[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Rules of Chess FAQ. Frequently asked chess questions.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I can't find it can you please awnser the question more seriousely like you said
Let me ask you this, Ryan. Do the words nerd and geek describe a person who has certain characteristics? If so, what would you say those characteristics are? Or are these words merely used as labels by people who wish to put down certain people who don't belong to their clique?
I say it is to put someone down to make them feel bad and depressed for the fun of it. What does clique mean. please post Fergus Duniho
For the definition of clique, follow this link: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=clique Anyway, what you're telling me is that the words nerd and geek have no objective meaning, and certain people are simply using these words to make fun of other people. In that case, no one who plays Chess is truly a nerd or a geek in any important objective sense. They are just meaningless names used by some people to bully others into being more like them. What matters most is that you remain true to yourself. If you enjoy Chess, continue to play it and don't worry what others will label you for it. The truth about many kids is that they are just looking for any excuse to pick on other kids. If some kid doesn't play Chess, he might choose to pick on you for playing Chess. But if you didn't play Chess, he might choose to pick on you for something else. The main thing you can expect growing up is that kids pick on kids. Whether or not you play Chess has no bearing on this fact. So there is no reason to give in. Chess is not a bad thing at all. It is great for helping you improve your reasoning skills. When you're good at Chess, it is a legitimate source of pride. And using your mind in the way that Chess requires actually helps protect you from depression. When some kid doesn't appreciate Chess and chooses to make fun of others for playing it, it's a sign of insecurity, not a sign that he is hip or cool and knows something that you don't. On the contrary, if you enjoy and play Chess, you know something that he doesn't.
Orthodox (Mad Queen) design analysis: # squares: 64 # piece types: 6 Initial piece density: 50% Piece values: P1, N3, B3, R5, Q9 Power density: 1.22 Exchange Gradient: 0.50 Ave. Game Length: #M = (3.5*6)/(1.22*0.5) = 34 moves
if you read this message the please post. I have benn wondering how good other people are please tell me your rating mine is 2317 and i am 10 years old
I am unrated. I play Chess infrequently, and I'm not part of the Chess club or Chess tournament scene. What I do play frequently are Chess variants, games that are similar to but not identical to Chess. I'm pleased that your interest in Chess brought you to this site, but Chess is not what this site is really all about. Its main topic is Chess variants, and it is a broad interest in a wide variety of games, not a specific interest in Chess, that keeps most of the regulars coming back to this site. Few Chess variants have any rating system developed for them, and there is no generic rating system for Chess variants in general. Given the absence of any other responses to your question, and given the focus of this site, I would expect that most people here are also unrated. Anyway, Chess variants are a lot of fun. Please explore the rest of this site and learn about the iceberg that Chess is only the tip of.
Excellently put Fergus, Ryan, I'm an average player of 1500 to 1600. My current rating is a 1400 @U.S. Chess Live. Just like Fergus, I except chess as a whole, not a separated piece. When I play, I tend to practice out theories from other styles. As you can see my theories haven't worked for me. It's nice to see another open minded person join our group.
A 2317 rating... impressive, but I am very skeptical. In a recent comment Ryan Goebel stated 'I have benn [sic] wondering how good other people are please tell me your rating mine is 2317 and i am 10 years old.' That is very impressive, approaching a youthful Bobby Fischer status (perhaps already there). But when I searched the official rating lists I found no Ryan Goebel listed. There was another Goebel in the age 6 to 12 group. But he was rated 534 (far below the norm). The highest Goebel I found was rated 1530 (which is about the average rating of USCF tournament players). Ryan, if you want, please send your USCF ID number so I can verify your youthful Fischer-like strength... if it is a real thing, I want to know about it. But for now I must remain skeptical. As for me, my rating is only about 1830. That is a Class 'A' player... the next level up (2000) is Expert (the Brits call it 'Candidate Master' which is a nicer title. At 2200 we have Master. At 2400 we have Grand Master. Ryan, if you are 2317 at age 10, I want to read about you in the Chess Life magazine. I hope you can shatter my skepticism. We could use another Bobby Fischer (chess talent wise, not personality wise).
I keap low to come from nowhere. and 2500 is a grandmaster not 2400
Ryan, you should still be listed on the official USCF ratings list. And to reach a 2317 rating you would not be able to 'keep low.' Thus your Bobbby Fischer like level of play is most baffling to me... and I still remain skeptical. Your USCF ID number could validate what you say... do you even have a USCF ID number? If you are indeed close to the highest rated 10 year old on the planet... then I really want Chess Life to do a story on it, and they'd love to. I would like to be shown to be wrong, but I think this 2317 rating story is no more than National Enquirer material. Please provide the ID number by e-mail to me so I can proove myself wrong. Thanks. Sincerely, Gary [really hoping that I am wrong]
Perhaps the number mentioned is the rating assigned by a computer opponent that evaluates the player, achieved without playing in tournaments against human beings? If so, I'd recommend along with Gary Gifford that the player take part in a tournament at his earliest convenience. News of a chess prodigy would help to promote the game. And I don't think it would be at all bad for the youngster's chess career to come forth and be recognized at that point.
With 2317 (I suppose FIDE ELO), Ryan should be one of the strongest 10 years old players in the world, if not the highest ELO rating for people of his age. If this is your ELO rating, you must continue with chess. It is very possible you are going to become a Grand-Master very soon. Good luck. As for me, my FIDE ELO is around 1950, average-to-low class-A FIDE-Chess player (there are some 'oficially stronger' FIDE-Chess players that are frequent users of this Pages, and many others that are certainly very strong not-rated players). I don´t know how we can rate Chess Variants players. Some ratings and the way for calculate it have been stablished for Shogi or Xiang-Qi, and I think also for Glinsky, but it should be difficult to rate the players of many variants, fundamentally because we need a lot of 'federated' players for taking a good comparative rating, frequent Tournements, etc.
I don't tell many people so nobody realy knows. I never told any record detorial so I do not have a id number
Ryan: Your last comment said a lot. Without an ID number you can not play in Official Tournaments, and cannot have an official chess rating. I am dissapointed... but as I thought, the 2317 rating only seems to exist in your own mind.
FIDE database is not complete, but one can find information about top federated players of many countries. Local databases should be useful for finding some more information about players, nevertheless, many active players information is not available. The top FIDE-Chess player in the world is still G.M. Garry Kasparov, ELO 2817, followed by G.M. Viswanathan Anand, from India, with ELO 2774, and G.M. Wladimir Kramnik, from Russia, ELO 2764. The top woman is G.M. Judith Polgar, from Hungary, with ELO 2728, the 9th. top ELO in the world. The top sub-14 years old player is G.M. Sergey Karjakin (14 y.o.), from Ukraine, ELO 2580. There are around 40 Grand-Masters is USA, Alexander Onischuk in the top with 2652, and the top USA junior ELO belongs to G.M. Hikaru Nakamura, 16 y.o player with japanese ancestors, his 2580 rating is much more than any Japanese player (In FIDE-Chess, of course. If we talk about Shogi, other is the case). The top 8 countries (average of top 100 players) are, in this order: Russia, Ukraine, England, Hungary, France, USA, Germany and Israel. Computer programs ELO?: there are some programs with a hight G.M. level, but it is not usual a measure in this case, programs play Chess with advantage, many of them have access to extensive databases of games, openings and ends, so they are not 'honest' playing Chess!
Best player against programs?. It seems the best score is for Viswanathan Anand. ELO is a comparative measure, but it is not always indicative of a result. Players with ELO around 1800-2100 can have more or less similar forces and any one can beat another in a single game, but the difference can be observed playing a lot of games. At the highest level, the differences are notorious between, say, a player with ELO 2600 and a player with ELO 2700. Nevertheless, at the top level, you can observe that Anand tendence is to be beated by Kasparov, Kramnik seems to be very uncomfortable for Kasparov and the tendence is in favor of Kramnik, and Anand tendence is to beat Kramnik!. Many times, all of them beat the dame Polgar without great difficulty, although Judith is very difficult to be beated by another player. Styles matter, I think.
Ryan, if your rating was asigned by a computer test, that is good, and you must be encouraged to participate in Tournements. If this is not the case, I agree with Michael Howe and you must moderate the inflation of your ego by not valid methods, or you may have some troubles in the future, and I´m trying to say this to you as a father, or as a friend. But the real importance of Chess to your life is not a rating. If you play Chess or any of its Variants, the knowledge involved is much more important: You can learn that every step you do in the life must be measured and calculated, trying to minimize errors. Chess seem to have some influence in the way you attack problems, too. You can lose a game, you can lose many games, but nothing of it is really important. The important is the path you are walking. Chess can be enjoyed equally winning or losing a game. It is a game, it is not life. Chess is one of the great entertainements you can find in life, like football, like baseball, but the learning of Chess can be more important to you than the learnings you can aquire from other sports. At least, I think that.
This is not the place for asking about the ozone layer. Try an online encyclopedia.
Im meant how it is depleating do any of you guys care and another question do you like walmart
Ryan, This is not the proper forum for the discussion of ozone depletion, Walmart, Bush vs Kerry, Iraq, The Passion of the Christ, etc., etc., etc. If you are not discussing Chess variants or very closely related topics, please post to an appropiate forum for those topics and not here.
Let me reiterate and add to what Michael Nelson has said. The Web is full of forums on nearly any conceivable topic you can think of. If you want to discuss subjects unrelated to this site, go to the appropriate site and discuss them there. This site's comment areas are for discussions of Chess variants and for comments specific to the contents of individual pages. It is not for general discussion of any and every topic. Let me add that some forums on the web have become cesspools of trolling, baiting, flaming, and other nonsense. This site is an oasis of reasonable, peaceful discussion, and that is mainly because we limit our discussions to Chess variants and closely related subjects. If we started discussing controversial subjects here, this site could turn into a place of factions, fighting, and hostility. But that's not what this site is about. It is about bringing together people who share a common interest in a mutual spirit of good will and friendship. Let's keep it that way. With that said, I'll add that there is nothing wrong, per se, with discussing controversial subjects. If you want to discuss such issues, feel free to go to a forum where they are being discussed. My main concern is that doing it here would get in the way of what this site is really all about. The ozone layer and Walmart may not seem like such controversial subjects, but inviting discussion of them here would open the door to even more controversial subjects.
A Bet loser wrote on Fri, Jun 25, 2004 11:37 PM UTC:Poor ★Because I had a bet and I lost lol
I have a couple questions concerning the three-fold repetition rule. The official FIDE version of the rule is: The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by sequential repetition of moves) (a) is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or (b) has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move. Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured or if the right to castle has been changed temporarily or permanently. My questions are on the last sentence. Consider this position: W: Kc1 Nh1 Pc5 B: Kb8 Rc8 Nh8 Pd5 Black has just moved ...d5. The knights are then shuffled around, resulting in the position repeating two more times. However, the rule says that 'positions are not the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured.' In this case, the pawn cannot be captured en passant in any of the three positions (the white pawn is pinned). Are all three positions considered the same, even though the right to capture the pawn en passant would have changed in the absence of the pin? My second question is about the 'right to castle' provision. Consider this position: W: Ke1 Ra1 Nb5 B: Kh4 Bf8 Suppose white's king and rook have not moved. The knight and bishop move around, resulting in the position repeating two more times. However, in doing so, the bishop checks the white king and is blocked by the knight. Since the right to castle has been changed temporarily, are all three positions the same? Also, from that position, suppose that instead of white being checked, white moves her knight between the king and rook. Since this temporarily changes the right to castle, are all the positions the same? Consider this position: W: Ke1 Rh1 Bb2 B: Ka8 Ra7 From here, it is impossible for white to ever castle, even if his king and rook have not moved. Does it make a difference here if the right to castle is changed temporarily (e.g. the black rook checks the white king and is blocked by the bishop)?
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.