User Profile Chessforum
Member since Feb-23-05
<< ♆ > Game Prediction Contest < ♆ >>

This forum is currently the place to participate in game prediction contests.

<Next tournament>

Maybe Norway Chess 2014 - June 2-13

Players: Carlsen, Aronian, Kramnik, Topalov, Caruana, Karjakin, Svidler, Grischuk, and 2 others to make a total of 10.

<Last tournament>

World Chess Championship Candidates (2014) - Dates: March 13-30


StdRnk: K=<wordfunph>, Q=<blade2012>, R=<Blunderdome>, R=<Karposian>

123Rnk: K=<blade2012>, Q=<wordfunph>, R=<call14>, R=<YouRang>

BetRnk: K=<blade2012>, Q=<YouRang>, R=<WannaBe>


This contest was created and originally hosted by <cu8sfan>, but he has discontinued hosting the contests due to time constraints at work. Note that this is NOT the final standings prediction contest, which is hosted by User: lostemperor.

Have fun predicting the outcome of each game in each round, and seeing how well your predictions compare to those entered by other contestants. You win by having the best overall prediction performance.

As with the Olympics, the top 3 placeholders will be honored with 'medals' (gold, silver and bronze), and the gold medal winners will be inducted into the HALL OF FAME (see below). Truly, an unbelievable honor. (Even I don't believe it.)

There will be a few different ways to determine a winner, as discussed under "SCORING METHODS", below.

1. Enter your game predictions for a round BEFORE any games for that round begin (duh). It is okay to enter predictions long in advance (e.g. you could predict all rounds at the start if you want).

2. Make sure that when you enter game predictions for a round, that you include ALL games in that round, within a single post. If you miss one game, all of your predictions for that round will be ignored.

3. You may change your predictions for a round by re-submitting ALL of your predictions for that round (you must re-submit predictions for all games in the round, even if you changed a prediction for only one game).

4. Keep in mind that I'm using software to process all of the prediction posts. If you enter a post that 'looks' like game predictions, it will be counted as game predictions. If your prediction post contains typos, they become subject to my interpretation of your intent. But if the intent strikes me as being ambiguous, then I must reject your predictions for that game, and thus for that whole round -- so please be careful.

5. A post containing predictions should have one line for each game prediction. The line should be of the form:

    [whiteplayer] - [blackplayer] [outcome]

Here are some examples:
    Anand - Topalov 1/2
    Leko - Kramnik 1-0
    Adams - Polgar 0-1
DON'T forget the hyphen between the player's names.
(The software can usually figure out what you mean if you deviate a *little* from this form...)

There are 3 different scoring methods, which means that there are actually 3 contests in one. Consequently, we could have as many as 3 different winners (or perhaps one triple-crown winner!)

1. Standard Ranker
This is the traditional contest that <cu8sfan> developed. The winner is simply the person who finishes with the most correct predictions.

2. 1-2-3 Ranker
This contest makes it is more rewarding to correctly predict the outcome of a decisive game than a drawn game. You earn 1 point for correctly predicting a draw, but 2 points for correctly predicting a white win, and 3 points for correctly predicting a black win. The winner is the person ending up with the most points.

3. Betting Ranker
This contest gives greater rewards to those who have a knack for predicting upsets (i.e. games that most other people thought would have a different outcome). Each game prediction is treated as a $1 wager. All of the money wagered on that game is divided up equally to those who correctly predicted its outcome. If you're the only one who got it right, you've hit the jackpot! The winner is the person ending up with the most $$$.

<Notes on Scoring Methods>

For the "Standard Ranker" and "1-2-3 Ranker" reports, you will notice that there are four "robot" contestants who serve as comparison benchmarks. These are as follows:

1. WHITER = Always predicts white to win.
2. BLACKER = Always predicts black to win.
3. DRAWER = Predicts every game to be drawn.
4. MONKEY = Simulates a monkey that just picks white, black or draw at random, with equal chances for each outcome.

<Miscellaneous comments>:

My ability to process predictions and post results may be spotty at times. I'll do them as soon as I can -- but I have a number of other things are higher priority. :-)

I am not always online when the games for a round begin. It would be helpful to me if someone who IS online when the games begin to post a message in this forum simply stating that the games have begun. This lets me know the cut-off point for accepting new predictions for that round.

TIP: It's easy to get busy and neglect to enter your predictions on time. If so, you'll miss a round, which greatly diminishes your chances of winning. Avoid this by entering a few rounds of predictions in advance. You can always revise them later if you like. :-)

Please do not enter predictions that mimic the robots (e.g. pick all draws in every round like DRAWER). I don't award medals to people who make such predictions since it would be unfair to the robots who don't earn medals. Besides, such predictions are supremely uninteresting. (BTW, it is okay to mimic the MONKEY robot -- I do it all the time.)

★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★


K10 Q6 R6 <Legend> Tal13:StdRnk(3t) / Wij13:StdRnk(2t) / Bil12:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1t) / Dor12:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(2t) / Wij12:StdRnk(3t) / Tal11:123Rnk(2t)+BetRnk(3) / Dor11:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(1) / Wij11:StdRnk(1t) / Dor09:StdRnk(3t) / Dor08:StdRnk(2t) / Lin08:StdRnk(1) / WCC07:StdRnk(3t) / Dor07:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(1t)+BetRnk(2) / Wij07:123Rnk(1t)+StdRnk(2t) / Dor06:BetRnk(3)

K8 Q5 R2 <su3eichfeld> Dor13:BetRnk(2) / Wij13:BetRnk(2) / Bie12:BetRnk(3) / Dor11:StdRnk(3) / Lin10:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1t)+BetRnk(2) / Tal09:123Rnk(1t)+BetRnk(1) / Pea09:123Rnk(1t)+StdRnk(2t)+BetRnk(2) / Dor09:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1t)+BetRnk(1)

K8 Q5 R <NakoSonorense> Wij14:123Rnk(1t) / Dor13:123Rnk(2t) / Wij10:BetRnk(1) / Lin09:BetRnk(1) / Wij09:BetRnk(3) / Bie08:BetRnk(1) / Dor08:BetRnk(1) / Mte08:BetRnk(1)+123Rnk(2t) / Lin08:123Rnk(1)+StdRnk(2t)+BetRnk(2) / Wij08:BetRnk(1) / Bie07:123Rnk(2)

K8 Q2 R5 <lostemperor> Nor13:StdRnk(3t)+123Rnk(3t) / Wij13:BetRnk(3) / Dor10:StdRnk(3t) / Lin10:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1t) / Wij10:123Rnk(1t) / Mte09:123Rnk(2t) / Bie08:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1) / Lin07:123Rnk(2t)+StdRnk(3t) / Dor06:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1)+BetRnk(1)

K8 Q R2 <SloVice> WCC13:BetRnk(3) / Wij13:123Rnk(1)+StdRnk(2t) / Wij12:BetRnk(1) / Bil11:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(1)+BetRnk(1) / Pea10:BetRnk(1) / Dor10:123Rnk(1)+BetRnk(1)+StdRnk(3t)

K7 Q2 R <virginmind> Wij13:123Rnk(3) / Bil12:StdRnk(1t) / Baz11:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(1)+BetRnk(2) / Wij11:123Rnk(2) / Mte09:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1)+BetRnk(1) / Mte07:BetRnk(1)

K7 Q R2 <blade2012> WCC14:123Rnk(1)+BetRnk(1)+StdRnk(2) / Wij14:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1t) / WCC13:StdRnk(3t)+123Rnk(3t) / Bie12:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1t)+BetRnk(1)

K6 Q5 R9 <chessmoron> Wij14:StdRnk(1t) / Dor13:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(2t) / WCC13:StdRnk(3t) / Bil12:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1t) / Bie12:StdRnk(3)+123Rnk(3) / Bil11:StdRnk(2)+123Rnk(3) / Baz11:StdRnk(3t) / Dor10:StdRnk(1t) / Wij10:StdRnk(2)+123Rnk(3t) / Tal09:StdRnk(3t)+123Rnk(3t) / Wij09:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(2t) / Lin08:BetRnk(3) / Wij08:StdRnk(2t)

K5 Q6 R5 <SwitchingQuylthulg> WCC13:BetRnk(2) / Bil12:BetRnk(1)+123Rnk(2t) / Wij12:BetRnk(3) / Tal11:123Rnk(2t)+StdRnk(3) / Dor11:BetRnk(1)+123Rnk(2t) / Baz11:StdRnk(3t) / Wij11:StdRnk(1t)+BetRnk(2) / Pea10:StdRnk(1t) / Dor10:BetRnk(3) / Mte09:BetRnk(2) / Bie08:BetRnk(3) / Bie07:BetRnk(1)

K5 Q <messachess> Lin09:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(1)+BetRnk(2) / Wij09:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1) / Wij08:123Rnk(1)

K4 Q3 R2 <zarg> Dor10:StdRnk(3t) / Wij10:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(1t) / Tal09:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1t) / Pea09:StdRnk(2t)+BetRnk(3) / Lin09:StdRnk(2)+123Rnk(2t)

K4 Q R4 <Where is my mind> Pea09:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(1t)+BetRnk(1) / Dor09:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(3t)+BetRnk(3) / Mte09:123Rnk(2t) / Lin09:StdRnk(3t) / Bie08:StdRnk(3t)

K4 Q R2 <kolobok> Dor08:123Rnk(3t) / Bie07:StdRnk(1) / Dor07:123Rnk(1t)+BetRnk(1)+StdRnk(3t) / Lin07:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(2t)

K3 Q4 R5 <cromat> Dor12:123Rnk(2t) / Dor10:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(2t) / Lin10:StdRnk(3t)+123Rnk(3t) / Dor09:123Rnk(1t)+StdRnk(3t) / Dor08:StdRnk(2t) / Dor07:StdRnk(3t)+123Rnk(3t) / Dor06:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(2t)

K3 Q3 R12 <OhioChessFan> Wij14:StdRnk(3t) / Tal13:123Rnk(2t)+StdRnk(3t) / Nor13:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(1) / Bil11:StdRnk(3t) / Baz11:StdRnk(3t) / Wij11:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(3) / Wij10:123Rnk(3t) / Tal09:StdRnk(3t)+123Rnk(3t) / Mte09:123Rnk(2t)+StdRnk(3) / Lin09:BetRnk(3) / Dor08:123Rnk(3t) / Wij08:BetRnk(2) / Bie07:123Rnk(3)

K3 Q3 R2 <nfazli> Tal13:BetRnk(3) / Dor12:123Rnk(1)+BetRnk(2) / Tal11:BetRnk(1) / Bil11:BetRnk(2)+StdRnk(3t) / Wij09:BetRnk(1)+123Rnk(2t)

K3 <WinKing> Dor12:StdRnk(1t) / Tal11:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1)

K2 Q5 R2 <wordfunph> WCC14:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(2) / Tal13:StdRnk(2)+123Rnk(2t) / Nor13:BetRnk(2)+StdRnk(3t) / Wij12:StdRnk(3t) / Tal11:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(2t)

K2 Q5 R2 <yalie> Dor11:StdRnk(2)+123Rnk(2t) / Wij08:123Rnk(3)+BetRnk(3) / WCC07:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(2t) / Bie07:StdRnk(2t) / Lin07:123Rnk(1)+StdRnk(2)

K2 Q4 R3 <percyblakeney> Wij09:StdRnk(3) / Bie08:123Rnk(2t)+StdRnk(3t) / Mte08:StdRnk(1) / Wij08:StdRnk(2t) / WCC07:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(2t) / Mte07:StdRnk(2t)+123Rnk(3)

K2 Q4 R3 <YouRang> WCC14:BetRnk(2)+123Rnk(3t) / Bie12:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1t) / Dor12:BetRnk(3) / Bil11:123Rnk(2) / Pea10:123Rnk(2t) / Bie07:BetRnk(3) / Dor06:123Rnk(2t)

K2 Q3 R2 <DCP23> Lin10:BetRnk(3) / Mte09:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(2t)+BetRnk(3) / Lin09:123Rnk(2t) / Lin07:BetRnk(1) / Wij07:BetRnk(2)

K2 Q3 <nimh> WCC13:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1) / Bie08:BetRnk(2) / Dor08:StdRnk(2t)+123Rnk(2)

K2 Q2 R3 <Ragh> Tal11:BetRnk(2) / Wij11:BetRnk(1) / Dor10:StdRnk(3t) / Tal09:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(3t) / Pea09:123Rnk(3) / Bie07:StdRnk(2t)

K2 Q2 R <iron maiden> Lin08:StdRnk(2t) / Wij08:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(2) / WCC07:StdRnk(3t) / Wij07:StdRnk(1)

K2 Q2 <karpkasp> Wij14:BetRnk(2) / Dor13:BetRnk(1) / WCC13:BetRnk(1) / Wij12:BetRnk(2)

K2 Q2 <lmreith> Bie08:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(2t) / Bie07:123Rnk(1)+StdRnk(2t)

K2 Q R5 <Blunderdome> WCC14:StdRnk(3t) / Dor13:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1)+BetRnk(3) / Bie12:BetRnk(2) / Wij12:StdRnk(3t) / Pea10:StdRnk(3t) / Wij10:StdRnk(3t)

K2 Q <Ziggurat> Dor08:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(1)+BetRnk(2)

K2 R <Barok Espinosa> Bil12:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1t)+BetRnk(3)

K2 R <Winter> Pea10:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(1)+BetRnk(3)

K2 R <wtwz> Tal13:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(1) / Nor13:123Rnk(3t)

K2 <hitman84> Mte07:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(1)

K2 <ooda> Wij12:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(1)

K Q4 R5 <Robin01> Dor13:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(2t) / Wij12:123Rnk(2)+StdRnk(3t) / Baz11:123Rnk(3)+BetRnk(3) / Pea10:123Rnk(2t) / Wij10:123Rnk(3t) / Dor08:StdRnk(2t)+123Rnk(3t)

K Q2 R <amadeus> Pea10:123Rnk(2t)+StdRnk(3t) / Wij07:123Rnk(1t)+StdRnk(2t)

K Q2 R <mikejaqua> Mte08:123Rnk(1)+StdRnk(2)+BetRnk(3) / WCC07:BetRnk(2)

K Q2 <Golden Executive> WCC13:StdRnk(1t)+123Rnk(2) / Tal11:123Rnk(2t)

K Q R2 <PinnedPiece> Dor12:BetRnk(1)+123Rnk(2t)+StdRnk(3) / Dor11:BetRnk(3)

K Q R2 <suenteus po 147> Wij10:BetRnk(2) / Dor08:BetRnk(3) / WCC07:123Rnk(1)+BetRnk(3)

K Q R <Karposian> WCC14:StdRnk(3t) / Wij13:StdRnk(1)+123Rnk(2)

K R4 <WannaBe> WCC14:BetRnk(3) / Wij14:BetRnk(3) / WCC13:StdRnk(3t)+123Rnk(3t) / Wij13:BetRnk(1)

K R2 <poorpatzer> Tal13:StdRnk(3t) / Nor13:BetRnk(1) / Wij11:BetRnk(3)

K R <ahmadov> WCC07:BetRnk(1) / Wij07:123Rnk(3t)

K R <imag> Lin10:BetRnk(1)+123Rnk(3t)

K R <Penguincw> Wij14:BetRnk(1) / Wij12:StdRnk(3t)

K R <sakii> Lin08:BetRnk(1)+123Rnk(3t)

K R <twinlark> Wij07:BetRnk(1)+123Rnk(3t)

K <chancho> Wij14:123Rnk(1t)

K <chesssantosh> Baz11:BetRnk(1)

K <Civhai> Wij11:123Rnk(1)

K <LIFE Master AJ> Tal13:BetRnk(1)

************* Multiple Crowns **************

* Triple Crowns: <blade2012> (Bie12), <lostemperor> (Dor06), <SloVice> (Bil11), <su3eichfeld> (Dor09), <virginmind> (Mte09), <Where is my mind> (Pea09)

* Double Crowns: <Legend> (Bil12+Dor11+Dor07), <blade2012> (WCC14+Wij14), <lostemperor> (Lin10+Bie08), <messachess> (Lin09+Wij09), <su3eichfeld> (Lin10+Tal09), <zarg> (Wij10+Tal09), <Barok Espinosa> (Bil12), <Blunderdome> (Dor13), <chessmoron> (Bil12), <hitman84> (Mte07), <kolobok> (Dor07), <nimh> (WCC13), <OhioChessFan> (Nor13), <ooda> (Wij12), <SloVice> (Dor10), <virginmind> (Baz11), <WinKing> (Tal11), <Winter> (Pea10), <wtwz> (Tal13), <YouRang> (Bie12), <Ziggurat> (Dor08)

************ Crowns by Contest *************

* StdRnk Crowns: 6K <Legend>; 5K <chessmoron>; 3K <virginmind> <lostemperor>

* 123Rnk Crowns: 4K <Legend> <su3eichfeld> <lostemperor>; 3K <blade2012> <SloVice> <messachess>; 2K <zarg> <NakoSonorense> <virginmind>

* BetRnk Crowns: 6K <NakoSonorense>; 4K <SloVice>; 3K <SwitchingQuylthulg>; 2K <blade2012> <nfazli> <su3eichfeld> <virginmind> <karpkasp>

************* Crowns by Year ***************

* 2006 (1 tournament): 3K <lostemperor>

* 2007 (6 tournaments): 4K <kolobok>; 3K <Legend>; 2K <yalie> <hitman84>

* 2008 (5 tournaments): 5K <NakoSonorense>; 2K <lostemperor> <Ziggurat>

* 2009 (6 tournaments): 6K <su3eichfeld>; 4K <Where is my mind> <messachess>; 3K <virginmind>; 2K <zarg>

* 2010 (4 tournaments): 3K <SloVice> <lostemperor>; 2K <zarg> <Winter> <su3eichfeld>

* 2011 (5 tournaments): 3K <SloVice> <Legend>; 2K <SwitchingQuylthulg> <WinKing> <virginmind>

* 2012 (4 tournaments): 3K <Legend> <blade2012>; 2K <ooda> <Barok Espinosa> <YouRang> <chessmoron>

* 2013 (5 tournaments): 2K <wtwz> <OhioChessFan> <Blunderdome> <karpkasp> <nimh>

* 2014 (2 tournaments): 4K <blade2012>

********** Crowns by Tournament ************

* Baz (1 year): 2K <virginmind>

* Bie (3 years): 3K <blade2012>; 2K <YouRang> <lmreith> <lostemperor>

* Bil (2 years): 3K <SloVice>; 2K <Legend> <Barok Espinosa> <chessmoron>

* Dor (8 years): 5K <Legend>; 3K <lostemperor> <su3eichfeld> <cromat>; 2K <SloVice> <Blunderdome> <Ziggurat> <chessmoron> <kolobok>

* Lin (4 years): 2K <su3eichfeld> <NakoSonorense> <lostemperor> <messachess>

* Mte (3 years): 4K <virginmind>; 2K <hitman84>

* Nor (1 year): 2K <OhioChessFan>

* Pea (2 years): 3K <Where is my mind>; 2K <Winter>

* Tal (3 years): 2K <zarg> <WinKing> <su3eichfeld> <wtwz>

* WCC (3 years): 2K <nimh> <blade2012>

* Wij (8 years): 3K <NakoSonorense> <messachess>; 2K <Legend> <SloVice> <ooda> <zarg> <blade2012> <chessmoron> <iron maiden>

== Notes:
I keep track of all medals won, but in order to appear in the hall of fame, one must win a gold (K) medal.

Medals: K = Gold; Q = Silver; R = Bronze

Tournaments: Baz=Bazna Kings; Bie=Biel; Bil=Bilbao; Dor=Dortmund; Lin=Linares; Mte=Mtel; Nor=Norway; Pea=Pearl Spring; Tal=Tal Memorial; WCC=World Chess Championship; Wij=Wijk Aan Zee

Contests: StdRnk=Standard Ranker; 123Rnk=1-2-3 Ranker; BetRnk=Betting Ranker

t = tie

<<> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = <>>

Love chess.
Wish I were better at it.

About my peculiar moniker, "YouRang":

There used to be a show on American TV called "The Addams Family". One of the characters was a creepy 6'9" zombie-like butler named "Lurch" (pictured in my avatar, with a rare smile). In the show, someone would summon Lurch with the bell-pull (a hangman rope), which would make a loud GONG sound, and Lurch would promptly appear and say (in a deep voice), <"You rang?"> (sample: Kind of a dumb show really, yet it has long had cult-like following. Recently many original episodes became available on DVD (

Anyway, I picked "YouRang" for my user name because I was out of my mind at the time, but I'm better now.

Glorious accomplishments:

- 2005 Co-winner of <"Best Avatar" Caissar>! (thank you! thank you!)

- 2006 Biel prediction contest (1st place [tie] in final standings prediction)

- 2006 User name "YouRang" named among top 100 TV catch-phrases (

- 2007 Defeated GM Arno Nickel (with the help of 2000+ other members & their computers) in the classic: Chessgames Challenge: The World vs A Nickel, 2006

- 2007 Took 1st place (tie) in <lostemperor>'s Final Standing prediction contest for the Linares tournament

- 2008 Defeated GM Gert Jan Timmerman (with the help of 3000+ other members & their computers) in the classic: The World vs G Timmerman, 2007

- 2009 Achieved a draw with the black pieces in my rematch with GM Arno Nickel (with help of 2000+ other members and their computers) in the classic: Chessgames Challenge: A Nickel vs The World, 2008

- 2010 On May 6, User: thegoodanarchist spotted a license plate that said "URANGG", presumably in honor of my moniker.

- 2010 Finished in top 25 with 2,200 chessbucks in Summer leg of chessbookie. (Just 2 bets: predicted Ponomariov was winner of Dortmund, and Caruana as winner of Biel).

- 2010 Won a silver medal in 123 Ranker for the Pearl Spring tournament. (It would have been gold except <Winter> stole it with a fantastic perfect final round. Grrr...)

- 2011 Won gold in <lostemperor>'s Wijk aan Zee 2011 Final Standings prediction contest by finishing in first place for all 3 contests -- absolute ranker, least-squares ranker, and pair betting ranker! Yee-haw!

- 2011 Won silver medal in 123 Ranker for Bilbao tournament.

- 2011 I was honored in a cartoon:! [Thanks to <Blunderdome> for finding this]

- 2011 Won gold in <lostemperor>'s Tal Memorial 2011 Final Standings prediction contest.

- 2012 A pun I suggested for for the game Akobian vs The World, 2011 ended up winning the <Best Pun> Caissar award! In that game, the World team used a queen sac to force a draw with a flourish. The pun: "Drawma Queen".

- 2012 Won silver and bronze in <lostemperor>'s Wijk Aan Zee 2012 Final Standings prediction contests.

- 2012 Won a bronze in Betting Ranker for the Dortmund 2012 tournament. A complete surprise.

- 2012 At LOOONG last, I managed to make it into my own <Game Prediction Hall of Fame> by winning two golds in Biel 2012 -- both first place ties in Standard Ranker and 123 Ranker :-)

- 2012 Won gold in <lostemperor>'s Bilbao 2012 Final Standings prediction contest.

- 2012 Defeated GM Varuzhan Akobian (with the help of *only* 1500+ other members & their computers) in the classic: Chessgames Challenge: The World vs Akobian, 2012

- 2013 Succeeded in completing a full year without any glorious accomplishments!

- 2014 Defeated GM Simon Kim Williams with the black pieces (with the help of 1100+ other members & their computers) in the classic: Chessgames Challenge: S Williams vs The World, 2013

- 2014 Won two medals in the World Chess Candidates tournament prediction contest: Silver in Betting Ranker and bronze in 123 Ranker.

>> Click here to see YouRang's game collections. Full Member

   YouRang has kibitzed 14960 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Apr-23-14 YouRang chessforum
YouRang: <Deus Ex Alekhina><You forced me to look it up. From pgp's forum, Aug 15 2012, page 188...> Okay, I reviewed some of those posts to refresh my memory. This was part of <achieve>'s series of posts describing his spiritual journey, and at one point he mentioned an ...
   Apr-18-14 WannaBe chessforum (replies)
YouRang: Hmm, that prompted me to look up Catfish Hunter -- I didn't know until now that he died at 53 of ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) and that the "Catfish" nickname was Charles O. Finley's idea.
   Apr-08-14 Tarrasch vs Kolb, 1894 (replies)
YouRang: Sure, 27.Nb6+ is pretty smother mate in 3, but the dumb and ugly 27.Qxg6 should be faster (assuming black has enough sense to resign on the spot). Kind of a weak puzzle since white has a number of moves that win easily.
   Mar-31-14 lostemperor chessforum (replies)
YouRang: Thanks for running the contest <lostemperor>. I see that my bid for medals all faded rapidly toward the end. Usually that only happens in my contest. Congrats to <Penguincw> for the brilliant prediction, and <WannaBe> for grabbing the top career medals spot (grr.)
   Mar-30-14 Aronian vs Karjakin, 2014 (replies)
YouRang: Okay, while I was typing that, the game went a totally different way...
   Mar-19-14 G Neumann vs A Gohle, 1864 (replies)
YouRang: <BOSTER: <YouRang : but finding the forced mate with 27.Nd6 is a bit less obvious.> There is no the forced mate. ( ex.exf4 ).> Yep. Actually, I realized that shortly after I posted (because I read <Once>'s post where he mentioned ...exf4). However, I figured that ...
   Mar-12-14 World Chess Championship Candidates (2014) (replies)
YouRang: K REMINDER K Round 1 begins tomorrow. This means that today is the last day to enter predictions (for at least round 1) for the <Game Prediction ...
   Feb-14-14 Kamsky vs Ivanchuk, 1993 (replies)
YouRang: <Eggman> You're absolutely right. My final comment was bogus since 63...Ra5 still loses.
   Feb-07-14 K Rogoff vs S Spencer, 1969
YouRang: Apparently, this game was annotated by Bobby Fischer:
   Jan-29-14 T Turgut vs F Kunzelmann, 2009 (replies)
YouRang: I took this game from , which was annotated by A. S. Kural, and then I added my own comments, as appropriate, based on Houdini analysis: <Turgut, Tansel - Kunzelmann, Dr. Fred WC24/final [E16] [2009.06.10] 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 ...
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

The Game Prediction Contest

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 610 OF 610 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: For the record, I affirm a Christian need not be anti-science, hostile to unbelievers, a conservative Republican, and a climate change denier. I also affirm a Christian must test all things, including claims of science, must challenge false claims made by unbelievers, and must respect life and property and God's view of marriage.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: <And I am a little confused where the Bible calls people to be climate change affirmers.>

<OCF> I have read many of your comments of the Bible, and often they are interpretations of the text. The words of the Bible needs to be interpreted for the modern day.

Of course the Bible does not address climate change directly. But there are numerous references to the need to be good stewards of the earth. Using the same sort of interpretation applied in other cases these can clearly be applied to climate change.

Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <JB: But there are numerous references to the need to be good stewards of the earth.>


<Using the same sort of interpretation applied in other cases these can clearly be applied to climate change.>

I am not aware of anyone who objects to climate change claims based on not wanting to be a good steward of the earth.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: That really isn't my point, since there's all sorts of disagreement about climate change.

But would you agree the Bible commands to conserve the earth's environment?

Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: That really was my point.

A simple reading of <YouRang's> words indicates that denying climate change is falling short of Biblical calling.

<But would you agree the Bible commands to conserve the earth's environment?>

I can say yes to that, although I've always used the phrase "good steward" which you have already used, too.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Jim Bartle: <A simple reading of <YouRang's> words indicates that denying climate change is falling short of Biblical calling>

Another example (my post) of the error of responding to one post without reading the posts above it.

Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <OhioChessFan> I think you're reading too much into my comments.

<Alas, there are some people who love to reference the infamous "others" when trying to prop up their own positions.>

<Colonel Mortimer> referenced the discussion that took place in your forum (back in 2010). As you may recall, that discussion involved people other than you and me, so not all of my comments were directed at you.

Anyway, I'm not sure what your objection is. Am I not supposed to say "others"? Am I not supposed to support my own position?

<And I am a little confused where the Bible calls people to be climate change affirmers.>

Of course, I never suggested that. How do you get that impression from my assertion that the Bible doesn't involve being a climate change denier?

If I say "the Bible doesn't require you to hate broccoli", do you hear "the Bible requires you to love broccoli"?

<A simple reading of <YouRang's> words indicates that denying climate change is falling short of Biblical calling.>

No. A correct reading of my words would tell you that the those who suggest that climate change denial is the somehow the correct Christian view are falling short.

FYI, it was someone else (not you) who made the comment that man-made climate change was anti-Christian because God wouldn't allow man to mess up the climate.

Apr-07-14  Colonel Mortimer: <OhioChessFan:> <..must challenge false claims made by unbelievers..>

Is there an implicit assumption that they are <false> because they are made by <unbelievers>?

Science isn't false because it doesn't chime with a literal interpretation of the bible.

Science can only be false when it doesn't follow the scientific method. For example creationist 'science'.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Deus Ex Alekhina: I think this is the first time I have posted here. Just to enlighten anyone who doesn't know the back story on YouRang; he is a former atheist, now Christian, who has written his interpretation of the book of Revelation on I wonder if, in order for prophecy to work, is the future then pre-ordained? Do we then have no free-will? Think of this: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"; because of that verse, 40,000-50,000 "witches" were killed, by hanging, drowning, or burning. Now, if the bible were truly a prophetic work, then it would have known, when that verse was planted in the bible, of the carnage that it would cause. Or maybe YHWH wanted all those "witches" to die, all along?
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: Hi <Deus Ex Alekhina>. <I wonder if, in order for prophecy to work, is the future then pre-ordained? Do we then have no free-will?>

Well, that's a long-standing conundrum. I tend to think that there must be free-will, and yet it's impossible for God to not know all things. In fact, in some deep way I think it's even impossible for God to not be the initiator of all things. I realize that this doesn't resolve the conundrum (or perhaps even adds some). I have to accept that there are things I can't explain.

<Think of this: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"; because of that verse, 40,000-50,000 "witches" were killed, by hanging, drowning, or burning. Now, if the bible were truly a prophetic work, then it would have known, when that verse was planted in the bible, of the carnage that it would cause. Or maybe YHWH wanted all those "witches" to die, all along?>

The world was a wicked place before the law was given to Israel, and it remains so. None of us can say with certainty if or how things would be different had that verse been omitted, but I can say that it was intended for the theocracy Israel. They were given special status as God's chosen representatives on earth, and in that role they needed to pursue purity before God. That law was not for general consumption by anyone who wants to define "witch" and thus have an excuse to kill them.

As you probably know from earlier discussions in <playground player>'s forum, I think many professsing Christians have wrong ideas about our role in the world. One example of this is Christians who think that we should impose the laws given to Israel upon unbelievers. You may have noticed that <pgp> often cites a theologian named R.J. Rushdooney. From what I read, Rushdooney was in favor of doing just that -- sort of a Christian answer to Sharia law. Totally wrong-headed IMO.

BTW, Sorry for the late reply. I've been cutting back on the amount of time I spend here.

Apr-15-14  Colonel Mortimer: All things considered - faith is a personal thing. Why anyone would want to impose their own personal faith beliefs on another let alone government is beyond me.

We all have different ways of understanding the world, many faiths and many beliefs. What science attempts to do is understand the world by what we can rationally and empirically observe.

That is not faith, science is based on observable experimentation and falsifiable hypothesis.

Faith is just that - belief in the unknown and not open to rational critique. No problem there, both should be kept separate for obvious reasons.

When Creationists call science a religion - not only are they wrong - they are denigrating their own beliefs by trying to level the playing field, they are misunderstanding two different processes that seek to discover the truth.

One rational, the other faith based. I don't mean to say one is superior to the other, as no one has all the answers to why we are here. But the two processes are distinct, yet surprisingly enough, compatible.

Young earth creationism versus science however? Oil & water folks, with a clear winner.

Premium Chessgames Member
  hedgeh0g: <Colonel Mortimer> Good post, although I do take issue with < I don't mean to say one is superior to the other> as it is quite clear to me that an evidence-based approach to understanding (i.e. the scientific method) is far superior to any faith-based belief system. Science yields results; religion does not.
Apr-15-14  Colonel Mortimer: <hedgeh0g:> thanks and I agree with you.

However, science can only explain the observable. What happened before Big Bang, if indeed is it was a Big Bang, is still a mystery.

In that scenario faith says I don't know therefore God, and I'm afraid that is just as valid even though the rational process is faulty.

However, when they postulate Adam and Eve, ribs from mud and a 6,000 year old world, there is enough scientific evidence that demonstrates that these faith based beliefs are childish at best.

That is the distinction.

Apr-15-14  Colonel Mortimer: <childish at best> if taken literally that is (i.e OhioChessFan)
Premium Chessgames Member
  hedgeh0g: <However, science can only explain the observable.>

True, but then again, we live in the observable universe. :)

<What happened before Big Bang, if indeed is it was a Big Bang, is still a mystery.>

Recent developments in cosmology have indicated the Big Bang model of our universe is actually very accurate: the model makes predictions about the nature of our universe which scientists have confirmed through observation.

One of the implications of the Big Bang theory is that the singularity at t=0 represented the beginning of time for us. Since our mathematics (and, by extension, Einstein's equations) isn't generally very good at dealing with infinite numbers, it is impossible for us to know what, if anything preceded the Big Bang, just as it would be impossible for an observer "on the other side" to predict what would follow the Big Bang.

In short, what happened "before" the Big Bang will always remain a mystery.

<In that scenario faith says I don't know therefore God, and I'm afraid that is just as valid even though the rational process is faulty.>

In terms of the explanation it provides (i.e. none), then yes, I suppose it is just as valid, but it is no less wrong in that it still attributes events to something for which there is no evidence.

Apr-15-14  Colonel Mortimer: Good points

Some believe that their faith in how the world was created should manifest itself culturally and politically.

While some try to discover and rationally explain the origins of life.

No guessing who the bigoted fools are..

Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <Colonel Mortimer> I agree with all your points about science. It's an endeavor to understand nature based purely on things we observe, and the application of proven methods. It has been one of mankinds most successful and IMO noblest efforts.

The good methods of science include the principle of avoiding pridefulness. If one scientist finds a flaw in another scientists work, that other scientist will be appreciative, and science will prosper. The Bible tells Christians to be like that too, but I'm afraid scientists are doing a better job of it.

Regarding faith, you said:

<Faith is just that - belief in the unknown and not open to rational critique. No problem there, both should be kept separate for obvious reasons.>

I see faith a bit differently. It *might* be what you describe, which is what I call "blind faith". However, faith can also be a belief in things that you can't see based on a previously established pattern of trustworthiness.

For example, I'm at work and my wife is at home. I trust that she is not having an affair with another guy. It's not because I can't find evidence of an affair, but because I know her well enough to have faith in her.

But I agree that science and faith are separate things. I agree with the statement from the National Academy of Sciences:

<Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.>

The idea that science and religion are incompatible is primarily the fault of some people on the religious side.

Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <Big Bang> A science program I watched recently (A "Horizons" episode I think) had a panel of cosmologists who were all asked if they thought the big bang was the absolute origin of time and space. Most of them said "no".

Some favored the idea of the "big bounce". That is, the observable universe wasn't really encompassed in a infinitesimally small point, but rather it contracted to a critical mass where gravitational forces effectively reverse, causing it to re-expand.

In any case, it's astounding that the universe exists at all, that it is governed by "natural laws", that these laws cause energy to evolve into various types of matter, the matter can assemble itself into amazingly complex structures, these structures can evolve into life, and life can evolve into beings that are capable of understanding where the universe came from.

In a sense, the universe itself exists with the capacity to be self aware. Call it faith, but I see God in this.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Deus Ex Alekhina: Some time back when you were discussing Revelation on pgp's forum, <achieve> mentioned that Rev, with its references to the sun, the moon & the stars, reminded him way too much of astro-theology. Neither you nor pgp even commented on his statement. I wonder why. Now we have a televangelist pointing out the tetrad of "blood moons" that are going to occur. There is so much of the bible, both OT & NT, that is taken straight from the pagan religions that it is astounding. Even "prophecy" itself was part of the old religions, with their oracles, seers, and witches. Both Judaism & Christianity had to incorporate "prophecy" in their belief systems because of the absurd belief by primitive & superstitious people that the future could be known. BTW, most biblical scholars do not believe that the book of Rev was written by the same author of the fourth gospel.
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <Deus Ex Alekhina> <... most biblical scholars do not believe that the book of Rev was written by the same author of the fourth gospel.> And with good reason...

<Stylometric analysis, a process which analyses an author's style of writing, shows that the Book of Revelation and John's Gospel display more differences to each other than any other two books in the New Testament.

What scholars can say about the John of Revelation is that he was a significant figure in the early church in the Roman province of Asia Minor (modern day Turkey).

[T]he Book of Revelation is not prophesising the end of the world but is a polemic against the Roman Empire. John frames his attack in a way that parallels other religious writings of the time and which would have made sense to early Christians. John was telling first century Christians to galvanise themselves against compromising with Rome, and that their faithfulness would be rewarded.>

Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <Deus Ex Alekinia> You may have to refresh my memory. I don't recall <achieve> making a comment to that effect in that context.

Not doubting you. It's possible that I missed that post.

FWIW, I'm not familiar with "astro-theology" at all, and based on the 20 seconds of research I've poured into it since I saw your post, I would put no stock in it.

As for prophecy, there have been many false gods and false prophets for sure.

I think the God of Israel, as portrayed in the Bible, stands out from all the others, as do the people of Israel.

They were small in number, facing numerous persecutions, pogroms, exiles, and yet they and their culture survives. They are also distinct in their contributions to the world in practically all matters of life: Science, medicine, music, literature, law, and even chess!

After thousands of years of being scattered, they are back in their Biblical homeland through a course of history that they could never have arranged. I believe there are Biblical prophecies that describe these things.

IMO, there are numerous impressive prophecies that make the God of the Bible not so easy to dismiss like all the others, and it's one of the main reasons I'm not still an atheist.

As for Revelation, there is generally no reliable consensus among "biblical scholars". Some scholars do accept the oldest tradition that the author of Revelation is the Apostle, as do I.

Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: Funny how these discussions seem to drift from one forum to another.
Apr-16-14  Colonel Mortimer: <YouRang: Funny how these discussions seem to drift from one forum to another.>

Fundamentalists using the ignore feature when they come across dissenting views could be an explanation..

Premium Chessgames Member
  Deus Ex Alekhina: <YR> You forced me to look it up. From pgp's forum, Aug 15 2012, page 188, posted by <achieve>: "But even more revealing, to me, is that both NT and OT, Revelation in firm first place, are tjok-full of astro-theological references, depictions, and identifications with celestial bodies!" "Tjok-full" is apparently Dutch for "chockfull". Neither you nor pgp commented on that statement, but if I had written it, I'm sure pgp would have jumped all over me.
Premium Chessgames Member
  YouRang: <Deus Ex Alekhina><You forced me to look it up. From pgp's forum, Aug 15 2012, page 188...>

Okay, I reviewed some of those posts to refresh my memory. This was part of <achieve>'s series of posts describing his spiritual journey, and at one point he mentioned an interest in astro-theology. Although I wasn't familiar with that term itself, he did elaborate that it involved numerology and symbolism associated with celestial bodies.

<Neither you nor pgp commented on that statement, but if I had written it, I'm sure pgp would have jumped all over me.>

I can't speak for <playground player>, but I actually did comment on that statement. Look down that page a ways to see my reply to him. Toward the end, I said this:

<P.S. I would go easy on the numerology and mystical stuff. IMHO, the Bible is meant to be accessible to all people, and sufficient for all purposes. There's a danger of creating a sense of "elitism" when we start thinking that there's a "deeper" esoteric knowledge that goes beyond a simple understanding of scripture (which itself is deep enough!).>

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 610)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 610 OF 610 ·  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, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to
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