31 Jan 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobI guess I must be a very good analyzer or something is wrong with your
Viacheslav Vasilyevich Ragozin was a Soviet GM, he also was the second World Correspondence Chess Champion in 1956-59 thus becoming a GM at that form of the game. The Ragozin Defence line of the Queens Gambit Declined is named after him. Not too shabby a player.
Here are the results of eight games analysed from his 1959 triumph, with two games to stil ...[text shortened]... ICCF World Championship. How does someone with an 1817 OTB rating do that? The floor is yours.
figures. Perhaps, some of his moves were better than the computers,
who can say? But you should be satisfied now for I have promised
everyone I would no longer analyze the games I play on RHP, since
that is upsetting to some players because I am so good at it. 😏
31 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsBTW that smiley is really annoying...
I guess I must be a very good analyzer or something is wrong with your
figures. Perhaps, some of his moves were better than the computers,
who can say? But you should be satisfied now for I have promised
everyone I would no longer analyze the games I play on RHP, since
that is upsetting to some players because I am so good at it. 😏
just sayin' . Cant you do some other ones from time to time. It just makes you seem so goddam smug, when you put that at the end of nearly every post 😏
31 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59I do not think Proper Knob's proof is very good, since I have played some
RJH
Of course you do not cheat - so I have but one question;
[b]Why do you not enter the World Correspondance Chess Championships?
We have proof that you play better than them![/b]
of the top players here and have lost. Something does not seem right.
Why do they beat me, if my matchups are so wonderful? Since you guys
do not want me to do any analysis on another board then how could I
possibly win?
31 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsNo help you lose, help you win.
I do not think Proper Knob's proof is very good, since I have played some
of the top players here and have lost. Something does not seem right.
Why do they beat me, if my matchups are so wonderful? Since you guys
do not want me to do any analysis on another board then how could I
possibly win?
Simple.
31 Jan 12
Originally posted by divegeesterR O T F L M A O
Game 8178049
And he has the gall to call ANYONE a liar.....
31 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI can hardly see how you're a better 'analyser' than a GM who won the ICCF World Championship thus becoming a CC GM. Ragozin played 14 games in 3 years, i'll repeat that, 14 GAMES IN THREE YEARS to win the title!!!!! That's about 400-500 moves in three years, you've averaged that many moves PER MONTH since you joined this site, and here you are claiming to be a better anaylser than a correspondence GM world champion. 🙄
I guess I must be a very good analyzer or something is wrong with your
figures. Perhaps, some of his moves were better than the computers,
who can say? But you should be satisfied now for I have promised
everyone I would no longer analyze the games I play on RHP, since
that is upsetting to some players because I am so good at it. 😏
Ron, give it up will you?! You're busted, you have no defence and no one believes a word of what you have to say on the subject. You stop 'analysing' if that's what you want to call it.
31 Jan 12
Originally posted by RJHindsA strong human player combined with a strong computer [called a 'centaur'] will generally beat a player who is simply accepting an engine's choices without doing any work on his own. Computers suffer from horizon effect [things look good X moves ahead, but after X+1, there is trouble]. A strong human player will recognize this and steer the game away from those bad lines.
I do not think Proper Knob's proof is very good, since I have played some
of the top players here and have lost. Something does not seem right.
Why do they beat me, if my matchups are so wonderful? Since you guys
do not want me to do any analysis on another board then how could I
possibly win?
31 Jan 12
Originally posted by Kings and PawnsIt fits perfectly in here for number of reasons the best of which are:
How exactly does this thread fit into the 'Spirituality' forum? It would go better in the debates section, however that would be too generous as I see very little formal argumentation on here- it looks more like school yard pricks cussing and arguing. I have only seen a couple posts on here, a few by Proper Knob and a few others, that made any sense.
RJ Hinds posts here claiming to be a Christian with Christian values and this topic draws those values and the person bearing them into debate.
Most of the other threads here are general arguing about spiritually academic topics
31 Jan 12
Originally posted by Kings and PawnsI disagree; I see atheism often being surrounded by an impenetrable cloud of snobbish intellectualism, but as an ex atheist myself I see this as a gross generalisation. Being as I'm think an' all.
Nicely put, it does seem that religion is surrounded and plagued by an anti-intellectualism.
However, I think it is rather ungenerous to suggest that religion itself as a science is anti-intellectual, that is another topic for another thread though.
07 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillI lasted three minutes, more meism, its all about me, Jesus in me, my personal
RJHinds,
Before you go, observe the consecration of these young Christians giving testimonmy of the spread of the Lord's recovery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=BeAxZGGmHPY
salvation, yuk!
07 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI read three and one half words of your reply. More unbelief YUK.
I lasted three minutes, more meism, its all about me, Jesus in me, my personal
salvation, yuk!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=BeAxZGGmHPY
07 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillIts not unbelief, how could one miss the whole point of the Gospel, that's what i was
I read [b]three and one half words of your reply. More unbelief YUK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=BeAxZGGmHPY[/b]
wondering. 'we need to give ourselves to the Lord, we need to be Zion', its all about
us, yuk, yuk, yuk, !