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

Member since Jun-05-04 · Last seen Nov-28-21
An American amateur.

Following are positions on many hot-button issues of the site.

Greatest player of all the 18th century? Philidor.

Who would have won a hypothetical Staunton-Steinitz matchup? Steinitz.

Was there an unwritten "win by two" clause in the Lasker-Janowski (1910) match? No.

Did Alekhine deliberately throw the 1935 title match, so as to get a rematch and thus be paid twice for playing Euwe? Hmmm....

Did Stalin order Flohr not to try hard to beat Botvinnik? No.

Who would have won a never-played Fischer-Gligoric match? Fischer.

Did Kenneth Rogoff write an update to "Eight Centuries of Financial Folly" called "Nine Centuries of Financial Folly"? No.

>> Click here to see beatgiant's game collections. Full Member
   Current net-worth: 2,971 chessbucks
[what is this?]

   beatgiant has kibitzed 5214 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Nov-25-21 Gligoric vs Flohr, 1962
beatgiant: I don't see White's win in the final position. Are there some missing moves in the score, or did Black's flag fall just as he played the final move, or what?
   Nov-22-21 chessforum (replies)
beatgiant: <Stonehenge> I am planning to write a script to locate and repair them all in the near future.
   Nov-22-21 Biographer Bistro (replies)
beatgiant: <biographers> I have completed the operation. You can edit player bios again now. You should not see much change. This operation was to prevent creation of new messes going forward. I will do another operation later to clean up the existing messes.
   Nov-15-21 beatgiant chessforum
beatgiant: Testing Непо́мнящий
   Nov-12-21 Rubinstein vs Lasker, 1909 (replies)
beatgiant: <Z truth 000000001> At the risk of saying more than I should: when we change code to start supporting the former of your two Russian posts above, it will stop supporting the latter of them. And it's a ton of work going through and unifying data sets that were created by ...
   Nov-09-21 Liudmila Belavenets (replies)
beatgiant: <Z truth 000000001> I have not yet fixed the player bios. What I have fixed so far is the tournament pages (all of them) and user game collections (most of them).
   Nov-08-21 alexmagnus chessforum (replies)
beatgiant: Maybe it would work if I put the explanation in a catchy song. (to the tune of "Istanbul, not Constantinople") Azerbaijani used Arabic script, Now it's Latin script, not Arabic, Been a long time gone, Arabic script, Now it's shekerbura on a moonlit night. Every gal in ...
   Nov-06-21 Caruana vs Firouzja, 2021 (replies)
beatgiant: <JustAnotherMaster> He isn't Iranian anymore so you can stop calling him that, but it's true he has a chance of qualifying for the Candidates.
   Nov-06-21 F W Viney vs H Gook, 1926 (replies)
beatgiant: Is the pun a reference to <boxing clever>, which is apparently a British idiom?
   Nov-04-21 Janowski vs Albin, 1902 (replies)
beatgiant: Might 31. Bf2 be a misprint for 31. Bh2? Otherwise, it seems like both players overlooked 33. Bxh4 winning a rook.
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

beatgiant's broken brainstorms

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <Sokrates>
In the current cycle, also the Grand Prix and the Grand Swiss used qualification by average ratings over a 12-month period.
Apr-19-21  Sokrates: <beatgiant>

Thank you very much for taking time to explain this to me. I have noted your first remark with a smile on my face. :-)

I am with you on this conclusion: <But if we do need to use ratings, I think consistency over a period of time is a better basis than a snapshot at a single moment in time, which is I think my key point of difference with <AylerKupp>.>

What is relatively clear to me is that over a course of say one and a half year, there is a significant fluctuation in the results and playing strength of almost every player at top level. Brilliant performance in one tournament is sometimes/often followed by mediocre or even bad results in the next.

Before the first leg of the present Candidates was to begin, Ding Liren had great results and a high rating (IIRC). Many posters here saw him as a huge favourite to win the Candidates and a very strong challenger to Carlsen (due to the games between them prior to the event).

And we saw what happened. Personally, I think rating should only be one parametre to qualify a player. Upcoming talents, for instance, should have a chance, and we have seen that a deficit of > 100 rating points may not matter in a head-to-head game.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up. Very appreciated.

Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <<But if we do need to use ratings, I think consistency over a period of time is a better basis than a snapshot at a single moment in time, which is I think my key point of difference with <AylerKupp>.>>

What about using "TPR" with some mininum actuvity requirement instead? So, performance (and not rating) over a year with a minimum of, say, 35 games? To avoid cheating in lower ranks, add that the rating must be over a certain threshold (say, top 30) at the start of the year?

Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <alexmagnus>
The TPR idea has been discussed before and has some support, but I'm not prepared to do enough research right now to discuss that intelligently.

But now I have a question for you. Here World Championship Candidates (2020/21) you wrote as follows.

<As for the "draw rates for the champion, challenger gets an extra white" format: it's still too much of an advantage for the champion.

To equalize the draw odds - that is, make the expected score for the "one extra white game" player half a point higher than in an even match - the first-move advantage would have to be 100:0!>

You then followed up with,
<Only at <ten> extra whites does the assumed first move advantage equalize the draw odds (to be more precise, giving one player ten extra whites for draw odds assumes a first-move advantage of 55:45).>

I'm wondering if you could share the details of your assumptions and the calculations? Not having crunched the numbers, in case of, say, a 14-game match between Carlsen and Caruana in which Caruana got 12 Whites and Carlsen got 2, with Carlsen to retain the title in case of a tie match, I would like Caruana's chances.

Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <alexmagnus>
I tried myself to reproduce your results, but could not.

I assumed the following distribution on game results:

Pr(White wins) = 0.175
Pr(draw) = 0.75
Pr(Black wins) = 0.075

Those reproduce your assumed 55:45 expected score. (I can show the work in case you disagree.)

I then considered the question, what's the probability that the challenger will score at least 6 points in an 11-game match in which he has k Whites, and the champion has 11-k Whites. Since I don't have plenty of time to solve the tricky math, I simply scripted a simulation based on the given probabilities.

My finding was, the closest to equal probability for both sides occurs when the challenger has 8 Whites and the champion has 3 Whites, in which case the challenger wins about 49.8 percent of the matches.

Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: <beatgiant> I may have missed something, but I assumed just the expected score per game.

Let's assume a player gets k extra whites. That is, he gets n+k whites and n blacks.

Then his expected score is


where w is the expected score for white.

We need to equalize the draw odds. Which means, the expected score of the extra white player should be half a point above half the games, that is (2n+k+1)/2.

So, w*(n+k)+(1-w)*n = (2n+k+1)/2

Solving this for w we get w=(k+1)/(2k).

Finally, setting w=0.55 we get k=10.

Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: The only possible flaw in that calculation I see is that the expected score should maybe be set not half a point, but quarter a point above half the games (as someone with an expected score of, say 12.3/24 is more likely to score 12.5 than 12).

Then our formula changes to w=(2k+1)/(4k), and k=5 for w=0.55, which is more consistent with your result.

Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: But it's nice somebody verified it by a simulation, as this very point (half a point or quarter a point to add?) was my own doubt when doing that calculation for the first time.
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: Which, by the way, makes sense without any equations too: each extra white game brings 0.05 extra points, so it have to be 5 (or 10 in the flawed version of the calculation) games to make it 0.25 (0.5) extra points.
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <alexmagnus>
Nice solution. So we could have a 15-game match where the challenger gets 10 whites and the champion retains the title in case of a tie match, and that would satisfy some definition of fair conditions.

Of course, all that assumes each game is an independent trial. In practice, for example in the 15-game case, the challenger gets 2 Whites out of every 3 games, meaning usually 2 Whites in a row. And given the typical opening prep duel in matches, I think this could put a lot of pressure on the champion.

To reduce that effect, we might want to have a longer match. For example a 19-game match where the challenger has 12 Whites would allow a w,b,w,w,b pattern of color alternation.

Call FIDE! We've solved tiebreaks ;-)

Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: 19 games with 12 whites and 7 blacks. You know what it reminds me of? The Jewish calendar, which runs in 19 year cycles, of which 7 years have a leap month.
Premium Chessgames Member
  alexmagnus: The sequence completely repeating the Jewish calendar pattern would btw be


Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: In the chessforum page, <OhioChessFan> posted, <In the future, I'd recommend avoiding puns based on profanity. Really, really unprofessional.> and I invited him here to discuss standards around puns.

A few of my puns have come under criticism (not profanity but a few other issues), and I'm determined to be a positive contributor here, or at least not making things worse.

Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Don't worry about the pun criticisms. I will gladly concede some really awful puns get through sometimes. I think cg.c tries to give a lot of people a shot, and maybe run one by someone who hasn't been used before. I also think they run some terrible puns by the most prolific submitters. Not sure what's going on there, but whatever.

IMHO, I have over 100 very good or better puns submitted and never used. Some not so good of mine have been used recently and I almost wish they hadn't. That's how it goes.

As for the pun complaints, it was either <keypusher> or <offramp> who mentioned that the people who criticize puns don't realize how poorly they come off. I took that to heart, and stopped, almost. The 4 habitual pun complainers who are also submitters, <FSR>, <PhonyBenoni>, <Messiah>, <MissScarlett>, I think are fair game, but I try really hard to let it go. Those 4 have some of the best, but also some of the worst puns I've seen. <morfishine> used to head the list, but I hope is permanently gone. What an unhappy twit trying to make everyone else as unhappy as he is. Everyone else, I just live with the bad puns. I think it's a touch better not to complain on the game page itself.

All this reminds me of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. Every year, every single year, people write in and complain about the indecency of the swimsuits, and announce they are cancelling their subscription. Well, umm, do you live under a rock? How is it you didn't know before subscribing about the swimsuit issue? Was it a big surprise? Likewise, the pun complainers have this horrible affliction where they click on a game page, and sometimes, <the game itself isn't high quality!> Oh, you poor things, I hope you're not overly traumatized. After 15 years of complaining about the SI Swimsuit issue-I mean the Pun of the Day-you'd sort of think they would just <QUIT GOING TO THAT PAGE IF IT'S SO UNBEARABLE YOU HAVE TO PUBLICLY COMPLAIN ABOUT IT!!!> It's really a tiresome activity. <morf> was easy to put on ignore over it. I know I've never missed anything good by not reading him. <Messiah> had some good stuff to say, but his incessant whining led me to put him on ignore too. The other 3 bring too much good stuff to ignore, but it's really annoying.

Anyway, submit the puns, let decide if they'll run it, and lose no sleep over it. I am sometimes shocked at the accolades tossed at what I think are mediocre puns, but so be it. I have been shocked at what I thought were fantastic puns of mine going mostly unnoticed. I will say the general level of what qualifies as funny/amusing on this site strikes me as pretty bad. Just look at the history of Funniest Kibitzer voting and you'll realize something's a bit off on this site.

Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: <OhioChessFan> Thanks for those insights. But my concern was not about failure in pun quality, but more about community standards around things like profanity, racism, and politics.

I had actually submitted for Smyslov vs Kamsky, 1989 the pun "Famous Forking Legend." Smyslov is a famous legend, he won by a fork, and Kamsky uttered a certain profanity-laced phrase in a widely reported incident when he got flagged in banter blitz, but I deleted my suggestion after seeing your comment against "Short Hits Yifan."

I got criticized for racism for my puns "Thi for Two" (T Do vs T Nguyen, 2005) and "XYZ Affair" (Zeyu Xiang vs Yibo Zhou, 2019), but you guessed it, the complaints were from <morphishine> and <MissScarlett>. No explanation was offered, I continue to believe those puns weren't racist, but I'll always watch out about that.

Finally, politics. I authored the pun "Taking Time to Count the Votava" for Votava vs P Spacek, 2006 last November when the US election had just taken place. One kibitzer called it <By far the worst pun ever read on CG> but you called it again, that was <Messiah>. Another kibitzer responded by suggesting "Taking Time to Count the Votava from Outer Spacek" in case the source of any ballots was questionable.

Fortunately, we didn't get a political flame war on the page, but I now regret that particular pun. From now on, I think I'll save my political material for the T Bush vs A Carter, 1976 page.

Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Good call on "Famous Forking Legend". The pun is essentially the first thing people see on the site, so it needs to pass family friendly standards. That one wouldn't.

There's nothing remotely racist about "Thi for Two" and "XYZ Affair". <morf> is just a massive jerk. <Scarlett> thinks he's funny, but he's really tiresome. On a related note, that he and <offramp> and especially <technicaldraw> have been voted Funniest Kibitzer says a lot about the site, and none of it good. Unfortunately, it confirms in their minds that the same one line jokes are indeed funny, and they should keep repeating them.

The Votava pun was okay, not great, but seemed sort of purposely a groaner. The "from Outer Spacek" suggestion was poor.

I get the feeling. Your username on the homepage, and you're hoping for a compliment or two and then you find people insulting your efforts on the game page. Especially when it's the same old, same old people. It's probably best to ignore it completely. Easier said than done, and I didn't accomplish that on my last pun.

Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: Testing special characters
apostrophe '
half ½
smiley ?
A with grave accent À
Russian shch ?
Chinese Ding Liren ???
Premium Chessgames Member

So glad to see you on staff now brah!

Premium Chessgames Member
  Tabanus: Ö ö é è Ó ó :)
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: Testing again:
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: testing testing abc 123
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: abc 123
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: testing testing abc 123
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: Непо́мнящий
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: Testing Непо́мнящий
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 6)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·  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.

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 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC