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 8185 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Jun-24-21 Kenneth Rogoff (replies)
johnlspouge: < <Willber G> wrote: <keypusher: <jls> <saffuna> Or you could just read <Harrison Bergeron>, which would be quicker.> Here is a short film version: > Thanks to all for their spontaneous contributions to ...
   Jun-20-21 FSR chessforum (replies)
johnlspouge: < <FSR> wrote: <johnlspouge> Why did the Spanish flu stop mowing down people? Had it already killed everyone who was susceptible to it? The surviving people had developed antibodies, resulting in herd immunity? I read a book on the Spanish flu (at the outset of ...
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 15 OF 15 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Apr-08-21  Ybr: Part 2
So , for weeks/months , <big pawn>/<george wallace> presumably kept wallowing in depression while searching for some opening.

Finally , he thought that he got some divine inspiration , some eureka and he came again jumping around excitedly <<ybr> , you say that bodies die not us , we all are eternal Absolute , there is no god other than us.

So , that means we all are gods and that includes you too , correct?>

Me : yes.

<Big pawn> : < hahaha , where are my pets and wives ? Do you see that ? <Ybr> says he is god. Hahaha>

Me : fool , <Absolute> is non personal , it has no personal powers . When i say that there is no god other than us , that does not mean any of us has powers of superman/batman etc , those powers that fools like you associate with personal god.

All it means is that when we die , we will be in a state which is technically similar to state of deep dreamless sleep (but experientially different). In deep dreamless sleep , there is nothingness and no individuality , but peace/restfulness , however , no powers but of course because there are no objects/universe , no knowledge , so no question of powers either. After death , that is the state we get in. And people like jesus who have very high level of purity of heart , dispassion , they experience this state even before death. Any time , they can get out of the world and reach that state while still alive - <be in the world but not of world >>

Apr-08-21  Ybr: Part 3
So , that is it then - if all of us die today and universe dissolves , then what will remain : non personal Absolute (deep dreamless sleep like state in which there is peace/restfulness/bliss but nothing else , no objects , no world , no matter , no energy , no indiviuality , no power , no knowledge , no volition , no consciousness (in deep dreamless state , consciousness is dormant))

That was prior to world/consciousness came into existence and that would be after world/consciousness dissolves

So , nobody/thing created universe - it came into existence spontaneously on its own . Just like when we sleep in the night , dreams come into existence spontaneously , involuantarily , however , if body were not there , dreams could not arise.

Similarly , nobody/nothing created universe , it came into existence spontaneously , involuntarily , however , if Absolute were not there , it could not come into existence.

Absolute is source of universe but not creator - nobody/nothing created universe , it was created spontaneously, involuntarily.

Free will ? Yes but only to be quiet/not react and thus dissolve anger , pride , greed etc , rest everything happens on its own

Apr-08-21  Ybr: <x> and <z> : premise 2 of <omv argument> is true , premise 1 is false. Whatever/whoever created universe/gravity , created objective moral values also. Using rational thinking/intellect/logic , there is no way to know who that creator is . That creator could be some 'god ' who created and then died

<Big pawn> : we don't believe that about creator .

<X> and <z> : do you have any logic/reason/rational thinking to believe what you believe about creator.?

<Big pawn> : no

<X> and <z> : fine , then our work is done here. You lost the debate , <big pawn>.

<Big pawn> : yes , thank you for educating me <x> and <z> . Much appreciated. Regards.

Apr-08-21  Ybr: Part 2

<x> and <z> : <big pawn> , do you realize that <omv argument> is perhaps the most stupid argument in the history of homosapiens because instead of <if omv , then god> , you could as well have said <if universe/gravity, then god> ?

<Big pawn> : yes , i see that now. Thank you for educating me . Much appreciated . Regsrds.

Apr-08-21  Ybr: Part 3

<X> and <z> : do you also realize , <big pawn> , that when <omv argument> was refuted , then all other arguments of the kind <if..., then god> or <if no god , then ...> were also simultaneously/automatically refuted ?

In other words , there is no way to know the ultimate/deepest reality (creator of universe) through intellect/logic/reason/rational thinking. It makes no sense to say - <it is more rational to believe in theism than atheism> . Do you understand?

<Big pawn> : yes i see that now. Thank you for educating me . Much appreciated. Regards.

So , is there a way to know ultimate/deepest reality?

<X> and <z> : yes. Tell him <ybr> .

Apr-08-21  Ybr: Part 4

<Ybr> : only way to know ultimate/deepest reality is to transcend universe (go beyond time/space. If no universe , then no time/space. We got to reach a state that we would be in when universe is dissolved and we die and we have to reach that state while we are still alive. State prior to universe/consciousness came into existence , state after universe/consciousness is dissolved . ) When people reach a very high level of purity of heart (no anger, pride , greed etc) and dispassion , they experience that state - subjective transcendental empirical experience.

Apr-08-21  Ybr: Part 5

<Ybr> : also , it is not possible to 'see'/'perceive'/experience personal god . You 'saw' god that had amazing powers ? If superman were real would you think he was god (especially if he had no vulnerability like kryptonite) ? You have no proof that he would be there if/when universe dissolves .

What if he created another universe ? Again , if it is a parallel universe , you can not see it and if it is part(subset ) of this universe , when this universe dissolves , it will dissolve too and so will the so called creator of this universe , because that is part of this universe , you have no proof that it will survive the dissolution of universe. Very clearly , you can know 'god ' only if you transcend the universe while still alive and i already told you that subjective transcendental empirical experience shows that ultimate/deepest reality is non personal Absolute.

So , obviously , 'god ' that jesus had known was non personal god Absolute, bible is about Absolute and <thegoodanarchist> is stupid if he thinks that 'seek and you will 'see ' personal god ' (no surprise there - every elite idiot of <big pawn> is as stupid as <big pawn> himself(in the same league of stupidity , at least) . These 5th graders have delusion that they are smart and they always strutting while dazed by that delusion/stupidity and thinking that professors of post graduation class is <chrisowen> . Bunch of dumbs and dumbers

Apr-08-21  Ybr: Part 6

<Big pawn> : <sugardom> and other pets/wives of mine - that <x> is johnlspouge> . Here are links of 5867 pages reading which you would know that i am smart and <johnlspouge> is stupid. So , get busy reading these 5867 pages.

<Ybr> : as far as the refutafion is concerned , it does not matter if <x> is <johnlspouge> or someone else ; it does not matter if <johnlspouge> is smart or stupid ; it does not matter if <big pawn> is smart or stupid , all that matters is that there is this refutation and you lost debate on <omv argument> . The logical fallacy that you are committing once again is called <genetic fallacy> - count of the times you have made this particular logical fallacy stands at 5867 now.

And no ,no one needs to read those 5867 pages whose links you posted. Refutation is right here in front of everyone and you have lost debate on <omv argument>

Apr-08-21  Ybr: Part 7

<Big pawn> : in those refutations , <x> and <z> are presenting refutation and then <big pawn> is accepting that he lost debate . That is a lie . I never accepted that i lost debate.

<Ybr> : is that so ? You never accepted that you lost debate ? Did you answer the refutation then ? Where is the answer to refutation ?

<Big pawn> : i don't have any answer to the refutation.

<Ybr> : then you lost debate as per the rules of debate set by you.

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!)

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