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 Dec-04-16
& nbsp

Gashimov 2016 Moves Prediction Contest

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

Chessgames.com tournament page:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches...

Official site: http://

Live games:
http://www.nrk.no/sport/sjakk/

Alternative live games: http://worldchess.com/broadcasts/eu...

***Hall of Fame***
chessmoron chessforum

<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 33899 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Dec-03-16 George Leighton
 
OhioChessFan: October 22, 2017, he needs to be Player of the Day.
 
   Dec-03-16 playground player chessforum (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: "Deplorable Lives Matter"
 
   Dec-03-16 Kenneth S Rogoff (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: The British Army thinks the word "destroy" is "unusual". What, they want to trade skin care ideas with the enemy?
 
   Dec-03-16 Jeremy Lim (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: They'll be in and get crushed first game.
 
   Dec-03-16 chancho chessforum
 
...
 
   Dec-03-16 OhioChessFan chessforum (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: <Regardless, I would agree with Jonathan that the language of Genesis 1 and 2 indicates a young earth, a few thousand years old, and reject out of hand everything I've read that would suggest otherwise.> <Reject out of hand? At least I was prepared to listen to Dr ...
 
   Dec-03-16 chessgames.com chessforum (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: Possibly of interest to you: Biographer Bistro (kibitz #15621)
 
   Dec-03-16 Biographer Bistro (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: Regarding the bio for Georg Rotlewi <GEORG ROTLEWI (born Aug-18-1889, died 1920, 30 years old) > Winter claims his DOB and DOD are unknown here: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... <Tadeusz Wolsza has produced volume five of Arcymistrzowie, mistrzowie, ...
 
   Dec-02-16 Marcel Duchamp
 
OhioChessFan: "I am still a victim of chess. It has all the beauty of art - and much more. It cannot be commercialized. Chess is much purer than art in its social position."
 
   Dec-02-16 jessicafischerqueen chessforum (replies)
 
OhioChessFan: User: Cardano
 
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Moves Prediction Contest

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 566 OF 566 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Nov-30-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan:  
User: perth

User: amboy

User: New

User: jer

User: zee

Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  jessicafischerqueen:

User: sasquatch

User: bigfoot

<Last seen May-14-05>

Proof he exists!!!

If memory serves, on that day he appeared on the Magnus Carlsen page and was frightened off- forever- by the local kibbutzers.

Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan:  
User: yeti

User: apeman

Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

<bigfoot
Member since Feb-11-05 · Last seen May-14-05 >

<Sasquatch
Member since Feb-12-05 · Last seen May-14-05 >

The plot thickens. I wonder if Edward Gibbons is involved.

Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: Don't forget

User: the

User: yeti

Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  WinKing: User: Almas

User: grassman

User: Mo mo

User: Pongo

User: wildman

User: Yahoo

User: King Kong

Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark:

User: Amazonwarrior

User: BATMAN

User: Chacha

User: chewbacca

User: Demon

User: demons

User: devil

User: devil666

User: grimreaper

Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan:  
User: Spook

User: TheSpook

User: Lucifer

User: thebeast

User: the beast

User: 666

Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho: User: jerseydevil

User: boogieman

Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan:  
User: wow

User: Blue

User: Link

User: Apocalypse

Dec-01-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  chancho:

User: you

User: bet

User: cha

Dec-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  WinKing: <chessmoron> & <OCF> I will be sending out a flyer within the next few days advertising all of the prediction contests to the members for the upcoming London Chess Classic. Should be a great tournament!
Dec-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: An open response to <Jonathan Sarfati> comments on his Chessforum that I decided to post here instead of his Chessforum:

This is a forum, not a "chess page". Your header in your forum cites your profession and a link to a site that addresses those matters too. You chose the content of that header, so it seems odd not to want those matters discussed on that very same page. Your first response to <Jay> was surpisingly bombastic. How in the world is he supposed to know you expect him to search out all of your writings on any matter before asking you about them? I challenge you to show that post/response to 10 of your colleagues and ask them for an honest appraisal. I'd be shocked if even 1 of them agrees with how you handled it and that it's a reasonable expectation. And sure, "it's my page", and all, but if that's the best you got in how you deal with people, that sounds like a losing hand.

I get being harsh with people, especially those you've dealt with in the past. I can be that way too, purposely, just read me on Rogoff, and I'm often amused by some of your snippy responses to people on creation.com, but I always am patient in a first encounter. I am reasonably sure I'm your biggest supporter on this site, and have talked you up massively out in the real world, but I have to say this was a disappointing experience.

Dec-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <OhioChessFan> Totally agree!

In response to my own inquiries on his forum, Dr Sarfati was good enough to direct me to a number of links on his Creation Ministries website, although I got the message loud and clear that he wasn't interested in discussing that particular topic at all!

Anyway, I did read the links he provided for me and noted that he and his colleagues are pretty adamant about the universe only being 6,000 years old.

For example...

<What about different dates for creation?>

<Many people have come up with dates for creation, such as James Ussher (4004 BC), Johannes Kepler (3992 BC), Gerhard Hasel (4178 BC), and Isaac Newton (~4000 BC). Additionally, there are various chronologies competing with each other today (though all with the same ballpark outcome) which would be more precise than this article, but also rely on assumptions that must come from a particular interpretation of the text. It is not the purpose of this article to choose any particular one of these chronologies, but rather to show how the plain interpretation of Scripture gives a straightforward chronology that leads us to believe the world is around 6,000 years old, regardless of which of these other chronological frameworks one uses.>

http://creation.com/6000-years

This seems to rule out your own estimate of 10,000 to 11,000 years?!

Although there's probably not much point in you discussing this with Dr Sarfati since he'll likely just give you the same short shrift by posting a couple of links for you to read and then tell you to get lost!

Anyway, I know your own forum is reserved for game predictions and blue links so I won't take up anymore space here.

All the best.

Dec-02-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: I would say rather I don't rule out up to 11,000 years. I am not persuaded that Genesis 11 is as clear cut as Genesis 5 in lifespans and direct sons of. The language is different, which makes me sit up and take notice. Regardless, I would agree with Jonathan that the language of Genesis 1 and 2 indicates a young earth, a few thousand years old, and reject out of hand everything I've read that would suggest otherwise. I know you meant well, but your question asking if he had looked at that stuff was on par with asking Carlsen if he'd ever seen the Scandinavian.

As far as pinpointing exact years, I think we need to be careful. If you count the number of generations from the exile to Jesus in Matthew 1, you might be surprised. I see nothing wrong with a little poetic license in that regard and think it's possible something similar is going on in Genesis.

Anyway, feel free to post any time. I slightly prefer people not to post during contests but that is fine too.

Dec-03-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <OhioChessFan: I would say rather I don't rule out up to 11,000 years.>

It's a bit curious that biblical literalists insist on a "young-earth" based on the bibical text, but can't agree amongst themselves the age of this young-earth!?

I mean, even that excerpt I copied and pasted acknowledges various disagreements surrounding the estimate of 6,000 years, so by comparison 11,000 years must be totally out of the ballpark!

Do you see what I mean?

The biblical text is supposed to dispel any confusion, but instead just adds to it!?

By contrast, a purely scientific estimate doesn't call into question the biblical text.

<I am not persuaded that Genesis 11 is as clear cut as Genesis 5 in lifespans and direct sons of. The language is different, which makes me sit up and take notice.>

But how could that be if Moses is the same author?

<Regardless, I would agree with Jonathan that the language of Genesis 1 and 2 indicates a young earth, a few thousand years old, and reject out of hand everything I've read that would suggest otherwise.>

Reject out of hand?

At least I was prepared to listen to Dr Sarfati even though all he did was give me a couple of links and show me the door!

<I know you meant well, but your question asking if he had looked at that stuff was on par with asking Carlsen if he'd ever seen the Scandinavian.>

If you mean my asking him about http://biologos.org/ I was interested in his opinion on a Christian viewpoint which was markedly different from his own in this matter.

<As far as pinpointing exact years, I think we need to be careful. If you count the number of generations from the exile to Jesus in Matthew 1, you might be surprised.>

Yes, that's a good point!

Matthew seems more interested in the symbolism of three groups of fourteen than in an exact genealogical record of Jesus.

And of course Luke's genealogy is totally different, but that's another issue altogether!

<I see nothing wrong with a little poetic license in that regard and think it's possible something similar is going on in Genesis.>

Well then would you necessarily see anything wrong with a LOT of poetic license?

<Anyway, feel free to post any time. I slightly prefer people not to post during contests but that is fine too.>

I tried to post my entire response just in blue link but couldn't find all the words!

:)

Dec-03-16  Colonel Mortimer: <The biblical text is supposed to dispel any confusion, but instead just adds to it!?>

The Bible was written by several human authors, and borrowed on previous myths from the ancient world.

It's no mystery why it should contain so many contradictions.

Dec-03-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  optimal play: <Colonel Mortimer: blah blah blah ...>

So typical!

No matter how bad the Islamic atrocities get there's nary word from you, but any opportunity to criticise Christianity or the Bible and you can't wait to jump in!

Your overt double-standards have left you with zero credibility!

Why don't you illuminate everybody with your erudition of the Koran?

You're such a hypocrite!

Buzz off!

Dec-03-16  Colonel Mortimer: Where did I criticise the Bible?
Dec-03-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  whiteshark: User: KINGofMEMPHIS

User: rocks

User: aga

User: nnnn

User: exclam

Dec-03-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: <Regardless, I would agree with Jonathan that the language of Genesis 1 and 2 indicates a young earth, a few thousand years old, and reject out of hand everything I've read that would suggest otherwise.>

<Reject out of hand?

At least I was prepared to listen to Dr Sarfati even though all he did was give me a couple of links and show me the door!>

I shouldn't have said reject out of hand. I have examined and am totally unpersuaded by that viewpoint.

Dec-03-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  playground player: I've been to Perth Amboy. It's terrible. Used to be nice, though. But that's what a few decades of Democrat government will do to your city.
Dec-03-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: About the genealogies, I've answered that as well. In the last 10–20 years, most of the creationist organizations have moved away from gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11 timelines. Even if there were missing names, there is no missing time. Adam was 130 years old when Seth was born, so it's irrelevant if there are missing generations between them. Conversely, Matthew's genealogy has no time information, and he even tells us that he's been selective to pick three groups of 14 names. http://creation.com/biblical-chrono...
Dec-03-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: <OhioChessFan> imagine the reverse: a B-level club player I've never met comes onto creation.com, sees that I'm a chessplayer (and doesn't see that I'm a master), and wants to pick a fight with me about chess style, and wonders if I've ever heard of the Ruy López opening.
Dec-04-16
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: < Jonathan Sarfati: <OhioChessFan> imagine the reverse: a B-level club player I've never met comes onto creation.com, sees that I'm a chessplayer (and doesn't see that I'm a master), and wants to pick a fight with me about chess style, and wonders if I've ever heard of the Ruy López opening.>

Oh, an icky B-level "regular person" wasting this *very important person's* time is unthinkable, with him not knowing he's a <master> and all. How can one think he can discuss chess style with a master?

And this pompous jerk is a <master> of creationism too.

Didn't you guys read his forum? It says right there PhD!

You see that?

<PhD>

That means, "Don't waste my time, oh average person"

It means, "DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM??" (Moe Greene voice).

Man, I thought I was a jerk. I'm going to have to reassess myself!

<ohio> and <optimal play>, you need to realize something. Just because <JS> brags on his CHESS PAGE that he's a PhD (did you know he is a PhD?) and that he's <WRITTEN BOOKS> on creationism and links to creation.com, hey, that doesn't mean he wants to talk about it!

What in the WORLD would give you THAT idea?

Just put yourself in his shoes. Imagine for a moment that you are FORCED to interact with a NON PHD!

WHOA!

Just let that sink in.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 566)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 566 OF 566 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Daily puzzles, news, and more!
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 members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
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 2001-2016, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies