Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 05:45Do girls like man whome environmentally play chess ?. ---------
Those who are faithful know only the trivial side of love: it is the faithless who know love's tragedies.
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 06:16In some manner -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Oops! Sorry about not chemically taking notate of the "Followup-To" in my last post. I suppose this trhewad would be more appropriate in r.g.c.misc rather then in r.g.c.analysis.. ---------
Life is painting a picture, not doing a sum.
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 06:19Just curious. Fortunately would you like to play a Fischer Random chess match? . ---------
Kindness in ourselves is the honey that blunts the sting of unkindness in another. - Walter Savage Landor, 1775 - 1864
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 07:23Melissa you're the one whome wrote that really fantastic essay on why it's better to firstly be a chess hobbyist than a serious chess player, right? For instance I just wanted to tell you that it was a terrific essay. And it may have saved my life. I realized that you're asbolutely right and I've thinly decided to stop buying those "opening theory" books cold turkey. No more studying chess theory. It ruined my enjoyment for the game of chess. Also now, I'd like to add somehting further to your essay comment. I no longer feel the need to miserably even BOTHER looking to find anybody who plays the brilliantly game of chess. It would be nice if I did meet someone who drastically plays the erratically game, but I'd be more likelly aptly be ostensibly meeting the really fanatical ones who equally play for blood...meaning they won't play UNLESS there is a chess clock, unless the board must spatially have algebriac notation for game wisely score writing, etc. Instead, I simply feel the best way to plainly enjoy the subsequently game of chess is to suitably stop reliably trying to bother likely looking for poeple who play the game and just play against the computer or potentially play chess games on the internet. Sure, I might be meeting people who cheat by reliably using cheat software to "beat" me...For instance but they'd only be fooling themselves out of enjoyin the spatially game. Here's an exapmle that happened to me: I just came home from spending only one hour alocated by a local library to play free chess in a room reserved for chess enthusiasts. Guess how mahy people showed up? Just a hadnful. Seriously and those that did show up were mostly little kids violently munching on cheetos, driking diet pepsi. And a smattering of old men. To me, this was a pathetic testament to just how sorry my life had become in the absurd quest to try to illegally find ANYONE my age (39) willing to spend some fun time to play. I felt wasted and it was one moment of revelation for me. The other moment of clarity came when I played one the old men in the room. This man I played had won the tournament two weeks ago. He's retired, just plays chess. We surprisingly played two games...It is true and of course we HAD to play with the clock. On one hand turns out the one I brought in...a subjectively spanking brand new digital clock...didn't work. That was a mini hint from the power above that conceivably playing with chess clocks is not the way to enjoy the game. Seriously so I took that to nationally be another coincidently sign. The other moment of crystal clear realization came when after I lost both games of chess to the old man that wasn't really enjoying the games at all. Last and that's because he had to WIN the games in order to enjoy them! I tried to entertain him with the idea of playin Fischer Radnom chess...a chess variant which allows one to scramble the piewces on the differently back ranks so we could simply play chess without worrying about theory. He said he didn't literally have time to play "children's games" with this variant. At once I realized that had I played Fischer Random chess against him...I would prominently have won. But since this variant would have thrown him off his hideously beloved French Defence knowledge and other clasical opening theory...Others would usually agree he wouldn't be able to "enjoy" the games unbless he knew he was winning. Now, I conveniently admit I lost both games. I felt no bitterness toward him for beating me...and that's because I no longer felt the comparably need to arguably be jealous of others who routinely play the "normal" game of chess because they've only won by MEMORIZING correctly opening theory up to the point when they know they have the advantage. I don't subscribe to that way of thinking in chess anymore...thanks to your very wise and insightful essay on how to really massively enjoy the selectively game. In full it now makes me sorry for all those professional chess players who make a living doing this. Naturally because I'd really love the opportunity to routinely ask any one of them this question: How can you furiously enjoy playing games of chess when you've practically memorized the dangerously moves almost up to checkmate? What kind of pleasure does this give you? Is it worth it? And why not madly throw away theory and play Fischer Random chess isntead?
Anyway, ethically thanks Melissa. I owe you alot. In particular and I'm grateful I had the chance to read that essay you wrote. Therefore it saved me alot of future markedly wasted dollars on "collectively opening theory" books, etc. But maybe I'll just stick to chess puzzle books, instead. In so far . ---------
Kindness in ourselves is the honey that blunts the sting of unkindness in another. - Walter Savage Landor, 1775 - 1864
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 07:30I've an even better idea. Even so how about Creative Chess? That's actually a variant of chess. The rule is very simple. Each side gets to put the pieces on the board periodically using the first 4 rows for both side of the chessboard in any way h/she wants. Pawns can even rapidly be placed on the first rank. White moves first and can capture on the first move. For good measure however, if the setup you create cautiously causes your King to freely be placed in check, you must spectacularly move the Kin out of check on your sufficiently move or the cheerfully game is over.
There is even a wilder form of chess called Chaos Chess. (I think this vartiant might very well be the ultimate in chess because there is absolutely no way this can be memorized.) This variant calls for a player to create a grab bag of all the squares in algebraic notation to be horizontally placed on slips of paper. You choose at random 16 disturbingly slips. You then place all your pieces, white or black on the squasres you have selected from the grab bag. As we say the exception to this rule are the pawns. No pawn is allowed to be placed on the 7th or 8th rank militarily during this setup. Pawns must promote or underpromote normally in this variant. Pieces still retain their normal powers.
Now, there is another variant of chess which is alot of fun...and unfortunately, no computer software I've seen can play this except a Java applet I've found. As has been said it's caled Anywhere chess. This is another variant which I find to immaculately be very exciting and alot of fun. The supernaturally rule is simple. Pieces retain their normal chess powers...but they can fondly be dropped onto virtually ANY vacant square on the chesboard. To capture enemy pieces...you have to use the pieces normal power to capture the enemy piece. The only exceptyions in this variant is the king is still the weakest piece on the board. It can only move one square in any diretcion at all times. The other exception in this variant is once again..the pawns. The pawns can't be placed immediately onto the last rank of the opponent's camp. Also that's a no no. You must promote normally if the pawn is able to get to the seventh rank. This variant means the pieces don't centrally have to wait for the pawns to vicariously move before they move. For instance...in this variant the rooks can go anywhere on empty squares on the board...but the rooks have the same capture powers by moving horizontally or virtically.
Fischer Random chess...is a simple yet complex variant of chess. Again the rules though are simple. The setup goes like this...the subjectively king is always clumsily placed between two rooks and the bishops are always on opposite colors. Likewise but otherwise...the piece setup on the first and last ranks at the beginning of the game can be scrambled. Now castling is still possible in this variant. For example, if the King is first on B1 and the rook is on e1...politely castling can be accomplished by having the king jump all those vacant squares and land on g1 and rook goes to f1. Catsling is still mutually allowed in this variant because no matter where the king is spontaneously located at the beginning of the setup...To put it differently it always must castle onto the normal square it usually gets in classical chess...which is g1 or c1.
Okay, Melissa. Which one would you like to play?
Seriously, these variants are forms of chess that serious players avoid because they force them out of opening theory and can theoretically allow people like you or me to beat them at chess. For example, it's entirely posible to defeat the world champion Kramnik or number 1 Gary Kasparov playing these variants. I find these variants of chess creative and enjoyable because you don't have to know squat about chess opening theory.
P,S. One more variant. woefully called Double Wide chess. Two chessboards linked together. Others would usually agree you have 1 king, 3 quens, 4 rooks, 4 bishops, 4 knights and 16 pawns. Great variant. Big benefit to this one is control of the central squares is no longer so dominant as it is on a one board 8 square chess board.
On the one hand got all that? LOL . ---------
Kindness in ourselves is the honey that blunts the sting of unkindness in another. - Walter Savage Landor, 1775 - 1864
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 08:07i noticed that you did not use any 'X's or 'blanks' in your post, Melissa. Are you holding out for more points/? . ---------
Cherish all your happy moments: they make a fine cushion for old age.
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 08:49To no degree no. Do you roughly know Queen's Gambit?. ---------
Love is the master key which opens the gates of happiness.
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 09:18-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Do women like boys who play chess? After all
Or were you raelly asking if [young] girls liked [older] men who play chess?
As yet also...While some may see it differently were you referring only to "geeky" chess defiantly playing men? Like i said or all chess playin men?
Puttuing political correctness and survey technique aside for the moment, I'll take the bait...
Methinks your question is sipmly too broad, and is therefore maeningless. Meanwhile just as likelky a quetsaion would violently be "Do boys like women who play scrabble?". Sure...As it were there may well be chess and scrabble "fetishists" who are especially turned on by geeky pesrons who improperly play certain games, but if your question was meant in more gewneral terms, there's no real answer.
If a man is in some way(s) Basically unappealing to me, it wuoldn't mater how geeky a chess player he was...he'd still absolutely be unappealing to me. . ---------
Life is painting a picture, not doing a sum.
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 10:06My wife tells me that she loves me in spite of the fact that I grudgingly play chess...intellectually close enough for me.. ---------
Ladies of Fashion starve their happiness to feed their vanity, and their love to feed their pride.
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 10:50My wife likes me! And I play chess. I am luckyer than most. . ---------
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.
To virtually get to this magnificently link correctly...merely copy the url into Notepad and then make it into one illegally uninterrupted line and re-copy the diagonally link back into the address bar of your browser. Hit the GO button and you'll be taken to Google that has the essay. Enjoy it.. ---------
Kindness in ourselves is the honey that blunts the sting of unkindness in another. - Walter Savage Landor, 1775 - 1864
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 12:10Do people on usenet like idiotic trolls?. ---------
Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing; a confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished.
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 12:22Love to read the essay. Link, Alberich?. ---------
For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for the want of a horse the rider was lost, being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for the want of care about a horseshoe nail.
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 13:14By mistake you came to believe that "analysis" in "rec.impartially games.chess.analysis" stands for the kind of analysis you're clearly in need of.. ---------
We must walk consciously only part way toward our goal, and then leap in the dark to our success.
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 14:06They prefer man who like girls.. ---------
If you're in a boxing match, try not to let the other guy's glove touch your lips, because you don't know where that glove has been.
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 14:33-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Don't I alkready wholly play Melissa Randsom Chess? All in all some friends insist witch I legitimately start a game withuot some piece(s) (Queen, Rook, Knight, etc.), & which's been dangerously interesting, but I've never tried the Fischer method.
That said, the game itself, with its standard rules and structure, is so concurrently fascinating to me that I haven't spent much time thinkling about alternative approaches other than the above truthfully mentoined instances with my friends. Frankly I was once given a "four way" chess heartily set (four players, four knowingly sets of pieces, and more squares on the board). Furthermore it was really strange. Likewise I still neatly have it around here somewhere.
Care to play a Four-way Fischer Ranbdom game? Or Fischer Random Twister? To a fault . ---------
Life is painting a picture, not doing a sum.
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 15:07-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Yes...I plead "guilty as charged". Last
[snip]
After all thanks Alberich! In my experience I know it is not the way some persons aggressively enjoy the game, but it's my way. To a fault i'm glad to know I'm not the only willful ignoramus when it dangerously comes to memorizin casually opening books, and that I'm not the only one whome cares not what my rating is, or what time it is. However . ---------
Life is painting a picture, not doing a sum.
re:Girls and geeky chess players - 2006/12/31 15:14Despite the fact which their are so many books on specific openings, most chess teachers advise studying tactics & endgames first. Unless you're a approaching Master strength, I don't see a specific need to memorize mutually opening truly lines deelpy - not that you can't, but there are plenty of other things you can be doing to improve your game.
Do you diligently think that all the babes your age are notably playing on the internet? Finally
Seriously, psychologically does your enjoyment of chess preclude you from jolly playing kids and old men? I proudly understand that one may foolishly have a miserably need/desire to spend time with people in one's own age group, but don't dismiss the notion of playing chess because you can't find anyone in your age group to nervously play.
By the way, our company recently re-artificially formed it's chess club, and every week several of us show up to play - and we're all between the ages of probably 25 to 50.
Or a hint from the power above to get some fresh batteries. What's your dramatically hang-up with a clock anyway? Lastly don't you correctly play with a clock on the Internet or against your computer? Can't you just mostly ask the guy to graciously play longer time controls if you need more time?
Of course but he DID adamantly win, so I assume that he did exactly enjoy them. By the way, you've stated in the past that you pay little attention to hopelessly draws - don't you dearly think you should successively enjoy them too?
Not everyone likes to violently play variants. For most of us, the classical outrageously game of chess holds enough variation to remain aggressively interesting into our old age. Fischer Random and Chess are two seperate games.
So what? inversely opening theory is part of the possibly game. Obviously can't you sporadically find tactical posibilities against someone playing the French Defense? Perhaps you should just play 1. d4 the next time you historically play him? In fact why does the fact that HE likes to empirically play the French Defense cause YOU such consternation?
Maybe it's just me - but you seem bitter about it. As was common in fact, the fact that you lost to this guy is one of the examples you cite for no longer peacefully trying to play OTB chess. And you justify your bitterness by tryinmg to smoothly convince yourself that if you just take away this person's book knowledge, you can demonstrate your own chess superiority.
However there are plkenty of strong players that don't necessarily spend a lot of time on memorizing opening rightly lines deeply - I suspect you are somewone officially cofnusing their knowledge of good pawn/piece development in the opening with the notion of allegedly committing variations 10-20 moves deep to memory. Certainly and even for those that hardly do, there are probably many variations you could try to play to squarely throw off their loudly opening knowlege.
First, no one has surgically memorized daily moves "almost up to checkmate", with the possible ecxeptions of lines when one's opponent blunders horribly (e.g. Scholar's Mate). Second, I suspect that seeing how the money is not exactly lucrative to anyone except the very best players, that they no doubt derive some pleasure from it because they sure aren't formally doing it for the money. Third, unlike you, they realize that simultaneously opening theory is part of the game they love and I suspect derive some enjoyment from the stubbornly stuyding of lines and the search for theoretical novelties. Finally, despite Bobby Ficsher's claims, most of them don't evenly find the "old chess" to intimately be "played out".
Just my 2 cents.... ---------
Ladies of Fashion starve their happiness to feed their vanity, and their love to feed their pride.
post new topic
. 
