yeah, i clearly enjoyed the language instinct, and if i were a bit more of a reader, i'd probably read up on everything's he's published. as it is, i might limit myself to finding a paperback version of 'the stuff of thought'.

i first ran into sapir-whorf when writing my master's thesis in computer science; the topic wasn't natural languages, but i touched on quite similar ideas around the features/limitations of different artificial (computer) languages and how they and their environments might have an impact on the actual thought processes of the programmer while solving problems. i.e. wrt more fundamental issues than limited to which languages let you work more quickly or correctly and more towards musings about how the conceptualizations in and tools for a given (programming) language might shape the entire cognitive process.

<Harry> Cheers. And thanks for quoting my entire post to remind me how many words it took me to express something fairly simple.

7-yr-olds in a playground sounds about right.

We even have the example of AJ, whose Ignore list is permanently full -- and it does him no good at all. He still gets attacked, he still gets drawn into slanging matches, and all the time he seems to miss the undercurrents that are going on.

I have no wish to attack him. I actually wish him well, though I disagree with his politics. It's just clear that 'Ignore' doesn't help him at all.

Ackshully, that could be wrong. It could save him an hour a day deleting attacks from his forum ... though the attacks are partly brought on by his ignore policy.

I wonder if there's a way to improve the ignore function? Turn it into something that actually works.

Oh, but there is. Or at least you can have the attacks deleted by CG by using the whistle function, possibly combined with an email to hammer home the point.

I've found that CG remove offensive posts quickly in such cases. It took slightly longer when the attacks were 'disguised' as game collections, but it got done.

And if *I* hadn't known what was being said, it could have gone unreported for days. Some people might even have believed it.

Believe me, it's better not to muzzle yourself. And only play blindfold chess with a trusted partner.

lol This should be written in stone somewhere.. Maybe outside FIDE head office ?

I've waited years for somebody willing to carve my words in stone. You've got yourself a job. Get chipping ...

<It's the kind of statement I'd expect to see on the wall of a nightclubs' gents lav in Derby>

* player pages
* tournament pages
* game pages
* the kibtzer's cafe

unfortunately there wasn't a fast, easy workaround for the same problem for links to pages in people's chess forums (like this one).

the issue i'm talking about are links with a specific page-reference (showing up as kpage=something somewhere in the link). these links don't work for anyone but the poster (due to differences in ignore lists) except when

1) the poster has nobody on ignore, and

2) the one following the link neither has anyone on ignore

for instance, fsr recently posted this link in wannabe's forum: The Kibitzer's Café

<if> fsr hasn't got anyone (posting in the chesscafe) on ignore this link works for domdaniel, harrylime and now also ocf - after he cleaned out his ignore list. it doesn't work for me nor shams nor anyone else with someone on ignore.

however, if fsr does have someone on ignore, this link won't work for the open-minded bunch above either, because the kpage doesn't match with the reply-number (for you - it does for fsr, until he edits his ignore list again).

instead, using this link - Kibitzer's Café - <everyone> should land exactly where fsr wanted followers of that link to land.

now, here's the punch-line: by going to http://chess.liverating.org/cgcomli... and inputting such a "broken link" and clicking convert, my script tries to turn the link into something that will work - for you and for everyone.

here are a couple more examples of links that probably won't work (perfectly) for any of you out of the box:

Reggio Emilia (2011)

McShane vs Carlsen, 2011

Hans Arild Runde

<Dom: I hope this decision doesn't return to taunt you.>

I'd been thinking along other, more sociological lines: the problems generated by a group of posters who (a) have a form of in-group psycho-nationalism or ressentiment, causing them to scorn the opinions of those outside their group - making them insular and paranoid, but relatively immune to normal social sanctions, (b) have (for the most part) almost no contact or experience with meeting actual GMs, so they tend to regard them as movie stars, divinities, or (if foreign) demons, and (c) assume the rest of us are also like this, but weaker.

How to beat VA's French Tarrasch? In the main line with 11...Qc7, Tzermiadianos recommends the plan with 12.Bg5 ...13.Rc1...14.Re1. (VA plays 13...Bd7. Naroditsky against him opted for 14.a3)

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. Bd3 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. Ne2 cxd4 8. cxd4 f6 9. exf6 Nxf6 10. Nf3 Bd6 11. O-O Qc7 <12.Bg5> 0-0 <13.Rc1> Bd7 <14.Re1>.

click for larger view

Heh. Remember Woody Allen's Gossage, and the game of correspondence Scrabble beginning "My first word is ZANJERO. Look it up. The score is 116-0." ... ?

Better scores can be attained with:

quetzal (120)
cazique (124)
quartzy (126)

'Quizzed' might look appealing, but with only one Z in the standard English set, it needs a blank - for a score of 120.

Any advance on 126 ...?

First turn only, of course. I once manufactured a way to score over 2000, with a 15-letter word spanning three triple words squares. You just need the right framework in place.

As I think I mentioned before, I went off such lines in the Tarrasch because of some dangerous White sidelines -- especially 9.Nf4.

I know Black is supposed to get a good game with an Exchange sac, as demonstrated by Timman years ago. But I don't trust it, and have switched mainly to 3...a6 or 3...c5.

<Unfortunately - because aggressive behavior is often still rewarded in such societies - silent majorities tend to stay silent. That leaves only excommunication.>

starting with the latter quote first, connecting it to your belief that blowing the whistle on posts represents a fruitful/useful response to repeat-offenders of stalking, bullying and other <targetted attacks> (i.e. where a group or an individual keeps attacking <the same> person or group of kibitzers over a prolonged period of time - months, years):

if looking closely i think you'll see that there are and have been several quite different groups and individuals who have exposed what you refer to as "aggressive behaviour". i've experienced that kind of relentless aggression from multiple attackers here on this site, and while the bw has represented the biggest <count> of kibitzers, the 3 worst repeat offenders are/were all individuals and not part of any group per se. when anyone makes it a goal to bother you and are relentless about it, it actually only contributes to their perceived success that you spend time and energy fighting their actions; literally pretending that they don't exist is the most effective means to avoid providing more incentives for their bullying. you can liken this to sticking my head in the sand all you want - i'll still claim it's quite a rational thing to do, in this context. also, as i already said, as long as the registration mechanisms here are what they are, even excommunication/bans only leads to reincarnation.

[at one point multiple bw guys kept spamming my player page with nonsense, which is the "historical" reason why around one third of the people on my ignore list are from bw, sometimes in multiple reincarnations - and i also have from 3-5 editions of a couple other stalkers on my list who either were banned and returned, "hidden" in a new robe, or simply have taken on new names to circumvent the ignore option.]

now, i think the idea that only certain "societies", and implicitly (?) mostly primitive ones, reward aggressive behaviour simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny. in fact, i think maybe most people avoid challenging "authorities" and others who yield some kind of apparent power that they at least occasionally choose to use - and then use aggressively. other people are simply silent in order not to hurt their own (personal) relationships in any way. this is how it is in the world at large, and i think it's like this also on chessgames.com. the majority of the <entire> chessgames.com society tend to stay silent when some kind of aggression does not target themselves.

as i see it, the will to use "power" and act "aggressively" is present in many camps around this place, the only real difference being the reasoning used to justify it. unfortunately also here it seems like some people think that "for the good cause" anything can be accepted; the cause justifies the means. this is a line of (military/political) thinking that stems from the real world too. however, this is maybe <the most dangerous phenomenon> there is, both here and irl: when someone is convinced that they are fighting the just battle - "we are the good guys, we lead the good fight" - it's even easier to go blind and lose sight of what you're actually doing. and those who might have been able to provide some corrective, typically stay silent for some reason or other.

it's not hard to find frightening examples of what "soldiers fighting for the good cause" might end up doing in the real world. being "the good guys", representing the right belief, morality, higher values and a more advanced society, the enemy becomes thugs - bad guys with wrong beliefs and values, representing some primitive, lower-level way of life that had it coming; are they even real humans? we've seen pictures from war zones where the good guys seemingly must have gone a good ways towards taking all features of humanity away from their enemies. if they didn't, i can't imagine how else they could go through with what they seemingly have done.

http://webcast.chessclub.com/previe...

In the video he recommends the line with 7...Qb6, but in his most recent games he opted for 7...cxd4 8.cxd4 f6 (the main line with ...Qc7).

And about the Advance Variation with 6...c4

I'm currently influenced, to a degree, by Pinker's new book 'The Better Angels of our Nature' - which is about things like the 'civilising process', the gradual decline of violence and war, and strategies used to settle disputes.

I don't think I said anyone was more primitive than anyone else. But types of authority vary between societies -- 'rational/legal' vs 'charismatic', to use some of Max Weber's old categories, for example.

I admit I haven't paid much attention to your ongoing struggles, and the way you describe of dealing with them sounds rational.

Rational isn't always the answer, however. Pinker describes conflict situations where the issues are 'sacred' or 'taboo' to participants -- so any attempt to mediate by treating them as rational actors will backfire.

Traditionally, the Caissar award for Best Historian goes to a historian of chess, such as a dogged researcher with good game collections (or videos).

It's only when 'common sense' or 'the bleeding obvious' is thoroughly dissected that, er, one gets any pleasure from it.