<It's easy when you're right.>

heh...

Not as concise as the trademark

<No.>

New game - Stockfish 4 64 SSE4.2, 120'/40+120'/40+120'/40

click for larger view

Analysis by Stockfish 4 64 SSE4.2: 25 ply

1. = (-0.22): 10.0-0 Re8 11.d4 exd4 12.Nxd4 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Be6 14.Nc3 Rc8 15.Qd3 c5 16.Be5 Nd7 17.Bg3 c4 18.bxc4 dxc4 19.Qd2 Nc5 20.Rad1 Qxd2 21.Rxd2 f5 22.gxf5

2. (-0.30): 10.d4 Bb4+ 11.Nbc3 e4 12.0-0 Re8 13.a3 Bd6 14.Nf4 Bxf4 15.exf4 Qd6 16.Qd2 Bd7 17.Rab1 Rf8 18.Rfe1 Rae8 19.Qe3 Na7 20.g5 hxg5 21.fxg5 Nh5 22.f3 Bxh3

3. (-0.34): 10.Nbc3 d4 11.Ne4 a5 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 13.0-0 a4 14.Ba3 Re8 15.Be4 Be6 16.Ng3 Bd5 17.Qf3 Bxe4 18.Nxe4 Be7 19.Bc5 Qd7 20.Kg2 Qe6 21.d3 Nb4 22.Bxb4 Bxb4 23.Rfd1

4. (-0.34): 10.d3 a5 11.0-0 a4 12.Nbc3 a3 13.Bc1 Nb4 14.f4 exf4 15.Nxf4 c6 16.d4 Re8 17.Nce2 b6 18.c3 Na6 19.Bd2 Bd6 20.Ng3 Nc7 21.c4 Ba6 22.Nf5 Ne4 23.Bxe4 Rxe4 24.Qc1 Bf8

5. (-0.40): 10.f4 e4 11.Nbc3 Re8 12.0-0 b5 13.d3 Bc5 14.d4 Be7 15.a3 Rb8 16.f5 a5 17.Rf2 b4 18.Na4 Bd7 19.axb4 axb4 20.Nf4 Ra8 21.c4 bxc3 22.Nxc3 Nb4

-0.26 10.Ng3 Be6 11.Nc3 Qd7 12.Nce2 Rad8 13.d4 exd4 14.Nxd4

-0.28 10.0-0 Bd6 11.d3 Ne7 12.Nd2 Ng6 13.Ng3 Nh4 14.Bh1

-0.28 10.d4 Bb4+ 11.Nbc3 e4 12.a3 Bd6 13.f3 Re8 14.fxe4

-0.29 10.Nbc3 d4 11.Ne4 a5 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 13.a3 Be6 14.Ng3

Analysis by Stockfish 4 64bit: depth=34

1. = (-0.20): 10.0-0 Re8 11.d4 exd4

2. (-0.30): 10.d4 Bb4+ 11.c3 Bd6 12.c4 exd4 13.Nxd4

3. (-0.42): 10.f4 exf4 11.Nxf4 d4 12.Na3 dxe3 13.dxe3

4. (-0.42): 10.Nbc3 d4 11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Bxe4 a5 13.Ng3

Nickster (Oct.8, 2013)

~~~
<YouRang> 10/10 Houdini_3_x64 @ 29 ply: single-PV

< < The ho parakletos is a person in the Greek language, not an incorporeal entity.> in the Greek language, not an incorporeal entity.>

NT Greek is something I know a little bit about, so it is difficult for me to pass by statements made by those who claim to have knowledge, but in fact are not as accurate as they project. Therefore I feel compelled to bring to light some simple points about the language.

First of all, the word parakletos (actually pronounced pa-ra-clā-tos)..

It is formed by combining the preposition “para” with the verb “kaleo”. This verb, as it is here in it’s lexical form (1st person masculine singular) means “I call”. The “positional” preposition para means beside or along side, next to, or around. So.. The combined verbal form (parakalo) literally means "I call aside". In the Koine vernacular the noun form parakletos became a common term for a defense attorney (who would stand next to the accused before a magistrate), a counselor (who takes a supporting / guiding posture) or even a defender in the arena (gladiators).

As for < The ho parakletos is a person.. >

This is not necessarily so. parakletos is a masculine noun, hence the masculine article ho. But that does not mean it must refer to a “person”. Neither does the feminine noun la bicyclete (the bicycle) in French mean it is a girl. Now.. CG could install a computer program that integrates the analysis of the 4 best engines, so that we could input a candidate move and have it assess that move dynamically. And we could name this program “ho parakletos”. Yes it has a masculine noun name, but it certainly is not a “person”. So the statement above is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the language. It IS true that parakletos was generally applied to a person by common usage, but it is not a grammatical or linguistic rule. As for the rest of this quote…

< The ho parakletos is ...not an incorporeal entity.>

First of all, the correct theological term is “non-corporeal”, meaning does not have a body. There is not one Muslim who would claim that Alla is not a “person”. But one of two things must be true.

1.) Alla does not have a physical body, or

2) Alla can not be the creator of all physical reality since.. His natural state requires a physical body, and all physics (matter) was “created”.

The statement above is also as absurd as saying that "to pneuma" can’t be a person because it’s a neuter noun. We could take a person, lets say the host of Ripley’s believe it or not, and call him “The Wind” because he always blows peoples minds. Yes he would have a neuter name, but that does not take away from his personage.

< The ho parakletos is ...not an incorporeal entity.>

< The New Testament uses the word pneuma, which means “breath” or “spirit,” the Greek equivalent of ruah, the Hebrew word for “spirit” used in the Old Testament. Pneuma is a grammatically neutral word and is always represented by the pronoun “it.” >

This is a grammatically incorrect statement. I think what you are trying to say is.. "pneuma is a gender NEUTER noun" but it is not true that it is or must be represented by the pronoun "it".

Furthermore, you say that pneuma and ruach are equivelant, and they are, yet pneuma is neuter and ruach is a FEMININE noun! Yet they both refer to a personal Being who refers to himself with a masculine pronoun. Even more ironic is that in Genesis 1:2 when it says "va-Ruach Elohim" (and the Spirit of God), it links a feminine noun with a masculine plural noun!

d=28 9...O–O 10.O–O Bd6 11.Nbc3 d4 12.Na4 Re8 13.c4 Bf8 14.a3 Nh7 15.f4>

example: play out with deep analysis

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2013.10.12"]
[Round "?"]
[White "GMSW"]
[Black "Team"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A01"]
[PlyCount "102"]

1. b3 e5 2. Bb2 Nc6 3. e3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bd6 5. g4 a6 6. Bf1 h6 7. h3 Be7 8. Bg2 d5

9. Ne2 O-O 10. O-O Bd6 11. Nbc3 d4 12. Na4 Re8 13. c4 Bf8 14. a3 Nh7

15. f4 dxe3

16. dxe3 exf4 17. Nxf4 Rxe3 18. Nd5 Rg3 19. Rf3 Rxg2+ 20. Kxg2 b5 21. Nac3 Bb7 22. Rb1 Ne5 23. Re3 f6 24. Qe2 Ng5 25. Rd1 Bc5 26. Rg3 Qf8 27. Bc1 Ng6 28. cxb5 Bd6 29. Rgd3 axb5 30. Nxb5 Ne5 31. R3d2 Qf7 32. b4 f5 33. Nbc3 fxg4 34. hxg4 Nef3 35. Ra2 Re8 36. Qd3 Nd4 37. Rf2 Bxd5+ 38. Kf1 Ngf3 39. Nxd5 Nh2+ 40. Kg1 Qxd5 41. Rxh2 Nf3+ 42. Kh1 Qxd3 43. Rxd3 Re1+ 44. Kg2 Nxh2 45. Be3 Re2+ 46. Kg1 Nxg4 47. Bd4 Ra2 48. Rc3 g5 49. Bc5 Bh2+ 50. Kh1 h5 51. Bd4 Bf4

click for larger view

<Bouquet 1.8>: 1. [-0.41]: 9...0-0 10.a3 Bc5 11.Nce2 Re8 12.Ng3 Be6 13.N1e2 d4 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Bxd5 Qxd5 16.c4 Qd7 17.b4 Ba7 18.Nf5 b5 19.Qb3 h5 20.f3

<Critter 1.6a:> 1. [-0.23]: 9...0-0 10.Nge2 d4 11.Ne4 Be6 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 13.0-0 Bd5 14.Bxd5 Qxd5 15.c4 Qd7 16.Ng3 Rfe8 17.Ne4 Be7 18.Qf3 Nb4 19.exd4 exd4 20.a4 c5 21.Rae1 b6 22.a5 bxa5 23.Qf4

<Gull 2.2>: 1. [-0.27]: 9...0-0 10.Nce2 a5 11.a3 Re8 12.Ng3 Be6 13.N1e2 d4 14.0-0 Bd5 15.Nf5 Bc5 16.Bxd5 Qxd5 17.Neg3 Rad8 18.d3 e4 19.b4 axb4 20.axb4 Nxb4 21.Nxd4 exd3 22.cxd3 Bd6 23.e4

<IvanHoe 946f>: 1. [-0.25]: 9...0-0 10.Nce2 Be6 11.Ng3 Qd7 12.N1e2 Rad8 13.f4 Ne4 14.0-0 Nxg3 15.Nxg3 f6 16.fxe5 fxe5 17.Qe2 Bh4 18.Rxf8+ Rxf8 19.Rf1 Rxf1+ 20.Nxf1 e4 21.d3 exd3 22.cxd3 Bf7

“When <the Helper> comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, [that is] <the Spirit> of truth who proceeds from the Father, <He> will testify about Me, John 15:26-27

now the Greek:

οταν ελθη ο παρακλητος ον εγω πεμψω υμιν παρα του πατρος το πνευμα της αληθειας ο παρα του πατρος εκπορευεται εκεινος μαρτυρησει περι εμου John 15:26

ο παρακλητος ["the paraclete" masculine singular in the nominative case] το πνευμα ["the spirit" neuter singular also in the nominative case] εκεινος μαρτυρησει ["he himself witnesses" nominative masculine 3rd person singular demonstrative pronoun]

Since paraclatos (subject of the sentence) and
pneuma (predicate nominative in the linked clause)
are both in the nominative case, that makes this
and equative statement..
to pneuma = o paralatos. They are one and the same.
BOTH are referred to by demonstrative pronoun "HE" (ekeinos).

click for larger view

Stockfish Top 4 moves @42ply

[-0.62] 10. ... d4 11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Bxe4 Bd5 13.Ng3 Bxe4 14.Nxe4 Qd7 15.Qf3 Nb4 16.0-0-0 Nxa2+ 17.Kb1 Nb4 18.Ng3 c5 19.Nf5 0-0 20.Rdg1 Rae8 21.Qe4 Bg5 22.h4 Bd8 23.Ba3 Re6 24.Bxb4 cxb4 25.Ng3 d3 26.Qxd3 Rd6 27.Qc4 Be7 28.d4 Rc6 29.Qd3

[-0.20] 10. ... 0-0 11.d4 exd4 12.exd4 Bd6 13.Qd2 Ne7 14.f4 c6 15.0-0-0 b5 16.f5 Bd7 17.Nf4 a5 18.Nd3 a4 19.Rhe1 Re8 20.Re2 Qb6 21.Rde1 axb3 22.cxb3 Qc7 23.Kb1 Nc8 24.Ne5 Nb6 25.Nd1

[-0.14] 10. ... Bb4 11.a3 Bd6 12.d4 0-0 13.0-0 exd4 14.Nxd4 Nxd4 15.Qxd4 c6 16.Ne2 Qc7 17.Nf4 Rfe8 18.Qd2 Be5 19.Bxe5 Qxe5 20.Qd4 Qg5 21.Qb6 Rab8 22.Qc7 h5 23.Nxe6 fxe6 24.gxh5 Qxh5 25.Rac1

click for larger view

<Bouquet 1.8>: 4. [-0.55], d=26: 10...d4 11.exd4 exd4 12.Ne4 Nxe4 13.Bxe4 Bd5 14.d3 Bb4+ 15.Kf1 Bxe4 16.dxe4 Qe7 17.a3 Bc5 18.f3 0-0-0 19.b4 Ba7 20.Kg2 h5 21.Qd2 <Kb8> 22.Nf4 hxg4

click for larger view

<21...Kb8> Maybe this can be skipped and 21...hxg4 played immediately.

<22...hxg4> This line looks like suicide for White, hence the unfavorable eval and relatively low move ranking.

<Critter 1.6a>: 2. [-0.38], d=27: 10...d4 11.Ne4 h5 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 13.<gxh5> <Qd6> 14.Ng3 0-0-0 15.Qf3 Qb4 16.0-0-0 <Kb8> 17.Kb1 a5 18.exd4 exd4 19.Ne4 Be7 20.Qg3 a4 21.Ng5 Bxg5 22.Qxg5 <d3> 23.c3 Qb6 24.h6 gxh6 25.Qe3 <Qxe3> 26.fxe3 axb3 27.axb3 <Bxb3>

click for larger view

<13.gxh5> I find it difficult to believe that this is White's best move in this position.

<13...Qd6> We should look at 13...Qd7 to put additional pressure on the Ph3, particularly if we play ...Rxh5.

<16...Kb8> Maybe we can dispense with this and play 16...a5 immediately.

<22...d3> Critter is certainly pursuing the attack aggressively, but we should also look at 22...axb3 23.cxb3 (presumably) and now possibly 23...Bxb3 or maybe even 23...Rxh5!? so that if 24.Qxh5 g6 we can next play 25...Bf5+.

<25...Qxe3> And here either avoiding the queen exchange should be investigated (25...Qa5, 25...Qa6) or 25...axb3 so that if 26.Qxb6, 26...bxa2+.

<27...Bxb3> This line also looks suicidal for White after 28.Rdf1 Ne5 (heading for c4). If the knight arrives there either White's DSB will be entombed or the Pd2 will be lost.

click for larger view

<Komodo 5.1r2>: 2. [-0.44], d=24: 10...d4 11.Ne4 h5 12.Nxf6+ Bxf6 13.<gxh5> <Rh6> 14.<Bxc6+> bxc6 15.Ng3 Qd5 16.Qe2 <Kf8> 17.0-0-0 a5 18.exd4 exd4 19.c4 <Qd7> 20.Ne4 Be7 21.Qd3 c5 22.Qg3 Rxh5 23.Kb1 <Rxh3> 24.Rxh3 Bxh3 25.<Rh1>

click for larger view

<13.gxh5> Again, hard to believe that this is White's best. Maybe White should consider 13.f3 although this greatly diminishes the effectiveness of White's LSB, even if only temporarily.

<13...Rh6> An odd-looking move, which probably only a computer would suggest. Either 13...Qd7 or 13...Qd6 preparing to ...0-0-0 as suggested by Critter seem more natural and effective.

<14.Bxc6+> Looks like a questionable move to me unless White could win the advanced Pd4, which he can't. And it certainly "greatly" diminishes the effectiveness of White's LSB, and this time permanently!

<16...Kf8> Why not 16...a5 directly? It's not that White might decide to keep his king in the center and he's not about to 0-0 and survive.

<19...Qd7> So, in retrospect, <15...Qd7> or <15...Qd6> might have saved a tempo.

<23...Rxh3> As you'll soon see, this is a major blunder by Komodo, likely due to the horizon effect.

<25.Rh1> And now White wins a piece. So 23...Rxh3 was definitely a blunder, and 22...Rxh5 possibly an inaccuracy. A line for those who might still think that engines don't make mistakes.

You're most welcome!

<The Qur'an refers to God with the male pronoun, but of course, that doesn't mean He has a gender.>

Of course. An eternal non-corporeal "spirit" does not have gender per se except in the sense in which he refers to himself on the basis of functional analogy.

< Any thoughts on the periklytos argument? >

Sorry, was away for a couple days, and of course my library is at home. anyway..

The only entry for περίκλυτος that i could find is from Attic pagan literature (Homer, Odyssey, etc). i.e.,

A.famous, renowned, of Hephaestus, Il.1.607, Od.8.287, Hes.Th.571; of heroes, Il.11.104, 18.326; of a minstrel, Od.1.325,8.83, etc.; of places, ἄστυ π. 4.9, 16.170; of things, π. δῶρα, ἔργα, excellent, noble, Il.7.299, 6.324, cf. Orph.Fr.238, al.

as the entry above shows, it is used of the Greek god Hephaestus (Roman = Vulcan) the maker of all the weapons of the gods in Olympus. The entry also shows that When applied to things it would be used thus:

dora periklytos = an excellent gift
erga periklytos = a noble work

But the word περίκλυτος is unknown (never used) in the bible, and concerning παράκλητος in Jn 15:26 there are no textual variants (alternate words or spellings) in any of the manuscripts. So the only thing i can say about periklytos is that it seems to be a ficticious and artifically contrived attempt at substitution, to try and create a reference to Mohammad in the bible.

I found no entry for περίκλυτος in my Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, which means that it also probably does not appear in the Septuagint OT or Apochrophal books.

Looking down the line, one very plausible variation is:

10.Nge2 d4 11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Bxe4 Bd5 13.Ng3 Bxe4 14.Nxe4 <Qd5> 15.Qf3 O-O-O 16.O-O-O Kb8 17.Kb1

click for larger view

14...Qd7 has been reported previously by many as the best:

14...Qd7 15 Qf3 Nb4 .