Only Chess
10 Jan 05
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by Ragnoraki agree ... in my games with ironman he seemed open and friendly and helpful with chess advice (but not the best at babytalk ... i would not recomend him as a kindergarten teacher).
Just because a player chooses not to converse with such an annoying little p!ssant like yourself during a game doesn't mean that he doesn't talk with other people on the site. In fact, in my two games with him, I'd say we have messaged each other on nearly every move. There are a lot of people on this site who know his identity. 99% of people who can ...[text shortened]... ly bitter, twisted people would feel the need to stoop to public accusations at this point.
D
15 Jan 05
3 edits
Originally posted by skeeterin the moon landing thread:
Faked moon landings.........chess cheaters - yep, I can see the relevance - barely. Really Flex. Is that the best you can do? Ah! I forgot. You're from Australia. Explanations un-neccesary. Same for Xantho - he/she is just starting his/her der what the major is - could be interesting. Hmmmmm
skeeter
you claimed you knew people who had telescopes, better than the rest of us have access to, that proved your claims ... you were lieing ... no such telecopes have ever existed in the history of humanity.
and then in this thread:
you claim you know people who have computers, better than the rest of us have access to (other than grayeyes), that prove your claims ...
if you cannot see relevance then you are less than i thought you were.
many people have the unfortunate need to falsify proof of their statements, i must suspect you are one of these people at that stage ... i hope you show me wrong.
i trusted you in your first claim ... then searched ... and found you were wrong
i would like to trust you .. but once bitten twice shy.
i would also like to trust ironman.
and what about your comment to xanthos? what are you saying?
when some people say things like that they are making a threat! you should clear that up ... as you say: you could care less ... why would you threaten anyone?
or did you see that SVW got really drunk one night, and made stupid threats ... and you thought you should do the same?
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by flexmoreGeez Flex, even by Tasmanian standards you seem to be incredibly stupid at times.
in the moon landing thread:
you claimed you knew people who had telescopes, better than the rest of us have access to, that proved your claims ... you were lieing ... no such telecopes have ever existed in the history of humanity.
and then in this thread:
you claim you know people who have computers, better than the rest of us have access to (other tha ...[text shortened]... got really drunk one night, and made stupid threats ... and you thought you should do the same?
Show me where I claimed to know people who had these telescopes.
Also, here in Gods own, you can walk into any self respecting computer retail outlet and buy a dual processing rig straight off the shelf. Fast too, unlike the typical Australian brain.
And on the internet you can purchase the latest Deep Fritz 8 engine for about $US80 which can be run in a multi-processing role.
So, for about $NZ4000 you too can be as good as Ironman. I know this, GrayEyes certainly knows this, half the planet has access to this information but for some strange reason the populus of Australia are unable to grasp this concept. Must be in the breeding. Too many grandparents from Tasmania I suspect. Ah well - I suppose someone had to sleep with the convicts and goats. Too bad they forgot which night was which.
skeeter
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by skeeterAn Australian was walking down a country road in New Zealand, when he happened to glance over the fence and see a farmer goin' at it with a sheep.
Geez Flex, even by Tasmanian standards you seem to be incredibly stupid at times.
Show me where I claimed to know people who had these telescopes.
Also, here in Gods own, you can walk into any self respecting computer retail outlet and buy a dual processing rig straight off the shelf. Fast too, unlike the typical Australian brain.
And on the internet y ...[text shortened]... o sleep with the convicts and goats. Too bad they forgot which night was which.
skeeter
The Aussie is quite taken aback by this, so he climbs the fence and walks over to the farmer.
He taps him on the shoulder and says, "You know mate, back home, we shear those!"
The New Zealander looks frantically around and says, "I'm not bloody shearing this with anybody!"
15 Jan 05
Originally posted by dyl...the Kiwi version:
An Australian was walking down a country road in New Zealand, when he happened to glance over the fence and see a farmer goin' at it with a sheep.
The Aussie is quite taken aback by this, so he climbs the fence and walks over to the farmer.
He taps him on the shoulder and says, "You know mate, back home, we shear those!"
The New Zealander looks frantically around and says, "I'm not bloody shearing this with anybody!"
A kiwi and an australian farmer were out walking the farm to check stock. The kiwi see's a ewe with its head stuck thru the fence and says to the Aussie; "righto - this'll do" hops round the back of the sheep, drops his daks and gives it a rogering. When he's finished he says to the Aussie; 😲K matey - your turn" The Aussie promptly drops his daks and sticks his head thru the fence.
skeeter
15 Jan 05
First…my “serious” rating is around 1980-2000, but it wasn’t always. I started doing a couple things and my rating shot up 300-400 points. After reading deGroot’s Thought and Choice in Chess (OOP), I noticed weaker players looked at many more moves and tried to see further ahead than the masters. The weaker players always got befuddled over so many possibilities. Also, often in the first 2-3 moves the weaker players looked at was at least one move the stronger players also considered. So. I concluded: (1) Only consider the first 2-4 moves that pop into my head (2) Only look 3-4 moves deep & if I don’t how it loses a piece, play it. (3) Pick the move that looks the most threatening, even if it’s only in a general sort of way. (4) After your opponent moves and before you move, scan the ranks, files and diagonals. Amazing how much stuff you see, like the Rook that was hanging on a1. Also, get a book of unanalyzed tournament games & play over them (with a board not on a computer) at 5-10 min. per game. You are going after quantity, not quality, so as to learn pattern recognition. I think American Master Ken Smith recommended this. You will then find (3) improves because you start zeroing in on opponent’s weak squares, loose pieces, things like that, and that is what chess is all about – tactics; at least below Master level. Don’t laugh…this works. You won’t be a Master, but you won’t be a D player either.
16 Jan 05
4 edits
Originally posted by skeeteri at first planned to expect you to read between the lines in amongst your own posts.
Geez Flex, even by Tasmanian standards you seem to be incredibly stupid at times.
Show me where I claimed to know people who had these telescopes.
Also, here in Gods own, you can walk into any self respecting computer retail outlet and ...[text shortened]... goats. Too bad they forgot which night was which.
skeeter
originally posted by skeeter:
"....But wait - there's more : optics technology has advanced leap years in comparison to other areas and whilst we are able to view the moons surface with such resolution we can now recognise individual rock particles on the surface from Earth, no one has been able to locate the discarded LEM undercarriage, that "waving in the breeze" flag or the footprints and, this the biggy, the unrecovered moon buggy. Its the size of a small car for Gods sake. Where has it all gone to?? ...."
and
"Simple enough. Where were these reflectors placed on the moon and why cannot anyone on earth see them????????
Where are they? And if they are there why cannot anyone see them?????
Thats it. Any amatuer with a half decent lense can see anything on the moons surface.
So, where is the LEM undercarriage, the flag, the footprints, the rover and now, this reflector???
Please support your arguement with photographic evidence.
Too easy really, if at all it is there. I suspect you will have to gain access to a certain hangar, Area 51, Nevade Desert, planet Earth to get that evidence.
Know this. There is nothing on the surface of the moon that is not now visible from Earth even with amatuer apparatus. So where is this reflector?? Show me. Just show me and I will be impressed. But you cannot because it is not there. It is just a case of showme, just show me, just show me, just show me, just show me - well, you get the message. Just show me an image of this reflector on the moons surface and I will withdraw. JUST SHOW ME.
skeeter "
then redmike pipes in with:
"You cannot possibly see this sort of detail from Earth.
'Any amateur with a half-decent lens' cannot see anything on the moon's surface.
See http://www.pa.msu.edu/people/frenchj/moon/landingsite.html for what sort of detail you can actually see. (An 8-inch lens is, by any standards, decent.)
No doubt though, if someone could produce photograph evidence, it would be part of the conspiracy....."
skeeter is back with
"Correct. But my definition of "amatuer" varies significantly from yours I suspect.
My definition refers to privately owned telescopes not reliant on governmnt funding and situated on private land not subject to US law, and not to some waco standing in his backyard on a clear night with his Nikon on infinity.
These guys can see individual rocks on the moons surface but are unable to locate something the size of a small car in a nominated LEM landing area? What? Really, just whom are you trying to fool.
Show me the evidence or shut up.
skeeter "
sonhouse and others blow your rubbish out of the water with posts like:
"someone said you can see individual grains on the moon, that is total
BS. the best scope we have right now is the Hubble, its resolution is
about 0.05 arc seconds. That means if you take a 360 degree circle of space the hubble chops that circle into about 25 million parts. Now at the distance of the moon, the orbit of the moon is that circle, which
is about 1.5 million miles. Right away you can see we are in trouble,
1.5 million mile circle divided by 25 million parts means a resolution on the moons surface of about 300 feet. So you MIGHT detect a football stadium! Nothing smaller. You can forget seeing individual spacecraft, footprints, etc. 0.05 arc second is 50 milliarcseconds which is 300 feet at the moon. So if you want 0.3 foot (3.6 inches) resolution you need 50 MICRO arcsecond resolution. The hubble mirror is about 2 meters across so to get one thousand times the resolution requires a mirror also 1000 times larger, so the mirror would need to be 2000 meters across, oh about 1.3 MILES. So you can see nothing near the eath can do the job! The biggest scope even being contemplated is the "OWL" Overwhelmingly Large telescope which will be about 300 FEET wide, as big as the second largest RADIO telescope! Even that would only be about 90 meters across and at best give about 50 times hubble res. or about 1000 micro arc seconds which at best could give about 6 feet resolution at the moon. The problem with that is the moon is so bright, they would'nt want to actually image the moon for fear of burning out the optics. I'm not sure if even the hubble has imaged the moon, maybe. So thats the skinny of seeing stuff on the moon with scopes near earth. That only leaves orbiters and even for them it is not trivial to get 6 inch resolution. You can see the problem getting a really big scope in orbit around the moon, the hubble is the size of a bus, probably heavier than the apollo so 2 meter scopes circling the moon is out. you might get more like 200 CM or so (0.2 meter). At best that would cut the circle into 2.5 million parts (one tenth the hubble res.) and if such a scope were a couple of hundred miles altitude circling the moon it could give you I think about one inch resolution so that would settle the issue. Till then, no help."
and skeeter says :
Whatever - good enough to see something the size of a small car. Show me the pictures or go away. Its that simple. If its there we will be able to see it so show me the evidence. Just show me
skeeter
with a normal human i would try to construct an arguement using these posts above and perhaps a couple more from the moon thread.
this could demonstrate your tendency to make up your mind and then construct the evidence accordingly.
however you must speak the language of the person you are talking with, and so here is my explanation for you skeeter:
your mother was a sheep .
16 Jan 05
2 edits
http://www.inconstantmoon.com/inconstant.htm
Look at the atlas.
And
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-moon.html
Worth looking at
Moon pitcure
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/stellar/scenes/moon_e/moon_a2.htm
the directory
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/stellar/scenes/english/moon.htm
16 Jan 05
Originally posted by skeeterHe is majoring in Electrical Engineering.
Faked moon landings.........chess cheaters - yep, I can see the relevance - barely. Really Flex. Is that the best you can do? Ah! I forgot. You're from Australia. Explanations un-neccesary. Same for Xantho - he/she is just starting his/her education at my place this year. I wonder what the major is - could be interesting. Hmmmmm
skeeter