Recommended posts from the last 7 days - updated every 24 hours.

Unless God doesn't exist, in which case your beliefs are just delusions; no different than the schizophrenics wandering downtown Seattle. You see, simply claiming that your beliefs are based on the authority of God doesn't get you anywhere, since that claim is not one that any of us atheists are likely to accept, or even understand. And anyway, how can your beliefs be based on anything other than your own assessment of the evidence as you see it? Even if God exists, and your beliefs rest upon His revealed testimony, at some point you still had to assess whether the content of such revealed testimony was plausible. You had to think about whether what you were reading or hearing made sense. Surely this is the ultimate basis of your beliefs; your own authority as an epistemic agent who is tasked with believing that which is most clearly evident and plausible. You're nothing special in this regard. Just like me, and everybody else.

EDIT: Unless you never really thought about the evidence, or subjected your beliefs to serious and rigorous scrutiny. In that case, you're not like me, but more like a child repeating whatever inanity plagued his parents.

Hi VR

Not trying to embarrass you, just thanking you for the laugh.

1150 players do write chess books, infact have in my library books
on chess written by people who don't even play the game.

The high numbers after a name mean they are good at a game.
Nothing more, they are good at a game.

Your blinkered view is holding back your chess development.
Look past the numbers, see the man.

You are just as good at chess as he is but his 4 digit number is
higher than yours so you expect (and want to ) lose.

Sorry for posting a game in General Forum but thought it could
do with cheering up.

Last time I looked top thread was some guy saying you should stand in front
of a fridge, drop your trousers and freeze your genitals.

(remind me not to leave that guy alone in my kitchen).

I'm now slinking off back to my chums in the Chess Forum.
It's....er...been fun.

Someone call a paramedic, I think GB is laying face down on his keyboard.

There is nothing unfair about draw offers made within the rules at all. A higher rated player offered me a draw, and I took it. We started with Bird's Opening, transposed to the King's Gambit, and Geoff thought he would throw me off with the Falkbeer. When I did not melt from the bluff, he offered a draw in a position where I was slightly better.

Geoff's strategy was to neutralize me and beat everyone else to win the tournament, and his strategy worked. He doesn't like long drawn-out games, so he tries stuff from his bag of tricks, and if the other guy doesn't bite, he tends to offer draws.

(I should also add that Geoff told me that the only reason he entered the tournament was that it needed one more person, and had been sitting in the tournamente queue a while, so he thought he would join just to get the ball rolling.)

I thought if I emerged with an even score against the top guy in the tournament, that gave me a good chance to win. I didn't win every other game, so I did not win the tournament. In retrospect I should have tried to convert the game, but it was one of my first tournaments on the sight, and I let his higher rating overly influence me.

Bottom line is that his tournament strategy worked, and mine didn't.

Every player in the tournament can offer a draw to any other player at any time, and the other player can accept or decline at his discretion.

I also agree that an agreed draw in advance is unethical, but there was no advance agreement to draw. You are just wrong. And to make an unfounded accusation like that is even more wrong.

Paul

i'm beginning to lose the smile on my face now thanks

Who rec'd this post? Fess up.

The rules make perfect sense as they stand and should not be changed.

1) He who gets the enemy King first wins. Therefore, the King cannot move into an attack by a pinned piece, because it would be he who was lost first.

2) The whole point of the 50 move rule is to put a time limit on the offensive player. If he cannot FORCE progress within the 50 moves, then the defense deserves to draw. Also, I fail to see why you think this results in 'the present board situation always taking preference [sic] to future moves'. If one calculates that a certain line reaches the 50 move rule, then he has not disregarded the future moves. It's part of the strategy.