07 Jan 06
It does seem reasonable to assume that your position was better for your having used less time, but not certain. You may have moved recklessly and he cautiously, albeit too slowly to win. I found your puzzle a bit pretentious, relying as it did on the assumption that speed/less thinking equals better play. A true puzzle has only one true answer.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by dpressnellWas his position better than yours?
I once played an online 5 minute game. After about 20 moves, my opponent ran out of time and I flagged him. I had used about 2 minutes. Then he told me "My position is much better than yours you know."
What's silly about that statement?
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by mcandesI wouldn't even call it a puzzle.
It does seem reasonable to assume that your position was better for your having used less time, but not certain. You may have moved recklessly and he cautiously, albeit too slowly to win. I found your puzzle a bit pretentious, relying as it did on the assumption that speed/less thinking equals better play. A true puzzle has only one true answer.
I came here expecting a chess puzzle and not a silly question with an equal silly and obvious answer.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by dottewellHis position was slightly better than mine. I'll have to look back to see if I mistyped something, because I never intended to say my position was better than his, or that moving faster produces better moves. That would be a crazy thing to say!
Was his position better than yours?
07 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dpressnellRight. So the answer to your question - "What is silly about that statement?" - is...
Okay, I think I see what the misunderstanding is.
I didn't claim his statement was silly because it was untrue (which it wasn't).
I was pointing out that it was silly simply because it was made.
Nothing.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by dottewellIt would have been the wrong question if I had asked "What's incorrect about that statement?"
Maybe you asked the wrong question.
But I asked something else. Check back in the earlier posts. You'll see it. If I'm not mistaken, I think you even quoted it.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by dpressnellThere is nothing silly about his statement.
It would have been the wrong question if I had asked "What's incorrect about that statement?"
But I asked something else. Check back in the earlier posts. You'll see it. If I'm not mistaken, I think you even quoted it.
It may be silly to make such a statement (although this is far from obvious). But the statement itself is not silly.
Frankly, if you chatted like this during your game with him, the reason he was taking so long is probably because he was tying himself a noose between moves.
07 Jan 06
Originally posted by RavelloI don't know. But that raises another puzzle of sorts here. I never have seen a forum where somebody is forced to read and reply multiple times when he had no interest in the thread. How did that happen to you? Maybe you should talk to an administrator and see if he can fix it. Maybe it's a some kind of bug in the web site programming.
Am I the only one to find this thread pretty silly and pointless?
I can certainly see how being forced to follow a thread and post to it when you don't want to can be annoying!
Sorry, although this is a new puzzle, I don't have the answer to this one. I've got some ideas, but unless I'm certain, I don't want to say.