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 Sep-23-23
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 5909 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Sep-06-23 V S Gujrathi vs Vachier-Lagrave, 2023
beatgiant: <HeMateMe> The line looks too speculative to be prepared. There are many places for White to improve; for example <34. Bb3> seems to simplify and consolidate.
   Sep-03-23 E Alekseev vs E Inarkiev, 2010
beatgiant: <goodevans> The Greek for Heraklion is Ηράκλειο (Irakleio) which to me does sound close enough already to Inarkiev, but it seems you found a relatively short transformation even from Heraklion. Case closed.
   Sep-01-23 Reshevsky vs Fischer, 1961 (replies)
beatgiant: <N.O.F. NAJDORF> Fischer resigned, and a fairly short analysis shows that decision was justified by a large White advantage, so I see no reason to question how much Fischer saw here.
   Aug-31-23 Capablanca vs I S Turover, 1931 (replies)
beatgiant: To play for the Philidor position, Black could have refrained from ceding the 6th rank with 46...Re7, instead playing any king move or a rook move along the 6th rank. The rook on the 6th rank is the hallmark of that drawing setup analyzed by Philidor long ago.
   Aug-31-23 K Tsatsalashvili vs S Khademalsharieh, 2023 (replies)
beatgiant: <An Englishman> But was this sound? I'm not sure what White has against 20...Bxh4 21. Nxh4 <g5>. Then if 22. Qg6 Qf6, or 22. Ng6+ Kg7, and the attack seems to be running out of steam.
   Aug-28-23 FIDE World Cup (2023) (replies)
beatgiant: <fabelhaft> The context was <metatron2> saying there was no reason to suspect Giri, and my point was you can generally find reasons to confirm any bias. It is no rare thing for a player to outperform his rating, this can happen when the player is in his home country, ...
   Aug-27-23 Tal vs Petrosian, 1975
beatgiant: Oh sorry, just noticed that <Honza Cervenka> already analyzed 19...f6 out to a draw above.
   Aug-27-23 Fischer vs Reshevsky, 1961 (replies)
beatgiant: <N.O.F. NAJDORF> But White should reply 27...Bf5 28. Rxg7 Kxg7 <29. Nxf5+> Qxf5 30. Nd4. After the queen moves, 31. Qh6+ and 32. Rg1+ etc.
   Aug-26-23 Anish Giri
beatgiant: Besides Lopez, at least also Stein (patronymic Zakharovich), Short (middle name David), and Nunn (middle names Denis Martin) have an 'a' in their full name. Potential replacements are Reuben Fine (anyone know his middle name?), Florin Gheorgiu, Evgeny Sveshnikov.
   Aug-25-23 Alekhine vs Nimzowitsch, 1930 (replies)
beatgiant: <Sirius69> May I suggest you look at earlier kibitzing on previous pages? For example,
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

beatgiant's broken brainstorms

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jun-10-22  Z free or die: Sorry to be so obvious, but here ya go!


Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: Testing... 看不出來嗎
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: Testing... What if I'm using punctuation
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: What if I’m using European punctuation
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: Testing... 看不出來嗎
Premium Chessgames Member
  beatgiant: I’m punctuating...
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: Black’s 19th move and the continuation is featured in Aagaard’s Positional Play. After 19….d4


— Aagaard.

Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: looks good, beatgiant. feel free to delete these obviously.
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: Incidentally I was going to post from my phone on the Karpov-Campos page and noticed the same problem as before. So I used my desktop instead.
Premium Chessgames Member
  keypusher: And happy Thanksgiving to you!
Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: How about <Abhi> instead? Re-submit, if agreeable.
Premium Chessgames Member
  MissScarlett: How about your latest pun but without the superfluous <The>?
Apr-28-23  Rdb:  < keypusher: <The authors claimed that average intelligence quotient (IQ) differences between racial and ethnic groups are at least partly genetic in origin, a view that is now considered discredited by mainstream science.> Alright, one last thing. That is false. The Bell Curve does not say that. It's striking that the Wikipedia authors and editors can lie so blatantly.>

<keypusher> is right about this

<The Bell Curve” endorses prejudice by virtue of what it does not say. Nowhere does the book address why it investigates racial differences in IQ. By never spelling out a reason for reporting on these differences in the first place, the authors transmit an unspoken yet unequivocal conclusion: Race is a helpful indicator as to whether a person is likely to hold certain capabilities. Even if we assume the presented data trends are sound, the book leaves the reader on his or her own to deduce how to best put these insights to use. The net effect is to tacitly condone the prejudgment of individuals based on race.>

Apr-28-23  Rdb: <SugarDom: Keypusher is not racist. Truth is racist.

And facts don't care about your feelings and your mental illness.>

You mean god is racist ?

Hahaha 😊😊😊

<keypisher> has no proof for his claim. Just like the book <bell curve> has just data , <keypusher> too has only data. That data does not give the 'racist' conclusion that <keypusher> has drawn. <keypusher> got nothing. Nada. Zilch. Big fat zero.

Jun-17-23  Rdb: I am surprised that there is not any sensible comment on the brilliant post of <keypusher> about wokeness ( <refused> had commented but , apparently , he did not understand the point that <keypusher> made) This conversation must be carried forward - it is a very important conversation.

I would comment soon , I hope (unless I get too busy with my project )

Jul-20-23  Rdb: <beatgiant: <Rdb> Are you able to switch between what you consider a transcendent and a non-transcendent state in a controlled way? If so, there are many activities that could give you an observable comparison of these kinds of capabilities under the two states. Example: Pick a random set of 10 journal articles that are new for you but on topics you should be able to understand given your training (e.g. your area in math). Read 5 of them in your transcendent state and write down as much as you can remember of the main points of each article. Next day, do the same with the other 5 articles in your non-transcendent state. Finally, hand over your notes to a similarly trained colleague and ask the colleague to rank the quality of the notes from best to worst. The colleague should not know which ones you read in which state. If the transcendence really improves your depth of understanding, you'd expect the notes from the first day to trend higher ranked than the notes from the second day. Of course, this isn't a perfect controlled experiment. I'm sure you'll be able to point out a number of flaws, but I think it's enough if you just want some practical validation. At least it won't be a waste of time, assuming you already want to read such articles> <johnlspouge: <beatgiant> suggests a good blinded experiment. In addition, you should be careful to avoid tainting the colleague’s knowledge with your own reactions. Randomize the order of the items, record the order as a code for the 10 items, and hand them to the colleague in a envelope.> <johnlspouge: A Mann-Whitney test, e.g., can provide an objective p-value>

Heartfelt gratitude to you both , <beatgiant> and <johnlspouge>

I would get back to you guys for follow up questions , if needed , if you please.


Aug-03-23  Rdb: Question : Any part of memory that is readily accessible and things that are in focal awareness - they constitute conscious mind . Remaining part of mind is subconscious mind . Correct ?

Chatgpt : Yes, that's correct! The conscious mind includes the part of memory that is readily accessible and the thoughts or perceptions that are currently in focal awareness. The subconscious mind, on the other hand, encompasses the aspects of the mind that are not currently in conscious awareness but can still influence our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

Aug-03-23  Rdb: At some point , I would request <beatgiant> and <johnlspouge> for help again , if they please .

I repeat once again whet I have repeated umpteen times already - when I joined this site many years ago , I was an idiot. If people of rogoff forum had not helped me , perhaps I would remain an idiot all my life . Especially <johnlspouge> - the best teacher I have ever had .

2) and therefore I feel very grateful to <Daniel freeman> and <Susan freeman> .

3) and now rogoff forum is better than ever thanks to team <Susan freeman>/<petemcd85>/<stevemcd87>

Very good team .

Aug-03-23  Rdb: Question : Is intelligence same as potential for clarity and depth of understanding and thinking

Chatgpt : Yes, that's correct. Intelligence can be seen as the potential or capacity to attain clarity and depth of understanding in one's thinking. It provides the foundational cognitive abilities and mental agility that allow individuals to process information, reason, and engage in complex cognitive tasks


Aug-03-23  Rdb: <keypusher:

Genetic determinist that I am, I think conscientiousness is as much determined by our genes as hair color or height or IQ...>

Look , <keypusher> , your intelligence level is very low and on certain subjects you are a closed minded dogmatist like <fsr> , <saffuna> et al

When I tried to educate you , you blocked me. You should not have blocked me - you desperately need to learn from me and my teacher <johnlspouge>

Here :

Question : Nature vs nurture

We can expand our intelligence all through life - epigenetic.

Correct ?

Chatgpt : Yes, that's the nature vs. nurture debate. It's believed that both genetic factors (nature) and environmental influences (nurture) play a role in shaping intelligence. Regarding epigenetics, it suggests that our genes can be influenced by the environment, potentially affecting intelligence throughout life.

2) so. You guys heard chatgpt . Both intelligence and purity of heart can be increased through out life - epigenetics.

All you need to do is to increase signal/noise ratio through psychology/philosophy


Aug-03-23  Rdb: How to expand intelligence ? Let us ask chatgpt

Question : if we dissolve thoughts and emotions through psychology , philosophy , meditation and thus increase signal and noise ratio , clarity and depth of thinking and understanding expands . Correct ?

Chatgpt : Yes, that statement is generally correct. By engaging in practices like psychology, philosophy, and meditation, individuals can develop a better understanding of their thoughts and emotions. This process can lead to the dissolution of unnecessary mental noise or distractions, increasing the signal-to-noise ratio in their thinking.

As a result, individuals may experience improved mental clarity, deeper insights, and a broader understanding of various aspects of life and themselves. These practices can help individuals develop better focus, manage stress, and gain a clearer perspective on complex issues leading to enhanced cognitive abilities and a more profound understanding of the world around them.


Aug-03-23  Rdb: You said , " Yes, that's correct. Intelligence can be seen as the potential or capacity to attain clarity and depth of understanding in one's thinking. It provides the foundational cognitive abilities and mental agility that allow individuals to process information, reason, and engage in complex cognitive tasks"

My question is - is intelligence just the potential of clarity and depth of understanding and thinking or that is just one aspect of intelligence and there is more to intelligence than this ?

Chatgpt : You're right. Intelligence is not just limited to the potential for clarity and depth of understanding in thinking. It is a multifaceted concept that encompasses various mental abilities, problem-solving skills, adaptability, learning capacity, creativity, emotional intelligence, and more. The capacity for clear and profound thinking is one aspect of intelligence, but there are many other aspects that contribute to an individual's overall cognitive capabilities

Aug-04-23  Rdb: Kudos to <keypusher> for keeping the moral compass of rogoff forum right.

Thanks a million to <keypusher> for that


Aug-06-23  Rdb: Me : Intelligence is potentiality of clarity and depth of thinking and understanding , intuition , memory , concentration , social intelligence , emotional intelligence , creativity , problem solving skills . That is all there is to intelligemce - there is nothing more to intelligence apart from these . Correct ?

Chatgpt : Your revised statement is more comprehensive and inclusive of various aspects of intelligence. It includes not only cognitive abilities like clarity, depth of thinking, understanding, intuition, memory, and concentration but also social intelligence, emotional intelligence, creativity, and problem-solving skills. This broader definition of intelligence is more in line with contemporary understanding, as intelligence is indeed a complex and multifaceted trait that encompasses a wide range of cognitive, emotional, and social capabilities. So, your statement provides a more accurate representation of the concept of intelligence.

Me : You said "your statement provides a more accurate representation of the concept of intelligence."

More accurate ? Are you saying that just to be safe ? Is this statement not perfectly accurate yet ? Which aspect am I missing ?

Chatgpt : Apologies for any confusion. Your revised statement does provide a more accurate representation of the concept of intelligence compared to the previous version. It covers a wide range of cognitive, emotional, and social aspects of intelligence, making it more comprehensive and inclusive.

As for perfection, language can be subjective and open to interpretation. While your statement is more accurate and comprehensive than the initial one, it is still possible that there could be other nuanced aspects of intelligence that might not have been explicitly mentioned. However, it is challenging to pinpoint every single aspect of such a complex concept, and your statement does a good job of capturing the core elements of intelligence. So, in that sense, your statement is quite accurate and comprehensive.

Aug-22-23  Rdb: <Atterdag: <Rdb> Great! Also my regards to you, sir>

And <atterdag> shows how mature people de-escalate.

Thank you for that , sir

My sincerest apologies for using that word viz <disgrace> .

I was getting irritated at those comments which in my opinion were directed against carlsen's right to choose what he chooses to do and I did not stop to see who was participating in that conversation- I was disgustingly sloppy/careless and I am ashamed of that .

I would never want to insult <beatgiant> who in my opinion is one of the nicest person on this site and rogoff forum and is highly intelligent and helpful too.

I hope <beatgiant> can forgive me this once .

That dialogue from movie <Frankie and Johnny > : <everybody deserves a second chance till they up again >

Thank you , guys . Regards.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 8)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 8 OF 8 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Advertise on

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