< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 642 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Dec-16-10
 | | Domdaniel: <MAJ> I actually agree with you re Sicker, and I *almost* paused to check for variants like Sickest and Sickert. But for once my instant-reaction module took control and went "No! Sick! Now!". On most other occasions I've jumped the wrong way. |
|
Dec-16-10
 | | OhioChessFan: http://www.dangerousdesign.com/Sic-... |
|
Dec-16-10
 | | Domdaniel: Must be Dog Latin. |
|
Dec-16-10
 | | Domdaniel: A lazy question: I habitually show kibitzes, here and elsewhere, in the non-recommended order -- most recent at the bottom. It fits my sense of narrative descent, or something, and I'm happy with it. Otherwise, duh, I'd change it. But here's my query. The list of recently solved clues on the clue page appears (to me) in the same order, with (currently) #19 on top and the latest, #30, at bottom. So I have to scroll down to see what's happened. Is this because of my kibitzing order preference? Do other people see the most recent on top? I could change styles and see for myself, but that would be too practical. |
|
Dec-16-10
 | | Domdaniel: And an observation. Viewing games as text only was a good tip, greatly speeding up the process of checking thru a list. But I've managed to find a downside. Every so often I come across a game that I want to 'see' -- so I paste it into Fritz. And then I miss a clue ... That's where those Firefox functions come in, I guess. |
|
Dec-16-10
 | | Annie K.: <Is this because of my kibitzing order preference? Do other people see the most recent on top?> Can't help you with that, as I use the same order preference... ;) |
|
Dec-16-10 | | MostlyAverageJoe: <Is this because of my kibitzing order preference? Do other people see the most recent on top?> Nope. Most recent clues are always at the bottom. Really annoying. BTW, #31 was gone in under 5 minutes (this is my browser's page refresh setting). I saw it refresh, opened the home page to start player search and it was already solved. |
|
Dec-16-10
 | | Annie K.: <That's where those Firefox functions come in, I guess.> And they are quite easy to set up - just follow the link MAJ gave and agree to everything. ;) <Every so often I come across a game that I want to 'see' -- so I paste it into Fritz. And then I miss a clue ...> Alternatively, you could just select a game viewer for the game (here at ceegee), and switch back to text-only when you spot a klu. ;) BTW, I now set FF to refresh every minute, which makes posting impossible, as the text window gets wiped clean with every refresh. Aargh. Solution: I use one FF window, set up with 1-min refresh, Multi Link and all, aimed at the klus page... and for everything else, I use my trusty Opera, which I do <not> have on autorefresh. BTW #2 - that last klu was up for a minute or less. :s |
|
Dec-16-10
 | | Domdaniel: We're *so* alike, it's positively uncanny.
OTOH, between the stuff you know and the stuff I know ... why, we could take over the universe. |
|
Dec-16-10
 | | Domdaniel: Gary Cooper lasted about 80 seconds, btw. I didn't have time to recognize him, even though I was there the instant he came on. Movie stars and their entrances, eh. |
|
Dec-16-10 | | MostlyAverageJoe: And now <Annie K.> scooped me on the klu duration report... No luck today... |
|
Dec-16-10
 | | Domdaniel: <MAJ> Closer to 2 minutes, I thought, but you probably have more accurate timers. |
|
Dec-16-10
 | | Annie K.: <why, we could take over the universe.> Well, ok, but do you think it's worth the effort? ;)
<MAJ>, <Dom> - yeah, if the klu appeared right after one of my FF refreshes, that would make for almost a minute's difference - guess I should have allowed for that. Under 2 mins anyway. |
|
Dec-16-10
 | | Annie K.: I always had this tendency to confuse Gary Cooper with Cary Grant - must be the initials thing. So, I "recognized" the pic at a glance - but then I went searching for "Grant". :s |
|
Dec-16-10
 | | Domdaniel: We now have, um, 5 different estimates? I refreshed manually 3 times: at 00:46 (no clue), a few seconds later (clue!), then stared haplessly at the pic wondering if it was worth trying to remember his name. (And I spent nearly 10 years as a movie critic, though not in the 1940s.)
At 00:47 it was gone. I can't be sure of elapsed seconds. So all this is for 5-6 minutes of adrenalin per day? Which one could very easily miss? At least while #23 was open, we were checking game pages regularly, each effectively a refresh -- and it was easy to change direction on the occasions when another clue appeared. Don't think I'll linger tonight. G'night, all. |
|
Dec-16-10
 | | Annie K.: ♘ :) |
|
Dec-17-10 | | dakgootje: Heh, I actually semi-solved the Fine-Dake clue.. I had noticed Fine, then thought "you only see that as logical because you want to find something, let's get serious again" and I went down to get myself some more lunch.. Been very close very often this year. Odi et amo ;) |
|
Dec-17-10
 | | Domdaniel: <dak> Steganography, innit? I knew that but I failed to see it. Duh. But I've mostly been working today, with not much time for clues. I've still tried 3 main lines of attack on '.35' with no luck. Which 3? OK.
1. .35 = 7/20 = seven over twenty = 7th beats 20th ... 2. .35 = 42/120, sometimes used as a time control ... 3. Star Wars. Luke sez "point three five" when battling the death star. |
|
Dec-17-10 | | dakgootje: Tried some things like 35mm film and references to bullets etc but no luck there either. Intially I had only quickly glanced so I thought it was -35 so I have wasted a couple of minutes with temperature-things :P been working?... well, whatever makes you happy...
;) |
|
Dec-17-10
 | | Annie K.: Howzabout the game number which corresponds to 35% of the database - with or without counting the blanks where games have been deleted...? I can't be bothered, rilly. :p Working?! Tell... ;) |
|
Dec-17-10
 | | Domdaniel: Tried it hours ago, sorry. But I was a bit distracted - may not have calculated right. In any case, the volume of the CGDB today is greater than its volume when the clues were made. Can't see how something using this idea would work. I have been wrong before. |
|
Dec-17-10
 | | Domdaniel: Note the tournament name: C Garcia-Palermo vs Psakhis, 1986 |
|
Dec-17-10
 | | Annie K.: Well, I wouldn't consider an approach disqualified just because the database may have grown since the idea was conceived. With something like this, the admins would only have to do a quick recalculation to decide on which game to stick the banner now. <Note the tournament name> Nice angle. :)
...um, working? ;) |
|
Dec-17-10 | | dakgootje: could even be that the player has exactly a win-% of 35%. Wouldn't know how to search for that though. However, it is not Francisco Javier Sanz Alonso |
|
Dec-17-10
 | | Domdaniel: <...um, working? ;)>
1000 words on George Washington. In the bag. |
|
 |
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 642 OF 963 ·
Later Kibitzing> |