| |
Main
Date: 03 Oct 2007 12:41:46
From: Mihai Suba
Subject: Unhelpful bot
|
Very prolific and aggressive, always disposed to combat anything and
anybody.
Main weapons:"truncated quoting".
Please note: When I start a topic, I can choose whatever to add or no.
People were happy with my comments on WCC Mexico 2007 http://chesscircle.net
A user can add his opinion or piece of information, correct a wrong
one, etc. I just wrote an overview and some annotations to help other
players get into it; I didn't attack or insult anybody.
IMO I'm enough competent to do so and be in tune with 99% of the
readers. I was writing for them, not for maniac fault-finders.
Also note (or copy and paste if you are not able to): Not even for
Kasparov or Anand am I "a GM Suba"
I cannot help but remember Capablanca's "Go back to school!" ; and not
only chess school.
GetClubbed
|
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 23:12:16
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 9, 1:37 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > > Like IM Innes and his ratpacker brethren, a flat
> > > > denial is carefully avoided,
>
> > > A flat denial of what?
>
> > A flat denial in which the party of the first part, TK,
> > flatly denies that he ever "lost" a game at GetClub
> > and then talked Sanny, the party of the second
> > part, to go back and fix the error.
>
> But I have already answered that question.
Virtually a direct quote of IM Innes! LOL
Whenever the great nearly-an-IM is called, he
automatically replies that he has already answered
the question (an evasion, rather than a retreat).
> "I seem to recall that you, like me, lost a game during this
> purported "streak"; like me, you complained
> here in rgc until Sanny gave up and manually changed the result."
>
> And I replied:
>
> "I recall no such incident
A denial of recall -- ala a certain former President.
That is not the droid I'm after. There is absolutely
no way for me (or anyone, for that matter) to refute
such a weak denial. Moreover, what I am doing is
discussing what happened in reality, while this is
a sort of redirect into discussion of TK's memories,
his ability to recall them, and so forth (boring!).
> Not being able to recall every detail of every one of 50 games
> played 14 to 18 months ago, I won't say categorically that what you
> assert did not happen
There you are. Unless you will say categorically
that it never happened, you will understand what a
waste of my time it would be to do your requested
"research" project. Even if Dr. Blair were to show
up here and give twenty direct quotes proving
beyond a shadow of a doubt that this happened,
the great TK could respond that it had "slipped his
memory". The fish must first bite, before you can
reel him in!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 11:37:35
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 9, 1:20 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 9, 9:54 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 9, 10:45 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Like IM Innes and his ratpacker brethren, a flat
> > > denial is carefully avoided,
>
> > A flat denial of what?
>
> A flat denial in which the party of the first part, TK,
> flatly denies that he ever "lost" a game at GetClub
> and then talked Sanny, the party of the second
> part, to go back and fix the error.
But I have already answered that question. Just two days ago,
October 6 2007, you posted:
"I seem to recall that you, like me, lost a game during this
purported "streak"; like me, you complained
here in rgc until Sanny gave up and manually changed the result."
And I replied:
"I recall no such incident during my 50-win streak, which ran from
29 May to 26 August, 2006. Again, bot, I suggest that you seek
evidence for such assertions via google search, rather than relying
your highly
fallible memory."
Not being able to recall every detail of every one of 50 games
played 14 to 18 months ago, I won't say categorically that what you
assert did not happen, but I certainly don't remember it happening. My
memory is not perfect, but at least, unlike you, bot, I do remember
what I wrote two days ago.
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 10:41:46
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
> Generally speaking, I tend to try and get the
> GetClub chess program out of book as early as
> possible; but more recently, I have been surprised
> a few times by it responding instantaneously --
> no joke -- for several moves in a row. Somebody
> has been doing some work there, in the opening
> phase. But I had to snicker when I whipped off
> 1.e4 e6 2. e5, and the program went into a deep
> think, responding with either ...Nc6 or ...Bb4,
> followed by the other on its next turn. I feel a bit
> like Bobby Fischer: I may yet be forced to admit
> that this stuff is sound... but I doubt it!
>
You again played with Beginner Level, I want to see you loosing games
with Normal Level. Play a few games with Normal Level and see if you
can win now
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 10:20:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 9, 9:54 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 9, 10:45 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Like IM Innes and his ratpacker brethren, a flat
> > denial is carefully avoided,
>
> A flat denial of what?
A flat denial in which the party of the first part, TK,
flatly denies that he ever "lost" a game at GetClub
and then talked Sanny, the party of the second
part, to go back and fix the error. (Last time
around, we all agreed it was an error; Sanny,
reluctantly.)
You may have noticed that the Great Parrthenium
was careful not to deny the guilt of PT (or SP), but
instead constructed some silly arguments based
on what he said he had or had not "seen", which of
course is immaterial. That's the sort of thing I'm
talking about here. So long as you keep the escape
hatch open and refuse to go inside, there is no point
in my sinking the boat because the target can just
slip away. : >D
Back to the Fake Sloan affair... IM Innes has
learned a few tricks from his old master, LP; note
how he too, carefully avoided any flat denial of guilt,
while constructing arguments (or Red Herrings)
consisting in waving flags (due process of law!)
and the like. Escape hatches are all the rage
these days; no one is willing to commit, for fear
of rying an ugly old hag by mistake.
Generally speaking, I tend to try and get the
GetClub chess program out of book as early as
possible; but more recently, I have been surprised
a few times by it responding instantaneously --
no joke -- for several moves in a row. Somebody
has been doing some work there, in the opening
phase. But I had to snicker when I whipped off
1.e4 e6 2. e5, and the program went into a deep
think, responding with either ...Nc6 or ...Bb4,
followed by the other on its next turn. I feel a bit
like Bobby Fischer: I may yet be forced to admit
that this stuff is sound... but I doubt it!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 09:55:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 9, 9:44 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I look forward to reading your research on [...] the Johnson-
> > Goldwater presidential race of 2004.
>
> Goldwater lost because he stopped to make a cup of tea.
Wait... you're saying that Goldwater lost that election?
Must have been the Monica Lewinsky affair... .
-- history buff
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 07:54:41
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 9, 10:45 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Like IM Innes and his ratpacker brethren, a flat
> denial is carefully avoided,
A flat denial of what?
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 07:45:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 9, 8:24 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > but you will find that I am too lazy
> > to do such research
>
> Yes, that has been shown many times, bot.
>
> > unless it is really necessary;
>
> Translation: Bot virtually never does any research.
Now whose memory has gone on the blink?
In numerous threads, I have given pertinent information
I dredged up at chessmetrics.com, for instance, in reply
to misinformation posted by, for example, Mr. Sloan.
So to say that I "virtually never" do any research is
to demonstrate a complete ignorance of the facts, of
reality. Some of these postings, I might add, were so
recent that even an old fart should have been able to
easily recall them.
> A novel concept, to search for a set of events outside the times in
> which they are known to have occurred
Another complete failure in logic; the events may well
have occurred at GetClub, but discussion of those
events here can potentially be found any time during
or afterward. (Sometimes I wonder if posters like IM
Innes or Taylor Kingston have eaten their Wheaties.)
> This could revolutionize the field of history.
Tossing out the bunk alone would do that. Of
course, there wouldn't be a whole lot of history left.
> I look forward to reading your research on the
> American Civil War (1981-1965)
A war over the right of secession... not slavery.
> Columbus' discovery of the New World
Wrong. Leif Erikson discovered the New World.
Mr. Columbus died thinking he had been exploring
Asia. That is on par with some of Sanny's best
thinking... .
> in 1066
Wrong date, wrong explorer, wrong everything.
And that is ignoring the cross-Atlantic boats from
Africa, as demonstrated possible by Thor Hyerdal.
> and the Johnson-Goldwater presidential race of 2004.
"Johnson stinks!", someone shouted out their car
window, having read a bumper sticker in support of
him. (How's that for a memory?) Inside the car, I
had no idea what "stinks" was supposed to mean,
or who he was or why he might smell bad, let alone
who his opponent was, or in what race.
Like IM Innes and his ratpacker brethren, a flat
denial is carefully avoided, leaving a small escape
hatch; this warrants no research on my part. As
a famous player once wrote, "to get squares, you
gotta give squares".
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 16:19:18
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Like IM Innes and his ratpacker brethren, a flat
> denial is carefully avoided
I'd certainly recommend the careful avoidance of Innes and his
`ratpacker brethren', whatever they may be...
Dave.
--
David Richerby Gigantic Cheese (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ brick of cheese but it's huge!
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 06:24:35
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 9, 12:54 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 8, 8:25 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Poor bot, you really need to lose this persistent illusion you have,
> > that what you consider "logical" somehow trumps reality. The facts
> > don't give a rat's rectum for what you consider "logical." A little
> > google searching would have led you to this post from last year:
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/35fa5r
>
> > in which Sanny did indeed say:
>
> > "So I conclude 'Bobby Pfuscher' is actually Bobby Fischer."
>
> You seem to be thinking backasswards; the fact that
> Sanny deluded himself into thinking that Bobby Fischer
> was playing at his site is a reflection of his delusions of
> grandeur, not your cleverness.
Quite so. I have never described that prank as clever, nor was I
trying to assert any general cleverness on my part.
> No, I say you are thinking backasswards; that you
> are taking what happened, and then attempting to spin
> it such that it went "exactly as you had planned" all
> along.
As usual, bot, you miss my point, which was to show how wrong your
memory and logic are. You said "You are suggesting that you fooled
Sanny into thinking you were Bobby Fischer ...That's, um, not
logical." Whether you remember it happening or not, whether you
consider it logical or not, it did in fact happen.
> > which ran from 29 May to 26 August, 2006.
>
> This looks like an attempt to direct research into a
> narrow time frame,
If the subject is my 50 games at GetClub, that is the only relevant
time frame.
> but you will find that I am too lazy
> to do such research
Yes, that has been shown many times, bot.
> unless it is really necessary;
Translation: Bot virtually never does any research.
> if I
> were to do it, I would certainly search wider than this.
A novel concept, to search for a set of events outside the times in
which they are known to have occurred. This could revolutionize the
field of history. I look forward to reading your research on the
American Civil War (1981-1965), Columbus' discovery of the New World
in 1066, and the Johnson-Goldwater presidential race of 2004.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Oct 2007 15:44:15
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> I look forward to reading your research on [...] the Johnson-
> Goldwater presidential race of 2004.
Goldwater lost because he stopped to make a cup of tea.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Disposable Transparent Bulb (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a light bulb but you can
see right through it and you never
have to clean it!
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 22:02:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 8, 11:26 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> At what point do repeated posts about every tiny change to GetClub
> -- each with the URL included in several places -- become Spam?
When the USDA arrives for inspections?
I have tried to give a few pointers to Sanny as to how
he can, as they write here in rgc, "drive traffic to the
site". But as far as I can see, he only knows one way,
and that is to post here. When I log on, I notice that
few *if any* other players are there, so he is clearly
struggling -- at least as far as the chess area is
concerned.
Here's an idea: how about somebody going to the
spam newsgroup(s), and complaining about GetClub?
If the thread kicks off, he may get a few suckers who
just happen to play chess from there, and his posts
here will become "textbook examples" of spam. More
exposure there, less here, problem solved.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 16:26:00
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
At what point do repeated posts about every tiny change to GetClub
-- each with the URL included in several places -- become Spam?
|
| | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 19:29:18
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> At what point do repeated posts about every tiny change to GetClub
> -- each with the URL included in several places -- become Spam?
They're more-or-less on-topic and easily filtered. Just like your
posts, which also contain your URL in several places. :-P
Dave.
--
David Richerby Happy Postman (TM): it's like a man
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ who delivers the mail that makes your
troubles melt away!
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 18:44:33
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
David Richerby wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> At what point do repeated posts about every tiny change to GetClub
>> -- each with the URL included in several places -- become Spam?
>
>They're more-or-less on-topic and easily filtered. Just like your
>posts, which also contain your URL in several places. :-P
Hoist by my own petard!! <grin >
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 06:25:02
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
On Oct 6, 9:53 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 8:51 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I never said Zebediah is Taylor Kingston, I only said Zebediah is as
> > > > Strong as Taylor Kingston. Taylor Kingston took 2 accounts: Fritz8 and
> > > > Bobby Pfusher. Taylor kingston admitted that Fritz8 and Bobby Pfusher
> > > > were him. But for Zebediah no one confirmed yet.
>
> > > Ah... I had forgotten about Bobby Pfusher. Perhaps
> > > that is the alter-ego which was timed to perfectly
> > > coincide with Taylor Kingston's retirement.
>
> > No, Bot, your memory, as usual, is quite flawed here.
>
> My memory may well be flawed, but it is still better
> that 88.24% of other posters here, by my calculations.
That assessment is highly derogatory to other posters here, rather
than complimentary to yourself.
> > I used the
> > "Bobby Pfuscher" alias as a prank, and it worked quite well, leading
> > Sanny to think Bobby Fischer was actually playing.
>
> You are suggesting that you fooled Sanny into
> thinking you were Bobby Fischer -- who somehow
> had forgotten how to spell his own name? That's,
> um, not logical.
Poor bot, you really need to lose this persistent illusion you have,
that what you consider "logical" somehow trumps reality. The facts
don't give a rat's rectum for what you consider "logical." A little
google searching would have led you to this post from last year:
http://tinyurl.com/35fa5r
in which Sanny did indeed say:
"So I conclude 'Bobby Pfuscher' is actually Bobby Fischer."
> > That was about mid-
> > way through my 50-game winning streak at GetClub.
>
> I seem to recall that you, like me, lost a game
> during this purported "streak"; like me, you complained
> here in rgc until Sanny gave up and manually changed
> the result. My recollection is that Sanny claimed you
> must have pressed the "resigns" button, but the
> position was such as to make that rather ridiculous.
> In fact, 99% of the time it would be ridiculous, for
> any player to resign against GetClub.
I recall no such incident during my 50-win streak, which ran from 29
May to 26 August, 2006. Again, bot, I suggest that you seek evidence
for such assertions via google search, rather than relying your highly
fallible memory.
|
| |
Date: 08 Oct 2007 03:56:22
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 7, 12:40 pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Nah. It's more fun to play the weaker levels because
> > I get to win every time!
>
> Then why other people wanted a stronger game for so long.
Many complaints here were *in reaction to* your
own exaggerated claims regarding the program's
strength. Back then, the program was very weak.
What happens when you exaggerate like that
can be seen in the magazine Consumer Reports,
which panned (i.e. were very negative toward)
the BMW 750 series, apparently because ads
had made ludicrous claims. Taken by itself,
the comments lend an impression that the car
is junk. (No $100,000 car is junk.)
> I havent seen any new game from you. Are you still unable to play
> Chess at GetClub?
I am currently stuck at the end of a game against
Master level, a mate-in-two I believe. Your program
won't make a move. (Very wise, as I have been
known to spot these on occasion.)
> It means for a few seconds when computer played its mode there was a
> disconnection. I too had such problem with my laptop. So I switch to
> desktop for all my work. Desktop are always superior to laptops as
> laptops work on Battery Power, So performance is a bit low.
I have a couple of desktop computers, but my
internet service is wireless, so that is the real
problem. Not only is it wireless, but my ISP
asks its customers to utilize some sort of tricky
compression software, so fewer packets are
sent and received (I'm guessing here).
> No it is not possible. When you restart an old game you cannot change
> the Levels. You have to play with same level that you were playing
> earlier.
Good. Otherwise some clown could come along
and beat Advance level fifty times in one day.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 07 Oct 2007 10:40:04
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
> Nah. It's more fun to play the weaker levels because
> I get to win every time!
Then why other people wanted a stronger game for so long.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
> > The game needs connection only when it is making a move or you are
> > making a move. Incase it gets disconnected while thinking. Just
> > reconnect.
>
> > Say Master is thinking for 5 minutes. And you find connection is lost
> > after 2 minutes. Instead of closing the browser you reconnect the
> > comuter and if you reconnect before Master makes a move. Then the game
> > can continue without disrupt.
I havent seen any new game from you. Are you still unable to play
Chess at GetClub?
I tested it on firefox browser, It is working now.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
> I think you have the scenario confused with me
> losing my internet connection. What is actually
> happening is that I am still connected to my ISP,
> to the internet, but just as the GetClub program
> is going to play its move, your Web site has a bug
> which disconnects me, opens a small window
> telling me I have been disconnected, and the
> chess board then displays a bogus position.
It means for a few seconds when computer played its mode there was a
disconnection. I too had such problem with my laptop. So I switch to
desktop for all my work. Desktop are always superior to laptops as
laptops work on Battery Power, So performance is a bit low.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
> One way or another, the move it just finished
> calculating (perhaps for fifteen minutes) gets lost
> in translation, and I am back at the previous
> position again. This often happens over and over,
> on the same move, so I get nowhere for a long time.
Thats a bad luck. Now Master level plays in 5-10 minutes now. Only for
a few moves it will think for 15-20 minutes.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
> BTW, when I reconnect I have to select what
> level I want to play against (even though I am in
> the middle of a game), and then afterward, I again
> have to select the level before the current game in
> progress appears. I'm wondering if somebody
> might try to play against the Beginner level, then
> deliberately disconnect, log back on and switch
> to Advance level for the coup de gra, the final
> crusher -- getting credit for beating the higher
> level. I still recall a time when it was possible
No it is not possible. When you restart an old game you cannot change
the Levels. You have to play with same level that you were playing
earlier.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 23:56:34
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
> > I think you should play with higher levels as they you will score more
> > and earn more points.
>
> Wait, I thought the higher levels were supposed
> to beat me now? So in theory, I would get no
> points for all those losses, right? :>D
Chess is played not only for winning. It is more fun to play with
stronger player than to a weaker player. So I think Normal & Master
will give you good challenge and take a lot of your brain.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
> Well, I came second, for example in this last
> month, because I have a crummy connection and
> cannot complete a large number of games in a
> reasonable amount of time. It was obvious that
> Zeb was only playing one game per day against
> the Master level, so all I would have had to do was
> beat the Normal level twice and Beginner once per
> day to eventually surpass him -- but this is not
> easy when you get disconnected as often as I do.
The game needs connection only when it is making a move or you are
making a move. Incase it gets disconnected while thinking. Just
reconnect.
Say Master is thinking for 5 minutes. And you find connection is lost
after 2 minutes. Instead of closing the browser you reconnect the
comuter and if you reconnect before Master makes a move. Then the game
can continue without disrupt.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Only when Master makes move after 5 min the connection needs to be ok.
If it disconnects in between you should reconnect it and it will play
without any problem. Incase the Connectionb breaks it will flash a
screen saying Connection Disconnected. Then you need to Start the game
again from the same position.
>
> Soon the temperature will drop and I will no longer
> worry so much about my notebook computer
> overheating. I have discovered that GetClub is not
> the only site which fires up the internal fan; others,
> which contain massive quantities of constantly-
> updating ads, will do the trick as well. It is amusing
> to be sitting here reading about investments, and
> frustrated at Web pages taking so darn long to load,
> when all of a sudden it hits me that nearly all these
> ads are loading from a secondary site: doubleclick.
At GetClub the Ads are loaded only once after that there is no
downloads So that the computer plays the game with full concentration.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 19:13:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
On Oct 6, 12:35 pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> So You were having 265-142= 123 Games in Nomorechess Account.
>
> Since you are playing with Help Bot Account. 123 games were added to
> your new Account !!!.
>
> So Still you can play 100 extra games.
Thanks.
> I think you should play with higher levels as they you will score more
> and earn more points.
Wait, I thought the higher levels were supposed
to beat me now? So in theory, I would get no
points for all those losses, right? : >D
> For Beginner you get 0.3 points while for Normal Level you get 2
> Points. (6 times more points).
>
> And If you come first you get $5.00 while if you come second you only
> get $2.00 every month.
Well, I came second, for example in this last
month, because I have a crummy connection and
cannot complete a large number of games in a
reasonable amount of time. It was obvious that
Zeb was only playing one game per day against
the Master level, so all I would have had to do was
beat the Normal level twice and Beginner once per
day to eventually surpass him -- but this is not
easy when you get disconnected as often as I do.
Soon the temperature will drop and I will no longer
worry so much about my notebook computer
overheating. I have discovered that GetClub is not
the only site which fires up the internal fan; others,
which contain massive quantities of constantly-
updating ads, will do the trick as well. It is amusing
to be sitting here reading about investments, and
frustrated at Web pages taking so darn long to load,
when all of a sudden it hits me that nearly all these
ads are loading from a secondary site: doubleclick.
Many articles will download in Adobe format, via
Akamai servers, to my AMD processor Gateway
computer which displays them via an ATI graphics
card. Some of these companies might (or might
not) be interesting prospects.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 18:53:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
On Oct 6, 8:51 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > I never said Zebediah is Taylor Kingston, I only said Zebediah is as
> > > Strong as Taylor Kingston. Taylor Kingston took 2 accounts: Fritz8 and
> > > Bobby Pfusher. Taylor kingston admitted that Fritz8 and Bobby Pfusher
> > > were him. But for Zebediah no one confirmed yet.
>
> > Ah... I had forgotten about Bobby Pfusher. Perhaps
> > that is the alter-ego which was timed to perfectly
> > coincide with Taylor Kingston's retirement.
>
> No, Bot, your memory, as usual, is quite flawed here.
My memory may well be flawed, but it is still better
that 88.24% of other posters here, by my calculations.
> I used the
> "Bobby Pfuscher" alias as a prank, and it worked quite well, leading
> Sanny to think Bobby Fischer was actually playing.
You are suggesting that you fooled Sanny into
thinking you were Bobby Fischer -- who somehow
had forgotten how to spell his own name? That's,
um, not logical. (If I wanted to fool Sanny into
thinking I was Bobby Fischer, I would find some
way to log in from Iceland, then set Frtiz to play
at a 2600 level and play 1.e4 every game.)
> That was about mid-
> way through my 50-game winning streak at GetClub.
I seem to recall that you, like me, lost a game
during this purported "streak"; like me, you complained
here in rgc until Sanny gave up and manually changed
the result. My recollection is that Sanny claimed you
must have pressed the "resigns" button, but the
position was such as to make that rather ridiculous.
In fact, 99% of the time it would be ridiculous, for
any player to resign against GetClub.
If you, like me, had any draws whatever, they were
probably invisible due to the fact that Sanny's
programmers did not seem to know that in chess,
there can be drawn games. You may note that the
record for nomorechess shows two losses and no
draws; that is anything but an accurate record of my
actual results, countless games having vanished into
thin air on a whim. Many of these were dead-on wins,
but a few had me in a precarious position, and so I did
not complain. : >D
> Once I hit +50 -0, I ceased playing.
Well, that is unfortunate because Sanny's program
has evolved over time into a much tougher opponent,
though still severely flawed. When I first started
playing there, the program was so weak that I felt
like Paul Morphy playing Anon -- almost invincible
and utterly brilliant!
> I did sign up Fritz8 there to gratify Sanny's wish for
> a silicon challenger, but after a few games in which Fritz went
> through Sanny's program like the Wehrmacht through Poland, that ceased
> to be amusing.
Fritz 1 would seem a better match. Every version
I have seen of Fritz plays at grandmaster strength,
so you obviously have a mean streak if you jumped
clear up to version 8 against a mere child.
> > > I think he is some 2100+ rated player.
>
> It does not take any 2100+ rating to run up a lopsided score against
> Sanny's inept program.
Rob Mitchell is 2 - 0, for instance.
But the program is still improving -- except in the
endgame, apparently. The last game posted here
had Zebediah spotting a computeresque combination,
after having apparently misplayed the opening; my
initial guess is a cyborg: part human, part computer.
The human half overlooked the loss of the d6 pawn,
and a bit later the computer half took over for an
emergency "rescue operation". This could only
work against a program as weak as Sanny's; don't
try it at home, kids!
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 10:35:12
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
> Indeed I have. There appears to be a bug, for every time
> I attempted to sign up for human vs. human play, the
> screen went into some sort of loop-back to square one.
> Although it is possible this has something to do with my
> having run out of free games, it is also possible -- if not
Yes you were running out of free Games.
Your earning in Nomorechess Account was transfered to your Help Bot
Account.
A total of 265 games were earned by Nomorechess out of them you had
utilize 142 Games.
So You were having 265-142= 123 Games in Nomorechess Account.
Since you are playing with Help Bot Account. 123 games were added to
your new Account !!!.
So Still you can play 100 extra games.
I think you should play with higher levels as they you will score more
and earn more points.
For Beginner you get 0.3 points while for Normal Level you get 2
Points. (6 times more points).
And If you come first you get $5.00 while if you come second you only
get $2.00 every month.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 06:51:48
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
On Oct 6, 2:10 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 12:46 am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I never said Zebediah is Taylor Kingston, I only said Zebediah is as
> > Strong as Taylor Kingston. Taylor Kingston took 2 accounts: Fritz8 and
> > Bobby Pfusher. Taylor kingston admitted that Fritz8 and Bobby Pfusher
> > were him. But for Zebediah no one confirmed yet.
>
> Ah... I had forgotten about Bobby Pfusher. Perhaps
> that is the alter-ego which was timed to perfectly
> coincide with Taylor Kingston's retirement.
No, Bot, your memory, as usual, is quite flawed here. I used the
"Bobby Pfuscher" alias as a prank, and it worked quite well, leading
Sanny to think Bobby Fischer was actually playing. That was about mid-
way through my 50-game winning streak at GetClub. Once I hit +50 -0, I
ceased playing. I did sign up Fritz8 there to gratify Sanny's wish for
a silicon challenger, but after a few games in which Fritz went
through Sanny's program like the Wehrmacht through Poland, that ceased
to be amusing.
> > I think he is some 2100+ rated player.
It does not take any 2100+ rating to run up a lopsided score against
Sanny's inept program.
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 05:16:47
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
> Indeed I have. There appears to be a bug, for every time
> I attempted to sign up for human vs. human play, the
> screen went into some sort of loop-back to square one.
> Although it is possible this has something to do with my
> having run out of free games, it is also possible -- if not
> likely -- that there is a bug which keeps the site from
> moving on to the next screen. Another possibility I
> suppose is that your site has trouble with my browser,
> Mozilla Firefox, while it may work properly with the
> Microsoft browser.
Yes there was a bug yesterday. Now you get listed and if more than 1
player is online they can play with each other. El;se you have to play
with Normal & Master Levels of Computer.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 06 Oct 2007 02:48:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
On Oct 6, 1:45 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Have you seen the GetClub Game recently?
Indeed I have. There appears to be a bug, for every time
I attempted to sign up for human vs. human play, the
screen went into some sort of loop-back to square one.
Although it is possible this has something to do with my
having run out of free games, it is also possible -- if not
likely -- that there is a bug which keeps the site from
moving on to the next screen. Another possibility I
suppose is that your site has trouble with my browser,
Mozilla Firefox, while it may work properly with the
Microsoft browser.
> It allows you to play with Human Opponents as well as Computer Levels.
>
> I want to see if you can now beat the Normal & Advance levels or not.
Look Sanny, unless and until you replace your program
with another one like say, Fritz, the answer is always going
to be the same -- read my lips: yes, I can STILL beat your
program! (I have forgotten more about chess than your
program likely will ever know. I recently purchased two
books to help remedy this, but I have yet to even open
them!)
> recently only Zebediah has managed to beat the Master Level that too
> with lots of sacrifices.
That win was a bit risky for him, but your program did
not see deep enough to circumvent a fairly obvious win
of material. You have made a lot of progress in the
opening, and the style is /sometimes/ very human-like,
which is a good thing, IMO. But tactics cannot just be
ignored. Your program cannot get around the check
and capture extensions issue; you need to face it head-
on.
Look what happened to Sammy Reshevsky when he
got careless with tactics against Larry Evans: an easy
win was thrown in the trash on one move! Look what
happened when world champion Kramnik was playing
Fritz and allowed a simple, obvious mate on the move.
I like strategy; I may even prefer it to all the calculation
that messy tactical positions entail; but it's like that
movie with secret agent whatshisname: "He's back,
just accept it!" You have to just accept that tactics
dominate chess, and work from there.
-- help bot
|
| |
THE GEOGRAPHICAL EXCUSE
Apropos of Greg Kennedy's claim that he coulda
been a contendah if he had not been intellectually
and, arguendo, physically trashcanned in Indiana, Mr.
chipschap asks, "Wow, does this mean I can blame
currently just-under-1400 USCF rating on having lived
in small towns? That would be so much nicer than
saying, hey, I'm just not so good at chess."
The answer is a resounding YES.
It does mean that. Mr. chipschap can imagine he is
another Kasparov or Fischer and not let his actual results
affect his imagination one whit. And yes, it is a lot nicer
to believe one is a grandmaster than to admit major deficiencies
in playing the game.
That's why Greg Kennedy blames Indiana, which he
believes to be an intellectual wasteland. Remember:
your surroundings, not your capacities, are what
really count. Keeping repeating that in your mind, and you
become not only a grandmaster but a second Greg Kennedy.
Yours, Larry Parr
[email protected] wrote:
> > coulda been a
> > Caissic champ rather than a chessic chump -- had he
> > not been consigned to Indiana.
>
> Wow, does this mean I can blame currently just-under-1400 USCF rating
> on having lived in small towns? That would be so much nicer than
> saying, hey, I'm just not so good at chess :)
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 23:45:48
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
On Oct 6, 11:10 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 12:46 am, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Then, all of a sudden, TK stopped playing at
> > > GetClub and there appeared a new guy, Zebediah,
> > > and TK showed up in the threads where Sanny
> > > suggested he was the same person, but with a new
> > > ID. In view of the fact that Sanny is the Web site
> > > administrator, it seemed to me that he must have
> > > access to the information given when you sign up
> > > to play; that would include email addresses,
> > > names, etc. (But then, maybe he has access but
> > > does not know it -- stranger things have happened
> > > at GetClub!)
>
> > I never said Zebediah is Taylor Kingston, I only said Zebediah is as
> > Strong as Taylor Kingston. Taylor Kingston took 2 accounts: Fritz8 and
> > Bobby Pfusher. Taylor kingston admitted that Fritz8 and Bobby Pfusher
> > were him. But for Zebediah no one confirmed yet.
>
> Ah... I had forgotten about Bobby Pfusher. Perhaps
> that is the alter-ego which was timed to perfectly
> coincide with Taylor Kingston's retirement.
>
> > I think he is some 2100+ rated player.
>
> Either that, or he is using some chess program
> like, say, Ivan. I have not played over very many
> games of other players there because in order to
> do that, I would have to load another Java applet
> (I have enough trouble as it is with just the one),
> so I cannot say.
>
> -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have you seen the GetClub Game recently?
It allows you to play with Human Opponents as well as Computer Levels.
I want to see if you can now beat the Normal & Advance levels or not.
recently only Zebediah has managed to beat the Master Level that too
with lots of sacrifices.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 23:10:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
On Oct 6, 12:46 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Then, all of a sudden, TK stopped playing at
> > GetClub and there appeared a new guy, Zebediah,
> > and TK showed up in the threads where Sanny
> > suggested he was the same person, but with a new
> > ID. In view of the fact that Sanny is the Web site
> > administrator, it seemed to me that he must have
> > access to the information given when you sign up
> > to play; that would include email addresses,
> > names, etc. (But then, maybe he has access but
> > does not know it -- stranger things have happened
> > at GetClub!)
>
> I never said Zebediah is Taylor Kingston, I only said Zebediah is as
> Strong as Taylor Kingston. Taylor Kingston took 2 accounts: Fritz8 and
> Bobby Pfusher. Taylor kingston admitted that Fritz8 and Bobby Pfusher
> were him. But for Zebediah no one confirmed yet.
Ah... I had forgotten about Bobby Pfusher. Perhaps
that is the alter-ego which was timed to perfectly
coincide with Taylor Kingston's retirement.
> I think he is some 2100+ rated player.
Either that, or he is using some chess program
like, say, Ivan. I have not played over very many
games of other players there because in order to
do that, I would have to load another Java applet
(I have enough trouble as it is with just the one),
so I cannot say.
-- help bot
|
| | |
DUNDERHEAD PERSISTS IN ERROR
<The quote from an old article by GM Evans
> mentioned a call made to Iceland during the
> match, but of course logic dictates that it is
> to convince our hero to fly to a place when he
> is there playing already. Mr. Parr seems to
> have grave difficulties with logic, but his
> research skills are commendable in that he
> managed to dredge up /something/.> -- Greg Kennedy
Once again, the call from Kissinger to Fischer was not made to
convince Bobby to fly to Iceland. It was made by Kissinger while Bobby
was already in Iceland to convince him to continue the match after
losing the first two games to Spassky.
Sheesh.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 10:32:09
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 10, 10:09 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 12:00 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 10:06 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > --------------
>
> > > > which ran from 29 May to 26 August, 2006.
>
> > > This looks like an attempt to direct research into a
> > > narrow time frame,
> > >> If the subject is my 50 games at GetClub, that is the only relevant
> > >> time frame.
> > > but you will find that I am too lazy
> > > to do such research
> > >> Yes, that has been shown many times, bot.
> > > unless it is really necessary;
> > >> Translation: Bot virtually never does any research.
>
> > --------------------------
>
> > It is obvious from the above that Mr. Knowitall
> > wanted me to "prove" him wrong by sifting
> > through countless postings
>
> Actually, Bot, it does not require "sifting through countless
> postings" at all. Using google's advanced search facilities, I found
> the relevant posts in about 5 minutes.
>
> > to try and find the
> > one where he asked Sanny to fix an error.
>
> Bot, you can't even quote yourself accurately. Here is the point
> under dispute, here is exactly what you said
> on 6 October 2007:
>
> "I seem to recall that you, like me, lost a game during this
> purported 'streak' ..."
>
> That asserts that I was beaten within the rules of chess, and
> therefore my unbeaten 50-0 streak at GetClub is tainted, like Barry
> Bonds' home run record. In so asserting, you relied on your uncannily
> inaccurate memory. What actually happened is described in theses posts
> from early August 2006. On 8/2/06 I wrote:
>
> "But it appears the computer thinks *_it_* can cheat. After not
> playing for several days I tried it today. The first few moves were
> 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bf4?? e5!, and the program had
> already lost a piece as it so often does. After a few more moves I had
> chopped wood down to an endgame of R-R-B-N vs R-R-N and was winning
> easily, when it suddenly closed the window and displayed "Ha! Ha! I
> checkmated you!!" or some such nonsense. Not only was there no
> checkmate, it was completely busted -- the position, if I recall
> correctly, was r2r2k1/pp3ppp/4b3/8/2nR4/2N5/PPP2PPP/5RK1. Yet it
> 'declared victory and departed the field.'
> "So now, not only is Sanny's program still playing lousy chess, but
> it also cheats! Maybe we should name it Matulovic."
>
> Later that same day I wrote:
>
> "Checking back later, I see that Sanny's program recorded the game
> and did indeed score it as a win for itself. Anyone who plays through
> the game, however, can easily see that its 'winning' move, Rd4xRd8+,
> is not
> checkmate. Had it let me, I would simply have replied Ra8xd8 and
> remained a piece up with an easily won position. Instead, the program
> acted like my rook on a8 did not exist, and declared it had won.
> Major
> bug, Sanny -- *_major_* bug."
>
> Then on 4 August 2006 there was this exchange between Sanny and
> myself. In reply to his suggestion that I had hit the "resign" button,
>
> I wrote:
>
> "Bull, Sanny. My hands were not even on the mouse or keyboard when
> your program played Rxd8 and wrongly claimed it was checkmate. You're
> always making excuses for your program rather than do anything to
> correct it."
>
> Whereupon Sanny finally admitted:
>
> "A program mistake was found and the problem rectified. Now you can
> complete your game. Your Ratings were corrected and Game Restored."
>
> So you see, bot, your memory of this incident was as flawed as
> Sanny's program. I did not "lose a game" - Sanny's program simply
> scored a completely lost position as a win for itself. This is
> confirmed by Sanny himself.
>
> > Yet... he will not dare to state that the events
> > I recounted never happened -- a gutless wonder!
>
> The lack of guts is entirely yours, bot. You seem to think that
> spewing out unsupported accusations is somehow an act of courage, when
> it fact it is simply low, vile, cheap-shot flaming.
>
> > Mr. Self-important says it is up to me to prove
> > him wrong, assuming the position of "defendant",
> > along with the special privileges thereof.
>
> Well, bot, though I didn't have to, I _have_ proven you wrong. Now,
> show us whether you have the guts to admit it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, Taylor Kingston is saying correct. The Game was declared won
because of a bug, Which was later removed and Taylor Kingston's
Ratings were reseted.
It happens sometimes that because of program error or disconnection
program records wrongly. Computers are 99.99% correct but sometimes
0.001% times they misbehave and produce wrong results.
Remember the Nasa's Discovery was 99.99% ok, But it blasted because of
Its heat seal broken. Simmilarly we can never make 100% accurate
program. Always there is some chances of errors left.
But now the GetClub Program is playing very well. Topday it won 2
games. I think Easy level beat Help bot due to some error. Or was it
you pressed resign Button?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Bye
Sanny
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 10:09:39
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 10, 12:00 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 10:06 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> --------------
>
> > > which ran from 29 May to 26 August, 2006.
>
> > This looks like an attempt to direct research into a
> > narrow time frame,
> >> If the subject is my 50 games at GetClub, that is the only relevant
> >> time frame.
> > but you will find that I am too lazy
> > to do such research
> >> Yes, that has been shown many times, bot.
> > unless it is really necessary;
> >> Translation: Bot virtually never does any research.
>
> --------------------------
>
> It is obvious from the above that Mr. Knowitall
> wanted me to "prove" him wrong by sifting
> through countless postings
Actually, Bot, it does not require "sifting through countless
postings" at all. Using google's advanced search facilities, I found
the relevant posts in about 5 minutes.
> to try and find the
> one where he asked Sanny to fix an error.
Bot, you can't even quote yourself accurately. Here is the point
under dispute, here is exactly what you said
on 6 October 2007:
"I seem to recall that you, like me, lost a game during this
purported 'streak' ..."
That asserts that I was beaten within the rules of chess, and
therefore my unbeaten 50-0 streak at GetClub is tainted, like Barry
Bonds' home run record. In so asserting, you relied on your uncannily
inaccurate memory. What actually happened is described in theses posts
from early August 2006. On 8/2/06 I wrote:
"But it appears the computer thinks *_it_* can cheat. After not
playing for several days I tried it today. The first few moves were
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bf4?? e5!, and the program had
already lost a piece as it so often does. After a few more moves I had
chopped wood down to an endgame of R-R-B-N vs R-R-N and was winning
easily, when it suddenly closed the window and displayed "Ha! Ha! I
checkmated you!!" or some such nonsense. Not only was there no
checkmate, it was completely busted -- the position, if I recall
correctly, was r2r2k1/pp3ppp/4b3/8/2nR4/2N5/PPP2PPP/5RK1. Yet it
'declared victory and departed the field.'
"So now, not only is Sanny's program still playing lousy chess, but
it also cheats! Maybe we should name it Matulovic."
Later that same day I wrote:
"Checking back later, I see that Sanny's program recorded the game
and did indeed score it as a win for itself. Anyone who plays through
the game, however, can easily see that its 'winning' move, Rd4xRd8+,
is not
checkmate. Had it let me, I would simply have replied Ra8xd8 and
remained a piece up with an easily won position. Instead, the program
acted like my rook on a8 did not exist, and declared it had won.
Major
bug, Sanny -- *_major_* bug."
Then on 4 August 2006 there was this exchange between Sanny and
myself. In reply to his suggestion that I had hit the "resign" button,
I wrote:
"Bull, Sanny. My hands were not even on the mouse or keyboard when
your program played Rxd8 and wrongly claimed it was checkmate. You're
always making excuses for your program rather than do anything to
correct it."
Whereupon Sanny finally admitted:
"A program mistake was found and the problem rectified. Now you can
complete your game. Your Ratings were corrected and Game Restored."
So you see, bot, your memory of this incident was as flawed as
Sanny's program. I did not "lose a game" - Sanny's program simply
scored a completely lost position as a win for itself. This is
confirmed by Sanny himself.
> Yet... he will not dare to state that the events
> I recounted never happened -- a gutless wonder!
The lack of guts is entirely yours, bot. You seem to think that
spewing out unsupported accusations is somehow an act of courage, when
it fact it is simply low, vile, cheap-shot flaming.
> Mr. Self-important says it is up to me to prove
> him wrong, assuming the position of "defendant",
> along with the special privileges thereof.
Well, bot, though I didn't have to, I _have_ proven you wrong. Now,
show us whether you have the guts to admit it.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 09:00:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 10, 10:06 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
--------------
> > which ran from 29 May to 26 August, 2006.
> This looks like an attempt to direct research into a
> narrow time frame,
>> If the subject is my 50 games at GetClub, that is the only relevant
>> time frame.
> but you will find that I am too lazy
> to do such research
>> Yes, that has been shown many times, bot.
> unless it is really necessary;
>> Translation: Bot virtually never does any research.
--------------------------
It is obvious from the above that Mr. Knowitall
wanted me to "prove" him wrong by sifting
through countless postings to try and find the
one where he asked Sanny to fix an error.
Yet... he will not dare to state that the events
I recounted never happened -- a gutless wonder!
Mr. Self-important says it is up to me to prove
him wrong, assuming the position of "defendant",
along with the special privileges thereof.
Speaking of gutless wonders, anybody notice
what happened to Mr. Parr when it was pointed
out that the phone call described in the recent
pages of Chess Life was made from New York
(not Iceland)? That's right: he groaned and then
ran away!
The quote from an old article by GM Evans
mentioned a call made to Iceland during the
match, but of course logic dictates that it is
to convince our hero to fly to a place when he
is there playing already. Mr. Parr seems to
have grave difficulties with logic, but his
research skills are commendable in that he
managed to dredge up /something/.
While we wait for someone to come up with
the courage to take a real position and stick
by it, I will note that readers may wish to
examine my most recent game at GetClub,
which I lost. That's right folks, lost. How or
why I cannot imagine, but it says I did and so
it must be true! I feel that this is somehow
related to the issue with TK having also lost,
but then won, many, many moons ago.
getclub.com
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 22:46:32
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
> Then, all of a sudden, TK stopped playing at
> GetClub and there appeared a new guy, Zebediah,
> and TK showed up in the threads where Sanny
> suggested he was the same person, but with a new
> ID. In view of the fact that Sanny is the Web site
> administrator, it seemed to me that he must have
> access to the information given when you sign up
> to play; that would include email addresses,
> names, etc. (But then, maybe he has access but
> does not know it -- stranger things have happened
> at GetClub!)
I never said Zebediah is Taylor Kingston, I only said Zebediah is as
Strong as Taylor Kingston. Taylor Kingston took 2 accounts: Fritz8 and
Bobby Pfusher. Taylor kingston admitted that Fritz8 and Bobby Pfusher
were him. But for Zebediah no one confirmed yet.
I think he is some 2100+ rated player.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
> For the record, I, help bot, am the same player
> as my former login ID, "nomorechess", but it is
> simply not possible for me to retrieve my old
> password since to do that, you have to access
> the original email address, which is now defunct.
> During the time that the GetClub site was down
> for repairs, I simply forgot my old password. That
> is the only reason I now have two identities on GC;
> it was not to protect my rating -- the highest ever
> achieved and a record so high that even TK and
> Zeb have yet to surpass it. LOL
You can take you Nomorechess account with any new password. Just
Signup with Nomorechess as your username, your email address and your
new passwords andf you will get back your Nomorechess account.
You just need to Signup again.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:14:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
On Oct 5, 7:24 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> > For the record, Taylor Kingston is not Zebediah.
>
> I'll believe that when I see Zebediah assert it.
All I know is that a good while back, TK started
talking about a "goal" of reaching fifty games with
a perfect score (a place he was 90% of the way
to already when he first announced the "goal").
Then, all of a sudden, TK stopped playing at
GetClub and there appeared a new guy, Zebediah,
and TK showed up in the threads where Sanny
suggested he was the same person, but with a new
ID. In view of the fact that Sanny is the Web site
administrator, it seemed to me that he must have
access to the information given when you sign up
to play; that would include email addresses,
names, etc. (But then, maybe he has access but
does not know it -- stranger things have happened
at GetClub!)
For the record, I, help bot, am the same player
as my former login ID, "nomorechess", but it is
simply not possible for me to retrieve my old
password since to do that, you have to access
the original email address, which is now defunct.
During the time that the GetClub site was down
for repairs, I simply forgot my old password. That
is the only reason I now have two identities on GC;
it was not to protect my rating -- the highest ever
achieved and a record so high that even TK and
Zeb have yet to surpass it. LOL
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 08:06:33
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 10, 10:53 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 10, 8:27 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Not being able to recall every detail of every one of 50 games
> > > > played 14 to 18 months ago, I won't say categorically that what you
> > > > assert did not happen
>
> > > There you are. Unless you will say categorically
> > > that it never happened, you will understand what a
> > > waste of my time it would be to do your requested
> > > "research" project.
>
> > *_My _* "requested research"?? Bot, you're the one who's claiming a
> > certain thing happened. You're even framing it almost as an
> > accusation. In such a case, it is _your_ responsibility to prove
> > _your_ point, not mine to disprove it.
> > I'm not requesting you to do any research. I'm just laughing at how
> > ridiculous you look acting like your worthless memory is worth a cup
> > of warm spit.
>
> ----------
>
> I recall no such incident during my 50-win streak, which ran from 29
> May to 26 August, 2006. Again, bot, I suggest that you seek evidence
> for such assertions via google search, rather than relying your highly
> fallible memory.
>
> ----------
>
> Brain fart?
If you think that "suggest" and "request" mean the same thing, you
did indeed have a brain fart.
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 18:00:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
On Oct 5, 12:21 pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 5, 3:25 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hey bot, have you read the book ---you do read?--on Fischer called
> "Bobby Fischer Goes to War" (Edmonds et al). It's kind of dry, but
> interesting on the 1972 match details.
That book was mentioned several times in the account
I read by Anthony Saidy -- the man who says he was
responsible for getting Bobby Fischer from L.A. (California,
United States of America, not in Iceland) to New York.
AS noted several factual errors in the book, and it seemed
from noting these that the authors made a lot of mistakes
when recounting what happened on this side of the pool
(that's the Atlantic Ocean), though they may have done
better in their efforts regarding the Russian side of things.
As for whether or not I read -- of course I read! The
invention of text-recognition allows me -- and every other
bot in cyberspace -- to, in effect, read anything on the net.
What I cannot do is go to, say, Amazon.com and order
every book I want, since that requires monetary funds and
Sanny will not bet me (all he wants to do is brag about his
many "improvements" and how everyone but Zeb is going
to lose "from now on"). Perhaps GM Suba will bet that he,
by himself, can beat me in the Smith-Morra Gambit, where
I get to use Fritz? One game I saw had him teetering on
the brink of disaster, after he tried to steer for the now
well-known trap where Black goes ...Ng4 and then ...Nd4,
forking White's Queen and the sole defender against mate!
MS won after quite a tussle, in which he displayed far more
tenacity than he had, earlier, positional judgment. But Fritz
cares nothing for that sort of thing; he feeds on any errors, be
they great or small. I especially would like to test the theory
that "all programs" are like beginners in the endgame! (The
GetClub program is admittedly far worse than any beginner I
have yet seen.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 17:42:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Unhelpful Bot
|
On Oct 5, 9:11 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Now, I admit that I don't recall every source of every
> > account to which I have just referred, but some key
> > names here would be Anthony Saidy and Leroy Dubeck.
> > It was Mr. Saidy's house BF was at when the call from
> > Henry Kissenger came in, and that was in New York
> > (not Iceland).
> > Those who have grave difficulties with rational thinking
> > may still find themselves confused
I probably should have pointed out -- for the intellectually
challenged -- that Anthony Saidy lived in New York, not in
Iceland. Thus, when he gives an account of the phone call
in question coming through in his home, he is talking about
a home located in the United States, the state of New York,
city by the same name, the district of Manhattan. Perhaps
a map of the world would help. (Then again, perhaps nothing
would.)
Thus far, I have come across accounts of this telephone
call by Leroy Dubeck and Anthony Saidy, but I would like to
see what Ed Edmondson wrote about the matter at the time.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 10:21:30
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
On Oct 5, 3:25 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
Hey bot, have you read the book ---you do read?--on Fischer called
"Bobby Fischer Goes to War" (Edmonds et al). It's kind of dry, but
interesting on the 1972 match details.
I don't think you'd like it.
RL
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 09:43:58
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
On Oct 5, 12:38 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 3, 11:05 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In another thread, Sanny reked that a recent
> > victory by Taylor "Zebediah" Kingston was the best
> > game he had ever seen at GetClub.
>
> For the record, Taylor Kingston is not Zebediah.
>
If Taylor Kingston is not Zebediah who is this Strong Player. He is
beating Master level like carrots. While other players are finding it
difficult to beat even the Beginner & Easy Levels
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Now from today you can play with Human opponents aswell. So Is there
anyone who can beat Zebediah?
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
> coulda been a
> Caissic champ rather than a chessic chump -- had he
> not been consigned to Indiana.
Wow, does this mean I can blame currently just-under-1400 USCF rating
on having lived in small towns? That would be so much nicer than
saying, hey, I'm just not so good at chess :)
|
| |
MORE ROT FROM BOT
> Now, I admit that I don't recall every source of every
> account to which I have just referred, but some key
> names here would be Anthony Saidy and Leroy Dubeck.
> It was Mr. Saidy's house BF was at when the call from
> Henry Kissenger came in, and that was in New York
> (not Iceland). Some accounts may have it that BF
> "refused the call", but this only strengthens my
> position: that the article's author deliberately
> misconstrued the facts in order to create his illusion
> of heroism.
> Those who have grave difficulties with rational thinking
> may still find themselves confused, but I expect most
> readers will be able to see the light. I find it amusing that
> Mr. Parr did not show up with some quotation of GM Larry
> Evans regarding the timing of the critical telephone call,
> but instead came completely unarmed, with just his wits.
CHESS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP 1972: FISCHER VS. SPASSKY by Larry Evans and
Ken Smith (Simon & Schuster, 1973, page 37:
GAME THREE
"The word here [in Reykjavik -- not New York] is that Bobby Fischer
received an 11th-hour phone call from Henry Kissinger persuading him
to play the third game of his match with Boris Spassky. America's
honor was at stake as well as political relations with Iceland.
Interestingly enough, there is a vociferous minority of Icelanders
agitating for the removal of a U.S. Air Force Base in Reykjavik."
help bot wrote:
> On Oct 4, 8:01 am, Mihai Suba <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> A lot of ad hominem type stuff -- hardly surprising.
>
> What was conspicuously absent was anything of note
> regarding the alleged "game annotations" pointed to in
> a previous link. "Ultimate book of analysis?" Pomp! I
> note that there was virtually nothing in the way of chess
> analysis, apart from a few offhand quips here and there,
> and even when it comes to such quips, I've seen better.
>
> But rather than get bogged down in your silly ad hominem
> mud-bog, let me steer this toward something which may
> be of some interest to readers who are not wacky-yacky-
> doodle.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> The subject of a certain phone call to Bobby Fischer
> arose after a recent article in Chess Life concluded
> that it, and nothing else, stimulated our man Flint to
> fly to Iceland and defend the honor of his country, etc.
>
> Now enter, stage left, a Mr. Suba, who claims that
> the phone call in question came only *after* the hero, BF,
> was already playing in Iceland. Further, it is somehow
> my fault that all of this occurred in the wrong order,
> the article's writer being exempted for reasons unknown.
>
> Here's the problem: Mr. Suba seems to have gotten
> his facts wrong. Insider accounts have the phone call
> *in question* taking place before hero Fischer left,
> although this in no way means that Mr. Kissenger did
> not contact BF later (for instance, as described by Mr.
> Suba), when he tried to chicken out again.
>
> It is crystal-clear from the article in Chess Life that the
> phone call *in question* is the one which was
> supposedly the cattle-prod applied *before* BF left the
> USA. My criticism was simply that other accounts
> matter-of-factly noted that only when the British
> financier intervened by doubling the prize money, did
> BF board a plane for Iceland, and that this was known
> to the article's author, but *deliberately omitted*.
>
> Now, I admit that I don't recall every source of every
> account to which I have just referred, but some key
> names here would be Anthony Saidy and Leroy Dubeck.
> It was Mr. Saidy's house BF was at when the call from
> Henry Kissenger came in, and that was in New York
> (not Iceland). Some accounts may have it that BF
> "refused the call", but this only strengthens my
> position: that the article's author deliberately
> misconstrued the facts in order to create his illusion
> of heroism.
>
> Those who have grave difficulties with rational thinking
> may still find themselves confused, but I expect most
> readers will be able to see the light. I find it amusing that
> Mr. Parr did not show up with some quotation of GM Larry
> Evans regarding the timing of the critical telephone call,
> but instead came completely unarmed, with just his wits.
>
>
> -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 03:25:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
On Oct 4, 8:01 am, Mihai Suba <[email protected] > wrote:
A lot of ad hominem type stuff -- hardly surprising.
What was conspicuously absent was anything of note
regarding the alleged "game annotations" pointed to in
a previous link. "Ultimate book of analysis?" Pomp! I
note that there was virtually nothing in the way of chess
analysis, apart from a few offhand quips here and there,
and even when it comes to such quips, I've seen better.
But rather than get bogged down in your silly ad hominem
mud-bog, let me steer this toward something which may
be of some interest to readers who are not wacky-yacky-
doodle.
------------------------------
The subject of a certain phone call to Bobby Fischer
arose after a recent article in Chess Life concluded
that it, and nothing else, stimulated our man Flint to
fly to Iceland and defend the honor of his country, etc.
Now enter, stage left, a Mr. Suba, who claims that
the phone call in question came only *after* the hero, BF,
was already playing in Iceland. Further, it is somehow
my fault that all of this occurred in the wrong order,
the article's writer being exempted for reasons unknown.
Here's the problem: Mr. Suba seems to have gotten
his facts wrong. Insider accounts have the phone call
*in question* taking place before hero Fischer left,
although this in no way means that Mr. Kissenger did
not contact BF later (for instance, as described by Mr.
Suba), when he tried to chicken out again.
It is crystal-clear from the article in Chess Life that the
phone call *in question* is the one which was
supposedly the cattle-prod applied *before* BF left the
USA. My criticism was simply that other accounts
matter-of-factly noted that only when the British
financier intervened by doubling the prize money, did
BF board a plane for Iceland, and that this was known
to the article's author, but *deliberately omitted*.
Now, I admit that I don't recall every source of every
account to which I have just referred, but some key
names here would be Anthony Saidy and Leroy Dubeck.
It was Mr. Saidy's house BF was at when the call from
Henry Kissenger came in, and that was in New York
(not Iceland). Some accounts may have it that BF
"refused the call", but this only strengthens my
position: that the article's author deliberately
misconstrued the facts in order to create his illusion
of heroism.
Those who have grave difficulties with rational thinking
may still find themselves confused, but I expect most
readers will be able to see the light. I find it amusing that
Mr. Parr did not show up with some quotation of GM Larry
Evans regarding the timing of the critical telephone call,
but instead came completely unarmed, with just his wits.
-- help bot
|
| |
GREG KENNEDY'S GM ENVY
Grandmaster Suba is learning about Greg
Kennedy's GM-envy, a consuming hatred of those with
longer chess tools. Of course, this includes Fischer.
For the benefit of GM Suba, Mr. Kennedy has told
us that he coulda been a contendah -- coulda been a
Caissic champ rather than a chessic chump -- had he
not been consigned to Indiana.
Our Greg blames Indiana, which he believes is a
cultural wasteland, for his difficulties in chess. We
think he spent too many years reading comic books, a
boast he has made in the past, rather than developing
his mind. For him, the ancients and the greats are
intellectual terra incognita.
Yours, Larry Parr
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Oct 3, 11:05 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In another thread, Sanny reked that a recent
> > victory by Taylor "Zebediah" Kingston was the best
> > game he had ever seen at GetClub.
>
> For the record, Taylor Kingston is not Zebediah.
>
> Mihai, don't waste your time arguing with helpbot. He does not argue
> for any good reason or purpose, he just likes to contradict everyone.
> He is not worth the time you've been giving him here.
>
> Taylor Kingston
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 12:38:11
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
On Oct 3, 11:05 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> In another thread, Sanny reked that a recent
> victory by Taylor "Zebediah" Kingston was the best
> game he had ever seen at GetClub.
For the record, Taylor Kingston is not Zebediah.
Mihai, don't waste your time arguing with helpbot. He does not argue
for any good reason or purpose, he just likes to contradict everyone.
He is not worth the time you've been giving him here.
Taylor Kingston
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 07:53:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 10, 8:27 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > Not being able to recall every detail of every one of 50 games
> > > played 14 to 18 months ago, I won't say categorically that what you
> > > assert did not happen
>
> > There you are. Unless you will say categorically
> > that it never happened, you will understand what a
> > waste of my time it would be to do your requested
> > "research" project.
>
> *_My _* "requested research"?? Bot, you're the one who's claiming a
> certain thing happened. You're even framing it almost as an
> accusation. In such a case, it is _your_ responsibility to prove
> _your_ point, not mine to disprove it.
> I'm not requesting you to do any research. I'm just laughing at how
> ridiculous you look acting like your worthless memory is worth a cup
> of warm spit.
----------
I recall no such incident during my 50-win streak, which ran from 29
May to 26 August, 2006. Again, bot, I suggest that you seek evidence
for such assertions via google search, rather than relying your highly
fallible memory.
----------
Brain fart?
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 06:27:44
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: GetClub
|
On Oct 10, 2:12 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 9, 1:37 pm, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Like IM Innes and his ratpacker brethren, a flat
> > > > > denial is carefully avoided,
>
> > > > A flat denial of what?
>
> > > A flat denial in which the party of the first part, TK,
> > > flatly denies that he ever "lost" a game at GetClub
> > > and then talked Sanny, the party of the second
> > > part, to go back and fix the error.
>
> > But I have already answered that question.
>
> Virtually a direct quote of IM Innes! LOL
>
> Whenever the great nearly-an-IM is called, he
> automatically replies that he has already answered
> the question (an evasion, rather than a retreat).
>
> > "I seem to recall that you, like me, lost a game during this
> > purported "streak"; like me, you complained
> > here in rgc until Sanny gave up and manually changed the result."
>
> > And I replied:
>
> > "I recall no such incident
>
> A denial of recall -- ala a certain former President.
>
> That is not the droid I'm after. There is absolutely
> no way for me (or anyone, for that matter) to refute
> such a weak denial. Moreover, what I am doing is
> discussing what happened in reality, while this is
> a sort of redirect into discussion of TK's memories,
> his ability to recall them, and so forth (boring!).
>
> > Not being able to recall every detail of every one of 50 games
> > played 14 to 18 months ago, I won't say categorically that what you
> > assert did not happen
>
> There you are. Unless you will say categorically
> that it never happened, you will understand what a
> waste of my time it would be to do your requested
> "research" project.
*_My _* "requested research"?? Bot, you're the one who's claiming a
certain thing happened. You're even framing it almost as an
accusation. In such a case, it is _your_ responsibility to prove
_your_ point, not mine to disprove it.
I'm not requesting you to do any research. I'm just laughing at how
ridiculous you look acting like your worthless memory is worth a cup
of warm spit.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Oct 2007 19:24:11
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Oct 3, 11:05 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In another thread, Sanny reked that a recent
>> victory by Taylor "Zebediah" Kingston was the best
>> game he had ever seen at GetClub.
>
> For the record, Taylor Kingston is not Zebediah.
I'll believe that when I see Zebediah assert it.
--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 19:25:14
From: Mihai Suba
Subject: Re: unhelpful bot
|
On Oct 4, 4:32 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> UNHELPFUL BOT
>
> Dear Mihai,
>
> You must understand that Help Bog (aka Greg Kennedy) is essentially a
> failed player who over the years has demonstrated GM envy. His
> favorite targets are players like Evans, Kasparov and Keene.
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Larry (if my guess is right),
Thanks for giving me a hint and a hand.
I remembered Nimzovich's "one cannot flog ..."
A dead horse is following me elsewhere, perverting every half word
which I dare post.
I had understood; in such a (now growing) company, that is quite a
honour.
|
| |
UNHELPFUL BOT
Dear Mihai,
You must understand that Help Bog (aka Greg Kennedy) is essentially a
failed player who over the years has demonstrated GM envy. His
favorite targets are players like Evans, Kasparov and Keene.
Mihai Suba wrote:
> My God, the guy has changed the subject!
> I didn't know the trick, good for him!
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 14:25:48
From: Mihai Suba
Subject: Re: unhelpful bot
|
My God, the guy has changed the subject!
I didn't know the trick, good for him!
|
| |
Date: 04 Oct 2007 13:01:25
From: Mihai Suba
Subject: Re: Spiteful Suba
|
On Oct 4, 5:05 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mihai Suba wrote:
> > Very prolific and aggressive, always disposed to combat anything and
> > anybody.
> > Main weapons:"truncated quoting".
>
> Read the FAQ; it is *not* proper netiquette to quote the
> entirety of a prior posting of any length; we are instructed
> to quote only that portion to which we are responding.
>
> This also makes it much clearer as to what, exactly, we
> are responding. The ultimate example of what can happen
> when there is no snipping, was seen back when the inimitable
> Dr. Blair first started his quote/archiving campaign.
>
> > Please note: When I start a topic, I can choose whatever to add or no.
> > People were happy with my comments on WCC Mexico 2007http://chesscircle.net
> > A user can add his opinion or piece of information, correct a wrong
> > one, etc. I just wrote an overview and some annotations to help other
> > players get into it; I didn't attack or insult anybody.
>
> LOL. You obviously insulted chess programmers
> when you boldly pronounced that *all* programs played
> like beginners in the endgame (a gross exaggeration).
>
> I saw a link to another forum, where we were supposed
> to be able to read game annotations; when I searched
> around, what I found (and I may have missed plenty)
> was offhand reks like "I was too late to place a bet
> on Leko" or "they're all beginners in the endgame". If
> this is your idea of game annotations, then we are from
> different planets. I do appreciate commentary like that,
> but I would never give a link to such "work" in another
> forum, as it raises hopes and expectations, only to have
> them crumble to the ground needlessly. Them ain't no
> stinkin' game annotations, man!
>
> You certainly have the right to write such commentary,
> just as I have the right to comment on your comments,
> like it or not.
>
> > IMO I'm enough competent to do so and be in tune with 99% of the
> > readers. I was writing for them
>
> Yet you posted a link *here*, and clearly indicated
> game annotations, not just offhand reks.
>
> > not for maniac fault-finders.
>
> Grow some skin, fella. You insult too easily.
>
> The first time an "interviewer" harried one GM
> regarding *why* he did not play Fritzy's suggested
> move, he got all antsy and responded in anger to
> "just stick to his actual moves". This is looking a
> bit like an instant replay.
>
> If you were not so thin-skinned, I would ask you
> straight out: did I miss the annotations? Were they
> there, somewhere? But I think I already know the
> answer: you consider such offhand reks to be
> valuable "annotations", because *you* wrote them.
>
> In another thread, Sanny reked that a recent
> victory by Taylor "Zebediah" Kingston was the best
> game he had ever seen at GetClub. The very next
> post stated that it was crap, noting "blunders by
> both sides". Would you like some links? These
> are not game annotations; they are merely offhand
> reks, and of precious little value. The one thing
> I learned from reading all those posts? That you
> are quite often too late to get a bet in.
>
> -- help bot
On Oct 4, 5:05 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mihai Suba wrote:
> > Very prolific and aggressive, always disposed to combat anything and
> > anybody.
> > Main weapons:"truncated quoting".
>
> Read the FAQ; it is *not* proper netiquette to quote the
> entirety of a prior posting of any length; we are instructed
> to quote only that portion to which we are responding.
>
> This also makes it much clearer as to what, exactly, we
> are responding. The ultimate example of what can happen
> when there is no snipping, was seen back when the inimitable
> Dr. Blair first started his quote/archiving campaign.
>
> > Please note: When I start a topic, I can choose whatever to add or no.
> > People were happy with my comments on WCC Mexico 2007http://chesscircle.net
> > A user can add his opinion or piece of information, correct a wrong
> > one, etc. I just wrote an overview and some annotations to help other
> > players get into it; I didn't attack or insult anybody.
>
> LOL. You obviously insulted chess programmers
> when you boldly pronounced that *all* programs played
> like beginners in the endgame (a gross exaggeration).
>
> I saw a link to another forum, where we were supposed
> to be able to read game annotations; when I searched
> around, what I found (and I may have missed plenty)
> was offhand reks like "I was too late to place a bet
> on Leko" or "they're all beginners in the endgame". If
> this is your idea of game annotations, then we are from
> different planets. I do appreciate commentary like that,
> but I would never give a link to such "work" in another
> forum, as it raises hopes and expectations, only to have
> them crumble to the ground needlessly. Them ain't no
> stinkin' game annotations, man!
>
> You certainly have the right to write such commentary,
> just as I have the right to comment on your comments,
> like it or not.
>
> > IMO I'm enough competent to do so and be in tune with 99% of the
> > readers. I was writing for them
>
> Yet you posted a link *here*, and clearly indicated
> game annotations, not just offhand reks.
>
> > not for maniac fault-finders.
>
> Grow some skin, fella. You insult too easily.
>
> The first time an "interviewer" harried one GM
> regarding *why* he did not play Fritzy's suggested
> move, he got all antsy and responded in anger to
> "just stick to his actual moves". This is looking a
> bit like an instant replay.
>
> If you were not so thin-skinned, I would ask you
> straight out: did I miss the annotations? Were they
> there, somewhere? But I think I already know the
> answer: you consider such offhand reks to be
> valuable "annotations", because *you* wrote them.
>
> In another thread, Sanny reked that a recent
> victory by Taylor "Zebediah" Kingston was the best
> game he had ever seen at GetClub. The very next
> post stated that it was crap, noting "blunders by
> both sides". Would you like some links? These
> are not game annotations; they are merely offhand
> reks, and of precious little value. The one thing
> I learned from reading all those posts? That you
> are quite often too late to get a bet in.
>
> -- help bot
Whatever I did, offhand or not, I did SOMETHING!
Never pretended to be an ultimate book of analysis, never promissed
"would be analyses to the like of an unhelpful bot".
To things that make you unhappy about GMs, I think I answered quite
explicitely (Sunny and GetClub topics) and won't come back.
I see no instant replay, my voice was not angry, just a lot stronger,
I didn't ask for discipline, just for a wake up. Now I agree with you,
that we are from different planets.
If you are just practicing for a classical carrier, you should know
that "truncated quoting" (in my meaning, not the ruled one you
mention; somewhere else I gave you an example so easy to understand!)
and cutting an asertion out of its context is at least unfair,
whatever they forgot to mention in FAQ.
Nevertheless (or therefore), you go on with this technique.
I think I was looking from Rybka's POV when I said "series of
blunders" although a jump of +- 0.5 on such level is like leaving the
queen en prix on a lower level. Many strong players would have
perceived "dubiousness" at least. I also meant that programs are prone
to gross blunders in simple endgames. Should I apologise to the
programs? Many authors would be happy to collect such reks and work
them out.
"The one thing I learned from reading all those posts? That you are
quite often too late to get a bet in."
In a chess circle one could feel pity, if it wasn't for your less than
humble tone combined with your good command on English (although you
didn't apologise the wrong use of indefinite article!). As I suggested
you on other occasion, "why don't you use it for constructive
purposes?" instead of sticking to me like a burr while vomiting your
patzeromania.
In one post you hardly attack the greatest (and the last INDIVIDUAL
World Champion IMO), not the present poor man, but the 1972 - Fischer
(Should I say "Blank"?) Thanks for the company anyway!.
For the aforementioned classic career, one should also learn that
"acronia" is a figure of speech proper for figurative, not for
"proofing".
You wanted to proof Fischer was "after money" and nothing of
"patriotism". Your "proof" consisted in time mismatching the Slater
offer with a Kissinger plead.
The Slater offer, to double the prize fund, was BEFORE the start of
the match in Rejkjavik, while the alledged phone call of Kissinger was
AFTER the second game, when Fischer intended to leave. Without your
acronia, the two things proof the contrary of what you said. Fischer
was longing for RESPECT, and you can get innumerable facts speaking
for it. The money meant something for him only in the environments
which very much confound the two concepts; and yet, never accepted
money if he perceived being "used" instead of "respected". If there
are many "authority defiers" like you, over there, kicking him
permanently, even if I do not agree with all he had done, I can
explain it.
I could also understand you, if grown up in the "post-Fischer" period
and fed up with "professional" views. Yassa told me that most of the
US living-on-chess guys, hated Fischer for giving up, They believed
that if he'd go on with bearing his cross, they'd all be millionaires
instead of living on charities. Who and to what extent was after
money?
Where is your "(chess) patriotism" when denigrating the only American
World Champion?
|
| |
Date: 03 Oct 2007 20:05:36
From: help bot
Subject: Spiteful Suba
|
Mihai Suba wrote:
> Very prolific and aggressive, always disposed to combat anything and
> anybody.
> Main weapons:"truncated quoting".
Read the FAQ; it is *not* proper netiquette to quote the
entirety of a prior posting of any length; we are instructed
to quote only that portion to which we are responding.
This also makes it much clearer as to what, exactly, we
are responding. The ultimate example of what can happen
when there is no snipping, was seen back when the inimitable
Dr. Blair first started his quote/archiving campaign.
> Please note: When I start a topic, I can choose whatever to add or no.
> People were happy with my comments on WCC Mexico 2007 http://chesscircle.net
> A user can add his opinion or piece of information, correct a wrong
> one, etc. I just wrote an overview and some annotations to help other
> players get into it; I didn't attack or insult anybody.
LOL. You obviously insulted chess programmers
when you boldly pronounced that *all* programs played
like beginners in the endgame (a gross exaggeration).
I saw a link to another forum, where we were supposed
to be able to read game annotations; when I searched
around, what I found (and I may have missed plenty)
was offhand reks like "I was too late to place a bet
on Leko" or "they're all beginners in the endgame". If
this is your idea of game annotations, then we are from
different planets. I do appreciate commentary like that,
but I would never give a link to such "work" in another
forum, as it raises hopes and expectations, only to have
them crumble to the ground needlessly. Them ain't no
stinkin' game annotations, man!
You certainly have the right to write such commentary,
just as I have the right to comment on your comments,
like it or not.
> IMO I'm enough competent to do so and be in tune with 99% of the
> readers. I was writing for them
Yet you posted a link *here*, and clearly indicated
game annotations, not just offhand reks.
> not for maniac fault-finders.
Grow some skin, fella. You insult too easily.
The first time an "interviewer" harried one GM
regarding *why* he did not play Fritzy's suggested
move, he got all antsy and responded in anger to
"just stick to his actual moves". This is looking a
bit like an instant replay.
If you were not so thin-skinned, I would ask you
straight out: did I miss the annotations? Were they
there, somewhere? But I think I already know the
answer: you consider such offhand reks to be
valuable "annotations", because *you* wrote them.
In another thread, Sanny reked that a recent
victory by Taylor "Zebediah" Kingston was the best
game he had ever seen at GetClub. The very next
post stated that it was crap, noting "blunders by
both sides". Would you like some links? These
are not game annotations; they are merely offhand
reks, and of precious little value. The one thing
I learned from reading all those posts? That you
are quite often too late to get a bet in.
-- help bot
|
|
