Did we loose our king?

Is King of Thebes I no longer a player here?

*lose*

as long as te englis komunitie dusnt agry on som logikal spelling roul set Ai wil meek tis cind of misteeks.

http://edcollins.com/lose.htm

Lastconnect: 2012-01-12 07:26

I always thought he was king of "The Besl" whatever the besl is.

Actually it was going to be "kingofthebes" (king of thebes) but I clicked submit without an email address when I first signed up so added roman numeral for one!

Will be back playing soon, when I have a few less distractions.

I'm with thnikkaman (wathever Thnikka is)

Keith, I don't really understand what you mean; either you still play or you don't play anymore, so it looks like a tautology to me...

Not that I want to promote silly ideas among bored and childish people, but you can also create games and not play.

I think people should talk or just shut up...

Ha, I completely disagree with you, slaapgraag!

Sometimes a topic provokes me, either to add my 2 cents, or to disagree, or to add a point of view, which gives the whole thing a different direction, then I enter a reply. And before I click the "Send message" button, I reread it and think I should rather leave that nonsense thread alone and think about my board games. I click the "Your games" link above and that's it.

Perhaps you don't notice that this happens to a couple of people.

Perhaps more people should act like that and prefer "Your games" over "Send message".

Anyway, IMO it's the subtle and fragile balance between talk and shut up that makes this forum worth reading.

I did not realize that there is another version of Seinfeld sitcom on Littlegolem.

Let me rephrase:

"I think people should post or not post"

Better?

(I'm not sure I should've posted this one...)

Oh dear! One of these old fashioned "excluded middle" people. You insist that people must "post" or "not post", "play " or "not play".

Tell me sir, if you were an army barber and you had orders to shave all the men who did not shave themselves, would you "shave yourself" or "not shave your self". Keep in mind, that noncompliance with a direct order could result in your court-martial. I think that my old friend Bertrand first thought of this conundrum some time ago.

David: Easy - shave yourself. It doesn't violate any order.

Then, you have just shaved a man who shaves himself. You were ordered only to shave men who did not shave themselves. You are courtmartialed !

At your court martial your defense lawyer will point out that you were ordered to shave the men who did not shave themselves, but what you did with the men who do shave themselves was left to your own initiative.

Nit picker! Weasel word lawyer !!! :-) Let us rephrase " You are ordered to shave only the men who do not shave themselves". You are instructed not to shave anyone else.

So, Sir,

I am instructed not to "shave" anyone else. May I "shoot" somebody? I just simply shoot that person, without shaving that person before or after the shooting.

No need to shoot anyone, Tim. You have some more pleasant choices:

(the confusing choice) Go and shave only the right half of your beard. And let someone else shave the other half.

(the gotcha) Go and have a sex-changing operation. You are then not a man, so you can (not) shave yourself as much as you like (you probably won't need that anyway).

Bertrand would not be amused! He wanted to russell your thinking.

usually a topic is easier directed into a new direction by posting than by shaving the post. I'm sure your post was right, slaapgraag.

Let's not make a tempest in Russell's teapot.

Thx, Michael.

I understand people can get half-shaved. (I shave myself once a week). But half-posts? I'd like to see those!

@slaapgraag (I'd have many trouble saying that to your face - Dutch 'gr' sound is almost impossible to me): suppose someone was posting here but then somehow inadvert

ently clicked "Send message" halfway typing his text. Then he decides to complete his idea right away, by posting the rest of the message. Suppose as well, this person was a contributor and decided (just to make it funnier) to delete the first half of his message. That would kinda count as a half-post, wouldn't it?

't understand your point.

Ooops, I just deleted the

Marius, I don

post

.. or someone makes a post with a hole in it through which you can see the inside of your monitor.

Soory to spoil your 'problems', but a post IS a post - even if the content is 'half'.

I tot agr, slaap

po

I am highly confused.

Is a dead dog a dog? If we accept the definition of dogs: animals that bark, are loyal to man, have hair, pant with tongues sticking out, and need to be walked every day. Then obviously a dead dog does not qualify being a dog....

I don't accept that definition of a dog.

Homicide is defined in common law as the intentional killing of a Human being by another human being. If you say a dog isn't a dog when dead, then logically a human wouldn't be a human when dead and that means a lot of murderers and those falsely convicted would have to be released.

Furthermore not all canines animals are loyal to Man, can bark or need walking.

If you have a legally defined dangerous dog without a tongue in the UK then the dog is still illegal (unless you have a lawful excuse).

The dog is a dead dog, living dog or is in the same state as schrodinger's cat, it is however a dog.

You can't dig half a hole either, there is either a hole or no hole the size of hole is irrelevant.

And a cat is either dead or alive! 8-)

Yes I'd strongly tend to agree, however "the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead."

The point isn't whether the Copenhagen interpretation or quantum mechanics is right, it is that whether alive or dead a dog is still a dog. If quantum mechanic says a dog is potentially simultaneously alive and dead then it is included as a possibility to cover all bases!

MRFvR - I never understood that 'problem'. If we don't know if the cat is alive or dead, doesn't mean the cat is dead and alive. It's alive OR dead, but we only don't know wich one of the two....

A white horse is a horse; but a horse may not be a white horse. I think that we all agree on this. :)

So, we tend to extend this logic to:

A dead dog is a dog; but a dog may not be a dead dog. We think that a noun with an adjective is simply a subset of the noun without the adjective.

But life is not so simple, ladies and gentlemen. Sometimes, though rather rarely, an addition of an ajective will remove the noun from its own set.

A head-less cow may still be a cow, but what if it is chopped into two halves. Do we still call a trunk-less cow a cow? I think that most people will call it "beef" (I do not mean to say that what most people say/do/think is necessarily correct).

According to Carroll (if I read his post correctly),

living beings = moving molecules + soul (whatever it means :) ).

A dog = moving molecules + soul

a dead dog = moving molecules = corpse.

So, when do we cease to call a dead dog a dog? If it just died one minute ago, we may still call it a dog. After 3 years, only its skeleton has remained. Do we still call it a dog?

Relating the past tense problem back to games:

The FIDE rules of chess used to say that an illegal move could not be claimed after a game was over. So a wiseacre played:

1. e4

2. Bc4

3. Qxf7++ !!

Since this delivers checkmate and the game is now over, no claim of an illegal move could be made.

The rule was subsequently clarified.

> living beings = moving molecules + soul (whatever it means :) ).

That is animism! About as popular today as flat earth. Current religions do not attribute a soul to animals, although as an atheist I not an expert. Wherever you pretend to place the limit between soul-equipped animals a soulless, it will be arbitrary and ridiculous.

Lots of people of this planet manipulate and engineer living creatures, every day just like others build bread-toasters. Both understand their field well enough not to need supernatural explanations to neither bread-toasting nor growing cells.

Some living beings have a copyright message by Craig Venter coded in their useless DNA, but a soul, ... I thought this was a serious thread. ;-)

@erratic - As for this topic, I've not been serious once before. But your post made me doubt myself (am I abusing fellow LGers?). So, I started this topic.

@darse - additionally, some guy once tried to castle with a promoted rook (since it hadn't move yet). Thank God in chess common sense is usually applied!

@MRFvR: I may have posted this before. In a live, over the board, tournament game, I've seen a guy moving his chess-mated king. And the guy who had just made the mate, react with inbelief first, then confusion and then continuing the game for 10 more moves (until the game was agrred to a tie).

The surrounding players were trying to hide their laughing - as the rules were that you can't intervene in an on-going game (and I guess that still applies now). Not sure however if the game can be considered ongoing when there has been a mate! Perhaps it's only a half-mate until that mated signs the papers.

I can't describe the surreal scene after the mater replayed the game later.

---

Off course the judge committee decided later that the game should end with a win for the poor guy and a disqualification for a year from all tournaments for the cheater.

But it's something noone there will forget...

WANTED!

Dead AND Alive

Schrodingers Cat

Okay, but you are not allowed to look at it!

yper: I thought the whole thing about checkmate was that capture of the king was inevitable? So why wasn't it captured the following move?

The bad guy might have moved the King two squares, or intervened with another piece with an illegal move, or something like that. I have no trouble believing that his opponent could be startled and frazzled enough to not realize that an illegal move had been made -- such things can happen when you're immersed in the heat of battle.

As an arbiter, i'd have no problem with awarding the win afterwards, on the grounds that the game ended when checkmate was delivered. MRFvR is an International Arbiter -- agree?

In poker we have a rule called "cards speak" -- the pot goes to the rightful winner, provided the cards were laid face-up on the table. The player may not realize that he's won, and may not claim the pot, but as long as he shows his full hand he is entitled to the pot. Similarly, i'd say the "chess board speaks".

Since the shenanigans took place after the game was technically over, it might be tough to take a really hard line against the "creative defence". Fortunately, the rules against unsportsmanlike conduct are fully adequate to handle that, if it was in fact deliberate gamesmanship.

There was a chess game between juniors that went down to king v king where one player claimed victory!

A one year ban seems harsh, as scenario suggests that the players are fairly weak. Of course the checkmated player should lose, but it is possible to hallucinate and make a really weird move without cheating.

Would someone really knowingly play on after checkmate with a load of witnesses gathered round?

They didn't really ban the "cheater" for a year did they? That is too harsh a penalty. There must be more to the story...maybe he annoyed the wrong people afterwards by bragging about his "brilliance"! Nice story, yper. I'm sure we've all seen things like this over the years. I should tell my story of catching a guy using a concealed hand-held chess computer against me sometime :o)

Alain was this cheating in a tournament, what were the consequences?