| |
Main
Date: 28 Mar 2008 11:45:48
From: Chess One
Subject: how chess book can mess with mind
|
"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ce125e51-3ca1-4d1a-ba38-0cbe35d91597@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> I found it very useful to play against
> stronger players, losing again and again
> until finally, one day they started getting
> frustrated that their cheap shots were no
> longer doing the trick; that's when they
> had to hunker down and play REAL
> chess! Slowly, but surely, you will learn
> strategy-- but it will be of little use until
> you first "master" tactics.
I am 1100 rated may be ?! How to improve tactics.
**How do tactics improve play is open question.
I know all theory but when I go to play I forget to see that Opponent
will kill my Bishop in second move.
**Exactly my point. When head [or CPU] all full tactics, tragic thing
happen! No see board!
How to know that you have seen all the tactics in Chess is there any
simple way of doing it.
**Well... there question maybe help-bot answer, later on as moon set,
all understand.
Computers can think on 100000s of moves and
solve tactics. How can a Human be good at Tactics?
**Humans can look 1 second, see 8 move knight fork - this different from
fish-fork in evening! - seeing seem spring from mind effortlessly - like see
wallpaper and pattern in wallpaper right away! no need no stinking Hal9000.
I usually forget that a piece is killing my piece and make a move
overlooking simple threats. How can this problem be removed? I play
1-2 games in a month may be It comes by practise.
**Best play 1-2 games in half-hour. Take more time is only fool self that
more time
see more. When lose from overlook, realise self does not-look. Smack head
for
think, when should look. Play more game, try see before think is best order.
Otherwise Idea become unmanageable, like angry water-buffalo in teashop -
smash all fine thing. As is teas-shop : so is mind.
Is Chess Intelligence game or a Practise game?
**Is no chess. Is only chess playing. Intelligence Is.
**The Master Phil-Sama.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Mar 2008 18:04:41
From: help bot
Subject: Re: how chess book can mess with mind
|
On 28, 11:45 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **The Master Phil-Sama.
I had a Mr. Mopperhead look at the headers
of that post, and after careful analysis it was
determined that since all the Fake Sanny
postings were made from Vermont, it was
either nearly-an-IMnes or Tyler Kingstone who
was responsible. I told Mr. Mopperhead that I
happened to know for a fact that neither of
those two were responsible types, but he said
I needed some "headers" as proof.
IMO, it would be a simple matter to construct
a question to determine which Vermontian was
the culprit: a spelling question perhaps, or a
test to see if the Fake Sanny would mindlessly
ape Larry Parr, if given half a chance. But Mr.
Mopperhead is in charge of the investigation,
and he insists on "headers" and IP addresses
and whatnot. Well, he does have a point; what
if "Robber" Mitchell were to spoof nearly-an-
IMnes' IP address? Surely, he too would miss
the spelling question, giving a false-positive
and implicating the wrong man.
But what Mr. Mopperhead doesn't know is
that I have devised a very simple test for this;
it's a chess problem that nearly-an-IMnes can
solve (using his Rybka program) easily, but
which Rob "da robber" Mitchell would fail,
hanging a piece (as usual). Okay-- maybe I
need to just accept the fact that Mr. Mopper-
head was put in charge, not me. It's /his/
investigation, not mine. I guess I'll just wait
until the real experts do their thing;
meanwhile, I can just sit here, reading about
the many slave-children of John Adams and
George Washington... .
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 29 Mar 2008 09:48:58
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: how chess book can mess with mind
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 28, 11:45 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> **The Master Phil-Sama.
>
>
> I had a Mr. Mopperhead look at the headers
> of that post, and after careful analysis it was
> determined that since all the Fake Sanny
> postings were made from Vermont, it was
> either nearly-an-IMnes or Tyler Kingstone who
> was responsible.
A common mistake. Tyler, you see is a Californian and besides,
lives in a part of the state where you can see New York State,
which real Vermonters avoid having to see.
> I told Mr. Mopperhead that I
> happened to know for a fact that neither of
> those two were responsible types, but he said
> I needed some "headers" as proof.
A soccer term?
> IMO, it would be a simple matter to construct
> a question to determine which Vermontian was
> the culprit: a spelling question perhaps, or a
> test to see if the Fake Sanny would mindlessly
> ape Larry Parr, if given half a chance. But Mr.
> Mopperhead is in charge of the investigation,
> and he insists on "headers" and IP addresses
> and whatnot. Well, he does have a point; what
> if "Robber" Mitchell were to spoof nearly-an-
> IMnes' IP address? Surely, he too would miss
> the spelling question, giving a false-positive
> and implicating the wrong man.
That's true. He can't spell worth a shirt.
> But what Mr. Mopperhead doesn't know is
> that I have devised a very simple test for this;
> it's a chess problem that nearly-an-IMnes can
> solve (using his Rybka program) easily, but
> which Rob "da robber" Mitchell would fail,
> hanging a piece (as usual).
Sadly, Rybka is in the dog-house and I haven't used it since Christmas.
Currently I am using EPD2Diag. Which has a horsey header, or icon,
whereas Rybka has a King& Rook combo.
> Okay-- maybe I
> need to just accept the fact that Mr. Mopper-
> head was put in charge, not me. It's /his/
> investigation, not mine.
Mr. Mopperhead was never put in charge of anything that I know of*
Didn't he rather take it on himself as a helpful volunteer to, after his
work
was questioned by Mr. Truong, investigate as a complete cooincidence,
and not to do with his business relationship with Mr. Truong?
*[laugh] that is, USCF have been asked who authorised Mr. M's
investigation and (a) forgot to answer the question or (b) said it was
a secret that lawyers told them not to answer, becaus (c) if they did ...
<gulp >
PI <private I > Services
> I guess I'll just wait
> until the real experts do their thing;
> meanwhile, I can just sit here, reading about
> the many slave-children of John Adams and
> George Washington... .
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
|
|
