In the game above, didn't Black have 25...Qxd6 26 exd6 Kd7, and White being down soon 3 pawns and apiece, it's almost game over?
jjbkli\feawbliuiuebvbcfedfcf;ivd;pi no
“Why all the hate?” -Tal
Courage in chess, much like in life, is key to success. I resonate with this notion, as I recently started my own blog, venturing into new paths and challenges
@Ajedrezpreciso said in #14:
> Courage in chess, much like in life, is key to success. I resonate with this notion, as I recently started my own blog, venturing into new paths and challenges
besides your blog adventure, are you saying "go for it!" and damn the torpedos of the game stake? (or time control accounting game layer?)
> Courage in chess, much like in life, is key to success. I resonate with this notion, as I recently started my own blog, venturing into new paths and challenges
besides your blog adventure, are you saying "go for it!" and damn the torpedos of the game stake? (or time control accounting game layer?)
So let me get this straight. The moral of the story is, You saw the right move Nf3, didn't trust yourself, played the inferior Rb1 and somehow claim that this is a talent weaker players don't possess and then you write an article about it.
this is about accepting we have small brain and deal with it rationally.. even the best of us, has a small brain.
@dboing said in #17:
> this is about accepting we have small brain and deal with it rationally.. even the best of us, has a small brain.
You've proved that with your grammar. So, let's just assume that this man's silly article is aimed at halfwits like yourself. Perhaps it ought to be retitled " Don't trust your calculations, because you are a moron"
> this is about accepting we have small brain and deal with it rationally.. even the best of us, has a small brain.
You've proved that with your grammar. So, let's just assume that this man's silly article is aimed at halfwits like yourself. Perhaps it ought to be retitled " Don't trust your calculations, because you are a moron"
It is first necessary to define the risk and risk in chess.
@dialogues said in #19:
> It is first necessary to define the risk and risk in chess.
Well that might be a taboo. Risk means we have some understanding that there might not be exactitude certainty, given that chess does not have uncertainty at terminal positions for games. or in the local position to positions transitions, it is hard to imagine that some superheroes with magical brains like in some fairy tales, those we might even admire in ignorance, would be navigating uncertainty in the decisions, that upstream decisions and long term consequences relation might not be like the local position to position logic or the terminal conditions objective criteria. What happens between those chess time scales? exponential legal divergence... that is enough in other field of science to talk about statistical order amidst "chaos". Just that in chess, we do not have uncertainty on the initial conidition, the branching degree of 32 things on 64 squares turn by turn being cranked often enough, will scramble our bloated brain eggs, to the point of beyond our strict computing horizon.. Sorry no super-heroes of the exact prediction kind. The taboo is uncertainty, which is why talking about risk, which for me implies uncertainty notion, is also creating some resistance.
@Zwischenmezzo
Who needs grammar (mer?, mor?) when the meaning is clear anyway:
> small brains.
even those with bloated image of themselves, still small brain. sorry. we should acknowledge a moving blob target of uncertainty as Siamese twin to (knowledge Union perception).
Also:
> big, chess is!
> It is first necessary to define the risk and risk in chess.
Well that might be a taboo. Risk means we have some understanding that there might not be exactitude certainty, given that chess does not have uncertainty at terminal positions for games. or in the local position to positions transitions, it is hard to imagine that some superheroes with magical brains like in some fairy tales, those we might even admire in ignorance, would be navigating uncertainty in the decisions, that upstream decisions and long term consequences relation might not be like the local position to position logic or the terminal conditions objective criteria. What happens between those chess time scales? exponential legal divergence... that is enough in other field of science to talk about statistical order amidst "chaos". Just that in chess, we do not have uncertainty on the initial conidition, the branching degree of 32 things on 64 squares turn by turn being cranked often enough, will scramble our bloated brain eggs, to the point of beyond our strict computing horizon.. Sorry no super-heroes of the exact prediction kind. The taboo is uncertainty, which is why talking about risk, which for me implies uncertainty notion, is also creating some resistance.
@Zwischenmezzo
Who needs grammar (mer?, mor?) when the meaning is clear anyway:
> small brains.
even those with bloated image of themselves, still small brain. sorry. we should acknowledge a moving blob target of uncertainty as Siamese twin to (knowledge Union perception).
Also:
> big, chess is!