As far as your above statement, take a look at this:

http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess/p...

Yes, mate in 262. Watching the pieces swirl around the board is an amazing experience. During those 262 moves, would you think of demanding to know why, for example, move #174 is best? It just <is>. It would be pointless to ask why or try to understand it. As Krabbe' says, < The Stiller moves are awesome, almost scary, because you know they are the truth, God's Algorithm - it's like being revealed the Meaning of Life, but you don't understand a word.> On a different page on the site- http://timkr.home.xs4all.nl/chess2/... Krabbe' says:

< Playing over these moves is an eerie experience. They are not human; a grandmaster does not understand them any better than someone who has learned chess yesterday. The knights jump, the kings orbit, the sun goes down, and every move is the truth. It's like being revealed the Meaning of Life, but it's in Estonian. On Thompson's Website, where this and other endgame databases can be found, he has named the link to them: 'Play Chess with God.'>

Bravo! It couldn't have been said any better. I like to add or remind some members that this forum should not be used as an engine testing place. The SF6 is available for free and should be used to compare its findings with lower rated engines output before posting it,

We should encourage more human view points expressed here as to there perceived position assessments and or projection or goals to aim for or steer clear from it.

Such contributions regardless of the members elo ratings could help us in our search for the ever more elusive novelty required to keep our winning streak alive.

As to engine lines I think we must have one very deep ply reaching beyond the horizon of any particular engine in use with back sliding method and less emphasizing on reams of secondary findings.

Oh yes; we could definitely use a < main line projection > condensed from our findings at the AT forum . This could really guide us into ever deeper searches for the true value we all hope to see way beyond the horizon reachable from any top rated engines running on current best rated hard ware.

"Long live the blunder!"

My life is a quest for the ultimate blunder, the most beautiful suimate ever!

Meanwhile, I bow before God's Inscrutable Algorithm and His Vast Eternal Plan.

Jennifer Shahade is an American Woman's Chess Grandmaster and writer. She’s also the PokerStars Mind Sport Ambassador.

“The biggest similarity that chess players can often translate to poker is the approach of always trying to play the best move – not just get lucky and win” (Shahade>

http://pokerfuse.com/site_media/med...

Her pic and its pose are the same as my eldest daughter, who has ably replaced my recently departed wife as my comfort and joy.

Let us all that the Divine Dealer gives us at least a Full on 7's like your own username.

Chess and life a just a tangle of nested Ifs, Butts, Knots, ORs (inclusive and exclusive), NORs and short horizons.

No explanations needed.

Just wheel in the next GM.

Put another Nickel in!

People quit using it. The Analysis Tree has replaced it. At first, the AT was a supplement to the forums. Then it became a replacement for them. The people who tried to organize them gave it up as a losing battle.

<I thought that was a great way of organizing the huge volume of analysis.>

I 100% agree.

< If I recall, it was the analysis forum system that really helped us out in the first Arno Nickel challenge ever while we were floundering without organization. Why abandon it?>

Your view about chess is really intriguing.

It is certainly quite different from my perspective. With our game format I think more about preparing for ones opponent and goal setting to reach exploitable positions. Therefore it leads me to pertinent game data reviewing as to any historical events useful in my pre game planning.

Then assure myself about the actual evaluations or accuracy of my selected line od lines with verification from deep ply engine analysis.

Then I review or evaluate suggested moves or lines from our members to come up with the highest rated theoretical positions from the latest GM fashion lines.

This gives me a reasonable assurance that I am on track for aiming at my goals which are hopefully beyond the perception of our opponent.

But the most difficult task is to project these ideas to the team for adoption or look for improvements or a refutation.

I am simply a patzer, and at best an ordinary Club Player. I realise to name a few who are way better players than me, and in a different league.

You, <RV>, <Pedro>, <morphish>, <You Rang>, <OCF>, <AK>, <Tiggler>, <cro777>, our two German friends who are superb, but their names elude me without having to look, (and they are very, very good), <cormier>, <Dc>, and <DanL>. There are a few others that do not come immediately to mind, and <Rookfile> and <JB> come to mind. If you are good, and not named, my apologies.

I am a genuine patzer, but I love the game, and I love the drama of the team. My "strange" perspective on the game is inexpertise, and my own temperament. I am a perfectionist, and have trouble working out the priorities. I should be better at Chess, and why I am not I cannot figure. I am probably just not organised in my mind enough.

All the best, <kwid>, now and in future.>

Thank you.

It's very kind of you to bestow credit for the hard working members you specifically named.

But I would like to say a few words about the other unnamed contributors who may not have the opportunity to spent a lot of time for this game but do follow our discussions and discern their approval with their vote in support for our success.

If we ever do get an other opportunity to face a high rated challenger with correspondence type of experience a possible win for us could only be forged out if we can pool our resources based on many minds to allow us reaching a depth which has not been seen before.

To stay ahead of such an opponent it would require for us to discuss potential exploitable middle game positions before deciding on our first move choice already.

From Phillip Alder's Bridge column today.>

Phillip Alder was one of my early Bridge partners: 1967 - 1972.

He was never the most charitable of partners. One one occasion he reported a session as "Containing no interesting hands". One might have thought that a Devil's Coup, yielding the opponents zero trump tricks with a holding of Q,7,3 opposite J,9 would have qualified as interesting. (We were playing in the 1971 New York Spring Nationals) However, he was not declarer, I was.

Admittedly, it was for an overtrick in a contract of 3 Spades.

Cheers,