|
 |
|
 |
|
Re: Creativity vs. mechanization
|
|
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:24:54 -0700 (PDT), help bot <...@hotmail.com
Who does Dr. IMnes imagine has claimed
that?
The job of rgc petty pedant was already
filled some time ago; sorry. Let this be a
lesson to you-- not to procrastinate.
Interesting attempt to discuss /anything
but/ what was actually said! One gets the
impression of psychological discomfort
with reasoned criticism.
A hint, please? Did they cheat, or what.
I will throw out a wild guess-- they moved
quickly, not hanging pieces? (I don't count
all those pieces Mr. Tal /deliberately/ hung.)
Various? ECO is /comprehensive/, not
a mere random sampling.
In one sense, this recommendation of
BF's reveals his maniacal devotion to
the game, for no ordinary player wants to
devote /that much/ time and effort, just to
improve at one game. Contrast this
approach to the suggestion that a player
should simply study tactics, for instance.
Not true; I merely mention the rank of
nearly-an-IM (which I expect is about
three levels beyond the reach of Dr.
IMnes, who is in fact a low Expert.
Check my math, though: low Master
is +1 level; low SM is +2; low IM would
then be +3 levels-- I was right! Or is
it possible that in Vermont, an SM is
equivalent to an IM?
Here in Indiana, we have just one IM--
Emory Tate, and he used to frequent
the 2450 area; but lately, things are
tough all over, and he is dangerously
close to our 2350ish players. I wonder
if in the New York City geographical
area, a typical IM is closer to ~2500.
And /why/ do you think this about your
vast superiors?
Taylor Kingston? I already know who
"The Historian" is, but this is the first I've
heard of "The "A" player.
Enemies! Not partners. My job is to
*destroy* them (OTB, of course).
Actually, the subject was about playing
like an automaton, versus creativity. Try
to keep up, old man.
Dr. IMnes unwittingly contradicts himself,
yet again (yawn); as we know, he has in
the past, attempted to maintain that I am
/not/ a chess player. Some people just
can't ever seem to get /anything/ right.
First, you must defeat Mr. Sloan, who,
as you know, is afraid to play me! My,
boy, one must learn to overcome one's
fears-- even irrational ones, such as
dreading the consequences of a deva-
stating, Brockian loss to an rgc madman.
I am not worried about Who (whom I'm
told is still on first base). I'm worried
about Emory Tate-- a sort of souped up
Sam Sloan with 400 more rating points,
and an openings repertoire which
includes gambits never before seen,
invented to mimick the style of Mikhail
Tal in his youth!
-- help bot
|
| |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 24, 2:24 am, help bot <...@hotmail.com
Unfortunately, my often sensible colleague, kelp-pot has gone off the
deep end once more, so that everything that follows is plain old
resentment and envy. Not only can Kelp-pot not own his own name, now
he can't own other peoples words.
I would say that two Fischer instances are sufficient to make my point
that he was into creating an overwhelming complexity.
The first must be his 3rd game against Taimanov which no super-
computer solved in 25 years - not even Kasparov solved it. AND I had
the opportunity to ask Fischer for his own analysis following
Taimanov's refutation of the position, and that opening line. Fischer
had nothing to say.
The second instance is Fischer Spassky and the outrageous Knight
manoeuvre to the K-side h-file, which Spassky messed up - but was
proven quite flawed by the watching GMs after the game.
And here we have our 'reasoned discussion' to which I have replied
with 'psychological discomfort'. :)
I suppose I am in good company with Taimanov and all those Rejavik GM
commentators, at least I am strong enough a player to understand
them ;)
Phil Innes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 22:03:15 -0700 (PDT), help bot <...@hotmail.com
Rubbishing others, still? Habits can
be ever so difficult to break, can't they.
It is good of you to (finally) make some
point or other, and not merely rubbish
everyone whose opinion is not a perfect
match to your bosses'.
The last time I checked, there was no
such thing as "solving" a chess game.
"The" position? How does one, I
wonder, /refute/ a chess position? Let's
ask Fritz. Help bot: Mr. Fritz, how do you
/refute/ a chess position? Fritz: I have no
idea. Have you been talking to that idiot,
Phil Innes, or have you simply *lost your
mind*?
You ought to have asked him about the
Rapture, and what happened to all his
world championship prize winnings.
Interesting duality in the way in which
grandmasters are at first rubbished by
Dr. IMnes, but then later granted the
right of proof-- sans Fritz!
More like a revealing confession of just
how far back the Great Dr. IMnes is stuck
in his time machine. Have you ever won-
dered if there was life /after/ Bobby
Fischer? If the Earth continued to go
'round the Sun, the tides continued their
ebb and flow-- that sort of thing? I think
about it all the time, and imagine a world
in which delusionals do not exist, but I
invariably wake up only to find myself
right back here-- like in the movie,
Groundhog Day.
That's right-- you better hide! Even the
Great Mr. Sloan fears me.
What quoted text? Where?
-- help bot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 25, 1:03 am, help bot <...@hotmail.com
For someone who for years wrote anon abuse in rgcc, that's a bit rich.
If you think you are rubbished my telling the truth then I suppose you
will feel put upon - but it is you who habitually puts others down,
and as above, mention of strong players really sends you. Back to the
chess?
I wasn't rubbishing anyone to mention Taimanov's opinion, nor a
coterie of GMs in Iceland. Unless of course, to state their
understanding is to 'rubbish' your own.
Really? Checked with whom? Surely with best play one side can resolve
[solve] a position, even in Indiana?
I put the position up about 4 months ago, remember Qh3... ?!?!?
I must suspect that a move by one player would refute that of another
even in Indiana - and I must ask you to take the leap and connect the
dots that the position refuted is the position arrived at by Fischer.
Thank you for sharing - but please return on chess, not your usual
drivel about personalities, that is, your resentment of them, just
because they, [we] are stronger players than you and speak our truths
doesn't mean we are out to get you. In fact, we hardly know you exist,
so it is irrational to take it any more personally than a passing
thunderstorm over the plains is out to get you personally. That would
be a tad parano, no?
What?
Taimanov agreed with me when I asked him if he and Fischer had
developed a position which was perhaps the most complex in the C20th.
This, I ask Kelp-ego to notice, is not a comment about personalities
as it is about chess art.
How interesting, but I am not your therapist.
I doubt an ego of that dimension would even notice one of yours. But
you are gaining on him!.
Phil Innes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:13:02 -0700 (PDT), help bot <...@hotmail.com
I don't follow; how can something *I* wrote
be "a bit rich", based on your years of labor
in rgc? And what the heck does "a bit rich"
mean?
Nobody claimed /that/. The rubbishing part
was where you kept insisting that no famous
grandmasters had been able to do the im-
possible-- solve or refute things which are
insolvable or irrefutable. One might as well
as them to ride a pink elephant up to the
clouds.
Dr. IMnes' first instinct when thinking of
checking facts is to look around for an
authority figure. (What does this tell us
about him? Maybe that he is not in the
habit of thinking for himself. Maybe this
explains his grave difficulties when
forced by circumstance to do so.)
What entity do you imagine can accomplish
this sort of miracle in, say, a complex middle
game position?
Here in Indiana, we rely upon the famous
endgame table bases to resolve simple
chess positions, involving fewer than seven
men. Beyond that, it is mere opinion, but
then, some /wholly objective/ analysts can
be relied upon to weigh in, without any of
the funky, human biases we have grown
accustomed to. I am speaking here of
Fritz and Rybka-- tacticians extraordinaire,
but mere flounder without their openings
books.
Were this an email discussion, I would
answer "yes, I remember". Of course,
this is actually a newsgroup discussion,
and many of Dr. IMnes' readers will have
absolutely no idea of what he is babbling
on about. That was my point, along with
identifying the obvious errors in choice of
terminology.
Once again, Dr. IMnes confuses the issue
by his queer choice of words. Mr. Taimanov
did not "refute" anything; he merely opined
that a certain move would have led to some
difficulties for his opponent, assuming best
play by both sides.
More identity issues. What would Dr. Freud
have said about all these projections and
rubbishings and delusions of grandeur? I
think he might be inclined to ask Dr. IMnes
about his feelings toward his mother and
father, on the assumption that he wished to
marry the former and murder the latter. But
then, Dr. Freud was one sick dude... .
How, exactly, did you translate that last
term into Russian? More interesting to me
is the fact that, ONCE AGAIN, Dr. IMnes is
building on a foundation of mere opinion--
the opinion of one particular authority figure.
How easy it is to fool oneself into thinking
that all such authority figures are reliable,
and that they do not often disagree. The
pages of history are littered with examples
wherein authority was ultimately proved to
be not only mistaken, but utterly and
inexorably mistaken (as with the many
trials wherein authority figures weighed
people to see if they were witches or not).
Pretending that Mr. Sloan has not already
complained of my attentions is not going
to fool anyone. The fact remains, while
Mr. Sloan has challenged titanic egoists
from Vermont to face him over the board,
he would not DARE try that with me, for I
would stomp all over him, like an elephant
stomps on a mouse.
Rgc regulars know who it is that ran like
frightened children upon hearing the foot-
steps of the Great Sam Sloan. They
know that somewhere out there are two
cowards who, by way of representation,
have given the state of Vermont a bad
name. They know that the chap from
Chicago failed, but at least had the
to face the enemy, man to man. One
begins to wonder if there really are any
men in Vermont; maybe it is a place
populated entirely by women, girls and
frightened little boys? Probably not,
but thus far, we've seen no substantive
evidence to the contrary in rgc.
-- help bot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 25, 8:13 pm, help bot <...@hotmail.com
you don't admit?
because it is, and because like a lesser Sloan, its all about you not
any topic - you see, you have made all issues to do with your opinion,
not your knowledge, or sharing of it. that is a brief clinical
definition.
but how soon you skirt your previous years of anonymity - Rolf and I
were onto you from the start as a *type* and you continue it here, as
it replaces character, which it resoundingly does not
sorry, you would say, despite your 'heck', and the usual euphemistic
cursing of repressives, you is a dog doan hunt
Since there is only us two in this, is your nobody yourself?
What did you 'claim'?
Surely a paraphrase? Otherwise you would have engaged what I did say,
not your treatment of it
One might as well address one's chess comments to clouds as you - that
is where you take your wit.
It tells the reader that Dr Imnes seeks authoritative figures to cite
for his views, and it also tells the readers that kelp-snot is a bit
conflicted about this authority thing
Form a person can't own his own fucking name, that's a bit rich. Sorry
for cursing at you, but you are a fucking shit in the honesty line,
eh? This is a guy who prefers a pseudo computer ID to his own name and
[for 10 years]
R
O
F
L
!
wants to address owning comments [other people only]
What a farce of a person is this = someone who played in the same
league as me once, and 500 points lighter [!] , still wants to use
this peculiar rhetorical means about chess rating to assert his own
chess appreciation -heavy on negative rhetoric <sniggerSloan, didn't dare show up and play normal chess with others as many
of us in these newsgroups have done together, against each other and
on teams, so he gotta mouth off about his sad reasons why he could
not... et cetera
a reasonably strong player like myself, not yourself since you make no
individual or evident effort to understand, get it, patzer? that's the
boys from the men, right there
and that is the wit of our sage of Indiana - he has not wit nor
insight, he has massive envy of even such as even my superiority over
him, and from this, has little hesitation in putting down the insight
of Taimanov and Fischer too, so pretends to joke about it, while
resorting to his computer's tablebases, which he does not understand,
if he did, he wouldn't need 'em!
kelp-not is a net habituee who has previously acted anonymously to
trash people in computer chess from his 'brave' anonymity [4 years at
that], and here ['nother 6 years] extends his prowess to me,Taimanov,
Fischer, and the 'whole gang of us' who are against him, who he terms
ratpackers or some phrase he uses about other people.
pfft!
what a waste of anyone's time to address this nameless coward, who is
very willing to distort and report his distortion of others;' names,
but had fuck to say about his major criticisms in chessic terms
another net-chess jerk, and if you love him he is all yours
Phil Innes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:10:20 -0700 (PDT), help bot <...@hotmail.com
Uh-oh, it looks like I've uncovered the nasty
side of Dr. IMnes, once again. Once you
brush away the superficial gloss and get to
the nitty gritty underneath, you find little else
than filth and a thick coat of slime plastered
thereon. It reminds one of what happens
when a toilet is not cleaned regularly, and
the flushing mechanism is broken. This
looks like a job for Roto-Rooter... .
-- help bot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 26, 12:10 am, help bot <...@hotmail.com
Actually, I am just pointing out your behavior, personal and private
for a dozen years. I also see you cut the bit about being a hidden
voice on rgcc, which is possibly prudent on your part, since law suits
are flying.
When in a chess discussion about creativity some fuck-wit wants to
talk toilets, slime, and so on?
And there you have your classic projection by someone who does what he
does 'cause he is afraid to talk chess, in case someone like himself
hurts his sensitive soul.
Greg Kennedy is this guy's name, and here is his contribution to
creativity, reductio ad toilet-talk
Phil Innes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:25:32 +1000, madams <...@bluesky.au
What was the hoosier's previous pseudonym? - Does anyone recall? My
memory fails me on this triviality bot it nevertheless niggles somewhat,
so pls. post it here if you know..
Of course, we all know of the vulturine & parasitical set's fondness for
fine wine & foie-gras where others must needs make do with liverwurst;
bot does this really mean the frightened curtailment of uninhibited
discourse here on free rgc? - We shall see..
Or more properly, the likely outcome if one approached a fresh steaming
turd with sure intent, a pastry brush & some damar varnish - if only to
contest Mr Schmoe's assertion that "polishing a turd" is some kind of
'impossibility'..
Well, & no horse-shit mind, I'd have to agree with fil - that the
so-called 'toilet-humour' is of limited value & very much a matter of
taste. No bs..
m.
> > -- help bot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
On Apr 26, 10:25 pm, madams <...@bluesky.au
several, but also more sophisticated interdiction, a shared identity
with at least two personalities, and while these could be 'sides' of
the same person...
ay - but like all newsgroups, they become inhabited by people who
simply project their disappointments in life onto others, and are no
fair attempt to speak about your own experience with others - which
IMO is the [potential] joy of the medium - to connect! [said Spinoza]
but at least not to whine all the time about other's achievements in
order to sustain some self respect - this though should be noted as a
self-defence mechanism to massively internalized mannerisms - and
though not talking clinically, a likely splitting of the personality
in wanting to (a) maintain things the way they like it, and (b) an
equal liking for a self-assessed need to shake it all up by engaging
others
that is, after all, what the general experience of chess playing is
about for most people, no?
phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Fri, 01 May 2009 16:54:01 +1000, madams <...@bluesky.au
.
Well, I suppose so old man..
What is the state of play of ye olde wood pile? much depleted & almost
gone or will there be some left over for next Autumn?..
Bleedin' chilly here now. 10 degrees & clean blue skies with the famous
sun, but cold out of it..
m.
> > > > -- help bot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|