediately what they were dealing with. Read it if you want to see how conscientious scientists deal with these issues.

The second part seems to be addressed by <GSM>, with regards to contamination, a real issue, ever present with fossils and such.

Apr-05-14  Everett: <You can't invalidate lab results with your own assumptions, real science doesn't work like that. I think <Everett> might want to direct his tirade about carbon dating at you as you are the one arguing it is not reliable. ;0]>

This seems to prove that you do not understand what <GSM> is saying.

<Jambow: <GSM> Thank you for confirming C14 exists in dinosaur fossils, <Everett> did you catch that.>

Yes, I caught you completely misunderstanding what <GSM> wrote.

Apr-06-14  Colonel Mortimer: <Jambow:> What is your scientific evidence for the world being 6,000 years old..?

Because that's what we are talking about - scientific evidence - is it not?

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 29)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 29 OF 29 ·  Later Kibitzing>

100% Cotton Chess Puzzle Shirt
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.


NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com.
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
  


home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Little ChessPartner | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies