Chess Anyone?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

fast
 
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 02:43 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;121092 wrote:
At the end of the game, after I've captured all my opponent's pieces, I place them in an internment camp, and from there I commit a small-scale genocide, king included. I burn or melt the pieces, depending on what they're made of, and if I can't burn or melt them, I break them.

The upside for my opponent is that they can't lose twice to me. A potential downside for my opponent would be that if they owned the chess set, they now only have half a set. But hey, they took the risk of facing me, not my fault.

How rude! I mean, being that good is one thing, but did you really need to rub it in by capturing ALL of your opponent's pieces?

Hmmm. You burnt the queen? I think I heard about something similar on 48 hours. I don't know about you. :bigsmile:
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 02:43 pm
@Zetherin,
You sound like my destructive son. He with his brother, when young, set light to the plastic train set I bought them and watched it burn till it could go no further. What they did with action man and barbie , I cant repeat.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 02:54 pm
@Kielicious,
I'm just kidding! I would never do such a horrible thing. At the end of a match it's always proper to shake your opponent's hand!

...and then put them in the internment camp. :devilish:
 
3k1yp2
 
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 06:37 pm
@Zetherin,
fast;121083 wrote:
I read in a book one time that we should never forfeit a game. If you find yourself in a losing hopeless situation, you should stick it out and play to the end, for no matter how small the chance, there is always the possibility (remote as it may be) that your opponent might fall dead of a heart attack rendering you a victory by default.

Besides, we should never flick over the king to signify surrender, for a king knocked over represents death, and we should never allow a king to suffer the indignity of death. That is why we only capture the king in checkmate. In the end, he is still alive.


xris;121078 wrote:
If I dont win , I take an awfully long time loosing.


Zetherin;121092 wrote:
At the end of the game, after I've captured all my opponent's pieces, I place them in an internment camp, and from there I commit a small-scale genocide, king included. I burn or melt the pieces, depending on what they're made of, and if I can't burn or melt them, I break them.

The upside for my opponent is that they can't lose twice to me. A potential downside for my opponent would be that if they owned the chess set, they now only have half a set. But hey, they took the risk of facing me, not my fault.


you people are amazing and you totally made my day. and i too drag games out to the bitter end because even if i can't win, i'm super good at surviving. i mostly drag the game out from pure spite, just so they don't enjoy winning that much. i have been known to run around for 57 minutes with nothing but a naked king. you know they sell naked chess pieces? my buddy i used to know once had a set, and i don't know if he bought it or made it or what...kinda wierd in hindsight...
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 08:21 pm
@3k1yp2,
LoL connect 4!

You guys are awesome and so is that game. I also enjoy me a game of Risk every now and then.
 
manored
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 11:53 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;121029 wrote:
I think he thought that you were referring to your speed when you said, "I am The Great Fast". And he was noting that speed has nothing to do with the game, since it's turn-based. (which isn't necessarily true since you can do a timed connect 4, I guess!)
Well with only one move to do per turn, it must be a really tight timer to make a difference, but then it becomes real time strategy =)

Besides the whole point of turn based games is having a lot of time to think, right?

fast;121035 wrote:

Oh. I see. I'm still not gonna lose. Well, at least that's what I kept telling a fourteen year old girl (a friend's daughter) the other day when I lost. Very Happy
Thats so... pathetic =)

Never say you are not gonna lose unless you really arent, it makes you seem a total loser, since you lost both the game AND the prevision. Off course, maybe you ARE a total loser, on witch case it is fine =)

Zetherin;121062 wrote:
I'm actually a Connect 4 champion.

That's me on the right, and I beat that poor girl every single time - with a smile on my face.
I hate these ads of smilling kids (obviously told to smile) pretending to play a game. It makes me want to beat the living daylights out of the publicitarian behind it. Good ads have always been a rare thing to me, and bad ads twist my brain.

fast;121083 wrote:
I read in a book one time that we should never forfeit a game. If you find yourself in a losing hopeless situation, you should stick it out and play to the end, for no matter how small the chance, there is always the possibility (remote as it may be) that your opponent might fall dead of a heart attack rendering you a victory by default.

Besides, we should never flick over the king to signify surrender, for a king knocked over represents death, and we should never allow a king to suffer the indignity of death. That is why we only capture the king in checkmate. In the end, he is still alive.
I think it depends of whenever you will have a second chance or not, and whenever you are playing against a human or an AI/Stage. I think you shouldnt forfeit against a human, but against an AI/stage, if you have nothing to lose... go ahead =)

I say that because against an AI or an stage you can usually restart straigh away, whenever against another human it would be a rude thing... everyone enjoys winning =)

I dont believe that "dont kill the king" thing, if that was true I would be a terrorist by now. I got a little plataformer with randomly generated stages called "spelunky" where whenever I start in a too pitiful situation, I just suicide bomb myself and start again. Its a game where your situation usually keeps getting worse and worse =)

xris;121095 wrote:
You sound like my destructive son. He with his brother, when young, set light to the plastic train set I bought them and watched it burn till it could go no further. What they did with action man and barbie , I cant repeat.
Ah, well, a bit of sadism never killed anyone =)

Kielicious;121137 wrote:
LoL connect 4!

You guys are awesome and so is that game. I also enjoy me a game of Risk every now and then.
I like risk too, but find it too randow. The best of strategies can be easily undone by the frequent severe strikes of bad luck we get during the game. But winhout the luck element, the game would be dull. It would have to be more complex to reduce the luck element.
 
fast
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 01:21 pm
@manored,
[QUOTE=manored;121240]Thats so... pathetic =)[/QUOTE][QUOTE=manored;121240]

Never say you are not gonna lose unless you really arent, it makes you seem a total loser, since you lost both the game AND the prevision. Off course, maybe you ARE a total loser, on witch case it is fine =)
[/QUOTE]She is fourteen ... in her eyes, it might be that everyone is a loser. I bet she can spell the word which though. He he

By the way, I didn't play to win. I played to show her how to play. I won (at least in my eyes) as I accomplished the task I set out to. As to my claims, as I was funnin' around, did come across as you depict.

People don't win against me because seldom do they know the 'game' to which I am playing. That's how I'm different than others in many respects. For example, when you take someone out for dinner, it's the smart and reasonable people that don't eat before they go (they put off eating for a short while until their dinner date), and it's that underlying factor of being reasonable that leads them to their downfall. Reasonable people don't win; either that or they don't win with the style and grace that I do.

It's only the select few (like me!) that have the wherewithal to eat before I go, for winning (or succeeding at accomplishing my goal) is far paramount than killing two birds with one stone as they say. See, I'm not there to satisfy my hunger. That's not why I would carry a pretty young lass out on a date. What? To prove that I can stuff my face? Please! Not me! No siree! I have an objective.

When a man in his late 30's (as an example) takes out a woman in her mid 30's to a go cart track so she can feel as young as she is in spirit, what does he do as he challenges her to a race? Does he take off as fast as he can so he can win as he bragged he could win? When he finishes first, does that make him the winner? Oh yes, the winner of the race, but if I were the guy, I would win too, but I just might not finish first, for my goal would not be to win the race but to win her heart, and it's that I speak of when I say that people don't win against me because seldom do they know the 'game' to which I am playing.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 01:25 pm
@Kielicious,
fast wrote:
It's only the select few (like me!) that have the wherewithal to eat before I go, for winning (or succeeding at accomplishing my goal) is far paramount than killing two birds with one stone as they say. See, I'm not there to satisfy my hunger. That's not why I would carry a pretty young lass out on a date. What? To prove that I can stuff my face? Please! Not me! No siree! I have an objective.


You can't kick game and eat at the same time? What sort of advantage would you have eating before the dinner?
 
fast
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 02:02 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;121288 wrote:
You can't kick game and eat at the same time? What sort of advantage would you have eating before the dinner?

Well, being as great as I am, I surely can, but I wrote what I wrote for illustrative purposes.

---------- Post added 01-20-2010 at 03:03 PM ----------

By the way, I hope y'all know I'm just messin' around, right? It being a light-hearted thread and all.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 02:03 pm
@fast,
fast;121299 wrote:
Well, being as great as I am, I surely can, but I wrote what I wrote for illustrative purposes.


I understand, but what sort of advantage were you considering at the time you wrote that for someone that ate prior? What would it matter if the woman saw me eat?

Quote:

By the way, I hope y'all know I'm just messin' around, right? It being a light-hearted thread and all.


Of course, buddy! I'm just wondering about the above.
 
fast
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 03:07 pm
@Zetherin,
[QUOTE=Zetherin;121302]I understand, but what sort of advantage were you considering at the time you wrote that for someone that ate prior? What would it matter if the woman saw me eat?[/QUOTE]You need to be on your toes, or your a-game, as they say. You need to be ready to catch every glimpse, every nuance, every unspoken comment that her eyes make. You don't need to be distracted by a meal. Yes, you need to eat (even if full), for after all, you need to make sure you are giving off the impression that you're on (and have an image that is in keeping with) what is called, after all, a dinner-date, but your ability to advance for the win (well, to win like only those like myself can) requires exceptional skills in reading the person you're with-knowing when to pull and knowing when to push, and knowing when to say a little something not so nice about (perhaps) her hair. Playing the slob king of slop isn't the way to the winner's circle. I'll tell you one thing though; ya better not aspire to be perfect in every way; that's a guaranteed loss, unintuitive as it may be to the reasonably inclined.

And no, you can't sit there like some geezer displaying nothing but proper etiquette. Those types are smart, logical, reasonable, or navy-blue conservatives. Ya know, the one's who like to sit down with a nice fine glass of wine and think they can capture the heart of another with nothing but an arsenal of clever word play. No siree, not me, no way buddy. The key is not even to be a smooth talker, as those types of people are a dime a dozen.

If you're gonna play in my league, you need to have a first hand account of what it really means to be a shrewd operator. One that dares to underestimate the impact of image is destined to failure-or at the very least shall never get close to the footsteps that I can leave behind.

I am; oh yes, I am . . . fast.
 
sometime sun
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 08:58 pm
@fast,
When is this happening Moderators or anyone who knows? When will chess be up and running? When can we start playing?
I've got a few i would like to match.
 
xris
 
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 08:11 am
@sometime sun,
I doubt if you would be playing who you imagined you where. I even cheat the computer, so you have no chance.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 10:28 am
@sometime sun,
sometime sun;121433 wrote:
When is this happening Moderators or anyone who knows? When will chess be up and running? When can we start playing?
I've got a few i would like to match.


"Robert,

Would you mind enabling chess so the members of the community can play?

There seems to be lots of interest:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/lounge/general-discussion/7303-chess-anyone.html

Justin mentioned he would contact you, but we haven't received a follow-up as of yet.

Thanks! :a-ok:"

---------- Post added 01-21-2010 at 11:31 AM ----------

fast;121340 wrote:
You need to be on your toes, or your a-game, as they say. You need to be ready to catch every glimpse, every nuance, every unspoken comment that her eyes make. You don't need to be distracted by a meal. Yes, you need to eat (even if full), for after all, you need to make sure you are giving off the impression that you're on (and have an image that is in keeping with) what is called, after all, a dinner-date, but your ability to advance for the win (well, to win like only those like myself can) requires exceptional skills in reading the person you're with-knowing when to pull and knowing when to push, and knowing when to say a little something not so nice about (perhaps) her hair. Playing the slob king of slop isn't the way to the winner's circle. I'll tell you one thing though; ya better not aspire to be perfect in every way; that's a guaranteed loss, unintuitive as it may be to the reasonably inclined.

And no, you can't sit there like some geezer displaying nothing but proper etiquette. Those types are smart, logical, reasonable, or navy-blue conservatives. Ya know, the one's who like to sit down with a nice fine glass of wine and think they can capture the heart of another with nothing but an arsenal of clever word play. No siree, not me, no way buddy. The key is not even to be a smooth talker, as those types of people are a dime a dozen.

If you're gonna play in my league, you need to have a first hand account of what it really means to be a shrewd operator. One that dares to underestimate the impact of image is destined to failure-or at the very least shall never get close to the footsteps that I can leave behind.

I am; oh yes, I am . . . fast.


Seems like so much work. Too much to consider, too much to worry about. It just seems unnatural, to me, to view the building of rapport as some sort of game.

But hey, I'm sure someone could say the same about something I put effort into and focus on.
 
manored
 
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 03:16 pm
@fast,
fast;121287 wrote:
She is fourteen ... in her eyes, it might be that everyone is a loser. I bet she can spell the word which though. He he
Its my second language =)

fast;121287 wrote:

By the way, I didn't play to win. I played to show her how to play. I won (at least in my eyes) as I accomplished the task I set out to. As to my claims, as I was funnin' around, did come across as you depict.
But if you lose on purpose against a person playing for the first time, dont you come across as either stupid or false? =)

fast;121287 wrote:

People don't win against me because seldom do they know the 'game' to which I am playing.
Changing the rules or playing another game altogheder without informing the other party, then pretending that they won then in fact you did, is cheating =)

fast;121287 wrote:

That's how I'm different than others in many respects. For example, when you take someone out for dinner, it's the smart and reasonable people that don't eat before they go (they put off eating for a short while until their dinner date), and it's that underlying factor of being reasonable that leads them to their downfall. Reasonable people don't win; either that or they don't win with the style and grace that I do.
If you aren't reasonable, then how can you use reason to find out that what seems reasonable is in fact not reasonable? =)

fast;121287 wrote:

It's only the select few (like me!) that have the wherewithal to eat before I go, for winning (or succeeding at accomplishing my goal) is far paramount than killing two birds with one stone as they say. See, I'm not there to satisfy my hunger. That's not why I would carry a pretty young lass out on a date. What? To prove that I can stuff my face? Please! Not me! No siree! I have an objective.
There are other places you can have a date on... its kinda funny now that you mention it, why do people who go to restaurants in their dates, then the purpose is to get to know each other better? Its like both parties are pretending their purpose is another for the sake of not looking too interested and perhaps desperate. Hum...

fast;121287 wrote:

When a man in his late 30's (as an example) takes out a woman in her mid 30's to a go cart track so she can feel as young as she is in spirit, what does he do as he challenges her to a race? Does he take off as fast as he can so he can win as he bragged he could win? When he finishes first, does that make him the winner? Oh yes, the winner of the race, but if I were the guy, I would win too, but I just might not finish first, for my goal would not be to win the race but to win her heart, and it's that I speak of when I say that people don't win against me because seldom do they know the 'game' to which I am playing.
In that plan I see the same flaw that in the far above =)

Zetherin;121534 wrote:

Seems like so much work. Too much to consider, too much to worry about. It just seems unnatural, to me, to view the building of rapport as some sort of game.
I agree. I think the secret for attracting someone with whom you will have a happy relationship is being natural, and, off course, the last thing you must do in order to be natural is to try to be natural.
 
Robert phil
 
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 05:50 pm
@Kielicious,
We are working on a very large undertaking of a software transition for this forum, and we don't want to turn on an additional feature right now in the weeks leading up to the transition. However the future software has some interesting support for chess games, which I'll elaborate on when we are closer to introducing them.
 
fast
 
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 03:19 pm
@manored,
[QUOTE=manored;121655]But if you lose on purpose against a person playing for the first time, dont you come across as either stupid or false? =) [/QUOTE]Hmmm. I get the impression you're being serious, so let me give you my feelings on the issue. I'll use chess as an example.

I'm an above average chess player. Not the best, for sure, as I can most certainly be beat, but I know the game well enough that I can confidently teach the game to others. My skill level, whether great or moderately good is sufficient to win against any novice that is just learning. I have beaten a state champion, and I have beat the highest levels on computerized chess games. Well, I haven't beaten the actual highest level on a couple because the darn things simply wouldn't make a move. I am a bit weaker when playing against people (strangely enough), and I do not play speed chess. I need (well, let's say, I want) a few seconds to a few minutes to make a move.

It's no fun for a newbie to be beat over and over (repeatedly creamed). What I would sometimes do is make inferior moves where pieces are not well protected to give the player a chance to recognize the vulnerabilities in my set up. Other times, I may take every piece I have off the board except my king and queen. I can then make superior moves as I actually try to win. All the while, I would show how important it is for the player to keep their pieces protected. If I happen to be put in checkmate while doing so, that is not a sign that I am stupid or that I have said something false.

What's important (I think) is that a new player develops a strong enthusiasm for the game. A person is much more likely to be interested, excel, and do well if (to them) it's fun, and it's certainly no fun if all I ever do is try to annihilate them by playing to win. In the case of doing nothing but playing to win against someone with an inferior skill level is not (in my mind) a case where I'm coming across as a winner.

I am a winner when I can put a smile on the face of the person I'm playing. I am a winner when he or she finds joy and pleasure in what is being taught. I am a winner when he or she learns from me so well that he or she can easily beat another novice trained by another. After all, I would not merely want them to know how to play, but rather, play well.

I will say this though. If I claim to so good but can't show that I am as good as I say that I am, and if I demonstrate that I am a poor player by being repeatedly beaten while I'm trying to win, then yes, I'll look quite ignorant indeed, so I agree with what I think it is you're saying.
 
manored
 
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 02:01 pm
@fast,
fast;121854 wrote:
Hmmm. I get the impression you're being serious, so let me give you my feelings on the issue. I'll use chess as an example.
Somewhat serious =)

fast;121854 wrote:

It's no fun for a newbie to be beat over and over (repeatedly creamed). What I would sometimes do is make inferior moves where pieces are not well protected to give the player a chance to recognize the vulnerabilities in my set up. Other times, I may take every piece I have off the board except my king and queen. I can then make superior moves as I actually try to win. All the while, I would show how important it is for the player to keep their pieces protected. If I happen to be put in checkmate while doing so, that is not a sign that I am stupid or that I have said something false.
I can be fun, actually, it all depends of the person at hand, though I will admit it that most people will not like it =)

I have nothing against handicapping yourself, what I see as a bad idea is handicapping yourself while not revealing that to the other party.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 02:03 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;119484 wrote:
Im making a thread out of curiosity to see if anyone here plays chess and/or would like to play. I used to be really into the game and was a top player at my local public high school. Unfortunately, not many people played the game at my school so I was pretty much good by default lol. Lately, I havent been playing much (its been about 5-6 years) but I've started to get back into it. So if anyone would like to play some chess (yes its free online) or would just like to talk about the game, hit me up!

Hopefully to spark some interest, here's a cool video:

Video


Hey there. I play on FICS. Message me and I will tell you my handle. It's a free site and an excellent one.
 
platorepublic
 
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:37 am
@Kielicious,
I suck at chess - I don't remember a time that I actually won at international chess - but I still want to play! I have a chess set in my college room, but I have nobody to play with!
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/21/2020 at 03:55:28