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

Chessgames premium membership fee will increase to $39 per year effective June 15, 2023. Enroll Now! User Profile Chessforum

Gregor Samsa Mendel
Member since Jul-25-04 · Last seen Jun-01-23







Speaking of General Flynn:


More Breaking News: Trump to be reinstated as President 8/13/21


After the game is over, the king and pawn go into the same box.

-Italian proverb


" has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..."

-Winston Churchill


I am a high school science teacher and a proud union representative. Just doing what I can to build a better America.


How many of you are old enough to remember this?

Some snowflakes can dish it out but can't take it.


My kind of chess problem:

click for larger view

White to move

>> Click here to see Gregor Samsa Mendel's game collections. Full Member

   Gregor Samsa Mendel has kibitzed 4058 times to chessgames   [more...]
   May-26-23 L Spassov vs Adorjan, 1977
Gregor Samsa Mendel: According to The Computer, white could have survived after 10 Bd2 or 10 O-O; the critical blunder was actually 10 Qc2.
   May-24-23 A Feuerstein vs H Seidman, 1957 (replies)
Gregor Samsa Mendel: <KEG>--You say that 11..gxf5 is <Catastrophic! He had to play 11...Rxf5 to have any chance.> But after 12 g4 black has to give up the exchange, so by this early point his only choices are losing.
   May-23-23 J Grefe vs Korchnoi, 1979 (replies)
Gregor Samsa Mendel: After looking things over briefly with The Computer, it seems that <al wazir> might have been right after all. White would have been better off playing 47 fxg5 or Qe1, or 54 Qh8.
   May-20-23 F Slingerland vs M Bosboom, 1993
Gregor Samsa Mendel: According to The Computer, white had to play 12 e5, but It saw this only after a minute of analysis. A fiendish trap indeed.
   May-07-23 Kenneth Rogoff (replies)
Gregor Samsa Mendel: I definitely feel safer in a world where everybody is armed: What we need is one of these: I miss El Kabong.
   Mar-16-23 Petrosian vs J Yuchtman, 1959
Gregor Samsa Mendel: 19..b5 seems like such an obvious move to me, and The Computer likes it too. I wonder why black didn't play it.
   Mar-11-23 V Dragnev vs Ivanchuk, 2023 (replies)
Gregor Samsa Mendel: Did Ivanchuk resign or lose on time?
   Mar-11-23 Kharlov vs A Gabrielian, 2004
Gregor Samsa Mendel: The Computer gives major winning chances for black after 11..Qe7 or 11..Ng4.
   Mar-03-23 Mar del Plata (1941) (replies)
Gregor Samsa Mendel: <keypusher> Julio and Jacobo Bolbochan were brothers and GMs who both participated in this tournament.
   Mar-02-23 A Saidy vs Gligoric, 1972 (replies)
Gregor Samsa Mendel: <GrahamClayton>--apparently winning a piece doesn't automatically lead to winning the game. The Computer thinks that white would have retained a significant advantage after 30 g4.
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Our genes are out to get us

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Dec-14-21  Rdb: Part 1

Most of the dogmatic people I have come across have low level of intelligence.

When I try to explain Christian non dual mysticism to these people , they find it very difficult to handle the assertion that Bible and teachings of Jesus are about non personal god Absolute - there is no god other than us , body dies not us , we are eternal non personal god Absolute, personal god of dogmatic people does not exist.

2) these dogmatic , people start saying all kind of things including - "you talking gibberish"

3) so the set of posts that I am compiling now , I am writing each statement in that as a mathematical statement.

4) <a mathematical statement is a sentence which is either true or false. >

5) now , if to these dogmatic people, even mathematical statements occur as gibberish , then of course , they are beyond help.

6) I would post these sets of posts in the forums of <keypusher>/<Johnlspouge> for 'peer review' /inputs.

I hope I would be done within a month.

Dec-14-21  Rdb: Part 2

". Harris is particularly opposed to what he refers to as dogmatic belief, and says that "Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a betrayal of science – and yet it is the lifeblood of religion

Harris holds that there is "nothing irrational about seeking the states of mind that lie at the core of many religions. Compassion, awe, devotion, and feelings of oneness are surely among the most valuable experiences a person can have."[16]

Everything of value that people get from religion can be had more honestly, without presuming anything on insufficient evidence. The rest is self-deception, set to music.

Harris rejects the dichotomy between spirituality and rationality, favoring a middle path that preserves spirituality and science but does not involve religion.[52] He writes that spirituality should be understood in light of scientific disciplines like neuroscience and psychology.[52] Scienc- e, he contends, can show how to maximize human well-being, but may fail to answer certain questions about the nature of being, answers to some of which he says are discoverable directly through our experience"

Premium Chessgames Member
  Penguincw: Dropping by to give my annual seasonal greetings to you, <Gregor Samsa Mendel>.

(though unfortunately the streak of doing it 4 straight years on Dec/25 has ended - oh well)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Gregor Samsa Mendel: <Penguincw>--Better late than never. Season's greetings right back at you.
Mar-12-22  Rdb: Reposted from rogoff forum

< OhioChessFan: <Rbd>, I wish to remain with the points we have under discussion. I don't care if you respond to <GW>>

Great , then perhaps , we can together help increase 'goodness' in the world and this forum by having a productive/constructive conversation outside the domain of 'right/wrong' and instead try to expand/deepen our understanding through this conversation .

And therefore , I would invite <Gregor samaa Mendel> also in this conversation . I like <gsm> . He too is civil , mature , honest and sometimes when talking with him in past , I was not as mature as I would have liked .

However , encouraged by the attitude of <ohiochessfan> , I intend to expand my maturity through this conversation.

<Gregor samsa Mendel > asserts that objective moral values do not exist . I disagree . My position is - objective moral values exist but personal god is not needed for omv to exist.

It is late here . I am going to sleep now and tomorrow , I intend to repost the debate so far , for the benefit of <gsm>

Mar-13-22  Rdb: Part 2

Also , Encouraged by the response of <ohiochessfan> , I commit that from today onward I would be civil towards <big pawn>/<george Wallace>, <diceman> , <Keyser soze> , <gezafan> - at least as long as they are civil towards me .

Heil jesus - my hero , my god.

Mar-16-22  Rdb: <perfidious: <Bureaucrat> stated no more or less than the truth, come to <ohiochessfan>>

Well , may be <ohiochessfan> is right in a way . We will see.

We need to understand <objective moral values> deeply.

And we need to inculcate teachings of Jesus - especially impersonal love of Jesus .

We going to have this conversation soon - hopefully.

Mar-16-22  Rdb: Swami , my favorite political economist who writes the column <swaminomics> ,says that war that putin started is an immoral war.

Swami is an atheist . Moral values of atheist ?

2) <johnlspouge> is an atheist/agnostic and he asserts that objective moral values exist.

3) people like <bureaucrat> and <george Wallace>/<big pawn> , <Gregor samsa Mendel> , <al wazir> have created a lot of mess as they do not understand <objective moral values>

I intend to clean up that mess with the help of <ohiochessfan>

May-02-22  Rdb: : <gregor samsa mendel>< There are things that people find repugnant, and there may be near-universal agreement on these things, but it's all subjective. > So , do normal humans (as opposed to mentally ill humans) have a choice in the matter - can they choose not to find torturing babies for fun repugnant ?

And if they do not have choice , then how is it subjective ?

And if you say that we have choice , then what is the proof for that assertion - only psychopaths would find it fun and psychopaths are mentally ill , their genes are messed up.

May-03-22  Rdb: <gsm><to me it all turns on whether these values are subjective or objective. Objective, as in indisputable physical facts that can be agreed upon by all, or subjective, subject to interpretation. To me, moral values are subjective> Correct. If you take that definition of objectivity , you are right.

Objective moral values can be known only subjectively .

Definition of objective moral values is that they are objective because every normal human experiences them (as opposed to mentally ill people)

But this 'fact ' can be tested only subjectively . When you dissolve all anger , pride , fear , jealousy , lust for fame/power/status/domination etc , when you dissolve all conditioning to reach delta brain wave activity level (level of krishna/jesus) , then you see (subjectively) that 'we are impersonal love and intelligence in action '

That famous , revered impersonal love of Jesus and wisdom of Jesus. And we also see that personal god does not exist . Source of these objective moral values is non personal god Absolute . There is no god other than us . Bodies die not us. We are eternal Absolute

May-11-22  George Wallace: Are you hiding in here now?

Kenneth Rogoff (kibitz #504452)

May-11-22  Rdb: And look at calmness , composure of <gsm> ...How impressive , inspiring...I learn from that..


May-11-22  Rdb: <nok> and others - look at <george wallace>/<big pawn> trolling <gsm> in his own forum

How many time this guy has whined <<rdb> trolls people in their own forums >

Dishonesty/hypocrisy , thy name is <gw>/<bp>


Premium Chessgames Member
  Gregor Samsa Mendel: <GW>--I'm not hiding out anywhere, I just have a schedule. If I wanted to hide, I'd go to a place nobody visits, like this one:

User: big pawn

--but as a bee, the sight of all those cobwebs made me nervous.

Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: To bee.Or not to bee.

Greetings, from someone borned i Hamlets town, Elsinore.

May-12-22  Rdb: <george Wallace>/<big pawn><

1. GSM: omv do not exist
2. GW: evidence?
3. GSM: I take it back now I'm agnostic.
4. GW: why the sudden flip flop?
5. GSM:___________
This is where we are and it's your turn to move the discussion forward in a meaningful way. >

What had <nok> told you ? You keep forgetting unicorns

Let me fix it for you .

<1.GSM: unicorns do not exist 2. GW: evidence?
3. GSM: I take it back now I'm agnostic.
4. GW: why the sudden flip flop?
5. GSM:___________
This is where we are and it's your turn to move the discussion forward in a meaningful way.>

Tell him <nok>

May-14-22  Rdb: And <gsm> , assume that <omv> exist. And if <omv> exist , what is their ontology ?

Now , simulation hypothesis that you and I had already discussed in detail - there is no way to know that this world is not a simulation as long as we are in this time-space.

This world could be a computer simulation - all the homosapiens computer programs in a computer system . And in that case , objective moral values too are computer programs . That is what their ontology is .

Very clearly , first premise of omv argument is stupid and false.

Only way to know the ontology of omv is to transcend time/space . Is that possible ? Yes , says christian non dual mysticism (and any other mysticism)

Mysticism is about knowing ultimate reality through first hand direct transcendental experience (we already know that we can not know ultimate reality through logic, rational thinking - simulation hypothesis)

And christian non dual mysticism says that personal god does not exist. Ultimate reality is non personal god Absolute. There is no god other than us . Body dies not us . We are eternal Absolute.

In short - first premise of omv argument is stupid and false.

May-15-22  Rdb: <George Wallace: <GSM: <OMV exist apart from man> How do you know this?>
Because this is what the moral argument is about. Everybody on both sides already agrees to this, going back to the Euthyphro (Socrates) argument. The point of contention is whether or not they exist or not. There is no confusion over what is meant by objective moral values vs moral relativism >

What an idiot !

Definition of <omv> is very clear .

Moral values are objective if they are experienced by all 'normal' humans (as opposed to 'mentally ill ' humans) .

Nowhere in the definition it says that omv exist apart from humans.

2) if there where no humans/animals in the universe , there would be no moral values in universe - christian non dual mysticism is very clear on that .

3) <nok> , <gsm> and others - don't let this fool escape on this.


May-15-22  Rdb: <Gregor Samsa Mendel: <GW>--As I said earlier: <I'm just looking for evidence of the existence of objective moral values in the face of an obviously vast and indifferent universe. I haven't found anything that's convinced me yet. It fascinates me that what is so clearly "evil" to some people is just fine and dandy with others. Hitler, Stalin, and the World Trade Center terrorists all thought that they were following objective moral values. They all thought they were "right."> OMV might exist, or they might be feelings and opinions that people have. How can you tell the difference? >

That is one of the most important questions.

Many religious dogmatic fools have this moral value that <killing for blasphemy is right>

They have this moral value because of their brainwashing , religious conditioning.

How do we know that the moral values that people have are not result of conditioning of society, religion etc.

How do we know that in the absence of conditioning all homosapiens would have this moral value that 'torturing children for fun is wrong' ?


May-15-22  Rdb: Here is the thing :

1) <gsm> is like <I would go to the bottom of this <omv> stupidity of <george Wallace> /<big pawn> this time without getting in 'right vs wrong' domain - like mature adult , I would try to understand dispassionately , spending a few minutes every day or so .

However , I would either listen to the most stupid moron of forum , that is <gw>/<bp> , or I would listen to the most intelligent genius of forum , that is <johnlspouge>

Nothing in-between , so I would not listen to <rdb> or anyone else in the forum on this subject (occasionally , I may deign to listen to <keypusher> too , if I am in a generous mood , but that is that . Not going to dilute my parameters any further)>

2) now , <johnlspouge> is like <like <keypusher> , I too stand for clarity/depth of understanding/thinking and like <kp> , I too like to contribute but occasionally because only an idiot would post more tha that in this noisy cacophonous hell called rogoffland (no offence to <saffuna> ) and like <kp> my interest in <omv> argument is limited. After all , <gw>/<bp> has been thoroughly defeated in this debate umpteen times already ...>

3) so , if <gsm> has to be helped , and this omv sh.t has to be taken to logical conclusion for once and all , then three things

(I) I would need to do all the heavy lifting

(ii) <johnlspouge> would need to do 'peer review' of all that I post (otherwise <gsm> not going to listen)

(Iii) <gsm> would need to continue showing same level of commitment to take it to its logical conclusion.


May-16-22  Rdb: Hey <gsm> , did you see how <george Wallace>/<big pawn> made a fool of himself in response to your question ?

<Gsm> : how do you know that omv exist apart from humans ?

<Gw>/<bp> is like : I have heard so . People have been saying this for more than 1000 years , I have heard . How else would I know ? Everyone knows and their grandmas know that omv is just a concept for me, hearsay , dogma , I have never experienced omv. How can I expeerience omv ? After all I am a psychopath , for crying out loud .

Me : this guy is a joke. This fool does not know diddly squat about omv and omv argument.


May-19-22  Rdb: Here is what likely happened :

<George Wallace>/<big pawn> stopped nagging/hounding <gsm> after reading the refutation that I provided for omv argument.

Refutation was so succinct and focused that he got it this time.

2) question is : is <gw>/<bp> cured forever or he would bluff dishonestly about omv argument in future ?


Premium Chessgames Member
  Penguincw: Dropping by to give you my seasonal greetings as I usually do (since 2011!).
Premium Chessgames Member
  Gregor Samsa Mendel: Thank you, and right back at you, <Penguincw>.
Jan-02-23  LoveThatJoker: I replied to your comment on the Valery Mamoshin page.


Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 13)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 13 OF 13 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific user only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

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. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2023, Chessgames Services LLC