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

Member since Aug-25-07
For detailed instructions on downloading Toga, go to johnlspouge chessforum.

Being a control freak (just ask my kids!), I have moved my profile onto a page I can edit any way I want:

See you there!

>> Click here to see johnlspouge's game collections. Full Member

   johnlspouge has kibitzed 8525 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Nov-28-21 Kenneth Rogoff (replies)
johnlspouge: < <Everett> wrote: <jls> Two things. CDC solely feels the ONLY way forward is mRNA vaccines. Admit it. Then we can move forward in a civil manner. > Why should I be able to do a between-the-ears analysis of CDC's feelings if they are not obvious to other people
   Oct-09-21 J Boyers vs J Feavyour, 1962 (replies)
johnlspouge: Without Fear of Feavyour (Name of Game of the Day by Domdaniel) <domdaniel> was definitely a worthy, but he still instructs from the grave. "Values Moment: Leading Without Fear or Favor " < The pledge to practice journalism “without fear or favor” is one that ...
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 15 OF 15 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Apr-08-21  Ybr: <gezafan> : <i see that i was wrong and stupid . <Ybr> badly/decisively defeated <big pawn> in <omv argument> debate. <Big pawn> and his pets/wives viz <gezafan> , <sugardom> , <keyser soze> , <mort>, <tga> , <ocf> , <optimal play> are stupid , <ybr> is our super daddy . No place to run and hide any more for us fools>

<Mort> : you people are stupid not me - i am just dishonest and shameless. I always knew that <ybr> is our super daddy and we low lives losers can run but not hide.

However , because , like <big pawn> , i too am shamless and dishonest , i would now start rolling out memes and gifs . We losers can only hurl insults at <ybr> , we don't have brains to debate him.

Apr-08-21  Ybr: Truer words were never spoken <mort>

I have saved all this refutation in the forum of <johnlspouge> and perhaps i would post it in the forum of <troller> too.

Now , <big pawn> and you are left with no place to run and hide - all you got now is your shamelessness and dishonesty , your memes and gifs , you can hurl insults (any two bit idiot can ) but you have no brains to answer refutation.

Apr-09-21  Ybr: The decisive refutation of <omv argument> that <johnlspouge> had presented is comprised of just two lines (i had posted it yesterday in this forum as well as in the forum of <jls>)

Just using two sentences <johnlspouge> had shown that <omv argument> is very stupid

2) after that the final nail in coffin was to show that concept of personal god is stupid , no one has ever explained in any sensible way , even theoretically , how personal god can be 'seen'/'perceived'/experienced.

Philosophy of Absolute on the other hand - not only it explains theoretically how to 'see'/'perceive' ultimate/deepest reality , in every century many people supposedly actually 'see ' it.

Just for the sake of completion.

Apr-09-21  Ybr: Part 2

Because <big pawn>/<george wallace> knows that his pets/wives like <gezafan>/<sugardom>/<keyser soze> are stupid , he starts raving and ranting <read all these posts and see for yourself what <johnlspouge> said>

That is why instead of using name of <johnlspouge> , i used names of <x> and <z> as the presenter of refutation.

2 lines refutation , show me where is the answer to these 2 lines, i ask and <bp>/<gw> and his pets/wives are effectively shut up (at most they are reduced to memes, gifs, insults throwing trolls with no brains/intelligence and hence incapable of answering refutation)

Just for the sake of completion.

Apr-29-21  rbd: <objective moral value> : at every moment , there is 'need of moment' - 'right' thing to do....(do the 'right' thing , we often hear)

2) 'right ' thing to do , 'need of moment ' - what is that?

Homosapiens have compassion built in there 'system ' - in their genes. Dna does not change after birth , but genes change (you can google that - epigenetics ). As we expand in purity of heart by dissolving anger, pride , greed etc, our genes change and eventually , we become compassion and intelligence in action and become 'impersonal'/dispassionate (level of jesus (you can replace jesus by any other person , real or imaginary , that works for you ))

So , now we are in a place where we want freedom, justice, prosperity , happiness etc for everyone . So , that is the basis/foundation for 'need of moment ' ('right' thing to do ) at every moment.

And at that level , we also have intelligence to know the 'need of moment' ('right' thing to do)

3) clearly, first premise of <omv argument> is very stuoid and also , generally, religious dogmatic people are very stupid

Apr-29-21  rbd: Part 2
Let me know if you please, if you have any input, <johnlspouge>


Apr-29-21  rbd: <<keypusher><No one, absent divine intervention, is ever going to know what Jesus was <really> like>>

Well, if you reach high level of purity of heart by dissolving anger, fear , pride , anxiety, greed etc , you would know what jesus is talking about in bible and you would have a very good idea of what jesus was like.

Bible/teachings of jesus are about non personal god Absolute.

May-01-21  rbd: <keypusher: <diademas> <nok> I said it wasn’t possible to know what Jesus was really like, and I need to stick to that. But I re-read Mark’s Gospel (it’s pretty short) paying attention to the preaching, and stopping when I got to Holy Week. It's of a piece, it's coherent, it's not particularly political. Taking it on its own terms, you can see why its principal figure makes such an extraordinary impression on people. He seems very real. He’s of humble background (Mark 6:3, when he goes back to Galilee and preaches in the synagogue, and the locals say [all quotes from the KJV] “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”) He preaches to humble people, publicans and sinners (Mark 2:15-17) in plain language.

Two themes predominate: he is against religious formalism (2:23-28, 3:1-16, 7:1-16 etc.) and he has an extremely demanding moral code (10:12 “Whoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her”). Sometimes the two themes come together, in very earthy language (7:18-23 “Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into a man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.”) It’s also in Mark that he says that if your hand, foot, or eye offend you, cut it off or pluck it out, as applicable, because it’s better to be maimed and enter the kingdom of God than to be cast whole into hell fire “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” (9:43-50).

He definitely preaches to the poor, and is no admirer of the rich. It’s in Mark that he says it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven. But note the context. A rich young man comes and asks what he must do. Jesus says he must keep the Commandments. The man says, I do that, what else? (10:21-23 “Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor [note that he DOESN’T say “give to me”], and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved; for he had great possessions. And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!”).

Riches are bad because they separate you from God, but disdain of riches doesn’t seem to be tied to any political program. Which makes sense, because Jesus also thinks the end is at hand (9:1, “Verily I say unto you, That there shall be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”) People who think the world is about to end rarely specialize in political agitation.

Now he very much preaches to the Jews. (A “Syrophenician” woman asked him to help with her possessed daughter, and he said bluntly (7:26-28) “Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and feed it unto the dogs. And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.” And for her humility and quick wit her daughter is cured.) But within a couple of generations universal salvation was being preached in his name around the Mediterranean. And you can see that what we have in Mark would appeal to ordinary people, Jew or non-Jew.

Survivorship bias is real, texts and messages change. But it’s easier for me to believe that people who proselytized in his name took elements from his preaching that were actually there. Rather than that they took a first-century version of a Weather Underground leader and, more or less instantly, turned his message on its head.>

May-01-21  rbd: Part 2

Aren't you missing something, <keypusher> ?

2) you say like <jesus was very influential , his influence spread very quickly like a wild fire and very widely>

So , why was he influential ? Did you ask yourself that or you completely missed the only point that matters about jesus?

Do you think that jesus was influential because of the things you posted in this post of yours ? All that you posted here , which you call his teachings , can that nonsense which you label as teachings really influence anyone ?

This is the question that you need to ask otherwise you missing the point completely. And that is why i like to stay away from this site , generally - such superficial conversations and despite that people like <diademas> and <moronovich> have such high opinion of themselves .....

May-01-21  rbd: Part 3

If you want to know what jesus was like , then you need to look for the answer to the question "why was jesus so influential ?"

Of course you and i both know that all those stories about resurrection , walking on water and other miracles are laughable children's stories . So if we discount those stupid stories , was jesus influential because some idiots believed stupid stories (and still do) or there was something else which was cause of his influence - that is where you guys need to focus.

2) and focus of <nok> on his political thoughts/actions is completely ridoculous.

There is no reason to believe that jesus ever expressed any political thoughts publicly. Take the example of raman mahrishi - he spent all years of his long life in colonial india under imperial british rule (except last 3 years of his life) , however , he never talked about anything political , never got involved in politics - he was one of the greatest spiritual sages of modern india and there are many , many such examples.

3) jesus was killed because of his spiritual views , not because of his political view/actions - a simple google search would reveal that.


May-01-21  rbd: Pary 4

<Keypusher> and <diademas> are like : 1) anything that is written in bible has little historical significance. So from that perspective , there is no reason to believe that jesus existed.

2) so , let us discount bible

3) however , it is highly probable that jesus existed because reverence for him spread very fast like fire and spread very widely.

Me : ok. Fair enough. I am listening. Go on pleass.

<Keypusher> and <didaemas> are like : 4) well, now let us try to figure out what jesus was like.

5) and for that , let us go through bible

Me : 1)gentleman , isn't your point (5) contradicting your point (2)?

It is.

2) earlier , you guys said like <only way to know what jesus was like is divine intervention>

Well, divine intervention is sufficient but not necessary - high level of maturity and clarity/depth of understanding would also do.

I know someone who has that kind of maturity and he is not at all spiritual . He got that level of maturity by observing life/world and his own mind independently without ever formally studying psychology/spirituality/philosophy etc.

And he understands that part of bible when told to him which requires that kind of maturity to understand that part of bible.

So , from historical perspective , bible is worthless . However , from the perspective of 'philosophy'/spirituality , some part of bible is very mature.

You guys are focusing on that part of bible which is not only worthless from the perspective of 'philosophy'/spirituality but worthless from the perspective of history as well .

In short , you are trying to infer value from that part of bible which does not have any value and while you are at it you are wearing your fancy hats of world's best detective/investigative journalist/lawyer etc.

May-07-21  rbd: <George Wallace: Atheist libs can't squawk about moral issues because on their worldview, morality is just an opinion. And we all know about opinions.

To make this clear I offer this example.

"Nazis did the right thing"

First Guy: They were evil!
Second Guy: They were great!

Atheism: both responses are equally valid.

Here are two more statements that are equally valid on atheism:

There is nothing wrong with slavery.
Slavery is an abomination


Atheist libs need to understand that when they say, "slavery was an evil thing" that they are merely expressing an opinion, like, "Coffee is better than tea."

Suck it up and own it, buttercups.>

Once again , <george wallace>/<big pawn> talking extremely stupid nonsense. Here is the refutation , once again.

<objective moral value> : at every moment , there is 'need of moment' - 'right' thing to do....(do the 'right' thing , we often hear) 2) 'right ' thing to do , 'need of moment ' - what is that?

Homosapiens have compassion built in there 'system ' - in their genes. Dna does not change after birth , but genes change (you can google that - epigenetics ). As we expand in purity of heart by dissolving anger, pride , greed etc, our genes change and eventually , we become compassion and intelligence in action and become 'impersonal'/dispassionate (level of jesus (you can replace jesus by any other person , real or imaginary , that works for you ))

So , now we are in a place where we want freedom, justice, prosperity , happiness etc for everyone . So , that is the basis/foundation for 'need of moment ' ('right' thing to do ) at every moment.

And at that level , we also have intelligence to know the 'need of moment' ('right' thing to do)

3) clearly, first premise of <omv argument> is very stuoid and also , generally, religious dogmatic people are very stupid

May-15-21  rbd: <george wallace>/<big pawn> :<As I said <Atheist libs need to understand that when they say, "slavery was an evil thing" that they are merely expressing an opinion, like, "Coffee is better than tea.">>

Of course , because atheist libs say like <my conscience, compassion tells me that coffee is better than tea>

Chimpanzee brain!

May-15-21  rbd: Btw , i got email from <ybr> - he said that he learned a lot from <johnlspouge> , <keypusher> and others and this phase of his education is complete and it is time for him to move on from this site.


Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: Hi, John! I noticed that you have a game collection for named mates. If you want to learn everything you always wanted to know about named mates but were afraid to ask, you can fork out 30 bucks for this course on chessable, which has 1,000 positions ending in named mates: If you didn't like it for some reason (I can't imagine why), they'll give you a refund within 30 days, no questions asked. It even has a game of mine in there, namely F Rhine vs NN, 2010. It features an en passant mate, one of the rarest types of mate there is.

I have mated by capturing en passant twice and claim the world record for it. See Game Collection: En passant mates I also claim the world record for mates by castling (four), although I suspect that Eric Rosen, who is willing to go to ridiculous lengths to achieve mate by castling (e.g. passing up a mate on move 20 in order to gin up a mate by castling on move 40), has more. My collection of games featuring mate by castling is at Game Collection: Mate by Castling If you're asking where my third mate by castling is, it was too stupid a game to include, but can be found at I am Krakatoa on chessable. Feel free to follow me if you like.

Jun-21-21  Z legend 000000001: As for named mates, I heartily also recommend CT:

(all the Mate-xxx themes).

A great site for tactical training.

(Plus it also includes some newer named themes, like the Railroad, Balestra and Escalator Mates!)

Premium Chessgames Member
  johnlspouge: Hi, <FSR> and <Z>.

Thanks for the steer to the named mates.

I started my collection when I first arrived on CG, basically as a self-tutorial. The link to [ ] is impressive in its thoroughness. To minimize the burden on memory, I would have minimized unnecessary distinctions by abstracting a little (e.g., it matters little which piece supports the piece giving mate, whether a Ks flight square is occupied by its own piece or covered by an enemy, etc.). In any case, I can use it as a reference in future. Thanks.

<FSR>, I took a look at your 2 games with en passant mates. Although they are impressive, I suspect the thrill of winning such games would require me to play more chess than I am willing :)

Premium Chessgames Member
  FSR: Everything you always wanted to know about en passant checkmates but were afraid to ask:
Premium Chessgames Member
  johnlspouge: @<al wazir>: Here are some preliminaries.

Nothing I write provides an irrefutable demonstration of any substantial hypothesis about any particular temperature records. I just aim to demonstrate that general methods from hypothesis testing in statistics can demonstrate a systematic influence on temperature records, even in the presence of large fluctuations, regardless of the random distribution of those fluctuations

I will not be able to touch your issues with interpretation about the systematic influence, e.g., there still may be a confounding cause like population increases, inflation, etc. In other words, I will give the Results section of a paper, but how the results are interpreted remains a separate step for the Discussion to take. Generally, in biology you choose to do experiments whose interpretation is unambiguous as possible, so the step from Results to Discussion is small, hence, my suggestion of replacing cost with something physical like area as a metric for weather-related disasters.

Premium Chessgames Member
  johnlspouge: I will start with some elementary facts about records. If a sequence

X[0], X[1],…

consists of independent identically distributed random variables chosen from any continuous distribution then the probability that

X[n] is larger than X[0], X[1],…, X[n-1]

is 1/n. The proof is straightforward: all permutations of X[0], X[1],…, X[n] are equally likely, so the probability that X[n] is the largest is 1/n. We call X[n] a record.

Just in passing, the expected number of records up to n is as I said:

1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + … + 1/n ~ ln( n ),

(plus the Euler-Mascheroni constant in the limit, if you prefer details). The proof is instructive if you have not seen the impressive power of indicator random variables before.

Let I[n]=1 if X[n] is a record and 0 otherwise. Thus,

E[ I[n] ] = Pr( I[n]=1 ) = 1/n.

Then, the number of records up to time n is

N( n ) = I[1] + I[2] + … + I[n].

Take expectations to get the result. Notice that nothing depends on knowing the random distribution underlying

X[0], X[1],…

Such statistical results are called non-parametric, valid for a broad range of distributions.

I will stop here, so you can comment before I continue (or not, if you prefer).

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: I take it that this discussion is supposed to apply to a time series such as the daily high temperature measured by a single weather station for all consecutive days since measurements began at that station. This would typically involve a series of many thousands of numbers. The probability that any recent member of such a series is a record is minuscule.

But the technique could equally well be applied to the series of high temperatures for a given month (say, September), year by year, as measured there. Now we are talking about a much smaller set of numbers.

In any one such series the probability that this year's high for that month is the all-time high is 1/n, where n is the number of years of the series.

If this year's entry is a "record," that proves nothing. But if you check many such series, found from many weather stations, and this year's entry is a record in more than 1/n of them, that does prove something. (The same test could have been made in any prior year. I'm assuming for simplicity that the series are all of the same length, i.e., that all weather stations began making measurements at the same time.)

It proves that, over a wide region, the year in question was warmer than usual.

But we know that some years are warmer than others. That's not news.

However, if you were to apply this test to *all* monthly high temperature series in *all* recent years, and it showed that on average the number of record highs exceeded the expected number, that would indeed show that something -- presumably, climate change -- is making record high temperatures more common.

Is this what you have in mind? Have I got the methodology more or less right?

Have you carried you this test? If so, what data set did you use?

If not, has someone else done it?

Premium Chessgames Member
  johnlspouge: Yes, you have the idea.

The record can be drawn from a distribution specific to a locale, so records for several locales can be examined simultaneously as you describe. There are a host of technical caveats in hypothesis testing, but the test *can* be done properly, to show objectively and quantitatively that the records must be subject to a systematic influence over time.

With regards to usage, yes, I recall a "real" paper exploiting records, but I have as good a chance as you of finding it now.

As usual, Wikipedia has a good article on p-values.

[ ]

I am willing to provide further information if you want it. I have other things occupying me right now, however, so I need to conserve effort.

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: I feel that, in the interests of science and the pursuit of truth, it is incumbent on me to carry out the test. However, it looks like a lot of work. So I'll try to find someone on the Internet who has done it for me. If you remember that reference, let me know. In the meantime, until that happens, I am sticking with the conclusion of that Yale article:

<Evidence instead suggests that temperatures have become slightly less variable as Earth has warmed, and climate models also predict a modest reduction in variability with warming over the coming century.[...]

Evidence from daily and monthly land surface temperature records over the last 50 years suggests that variability has been flat or slightly decreasing. This conclusion is based on looking at data from around 7,000 stations worldwide that report daily minimum and maximum temperatures. Over the same period, global land temperatures have warmed by almost 1 degrees C (1.8 F). The figure below shows global mean temperature by year in red and average annual variability across all stations in blue. Despite the rapid rise in temperatures, variability (shown in blue) has been decreasing.>

It references, the abstract of which says <Here we show that although fluctuations in annual temperature have indeed shown substantial geographical variation over the past few decades2, the time-evolving standard deviation of globally averaged temperature anomalies has been stable.>

It's possible that Huntingford et al. have tested p-values. I'll look.

Premium Chessgames Member
  al wazir: I have to retract some of what I've been saying: I have evidence that global warming *is* responsible for an increase in some forms of extreme weather.

At I found a table listing the numbers of named Atlantic storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes by year in the period 1851-2017. A hurricane of course is the archetype of an extreme weather event.

I plotted all three series on a spreadsheet and fitted them to exponential curves. The first and third are increasing at about 0.4% per year, and the second at 0.25%.

Since it is well established that anticyclones are strengthened by moving over warmer than average water, and since the North Atlantic is a fairly substantial sample of the whole area of the globe, I think global warming is a plausible explanation for this increase.

Premium Chessgames Member
  johnlspouge: @<al wazir>: I am still distracted, but the NYT had an article on weather extremes (again, for what it's worth).

[ https://messaging-custom-newsletter... ]

I Googled something like "p-value extreme weather climate change" and brought up some related articles. I forgot to mention in our statistical discussion that one can compare record highs and lows. In a stable situation, every record has probability 1/2 of being a high or low, so a sign test applies.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 15)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 15 OF 15 ·  Later Kibitzing>

Bobby Fischer Tribute Shirt

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