|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Mar-09-06
 | | WannaBe: Hey!! I like that forumla, I'm almost 2000 player!! If I start playing Hydra, I'd be a 2200 player! |
|
| Mar-09-06 | | Stevens: to be fair to sneaky, he pointed out that that is the formula used by the USCF, so i guess in those scenarios you'd be playing those at a similar level to yourself and the results would be more varied and therefore more accuate. |
|
| Mar-09-06 | | who: Of course. I was just kidding around. You can always mess up a formula by using it on a situation for which it wasn't intended. I was just pointing one of them out. |
|
Mar-09-06
 | | Sneaky: << Sneaky vs NN, ICC Blitz >> 1. d4 e6 2. c4 Ne7 3. Nc3 g6 4. e4 Bg7 5. Be3 d6 6. Bd3 Nd7 7. f3 b6 8. Nge2
Bb7 9. Qd2 f5 10. O-O-O O-O 11. Bh6 fxe4 12. Nxe4 Nf5 13. Bxg7 Kxg7 14. h4!? 
click for larger view14...Nxh4? <You know why we call bad chess players 'fish'? Because they always take the bait.> 15. g3 <Ng5 would win too> Nxf3 16. Qh6+ Kf7 17. Qxh7+ Ke8 18. Nxd6+! cxd6 19. Bxg6+ Rf7 20. Qxf7# |
|
| Mar-09-06 | | who: <wannabe> now I understand the obsession with getting the strongest computer program out there. Sure, I could just play against a very old version of chessmaster, but I'd be a worse player. It's the quality of the program that makes the quality (read rating) of the player. |
|
| Mar-10-06 | | THE pawn: So basically, If I take the last 25 games I have played against one opponent (1997), my rating would be:
+10 -12 = 2
(10 X 2397)+(12X1597)+(2X1997)/25 = 1885, which is almost exactly my rating.and here is the last 25 games I found in my notebook against one of my good friend (who has a rating of 1396):
+19 -3 =3
(19 x 1696)+ (3X996)+ (3X1396)/25 =
1648
All in all ((1885+1648)/2) = 1767. That makes sense. |
|
| Mar-12-06 | | blingice: <Sneaky> Great combo! Was that blitz? Speaking of blitz on ICC, I have a 7 day trial right now, and I noticed that the slower games (30 minutes or an hour) are few, and don't seem to be the point of the site, whereas fast, pointless games are the lifeblood. ICC impresses upon potential members that FMs, IMs, and GMs play at their site (they do indeed, and all the time) but they play 1 min, 3 min, or 5 min chess, making analysis very hard, or even pointless, because you aren't seeing very good chess. What do you think about ICC and blitz and slower play? Is it still the best site for slow OTB play? |
|
Mar-13-06
| | Sneaky: <fast, pointless games are the lifeblood.> Yeah, isn't that always the way? I see the same thing visiting chess clubs. The blitz games are flying while in the corner a few people play a long game. I personally rarely have the time for long games. Who does?? I haven't played enough OTB games on ICC to tell you, but I can't imagine it's much different than anywhere else. The only possible difference would be the level of computer cheating, but if you play a match of games with somebody you trust you can get around that problem. |
|
Mar-13-06
| | Sneaky: About the "plus 400, minus 400 formula" I described, it's assumed that you're not playing many people more than 400 points from your true rating. For it to work best, you should have wins and losses. |
|
Mar-13-06
| | Sneaky: Here's something weird that I'd like to share. I have this interest in looking up the definitions to very basic words. For example, we all know what the word "up" means. But what if you were asked to define it? It's very difficult to come up with a good accurate working definition. So I consult the Oxford American English Dictionary to find: up. adverb. 1. Toward the sky or higher position.
Very nice! That covers both up in the true physical sense (the rocket went up) and in a metaphorical sense (Things are looking up.) I checked dictionary.com and found two definitions to cover the same concept: 1. In or to a higher position.
2. In a direction opposite to the center of the earth or a comparable gravitational center. Whew--that's a mouthful. I like the OED version a lot better but this is interesting as well. They even seek to resolve the meaning of "up" in outer-space or on other planets! Of course there are a dozen other definitions, to cover idiomatic uses of the word like "tied up" and "drink up", but it's the primary definition that interests me the most. Then, I found a way to make a game of it. I'll tell you a definition, and you figure out the word. Here are three of my favorite definitions, (1) above and touching
(2) in the space which separates
(3) what one of many
Can you figure out which simple words these define? |
|
| Mar-13-06 | | Chesschatology: <Sneaky> here are my guesses: (1) on
(2) between
(3) which
Am I right? |
|
Mar-13-06
| | Sneaky: Very good, right on all three counts!
I especially like defining <between> as <in the space which separates.> It covers geographic ("between Atlanta and Athens"), as well as time ("between noon and midnight") and even abstract concepts ("somewhere between socialism and communism"). The guys who write dictionaries, they have a special place in my heart. |
|
| Mar-13-06 | | Chesschatology: <Sneaky>
It's a great game- try this one:
"to be, together".
|
|
Mar-13-06
 | | Eric Schiller: I don't find much of interest in dictionary definitions. Many words have had entire PhD theses written about them and they are far more interesting. Two of my fellow students at U. Chicago specialize in it: William Croft, Rebecca Wheeler and Paul Dean. The entire concept of dictionary definition and dictionary categorization is bunkum (to put it politely). Penn & Teller should do a show on it! I recommend you read George Lakoff's great book "Women, Fire and Dangerous Things". It provides much better tools for dealing with word meanings. Armed with those tools, you can have a lot more fun with word meanings. |
|
| Mar-14-06 | | Chesschatology: <Eric Schiller>
Of course you are right from an academic point of view that "definitions" are prescreptive and somewhat arbitrary and limited, and do not account for the richness of language, connotation and denotation.But you have to admit they are bloody useful!
And if you view them as a practical attempt to give people a quick, useful linguistic reference tool, rather than as a statement of "truth", you just can't knock them, or the (supreme) effort that goes into their creation! |
|
Mar-14-06
| | Sneaky: Hi Mr. Schiller, when you say you don't have much interest in them, I can see where you're coming from--the proposed definitions do not in fact define the words! Nevertheless, the authors of dictionaries are striving to do something, and they do it very well. That's where I find them interesting. In a way, it's an artform. ♗ ♗ ♗
"To be, together"
It must be "coexist." A very strange word in my opinion, as is any word which involves the concept of existence. Another strange word is "extant." Take the sentence "There are no two headed creatures extant" ... This implies that there ARE two headed creatures, but they don't exist. But wait--isn't the verb "are" (be) an implication of existance? It's almost like saying that there is a realm of the imagine and a realm of reality. One may speak of a two headed fire breathing dragon, or a two headed talking pig, but these creatures do not exist. ♗ ♗ ♗
Here's a Monday/Tuesday puzzle from one of my blitz games on ICC. This time, for a change, I'm the one on the frying pan. Sneaky vs NN, Black to move and win
click for larger view |
|
| Mar-15-06 | | apawnandafool: Hello Sneaky,
I saw your post on Eric Schiller's site. Nice game, I couldn't help but comment about it. It reminds me of a family game when I was a kid. We'd find a difficult word in the dictionary, and then all of us would have to guess the right definition. The winner got to pick the next word for the others. Great for creativity. Ok, so much for memories.
So here's a contribution for your game. What verb is its own antonym: (to adhere, to separate)? |
|
Mar-15-06
| | Sneaky: <What verb is its own antonym: (to adhere, to separate)> Hmmmm... when it comes to words that are their own opposites, I immediately think of "sanction": not exactly an opposite, but it's interesting how you can sanction something/someone to approve of it, but you can sanction something/someone as an action to express your disapproval! "The USA did not sanction Iraq, so we sanctioned Iraq." English has such character, doesn't it? OK getting back to your question...
Hmmm... I think I'm stumped. Don't post the answer for another day, let somebody else give a crack at it. I bet I will think of it sooner or later. Thanks for playing along. |
|
Mar-15-06
| | Sneaky: Oh!! I think I know the answer!! It's 6 letters ending in an "E" is that right? |
|
| Mar-15-06 | | RolandTesh: <apawnandafool>
<What verb is its own antonym: (to adhere, to separate)?> "Detach" ? |
|
| Mar-16-06 | | apawnandafool: <sneaky> YES! Well done! I'll wait to post the answer. |
|
| Mar-16-06 | | RolandTesh: <apawnandafool>
<What verb is its own antonym: (to adhere, to separate)?> <Sneaky> <Oh!! I think I know the answer!! It's 6 letters ending in an "E" is that right?> Is the answer:
"cheney" ?
As in "to cheney something or someone"? Six letters and ends in an "EEEEEE!" |
|
| Mar-16-06 | | RolandTesh: Actually, I can name that verb in only 5 letters, still ending in an "E": "seize"
You can seize onto something, and you can seize something away. Hope that helps :-) |
|
| Mar-16-06 | | Chesschatology: <Sneaky>, <a Pawn and a Fool> Does it also start with a "C"? I think I know the one. |
|
| Mar-16-06 | | apawnandafool: <RolandTesh> Brilliant! I'll give you 1500 points for seize, but I'll have to deduct 6 points for the cheney answer, so your rating is 1494. Sneaky and Chesschatology's answer should be, "cleave". And it is worth 2701 points. Cleave (v.):
To split or separate as if with a sharp instrument. <Sneaky>'s sharp pawn thrust cleaved the line between <Eric Schiller>'s bishop and rook. To adhere, cling, or stick fast.
To be faithful: <RolandTesh> can't understand why some older players cleave to outdated opening principles. To make or accomplish as if by cutting: <Chesschatology> cleverly cleaved a path through the middlegame. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 7 OF 58 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
