chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

 
Chessgames.com User Profile Chessforum
OhioChessFan
Member since Apr-09-05 · Last seen Sep-02-14
Sinquefield Cup Moves Prediction Contest

<Main Focus>: Predicting how many moves in a game for each pairing.

Chessgames.com tournament page:
Sinquefield Cup (2014)

Official site:

Tournament live games:

Live games with Rybka analysis (Not active for Tata): http://www.chessok.com/?page_id=139

Alternate live games:
http://www.chessdom.com/tata-steel-...

***Hall of Fame***
chessmoron chessforum

Last Tournament Results: Tata Steel 2014

<Karposian> Tat14:BonusRnk(1) + StdMv/Bonus(1)

<juan31> Tat14:StdMvRnk(1t) + StdMv/Bonus(2) + 1stRanker(2t)

<SwitchingQuylthulg> Tat14:StdMvRnk(1t) + 1stRanker(2t)

<Golden Executive> Tat14:StdMvRnk(3) + 1stRanker(1)

<WinKing> Tat14:StdMvRnk(2) + StdMv/Bonus(3) + 1stRanker(3t)

<Penguincw> Tat14:BonusRnk(2)

<chessmoron> Tat14:BonusRnk(3)

<NakoSonorense> Tat14:1stRanker(3t)

<Format>:

[player]-[player] [result] [# of MOVES]

==4 Different Scoring Methods==

Standard Moves Ranker (1st place-Over[3pts], 1st place-Under [7pts], Exact [10pts])

Bonus Ranker (3rd place-Over[1pts],2nd place-Over[2pts],3rd place-Under [5pts], 2nd place-Under [6pts]

Standard Moves/Bonus Ranker [Add all to together]

1st place Ranker [how many 1st place you have in Standard Moves Ranker]

For example:

<Note: Participants 3, 4, and 5 are predicated on nobody scoring an exact as Participant 2 did. If someone hits an exact, the closest score under and over will score the points for second place.>

Actual Game: [player]-[player] 0-1 45

Participant 1: [player]-[player] 1/2 45
Participant 2: [player]-[player] 0-1 45
Participant 3: [player]-[player] 0-1 44
Participant 4: [player]-[player] 0-1 43
Participant 5: [player]-[player] 0-1 46

Participant 1: No points even though 45 is correct. Results must be correct. If Result is wrong and moves # is correct...you get no points whatsoever

Participant 2: 10 pts rewarded for correct Result/moves #

Participant 3: 7 pts rewarded for closest under (1st-Under) to 45 moves

Participant 4: 6 pts rewarded for the 2nd closest under (2nd-Under) to 45 moves.

Participant 5: 3 pts rewarded closest OVER(1st-OVER) to 45 moves.

Again, the description of Participant 3, 4, and 5 are based on there being no exact prediction as made by Participant 2.

<IF> there is an exact or an under closest, the highest scoring over participant will be 2nd over. The second closest over will be 3rd over. The <ONLY> time there will be a first over is if there is no exact or under winner.

>> Click here to see OhioChessFan's game collections.

Chessgames.com Full Member

   OhioChessFan has kibitzed 27801 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Sep-02-14 Kenneth Rogoff (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: <Refused> you might consider investing in some mirrors if you want to continue to offer assessments of other people's moral state.
 
   Sep-01-14 OhioChessFan chessforum (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: Nakamura - Aronian 1/2 37 Caruana - Topalov 1-0 41 Carlsen - Vachier Lagrave 1/2 40
 
   Sep-01-14 Phony Benoni chessforum (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: 1 caught stealing. 0 stolen base. Didn't need to look it up.
 
   Sep-01-14 Stockfish vs Nakamura / Rybka, 2014
 
OhioChessFan: I agree f5 was a bad idea, but I am surprised nobody else has suggested Naka should have walked his King to the Queenside at the same time as Stockfish.
 
   Sep-01-14 Biographer Bistro (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: <cg.c> I don't know how much work it would be, but how about a history of edits to bios, ala Wiki's history page of entries? It would be especially nice to know who the primary writer of the various bios were.
 
   Sep-01-14 Fabiano Caruana (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: Yeah, need a new pic for sure.
 
   Sep-01-14 Siegbert Tarrasch (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: There's not many players today you can count on to respond to 1. e4 with either e5 or e6.
 
   Sep-01-14 Kibitzer's Café (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: <Cfl: What is your experience with opening memorization?> The primary reason(along with zero visualization skills) I have never been able to get serious about chess.
 
   Sep-01-14 Smyslov vs Denker, 1996
 
OhioChessFan: Uhlmann vs Korchnoi, 2014 79+83 = 162!
 
   Sep-01-14 M Willich vs P Fink, 2004 (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: Ah, need a link to that great song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Dn...
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Moves Prediction Contest

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 291 OF 444 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Feb-13-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: LOL If you lose, you feel even more miserable. The strange part is I did fairly well here and was just about dead last in <YouRang> contest.
Feb-14-12  MORPHYEUS: I don't mean to be harsh to Playground Player <OCF>.

I made my last kibitz saying that abiogenesis/evolution is contrary to the teachings of the bible and if you are Christian with doubts you should seek the Spirit. That's it and Peace. I was going to leave his forum, but no, he was determined to give YouRang the last word.

I kinda pity him, coz he obviously was afraid that YouRang is going to leave his forum and I was actually trying to win <YR> back to his forum. So i made my supposed last kibitz, but he wouldn't allow me to make closure with peace.

Anyway. This is my last take on it. Peace, bro.

Feb-14-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <Morph> I do think you've been pretty harsh. I don't care much if someone is harsh to me, but I understand others being concerned about it.

I hate to speak of <YouRang> in the third person(and if you read this, <YouRang>, you certainly have unlimited access for rebuttal here)but I can say he absolutely sends my blood pressure through the roof. The constant demeaning references to "some Christians" meaning "OhioChessFan among others", the constant reframing of arguments "This is all about the interpretation of ONE verse", and the incessant self congratulations along the lines of (Not a quote but an interpretation) <I try to show the world that not all Christians are anti-science simpletons. Some are enlightened deep thinkers like me, harumph, harumph> are tiresome and the attitude behind it just screams through the words. In the bigger picture, I am on the same page as you and think it is dangerous to suggest the Bible doesn't mean what it plainly says regarding creation, and I have no intention of captitulating.

I don't think <PP> was worried about <YR> leaving.

Anyone who'd care to respond to me, feel free.

Feb-14-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Wooly mammoth update:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...

Feb-14-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  playground player: <OhioChessFan> *sigh* If it ain't a photo-shopped mammoth, it's a rubber Diplocaulus in a bucket. Cryptozoology is a thankless pursuit: especially because, as soon as the cryptozoologist actually finds something, it ceases to be cryptozoology.

PS: It took me a long time to shed my belief in Evolution, and I try to be patient with Christians who aren't there yet. If some mistake my patience for wishy-washiness, I can't help it.

PPS: You should see what happens to my blood pressure, after I read certain posts. But I am committed to being patient.

Feb-14-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <I hate to speak of <YouRang> in the third person(and if you read this, <YouRang>, you certainly have unlimited access for rebuttal here)>

Thank you for that, and no problem with the third person. In fact I did the same a moment ago in <pgp>'s forum.

<but I can say he absolutely sends my blood pressure through the roof. The constant demeaning references to "some Christians" meaning "OhioChessFan among others", >

I'm open to suggestions for how you think I should word those comments. When I say "some Christians", in that context, I really am referring to the much larger group and not just you.

<the constant reframing of arguments "This is all about the interpretation of ONE verse",>

Did I say that? I believe I made the comment that the whole thing was based on the interpretation of a FEW VERSES in Genesis. And if you disagree with my comment, why not just calmly explain why you think I am wrong?

< and the incessant self congratulations along the lines of [yada yada] are tiresome and the attitude behind it just screams through the words.>

Well, it's easy to assume the worst motives of those you disagree with, and you have frequently made such assumptions about me. You've expressed these assumptions many times and I think they are tiresome.

I'll congratulate myself on one thing: I think I'm slower to be offended than you are, and I don't let our disagreements affect my blood pressure.

<In the bigger picture, I am on the same page as you and think it is dangerous to suggest the Bible doesn't mean what it plainly says regarding creation, and I have no intention of captitulating. >

Yes, you two are basically on the same page, except you are in the YEC camp and Morph isn't. I also regard you as the more mature, and I would hope you would give Morph some counsel regarding the sources he uses (i.e. Harun Yahya).

Thanks for the space to reply.

Feb-14-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <YouRang: I'm open to suggestions for how you think I should word those comments. >

It's not how you say it, for the most part.

<When I say "some Christians", in that context, I really am referring to the much larger group and not just you.>

I understand that.

Feb-14-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <YR: I'll congratulate myself on one thing: I think I'm slower to be offended than you are, and I don't let our disagreements affect my blood pressure.>

It's not the disagreements, but anyway. Your last post here didn't move the needle on my annoyance meter.

<I also regard you as the more mature, and I would hope you would give Morph some counsel regarding the sources he uses (i.e. Harun Yahya).>

Truth is not amenable to the source. But I know what you mean.

Feb-14-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <Truth is not amenable to the source. But I know what you mean.>

You can drink from a faucet or drink from a toilet. Sometimes the water may be just as good, but I wouldn't count on it.

Feb-15-12  MORPHYEUS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hom...

Please learn how to debate"scientifically" , since you regard yourself so highly scientific.

Feb-15-12  MORPHYEUS: The battle is not science vs religion.

It's False Science vs True Science.

If you have to accept everything that your version of Science says, it means you can't think for yourself.

If you accept abiogenesis/evolution at their face value because "Science" said so and somehow you can reconcile it with your religion, well that's dangerous indeed (to quote OCF).

Feb-15-12  MORPHYEUS: When you agreed to debate and base your arguments on "science" and claims that you are scientific, you have to be consistent.

So when you discard statistics and probability (both are science) and insisting that only "zero" is impossible, you're being unscientific. (in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 1050 is statistically considered to have a "zero" probability of occurring.)

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Now tell me <YouRang> what is the probability that those amino acids were assembled by God into protein?

Feb-15-12  MORPHYEUS: OK. Forget about that. As you said it's not the point.

The point according to you is we should not see it that science is attacking religion when they claim abiogenesis/evolution is true. But you are still wrong in that point.

No, they're not attacking religion, they're just attacking God by denying His works and existence. You don't think God is insulted that way?

"There is no God, therefore there is no God's Law and Morality."

In Revelations, The antichrist will be a charismatic individual who doesn't honor any of the gods of the various religions. His world government may very well be a secular one worshiping science and banning religion.

We can already see it happening in Europe where banning of religious symbols such as the Muslim veil or the cruxific has taken place.

Feb-15-12  MORPHYEUS: You can see it happening in America where only evolution is allowed to be taught. Prayer is not allowed in public schools. They are going to strike out the very name of God in the legal system.

"We are here because of abiogenesis/evolution. There is no morality. Jesus was a fake". <Mark 10:6-8:"But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.>

"There is no God so we will step on the institution of marriage established by God, or commit abortion, and other sins. We are all just mammals."

If you still don't see it as an attack on religion (but it's really God they're attacking). I'll say again, you're being incredibly naive.

Feb-15-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <MORPHYEUS><So when you discard statistics and probability (both are science) and insisting that only "zero" is impossible, you're being unscientific. (in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 1050 is statistically considered to have a "zero" probability of occurring.)>

LOL! This alone proves beyond a doubt, and I'm sorry to be so blunt, you are a complete moron when it comes to mathematics, which includes statistics and probability.

FYI, I happen to have a university degree in mathematics, so I know something about statistics and probability. But even a child should know how dumb your comment is. If you're right, then commercial jets never crash, nobody ever wins the lottery, and you were never born.

Like I said to you earlier, stop filling your head with Harun Yahya or you will forever be his foolish stooge.

No, I will not enter a debate with you. I prefer the wall.

BTW, I suspect that you're even embarrassing the creationists here.

Feb-15-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  WannaBe: All I got to say is, I've got some of the knuckleheads on ignore, but thanks to the reposts, I got a great laugh!

Thanks for bringing a big smile to my face.

Feb-15-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <YouRang: Well, it's easy to assume the worst motives of those you disagree with, and you have frequently made such assumptions about me. You've expressed these assumptions many times and I think they are tiresome.>

It is not an issue of disagreeing with you. There's people on the Rogoff page I couldn't agree with about what day of the week it is and yet I have no problems with them. How many times have you said something like "Such people (I understand that is including me) do a disservice to Christianity."? You don't think <that> is tiresome? And you think you're the aggrieved party in this discussion? Unbelievable.

Feb-15-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <Morph> I assume you meant something along the lines of "1 in 10 to the 1050 power?"
Feb-15-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Okay, searched this out:

<Borel’s law of probability states that the occurrence of any event, where the chances are beyond one in one followed by 50 zeroes, is an event that we can state with certainty never will happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place >

So that would be 10 to the 49th power?

Feb-15-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  hms123: <OCF>

10 to the 1st = 10
10 to the 2nd = 100
10 to the 3rd = 1000
...
10 to the 50th = 1 followed by 50 zeroes

Feb-15-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: I am having a bad day if I missed that. Whew.
Feb-15-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Searching around on the matter and found this one. The monkey analogy is certainly familiar, though I don't recall reading the article before:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apc...

<Creationist Duane Gish posed the following question along the same lines: “What would be the probability of one unique sequence of 100 amino acids, composed of 20 different amino acids, arising by chance in five billion years?” He, too, then used a “monkey analogy” (again, the same type of monkey analogy to which Mr. Rennie referred).

A monkey typing 100 letters every second for five billion years would not have the remotest chance of typing a particular sentence of 100 letters even once without spelling errors. In fact, if one billion (109) planets the size of the earth were covered eyeball-to-eyeball and elbow-to-elbow with monkeys, and each monkey was seated at a typewriter (requiring about 10 square feet for each monkey, of the approximately 1016 square feet available on each of the 109 planets), and each monkey typed a string of 100 letters every second for five billion years (about 1017 seconds) the chances are overwhelming that not one of these monkeys would have typed the sentence correctly! Only 1041 tries could be made by all these monkeys in that five billion years. There would not be the slightest chance that a single one of the 1024 monkeys (a trillion trillion monkeys) would have typed a preselected sentence of 100 letters (such as “The subject of this Impact article is the naturalistic origin of life on the earth under assumed primordial conditions”) without a spelling error, even once.

Considering an enzyme, then, of 100 amino acids, there would be no possibility whatever that a single molecule could ever have arisen by pure chance on the earth in five billion years (1976, 37:3, parenthetical items in orig.).

And that is exactly our point.>

Feb-15-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  jessicafischerqueen: <Ohio> don't mean to interrupt the current debate, but I just thought I'd point out that I can no longer read the word "monkey" without immediately thinking "monkey ranker."

I blame you and <McLovin> for this unfortunate state of affairs.

Feb-15-12  MORPHYEUS: <No, I will not enter a debate with you. I prefer the wall.>

Of course not. That's what i thought.
You know you'd be beaten black and blue without the protection of <Playground Player>. Good move.

Incidentally he used that ad hominem attack again about how he has a degree in mathematics and how dumb i'm supposed to be.

Btw, <YouRang> compared to OCF, you're not even half a man. He does not try to reconcile his beliefs with the foolishness of the world. Just see him speak the truth at Kenneth Rogoff's page, instead of being on the side of those worldly fellas and deriding a "fellow Christian" some more.

Feb-15-12
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <OhioChessFan: <Morph> I assume you meant something along the lines of "1 in 10 to the 1050 power?">

Good try!

But no. He "learned" learned this from a Harun Yahya website, possibly this one: http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chap...

<As we saw earlier, in mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 in 1050 is statistically considered to have a "0" probability of occurring. > and Yahya makes this same statement elsewhere using different wording, so it's hardly a typo on his part.

Also, don't forget, Morph doesn't just copy & paste -- he said he spends *hours* analyzing this stuff. :-D

I must confess -- and I know it's wrong -- but I do feel a bit amused that you told <MORPHYEUS> that you and he were on the same page, lol.

~~~~~

<How many times have you said something like "Such people (I understand that is including me) do a disservice to Christianity."? You don't think <that> is tiresome?>

It seems there are so many ways for professing Christians to discredit Christianity. As you know, I do include you in some of those things, but certainly not all of them.

<And you think you're the aggrieved party in this discussion? Unbelievable.>

Did I say I was the aggrieved party? I think we've both been saying things that the other could be construed as insulting.

Or are you pretending that you don't say things that insult others? As I recall, I entered this ongoing discussion after you made an unprovoked comment to the effect that scientists who taught evolution were liars and that this site was full of their confused and brainwashed students. You've made similar statements a number of times since.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 444)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 291 OF 444 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Take the Premium Membership Tour
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.
Participating Grandmasters are Not Allowed Here!

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 | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies