|
Main
Date: 30 Mar 2007 14:27:04
From: Pono Fan
Subject: Is there a forced win for White?
|
8/8/4r3/2k3P1/8/3R4/3K1N2/8 w - - 0 63 wKd2,Nf2,Rd3,Pg5/bKc5,Re6 or http://mychessanalysis.tripod.com/images/
|
|
|
Date: 19 Apr 2007 18:24:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
On Apr 5, 6:54 pm, "I was better but....." <[email protected] > wrote: > [PLONK] to you to Chriss. You're not even a chess player. Fuck off and throw > yourself off a bridge. Don't do it; it's a trick. Skippy Repa and his kind live under bridges. -- coach
|
|
Date: 19 Apr 2007 18:18:51
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
On Apr 4, 12:08 pm, "I was better but....." <[email protected] > wrote: > I'm going to explain it to this 1500 rated imbecile "Ralf Callenberg" again, > because he hasn't got to concept into his pea brain yet. > > Notation (algebraic or descriptive) It's the language that > chess players, real chess players, use to communicate chess moves, positions > and analysis, etc. They don't say things like "move that castle over there" > or "you just put that horsey guy behind that pawn there". They use NOTATION! > > Is some of this sinking in yet "Ralf"? I know you're a bit on the slow side > so perhaps you'll need it repeated a few more times. Skippy, you are obviously in one of your hothead tiffs, and have forgotten to take your hand away from the mouse after clicking "send" the first time. Try to relax, Skip. As the doctors have explained over and over, no one is really out to get you; this is merely a delusion of yours. Take a deep breath and relax; don't tense up; and remember to take your meds. That's better. -- coach
|
|
Date: 19 Apr 2007 18:12:52
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
On Apr 3, 4:17 pm, "I was better but....." <[email protected] > wrote: > I highly doubt someone as patently stubborn and stupid as you will ever make > it beyond the "C" class. Skippy, if *you* could do it, anybody can! -- coach
|
|
Date: 19 Apr 2007 18:09:13
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
On Apr 3, 1:30 pm, "I was better but....." <[email protected] > wrote: > > Jason Repa. He has got a (Canadian) rating of about 2000 and thinks > > this makes him something like a chess god > > It's God, imbecile. Not "god". Sorry, Skippy, but you're wrong here. God is capitalized when it refers to "the one true god", as in Yaweh/Jehovah/he who ain't got no name. But whenever discussing, say, the Greek gods, or just any old random god, it is not capitalized. Examples: "Bobby Fischer is/was a chess god!" "Zeus and the other gods were not faithful as spouses." (You sure seem to get out of our depth easily and often, Skip!) > And my 2000+ rating is what it is. YOU on the > other hand "Ralf" are a 1500 rated IDIOT and you will NEVER be anywhere near > 2000. You don't have the mental prerequisites for the game. Interesting theory. Lazlo Polgar set out to prove that (almost) anybody could be *trained* to become good at chess, but then, one could argue that his three girls were unusually st. Still, you serve as an excellent counterexample, being of low IQ and yet having a certain talent for the fast game. I see you're still posing, um, I mean posting under a multitude of different handles; do you remember what I taught you about not doing this while simultaneously whining about others doing it? I hope so. Just take your meds and everything will be A-okay. -- coach
|
|
Date: 19 Apr 2007 17:54:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
On Apr 3, 4:48 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > On 3 Apr., 08:56, "Terry" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Who is this wanker ??? > > Jason Repa. He has got a (Canadian) rating of about 2000 and thinks > this makes him something like a chess god (an angry one, that is). And > as you might have guessed in the meantime: he has some weak spots in > communicating with other persons. Don't sell Skippy short: he's pretty good at bullet- chess, too. Uses cussin' and spittin' to throw 'em off kilter, so's he can win on time. Funny thing about him, though, is he issues challenges left and right but can't ever seem to show up to play. -- coach
|
|
Date: 19 Apr 2007 17:50:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
On Apr 2, 12:10 pm, "I was better but....." <[email protected] > wrote: > You are an idiot, but you don't have a 2100 Fide rating, so you're half > right. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT NOTATION IS YOU STUPID FUCK! Hello Skippy. How's it hangin'? > Posting some player's name who does have a FIDE rating does not make you a > FIDE rated player. Get to 130 bcf first Terry. That alone would be a huge > accomplishment for a moron like you. Still off your meds, I see. -- coach
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 17:25:24
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
I don't reply to know-nothing, frightened, snivelling little cowards who hide behind aliases. As soon as I see the name Help-Bitch I [PLONK] without reading the drivel that spews from the little faggot's keyboard. JMR
|
| | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 20:47:24
From: The Revanchist
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
I was better but..... wrote: >I don't reply to know-nothing, frightened, snivelling little cowards who >hide behind aliases. As soon as I see the name Help-Bitch I [PLONK] without >reading the drivel that spews from the little faggot's keyboard. You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, you couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions printed on the heel. You are a canker, an open wound. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You took your last vacation in the Islets of Langerhans. You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, and a weasel. I take that back; you are a festering pustule on a weasel's rump. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon. I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. You are a technicolor yawn. And did I mention that you smell? You are a squeaking rat, a mistake of nature and a heavy-metal bagpipe player. You were not born. You were hatched into an unwilling world that rejects the likes of you. You didn't crawl out of a normal egg, either, but rather a mutant maggot egg rejected by an evil scientist as being below his low standards. Your alleged parents abandoned you at birth and then died of shame in recognition of what they had done to an unsuspecting world. They were a bit late. Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it ever so much more rapidly. If cluelessness were crude oil, your scalp would be crawling with caribou. You are a thick-headed trog. I have seen skeet with more sense than you have. You are a few bricks short of a full load, a few cards short of a full deck, a few bytes short of a full core dump, and a few chromosomes short of a full human. Worse than that, you top-post. God created houseflies, cockroaches, maggots, mosquitos, fleas, ticks, slugs, leeches, and intestinal parasites, then he lowered his standards and made you. I take it back; God didn't make you. You are Satan's spawn. You are Evil beyond comprehension, half-living in the slough of despair. You are the entropy which will claim us all. You are a green-nostriled, crossed eyed, hairy-livered inbred trout-defiler. You make Ebola look good. You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot. You are not ANSI compliant and your kup doesn't validate. You have a couple of address lines shorted together. You should be promoted to Engineering Manager. Do you really expect your delusional and incoherent ramblings to be read? Everyone plonked you long ago. Do you fantasize that your tantrums and conniption fits could possibly be worth the $0.000000001 worth of electricity used to send them? Your life is one big W.O.M.B.A.T. and your future doesn't look promising either. We need to trace your bloodline and terminate all siblings and cousins in order to cleanse humanity of your polluted genes. The good news is that no normal human would ever mate with you, so we won't have to go into the sewers in search of your git. You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a loathsome disease, a drooling inbred cross-eyed toesucker. You make Quakers shout and strike Pentecostals silent. You have a version 1.0 mind in a version 6.12 world. Your mother had to tie a pork chop around your neck just to get your dog to play with you. You think that HTTP://WWW.GUYMACON.COM/FUN/INSULT/INDEX.HTM is the name of a rock band. You believe that P.D.Q. Bach is the greatest composer who ever lived. You prefer L. Ron Hubbard to Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. Hee-Haw is too deep for you. You would watch test patterns all day if the other inmates would let you. On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. Spammers look down on you. Phone sex operators hang up on you. Teleketers refuse to be seen in public with you. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go. May you choke on your own foolish opinions. You are a Pusillanimous galactophage and you wear your sister's training bra. Don't bother opening the door when you leave - you should be able to slime your way out underneath. I hope that when you get home your mother runs out from under the porch and bites you. You smy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock. You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish foot-licking half-twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You gormless crook-pated tosser. You bloody churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You cockered bum-bailey poofter. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill. May your spouse be blessed with many bastards. You are so clueless that if you dressed in a clue skin, doused yourself in clue musk, and did the clue dance in the middle of a field of horny clues at the height of clue mating season, you still would not have a clue. If you were a movie you would be a double feature; _Battlefield_Earth_ and _Moron_Movies_II_. You would be out of focus. You are a fiend and a sniveling coward, and you have bad breath. You are the unholy spawn of a bandy-legged hobo and a syphilitic camel. You wear strangely mismatched clothing with oddly placed stains. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just knowing that you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go away. You are jetsam who dreams of becoming flotsam. You won't make it. I beg for sweet death to come and remove me from a world which became unbearable when you crawled out of a harpy's lair. It is hard to believe how incredibly stupid you are. Stupid as a stone that the other stones make fun of. So stupid that you have traveled far beyond stupid as we know it and into a new dimension of stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid cubed. Trans-stupid stupid. Stupid collapsed to a singularity where even the stupons have collapsed into stuponium. Stupid so dense that no intelligence can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot summer day on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one minute than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. It cannot be possible that anything in our universe can really be this stupid. This is a primordial fragment from the original big stupid bang. A pure extract of stupid with absolute stupid purity. Stupid beyond the laws of nature. I must apologize. I can't go on. This is my epiphany of stupid. After this experience, you may not hear from me for a while. I don't think that I can summon the strength left to mock your moronic opinions and malformed comments about boring trivia or your other drivel. Duh. The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of your of what you wrote, because, well ... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative flame was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things to be difficult. If I had known that this was true in your case then I would have never have exposed myself to what you wrote. It just wouldn't have been "right." Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you. P.S.: You are hypocritical, greedy, violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly, deadly, mendacious, meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent, opportunistic, barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist, avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane, arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, self-righteous, byzantine, conspiratorial, satanic, fraudulent, libelous, bilious, splenetic, spastic, ignorant, clueless, EDLINoid, illegitimate, harmful, destructive, dumb, evasive, double-talking, devious, revisionist, narrow, manipulative, paternalistic, fundamentalist, dogmatic, idolatrous, unethical, cultic, diseased, suppressive, controlling, restrictive, malignant, deceptive, dim, crazy, weird, dyspeptic, stifling, uncaring, plantigrade, grim, unsympathetic, jargon-spouting, censorious, secretive, aggressive, mind-numbing, arassive, poisonous, flagrant, self-destructive, abusive, socially-retarded, puerile, and Generally Not Good. I hope this helps...
|
|
Date: 19 Apr 2007 17:48:28
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
> An idiot with a 2100 fide rating ???????????? Give me time -- I am working my there! -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 17:25:54
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
I don't reply to know-nothing, frightened, snivelling little cowards who hide behind aliases. As soon as I see the name Help-Bitch I [PLONK] without reading the drivel that spews from the little faggot's keyboard. JMR
|
|
Date: 19 Apr 2007 17:46:33
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
On Apr 2, 2:35 am, "Terry" <[email protected] > wrote: > Oops. > > Rook behind the pawn and then move the king over. Hmm. Rook behind the pawn -- who would have thought of that? -- help bot
|
|
Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
|
|
Date: 10 Apr 2007 05:51:47
From: Harry Houston
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
[Event ""] [Site ""] [Date "4-6-2007"] [Round ""] [White "Chessmaster 10"] [Black "Chessmaster 10"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "oft "] 1. <c5 ^d8 2. <b6 ^f8 3. <c7 ?d3 4. <d6 ?f4 5. ^e7 ^f6+ 6. <d7 g6 7. ^e8 ^f7+ 8. <d6 g7 9. ^g8 ?h5 10. <e6 ^f8 11. ^xg7 ?xg7+ 12. <d5 ^f5+ 13. <c6 ?e8 14. <d7 ^e5 15. <c6 <c3 16. <d7 <b4 17. <c6 <a5 18. <b7 ^c5 19. <a8 ^c7 20. <b8 <b6 21. <a8 ^c8# 1-0 "Pono Fan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 8/8/4r3/2k3P1/8/3R4/3K1N2/8 w - - 0 63 > wKd2,Nf2,Rd3,Pg5/bKc5,Re6 > > or > > http://mychessanalysis.tripod.com/images/ >
|
|
Date: 04 Apr 2007 10:32:55
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
On Apr 4, 6:07 pm, "I was better but....." <[email protected] > wrote: > Notation (algebraic or descriptive) It's the language that > chess players, real chess players, use to communicate chess moves, positions > and analysis, etc. They don't say things like "move that castle over there" > or "you just put that horsey guy behind that pawn there". So, you never heard players during an analysis saying things like "... and the remote passed pawn wins", " white can now exploit the weaknesses of the black squares around the black king", "a minority attack looks good", "white should occupy this open file with the rooks" and so on and so on? Notation is used for concrete moves, but if you go to long ranging ideas and patterns where the concrete move order is not so important, it is common not to use notation but plain words. Is this concept really so difficult for you to understand? Are you really so blinded by your anger and your bad temper, that you can not even see this simple and basic fact? Ralf
|
| |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 18:03:18
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
I'm going to explain it to this 1500 rated imbecile "Ralf Callenberg" again, because he hasn't got to concept into his pea brain yet. Notation (algebraic or descriptive) It's the language that chess players, real chess players, use to communicate chess moves, positions and analysis, etc. They don't say things like "move that castle over there" or "you just put that horsey guy behind that pawn there". They use NOTATION! Is some of this sinking in yet "Ralf"? I know you're a bit on the slow side so perhaps you'll need it repeated a few more times.
|
| |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 11:00:56
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
In article <[email protected] >, "Ralf Callenberg" <[email protected] > wrote: > Are > you really so blinded by your anger and your bad temper, that you can > not even see this simple and basic fact? As somebody said to me recently, Ralf ... "Don't feed the trolls." He's not interested in a discussion. -Ron
|
| | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 04:59:04
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
04.04.2007 20:00, Ron: > He's not interested in a discussion. Sure. But the amount of his ignorance, his complete social incompetence and dumbness is somehow fascinating. He reminds me of those people you can see at trainstations, who are running around, a plastic bag in one hand and shouting at the people passing by, at the government, the sun and the air. I usually try not to go too near to those people, but yet, I wanted to experience at least once how it is to speak to a deceased mind. But of course, you are right. there is no point in continuing this. His freak show gets boring anyway. Greetings, Ralf
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 22:53:57
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"Ralf", you're the imbecile who can't get this simple concept into your little 1500 rated brain......THERE IS A REASON CHESS PLAYERS USE NOTATION!! Notation (algebraic or descriptive) It's the language that chess players, real chess players, use to communicate chess moves, positions and analysis, etc. They don't say things like "move that castle over there" or "you just put that horsey guy behind that pawn there". They use NOTATION! Is some of this sinking in yet "Ralf"? I know you're a bit on the slow side so perhaps you'll need it repeated a few more times.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 18:03:27
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
I'm going to explain it to this 1500 rated imbecile "Ralf Callenberg" again, because he hasn't got to concept into his pea brain yet. Notation (algebraic or descriptive) It's the language that chess players, real chess players, use to communicate chess moves, positions and analysis, etc. They don't say things like "move that castle over there" or "you just put that horsey guy behind that pawn there". They use NOTATION! Is some of this sinking in yet "Ralf"? I know you're a bit on the slow side so perhaps you'll need it repeated a few more times.
|
|
Date: 04 Apr 2007 13:47:44
From: Claudio Grondi
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
Pono Fan wrote: > 8/8/4r3/2k3P1/8/3R4/3K1N2/8 w - - 0 63 > wKd2,Nf2,Rd3,Pg5/bKc5,Re6 > > or > > http://mychessanalysis.tripod.com/images/ > Just learn to use the available endgame database available online: http://www.shredderchess.com/online-chess/online-databases/endgame-database.html White to move, win in 21. Move Value Rd3-g3 Win in 21 Have fun using it! Looking up these online database is an incredible adventure for any chess friend! Claudio Grondi
|
|
Date: 03 Apr 2007 01:48:08
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
On 3 Apr., 08:56, "Terry" <[email protected] > wrote: > Who is this wanker ??? Jason Repa. He has got a (Canadian) rating of about 2000 and thinks this makes him something like a chess god (an angry one, that is). And as you might have guessed in the meantime: he has some weak spots in communicating with other persons. Greetings, Ralf
|
| |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 17:30:38
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 3 Apr., 08:56, "Terry" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Who is this wanker ??? > > Jason Repa. He has got a (Canadian) rating of about 2000 and thinks > this makes him something like a chess god It's God, imbecile. Not "god". And my 2000+ rating is what it is. YOU on the other hand "Ralf" are a 1500 rated IDIOT and you will NEVER be anywhere near 2000. You don't have the mental prerequisites for the game.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 21:12:16
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
03.04.2007 19:30, I was better but.....: > It's God, imbecile. Not "god". Writing the word capitalized or not depends on what one means with "god". Look it up in Merriam-Webster if you don't believe me. Gosh, do I as a German have to teach you English? > And my 2000+ rating is what it is. YOU on the > other hand "Ralf" are a 1500 rated IDIOT and you will NEVER be anywhere near > 2000. You don't have the mental prerequisites for the game. You on the other hand have difficulties in reading and comprehension. It has been pointed out to you already by somebody else, that I have a German rating number of about 2000 and an ELO of about 2100. Not that I regard this as some rekable achievement or that I think that ratings have anything to do with mental abilities, but I just wanted to remember you, that your assumption about my rating is just wrong. Ralf
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 19:42:46
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
Ralf, you are, bar-none, the DUMBEST fucking Geman i've ever met in my life. You start this whole flame thread because you can't get this simple concept called ALGEBRAIC NOTATION into your little pea brain. It's the language that chess players, real chess players, use to communicate chess moves, positions and analysis, etc. They don't say things like "move that castle over there" or "you just put that horsey guy behind that pawn there". They use NOTATION! How incredibly stupid do you have to be to not be able to understand this? And you are nowhere near 2000 and you know it. Your rating is approx. 1500.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 22:23:03
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
03.04.2007 21:42, I was better but.....: > You start this whole flame thread because you can't get this simple concept > called ALGEBRAIC NOTATION into your little pea brain. Well, again I have to question your ability to read and comprehend. You started calling Terry names when he dared to describe his plan in plain words. I entered this nice conversation only afterwards. > It's the language that > chess players, real chess players, use to communicate chess moves, positions > and analysis, etc. As I said: your experience with how chess players discuss a position seems to be limited. > They use NOTATION! Yes, and words. Take a book out of your shelf - you will see a lot of words inbetween the notations and diagrams (ok, except you happened to grab an Informator). > How incredibly stupid do you have to be to not be able to understand this? And how difficult is it four you to understand, that notations are an important but not the only way to discuss a position? > And you are nowhere near 2000 and you know it. Your rating is approx. 1500. http://schachbund.de/dwz/db/spieler.html?zps=22065-103 http://fide.com/ratings/card.phtml?event=4666313 Are you able to follow the links and understand the given numbers or do you need a more detailed description? Shall I make a sketch for you? Ralf
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 16:07:56
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
I'm going to explain it to this 1500 rated imbecile "Ralf Callenberg" again, because he hasn't got to concept into his pea brain yet. Notation (algebraic or descriptive) It's the language that chess players, real chess players, use to communicate chess moves, positions and analysis, etc. They don't say things like "move that castle over there" or "you just put that horsey guy behind that pawn there". They use NOTATION! Is some of this sinking in yet "Ralf"? I know you're a bit on the slow side so perhaps you'll need it repeated a few more times.
|
| |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 11:16:51
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On 3 Apr., 08:56, "Terry" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Who is this wanker ??? > > Jason Repa. He has got a (Canadian) rating of about 2000 and thinks > this makes him something like a chess god (an angry one, that is). And > as you might have guessed in the meantime: he has some weak spots in > communicating with other persons. > > Greetings, > Ralf > > Thanks for the info :-) He cant be as strong as you say. He fails to see that the position under consideration is a trivial win. Even a 1200 can see that. Regards
|
| | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 17:34:50
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
Terry you retarded little cretin troll. Only weak players like yourself are quick to make assumptions about positions, as you have done. This position is far from trivia. It's complex enough that even Rybka 2.3 and Fritz 10 are way off on the assessment, unless they are run for some time. You're a weak, dumb, know-nothing 130 bcf player Terry. You are not in a position to be making sweeping comments when you can't back them up on the board. Chess is a game of skill. There is a reason your rating is so low idiot!
|
|
Date: 31 Mar 2007 09:05:15
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"Pono Fan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 8/8/4r3/2k3P1/8/3R4/3K1N2/8 w - - 0 63 > wKd2,Nf2,Rd3,Pg5/bKc5,Re6 > > or > > http://mychessanalysis.tripod.com/images/ > This is a trivial win for white. Rook behind the king then move the king over. Regards
|
| |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 07:35:38
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"Terry" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "Pono Fan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> 8/8/4r3/2k3P1/8/3R4/3K1N2/8 w - - 0 63 >> wKd2,Nf2,Rd3,Pg5/bKc5,Re6 >> >> or >> >> http://mychessanalysis.tripod.com/images/ >> > > This is a trivial win for white. > > Rook behind the king then move the king over. > > Regards > Oops. Rook behind the pawn and then move the king over. Regards
|
| | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 06:55:06
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"Terry" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "Terry" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> >> "Pono Fan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> 8/8/4r3/2k3P1/8/3R4/3K1N2/8 w - - 0 63 >>> wKd2,Nf2,Rd3,Pg5/bKc5,Re6 >>> >>> or >>> >>> http://mychessanalysis.tripod.com/images/ >>> >> >> This is a trivial win for white. >> >> Rook behind the king then move the king over. >> >> Regards >> > > Oops. > > Rook behind the pawn and then move the king over. > > Regards Terry, you're an idiot that knows nothing at all about chess. You don't even know what algebraic notation is. The position is far from "trivial".
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 00:03:42
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
02.04.2007 08:55, I was better but.....: > > Terry, you're an idiot that knows nothing at all about chess. You don't even > know what algebraic notation is. > > The position is far from "trivial". The positon is obviously trivial due to the extra knight and any decent tournament player should instantly see, how to win this, as one just has to follow some basic recipes even a beginner should know. If you follow the posted link to the Namilov tablebase, you can indeed easily see, that this is exactly the fastest way to win: "put the rook behind the pawn and move the king over". One might add: king and rook can never stop the pawn as the knight can always control the sqaure in front of the pawn. You seem to have a limited experience in tournament play, if you really think, that advanced players won't describe a plan without using algebraic notations. Ralf
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 07:55:38
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"Ralf Callenberg" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 02.04.2007 08:55, I was better but.....: >> >> Terry, you're an idiot that knows nothing at all about chess. You don't >> even know what algebraic notation is. >> >> The position is far from "trivial". > > The positon is obviously trivial due to the extra knight and any decent > tournament player should instantly see, how to win this, as one just has > to follow some basic recipes even a beginner should know. If you follow > the posted link to the Namilov tablebase, you can indeed easily see, that > this is exactly the fastest way to win: "put the rook behind the pawn and > move the king over". One might add: king and rook can never stop the pawn > as the knight can always control the sqaure in front of the pawn. > > You seem to have a limited experience in tournament play, if you really > think, that advanced players won't describe a plan without using algebraic > notations. > > Ralf I play in about 10 otb tournaments a year including 2 fide rated. I saw no point in using any notation as mine was a general way of winning in this type of position. Regards
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 07:22:32
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"Terry" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "Ralf Callenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> 02.04.2007 08:55, I was better but.....: >>> >>> Terry, you're an idiot that knows nothing at all about chess. You don't >>> even know what algebraic notation is. >>> >>> The position is far from "trivial". >> >> The positon is obviously trivial due to the extra knight and any decent >> tournament player should instantly see, how to win this, as one just has >> to follow some basic recipes even a beginner should know. If you follow >> the posted link to the Namilov tablebase, you can indeed easily see, that >> this is exactly the fastest way to win: "put the rook behind the pawn and >> move the king over". One might add: king and rook can never stop the pawn >> as the knight can always control the sqaure in front of the pawn. >> >> You seem to have a limited experience in tournament play, if you really >> think, that advanced players won't describe a plan without using >> algebraic notations. >> >> Ralf > > I play in about 10 otb tournaments a year You can play in all the tournaments you like idiot. Alot of weak patzers like yourself like to push wood. You keep getting your brains bashed in because you're too stupid to learn how to play this game, but you continue to enter tournaments nonetheless. Seriously buddy, if you don't even know what chess notation is (descriptive and algebraic) and why it's what real chess players use to communicate moves and positions, you're totally hopeless. Keep your mouth (keyboard) shut and your eyes open and even a dumb guy like you might just learn something.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 23:45:34
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"Ralf Callenberg" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 02.04.2007 08:55, I was better but.....: >> >> Terry, you're an idiot that knows nothing at all about chess. You don't >> even know what algebraic notation is. >> >> The position is far from "trivial". > > The positon is obviously trivial due to the extra knight The only thing that is obvious here is that you don't know anything about chess Ralf. You're probably a weak class player. Morons like you always like to run around and claim you understand a position but you don't. That's why you're a weak class player and will never make it to expert or master. If you think this position is simple, you truly are a know-nothing patzer. It's not simple at all. And for your information, most positions with Rook and Knight vs Rook are dead drawn. Many with Rook, Knigh, and Pawn vs Rook are dead drawn as well. Shut up, watch, listen, and learn Ralf. You don't know anything.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 22:01:26
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
03.04.2007 01:45, I was better but.....: > And for your information, most positions with Rook and > Knight vs Rook are dead drawn. As this is not a Rook & Knight vs. Rook ending, this information is more or less useless. > Many with Rook, Knigh, and Pawn vs Rook are dead drawn as well. So are many KP-K endings, which doesn't mean that there are no easy wins with the remaining material. Of course one has to look at the concrete position. The white pieces are not distributed over the board, they can work together to support the pawn. It was this grouping of the pieces - that the white King or Knight are not somwhere off the scene - which let me on first glance at the position come to the opinion, that this is won. Afterwards it was not difficult to see in short time how this can be achieved: After Rg3 black might stop the pawn immediately, but then the white King can approach his pawn. Together with the Rook he can cover the pawn, while the Knight attacks the square in front of the pawn. This way the pawn can step forward and there is nothing black can do against it. If Black tries to keep the white King away, White can push the pawn to g7. Without the Knight this would be a draw, as the white King is too far away to support his pawn. In this particular case, one has only to realize, that the Knight must be able to go to h5 once the black King attacks g7. If the King steps to f6, it is enough to have Nf4 due to the fork on h5. This is the only non trivial aspect of the position. Black can not stop White from bringing his Knight to h5. Once this has been done the white King moves over to the pawn to seal things. All this can be deduced from the position without calculating long variations, hence I call it an easy win. In the concrete position there are faster ways of winning based on some threats of forks, but with the described approach one can at least quickly determine that it is won and one is in absolut no danger of miscalculations. A lot of endings have to be calculated very precisely as each tempo might be decisive. But in a lot of positions this is not the case and long plans are required where it is not possible to calculate all variations. Those plans might as well be described with words, as the concrete moves are not foreseeable anyway. Weak players and still sometimes strong programs are not able to grasp those kinds of positions easily, but an advanced tournament player should be able to realize that in a given position he has to think in long term maneuvers and not in variations. Ralf
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 20:17:24
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"Ralf Callenberg" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 03.04.2007 01:45, I was better but.....: >> And for your information, most positions with Rook and Knight vs Rook are >> dead drawn. > > As this is not a Rook & Knight vs. Rook ending, this information is more > or less useless. It is only useless to a 1500 rated's brain who is incapable of interpolating ideas and schemes. GM's do this all the time. They look for what's common about two positions for a framework, then the work out the significance (if any) of the differences. Look idiot, this whole flame you've started is because you're frustrated that you can't understand what chess notation is and why it's important. A "C" class player like yourself should keep your yap shut and your eyes open. >> Many with Rook, Knigh, and Pawn vs Rook are dead drawn as well. > > So are many KP-K endings This is not a KP-K ending imbecile. There are 6 pieces on the board, not three. You cannot make any comparisons between the two. I highly doubt someone as patently stubborn and stupid as you will ever make it beyond the "C" class.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 22:36:58
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
03.04.2007 22:17, I was better but.....: >> As this is not a Rook & Knight vs. Rook ending, this information is more >> or less useless. > > It is only useless to a 1500 rated's brain who is incapable of interpolating > ideas and schemes. GM's do this all the time. They look for what's common > about two positions for a framework, then the work out the significance (if > any) of the differences. Yes exactly - they look at the position. The only argument you have given against the simplicity of the win is based on the number of pieces. You did not mention the pattern at hand - in contrast to what I did in my explanations. Were you able to follow them? > >>> Many with Rook, Knigh, and Pawn vs Rook are dead drawn as well. >> So are many KP-K endings > > This is not a KP-K ending imbecile. You might look up in an encylcopaedia of your choice the concept of what is called "analogy" (you can do this when looking up the difference between "god" and "God"). I just wanted to point out what you yourself say above: you have to look at the position, not just count the pieces and say: "Ah, KNRP-kr - there are a lot of drawn games with this distribution, so this position can not be simple." I looked at how the pieces are actually positioned on the board - and *then* made my judgement. Ralf
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 16:08:14
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
I'm going to explain it to this 1500 rated imbecile "Ralf Callenberg" again, because he hasn't got to concept into his pea brain yet. Notation (algebraic or descriptive) It's the language that chess players, real chess players, use to communicate chess moves, positions and analysis, etc. They don't say things like "move that castle over there" or "you just put that horsey guy behind that pawn there". They use NOTATION! Is some of this sinking in yet "Ralf"? I know you're a bit on the slow side so perhaps you'll need it repeated a few more times.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 21:12:08
From: Chris F.A. Johnson
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
On 2007-04-04, I was better but..... wrote: > I'm going to explain it to this 1500 rated imbecile "Ralf Callenberg" again, > because he hasn't got to concept into his pea brain yet. P-K-B <PLONK > -- Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org > ========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ======== Author: Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Apr 2007 22:54:43
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
[PLONK] to you to Chriss. You're not even a chess player. Fuck off and throw yourself off a bridge.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Apr 2007 12:48:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"Ralf Callenberg" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 03.04.2007 22:17, I was better but.....: <... > > Yes exactly - they look at the position. The only argument you have given > against the simplicity of the win is based on the number of pieces. You > did not mention the pattern at hand - in contrast to what I did in my > explanations. Were you able to follow them? Exactly the right point! Kling&Horwitz-fortress positions were thought drawn for a hundred years, til 72 and Roycroft's analysis. Solve this: Black: Ke5, Ne4 White: Kd7, Bb3, Bh6 White to move, and 150 years of investigation couldn't prove a win until Fritz did. Other KN, KBB positions were also thought drawn, then eventually solved, but the dancing Knight fortress of Kling&Horwitz defeated all attempts. What is interesting about the position above is though it is theoretically provably won, who can actually do it? And if Kasparov didn't solve it, is it a draw in practice but a win in theory? Imgaine you are a TD and confronted with arbitrating the position above, what do you rule? a) A draw within the 50-move [or even 55-move] rule? b) A theoretical win for White? c) A draw, since white is not able to prove his win? d) Take both players to the pub and flip a coin? As well as Ralf's comment on the pattern of the piece deployment being important - here is an added factor of performance, with white not being able to demonstrate a win in a theoretically won position. Phil Innes <... > > > Ralf >
|
| | | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 07:56:37
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"I was better but....." <[email protected] > wrote in message news:yAgQh.18065$6m4.12267@pd7urf1no... > > "Ralf Callenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> 02.04.2007 08:55, I was better but.....: >>> >>> Terry, you're an idiot that knows nothing at all about chess. You don't >>> even know what algebraic notation is. >>> >>> The position is far from "trivial". >> >> The positon is obviously trivial due to the extra knight > > The only thing that is obvious here is that you don't know anything about > chess Ralf. You're probably a weak class player. Morons like you always > like to run around and claim you understand a position but you don't. > That's why you're a weak class player and will never make it to expert or > master. If you think this position is simple, you truly are a know-nothing > patzer. It's not simple at all. And for your information, most positions > with Rook and Knight vs Rook are dead drawn. Many with Rook, Knigh, and > Pawn vs Rook are dead drawn as well. Shut up, watch, listen, and learn > Ralf. You don't know anything. > > > Who is this wanker ???
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2007 20:22:51
From: Chris Mattern
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
In article <[email protected] >, Terry wrote: > >Who is this wanker ??? > Repa has yet another alias. Back into the killfile you go. -- Christopher Mattern NOTICE Thank you for noticing this new notice Your noticing it has been noted And will be reported to the authorities
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Apr 2007 17:26:44
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
Back to the killfile YOU go Mattern. Nice to see the retards like you sticking together! JMR
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 03 Apr 2007 07:18:40
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"Terry" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "I was better but....." <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:yAgQh.18065$6m4.12267@pd7urf1no... >> >> "Ralf Callenberg" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> 02.04.2007 08:55, I was better but.....: >>>> >>>> Terry, you're an idiot that knows nothing at all about chess. You don't >>>> even know what algebraic notation is. >>>> >>>> The position is far from "trivial". >>> >>> The positon is obviously trivial due to the extra knight >> >> The only thing that is obvious here is that you don't know anything about >> chess Ralf. You're probably a weak class player. Morons like you always >> like to run around and claim you understand a position but you don't. >> That's why you're a weak class player and will never make it to expert or >> master. If you think this position is simple, you truly are a >> know-nothing patzer. It's not simple at all. And for your information, >> most positions with Rook and Knight vs Rook are dead drawn. Many with >> Rook, Knigh, and Pawn vs Rook are dead drawn as well. Shut up, watch, >> listen, and learn Ralf. You don't know anything. >> >> >> > > Who is this wanker ??? Someone alot stronger and more knowledgeable about chess, and many other areas than your peabrain will ever allow you to be. Seriously idiot, if you don't even know what chess notation is (descriptive and algebraic) and why it's what real chess players use to communicate moves and positions, you're totally hopeless. > >
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 22:52:58
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
In article <[email protected] >, Ralf Callenberg <[email protected] > wrote: > You seem to have a limited experience in tournament play, if you really > think, that advanced players won't describe a plan without using > algebraic notations. Indeed. In fact Sherevsky, in his book "Endgame Strategy" talks a lot about "schematic thinking" - NOT thinking in variations, but rather identifying the process by which you'll win in conceptual terms, and only then looking for the moves to make it happen. (Heck, that's not too different from the planning method Silman recommends in "How to Reasses Your Chess." He must not be an IM!) -Ron
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 23:49:13
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"Ron" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > In article <[email protected]>, > Ralf Callenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You seem to have a limited experience in tournament play, if you really >> think, that advanced players won't describe a plan without using >> algebraic notations. Actually, the reality is, only a moron would not understand enough to use notation. That's totally obvious. There is a reason notation was invented. It facilitates unambiguous communication of chess games and positions. And I'd beat you 100% of the games at any time control "Ron". If you can't even understand why chess notation is useful and important, you obviously are not a chess player at all.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 13:26:27
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"I was better but....." <[email protected] > wrote in message news:eN1Qh.16153$DE1.743@pd7urf2no... > > "Terry" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> >> "Terry" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> >>> "Pono Fan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>> 8/8/4r3/2k3P1/8/3R4/3K1N2/8 w - - 0 63 >>>> wKd2,Nf2,Rd3,Pg5/bKc5,Re6 >>>> >>>> or >>>> >>>> http://mychessanalysis.tripod.com/images/ >>>> >>> >>> This is a trivial win for white. >>> >>> Rook behind the king then move the king over. >>> >>> Regards >>> >> >> Oops. >> >> Rook behind the pawn and then move the king over. >> >> Regards > > > Terry, you're an idiot that knows nothing at all about chess. You don't > even know what algebraic notation is. > > The position is far from "trivial". > An idiot with a 2100 fide rating ???????????? Regards
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 16:10:59
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"Terry" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "I was better but....." <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:eN1Qh.16153$DE1.743@pd7urf2no... >> >> "Terry" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> >>> "Terry" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>> >>>> "Pono Fan" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>>> news:[email protected]... >>>>> 8/8/4r3/2k3P1/8/3R4/3K1N2/8 w - - 0 63 >>>>> wKd2,Nf2,Rd3,Pg5/bKc5,Re6 >>>>> >>>>> or >>>>> >>>>> http://mychessanalysis.tripod.com/images/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is a trivial win for white. >>>> >>>> Rook behind the king then move the king over. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>> >>> Oops. >>> >>> Rook behind the pawn and then move the king over. >>> >>> Regards >> >> >> Terry, you're an idiot that knows nothing at all about chess. You don't >> even know what algebraic notation is. >> >> The position is far from "trivial". >> > > An idiot with a 2100 fide rating ???????????? > > Regards > > You are an idiot, but you don't have a 2100 Fide rating, so you're half right. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT NOTATION IS YOU STUPID FUCK! No Fide rated player says things like "move the rook behind pawn and put the horsey guy over there". I've never met a club player rated 1600 or better who doesn't even know enought to use notation. Posting some player's name who does have a FIDE rating does not make you a FIDE rated player. Get to 130 bcf first Terry. That alone would be a huge accomplishment for a moron like you.
|
|
Date: 30 Mar 2007 23:13:55
From: Chvsanchez
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
Win in 21 says the Nalimov Endgame Tablebases (http://www.k4it.de/ index.php?topic=egtb&lang=en). CHS On 30 , 19:02, "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote: > On 30, 4:27 pm, "Pono Fan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 8/8/4r3/2k3P1/8/3R4/3K1N2/8 w - - 0 63 > > wKd2,Nf2,Rd3,Pg5/bKc5,Re6 > > > or > > >http://mychessanalysis.tripod.com/images/ > > Well, it didn't analyze down to mate, but Fritz8 rated the position > at about +8, pretty much a lead-pipe cinch. Since White can usually > win this sort of position with just rook and pawn vs. rook, I would > think he would have an even easier time with an extra knight. > Is there some escape clause for Black?
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 20:13:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"Chvsanchez" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Win in 21 says the Nalimov Endgame Tablebases (http://www.k4it.de/ > index.php?topic=egtb&lang=en). > > CHS new one are now out, according to Convekta Nalimov Endgame Tablebases: [base material about $26 retail] 1) Nalimov Endgame Tablebases, 6-pieces, 2 DVDs (17 Gb). The product includes the following Endings tablebases: pawn + pawn against pawn + pawn pawn + pawn + pawn against pawn Knight + pawn against Bishop + pawn Knight + pawn against Knight + pawn Bishop + pawn against Bishop + pawn The retail price is 26 USD. Nalimov Tablebases are supplied in standard formats and can be used in all famous programs including Fritz, Junior, Chess Base, ?hess Assistant and others. 2) New release of Total Nalimov Tablebases, all 3-4-5 pieces and main 6 pieces, 6 DVDs (50Gb). This product has the reduced wholesale price and includes more Tablebases than Fritz DVD Endgame Turbo! Plus Database of 376 000 correspondence games in PGN format as a Bonus! The retail price is 59 USD. Nalimov Tablebases and Correspondence database are supplied in standard formats and can be used in all famous programs including Fritz, Junior, Chess Base, ?hess Assistant and other. Phil Innes > On 30 , 19:02, "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 30, 4:27 pm, "Pono Fan" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > 8/8/4r3/2k3P1/8/3R4/3K1N2/8 w - - 0 63 >> > wKd2,Nf2,Rd3,Pg5/bKc5,Re6 >> >> > or >> >> >http://mychessanalysis.tripod.com/images/ >> >> Well, it didn't analyze down to mate, but Fritz8 rated the position >> at about +8, pretty much a lead-pipe cinch. Since White can usually >> win this sort of position with just rook and pawn vs. rook, I would >> think he would have an even easier time with an extra knight. >> Is there some escape clause for Black? > >
|
| | |
Date: 01 Apr 2007 05:58:24
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
Chess One wrote: > 1) Nalimov Endgame Tablebases, 6-pieces, 2 DVDs (17 Gb). There is also a 9-DVD product from ChessBase: DVD-Endgame Turbo 3. I was better but..... wrote: > And i wouldn't dream of paying one cent > for any of it. That only means you have to rely on others to get them, unless you decide to compute them yourself. The eMule network is your best choice, unless you find someone who is willing to share the files on DVD. -- Anders Thulin ath*algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 04:27:20
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
> The eMule network is your best > choice, What keywords are best to use on the eMule network?
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Apr 2007 14:19:13
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
I was better but..... wrote: > What keywords are best to use on the eMule network? None -- use the ed2k-links you get by clicking on each individual entry on http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/tablebases-online/ , or get the whole emulecollections and enter. That ensures that you get the files that match the checksums ... there are some endgame tables around that are faulty, and you want to avoid those. Also check the Thread1, Thread2 links in the eMule introduction section -- that ensures you'll use the same servers as everyone else interested in these files, and particularly the people who have collected everything, and now just serve them. -- Anders Thulin ath*algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Apr 2007 09:50:10
From: Gilles Garrigues
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
Anders : It looks like they are no more acceptable FTP sites for downloading the 6P EGTB's Bob Hyatt quit from that a long time ago (what a pity !). I know there are a couple of sites but download speed is ridiculous (10kb/s or so). So far I havn't installed eMule (EGTB would be my only need) but I might end up doing it. It just doesn't look simple to me. Please correct me if I am wrong on the FTP sites ... G. Garrigues Dunkerque, France "Anders Thulin" <[email protected] > a �crit dans le message de news: [email protected]... >I was better but..... wrote: > >> What keywords are best to use on the eMule network? > > None -- use the ed2k-links you get by clicking on each individual entry > on http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/tablebases-online/ , or get the whole > emulecollections and enter. That ensures that you get the files that match > the checksums ... there are some endgame tables around that are faulty, > and you want to avoid those. > > Also check the Thread1, Thread2 links in the eMule introduction > section -- > that ensures you'll use the same servers as everyone else interested in > these files, and particularly the people who have collected everything, > and > now just serve them. > > -- > Anders Thulin ath*algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath
|
| | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 20:41:49
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
the 6 piece set is over a Terrabyte. And i wouldn't dream of paying one cent for any of it "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:3izPh.437$hI4.255@trndny08... > > "Chvsanchez" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> Win in 21 says the Nalimov Endgame Tablebases (http://www.k4it.de/ >> index.php?topic=egtb&lang=en). >> >> CHS > > new one are now out, according to Convekta > > Nalimov Endgame Tablebases: [base material about $26 retail] > > 1) Nalimov Endgame Tablebases, 6-pieces, 2 DVDs (17 Gb). > The product includes the following Endings tablebases: > > pawn + pawn against pawn + pawn > pawn + pawn + pawn against pawn > Knight + pawn against Bishop + pawn > Knight + pawn against Knight + pawn > Bishop + pawn against Bishop + pawn > > The retail price is 26 USD. Nalimov Tablebases are supplied in standard > formats and can be used in all famous programs including Fritz, Junior, > Chess Base, ?hess Assistant and others. > > 2) New release of Total Nalimov Tablebases, all 3-4-5 pieces and main 6 > pieces, 6 DVDs (50Gb). > > This product has the reduced wholesale price and includes more Tablebases > than Fritz DVD Endgame Turbo! Plus Database of 376 000 correspondence > games in PGN format as a Bonus! > > The retail price is 59 USD. Nalimov Tablebases and Correspondence database > are supplied in standard formats and can be used in all famous programs > including Fritz, Junior, Chess Base, ?hess Assistant and other. > > > Phil Innes > >> On 30 , 19:02, "Taylor Kingston" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 30, 4:27 pm, "Pono Fan" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > 8/8/4r3/2k3P1/8/3R4/3K1N2/8 w - - 0 63 >>> > wKd2,Nf2,Rd3,Pg5/bKc5,Re6 >>> >>> > or >>> >>> >http://mychessanalysis.tripod.com/images/ >>> >>> Well, it didn't analyze down to mate, but Fritz8 rated the position >>> at about +8, pretty much a lead-pipe cinch. Since White can usually >>> win this sort of position with just rook and pawn vs. rook, I would >>> think he would have an even easier time with an extra knight. >>> Is there some escape clause for Black? >> >> > >
|
| |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 17:25:05
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"Chvsanchez" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Win in 21 says the Nalimov Endgame Tablebases (http://www.k4it.de/ Very nice! Do you know of a place to download the 6 piece Nalimov tablebases?
|
| | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 20:17:21
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
"I was better but....." <[email protected] > wrote in message news:RPwPh.4844$DE1.3469@pd7urf2no... > > "Chvsanchez" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> Win in 21 says the Nalimov Endgame Tablebases (http://www.k4it.de/ > > Very nice! Do you know of a place to download the 6 piece Nalimov > tablebases? you can try convekta direct or contact chessville [we are cheaper] phil
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 20:34:30
From: I was better but.....
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
I've never paid for tablebases phil. and dont' intend to start. "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:llzPh.1234$k%2.431@trndny01... > > "I was better but....." <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:RPwPh.4844$DE1.3469@pd7urf2no... >> >> "Chvsanchez" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> Win in 21 says the Nalimov Endgame Tablebases (http://www.k4it.de/ >> >> Very nice! Do you know of a place to download the 6 piece Nalimov >> tablebases? > > you can try convekta direct or contact chessville [we are cheaper] > > phil >
|
| | |
Date: 31 Mar 2007 18:36:25
From: Anders Thulin
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
I was better but..... wrote: > Very nice! Do you know of a place to download the 6 piece Nalimov > tablebases? See: http://kd.lab.nig.ac.jp/chess/tablebases-online/ -- Anders Thulin ath*algonet.se http://www.algonet.se/~ath
|
|
Date: 30 Mar 2007 15:02:07
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
On 30, 4:27 pm, "Pono Fan" <[email protected] > wrote: > 8/8/4r3/2k3P1/8/3R4/3K1N2/8 w - - 0 63 > wKd2,Nf2,Rd3,Pg5/bKc5,Re6 > > or > > http://mychessanalysis.tripod.com/images/ Well, it didn't analyze down to mate, but Fritz8 rated the position at about +8, pretty much a lead-pipe cinch. Since White can usually win this sort of position with just rook and pawn vs. rook, I would think he would have an even easier time with an extra knight. Is there some escape clause for Black?
|
|
Date: 30 Mar 2007 21:56:27
From: Tony Mountifield
Subject: Re: Is there a forced win for White?
|
In article <[email protected] >, Pono Fan <[email protected] > wrote: > 8/8/4r3/2k3P1/8/3R4/3K1N2/8 w - - 0 63 > wKd2,Nf2,Rd3,Pg5/bKc5,Re6 > > or > > http://mychessanalysis.tripod.com/images/ Looks like there should be. Try 1. Ng4 Rg6 2. Nf6 Kc4 3. Rd5 to start with, then bring the white king over towards the pawn. Cheers Tony -- Tony Mountifield Work: [email protected] - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: [email protected] - http://tony.mountifield.org
|
|