Go back
SCHOOL is in session.

SCHOOL is in session.

Only Chess

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by cheater1
If there's ONE thing I HATE, it's the internet grammar or addition police. I DESPISE you. Worse than trolls and flamers in my book.

In my PASSIONATE typing, I occasionally type something like, "There are far to many trolls on this site." OF COURSE I know its supposed to be too, or theres supposed to be a hyphen in theres. Of course I know 1+10 is 11. If ...[text shortened]... s, well then, I guess I have proven my point. And you all know what that point is, dont you?
Yes, those ADDITION police are PERVADING THE INTERNET~!!

It's not SAFE to do even BASIC arithmetic on a website anymore! 😲

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
I find cheater1's posts to be entertaining and I hope he continues to post. I don't care whether he's right or wrong. The issues he discusses are all trivial or meaningless anyway. Who cares whether he's right or wrong? If you'd all look at his posts as half-comedic, half-serious, you wouldn't worry so much about how offensive or wrong you may think he is.
I have to admit that I think you're right about the comedic effect, although I'd say it's more like 95 percent comedy and 5 percent seriousness. (I guess I underestimated his talents, lol.) Now when he gets "MAD", I have a mental image of him as Yosemite Sam doing a slow burn in response to some trick administered by his arch-rival, Bugs Bunny. 😵


Originally posted by cheater1
If there's ONE thing I HATE, it's the internet grammar or addition police. I DESPISE you. Worse than trolls and flamers in my book.

In my PASSIONATE typing, I occasionally type something like, "There are far to many trolls on this site." OF COURSE I know its supposed to be too, or theres supposed to be a hyphen in theres. Of course I know 1+10 is 11. If ...[text shortened]... s, well then, I guess I have proven my point. And you all know what that point is, dont you?
But you claim to be the creator of Chessbuddy, a java based chess programme for mobile phones...and a good one too. You have to appreciate that we don't think someone with such ability and such a requirement for logical thinking would fail to add 10 + 1 to make eleven...not even as a typo. That's why it's so funny because it so clearly contradicts your self proclaimed credibility. And it is very easy to prove you're not the creator of chessbuddy because the real creator is easily accessible online .

It seems that everyone knows you're an idiot except you.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by cheater1
or theres supposed to be a hyphen in theres.
It's called an apostrophe.

FACT IS, I revealed the rot in your foundation with my first post in any of your threads. Nothing since then has had a base, so it does not bear any more attention than sniping at your sloppy spelling and maths.

Vote Up
Vote Down

WULEBGR gets the PROOFING award for today. Would you believe that I wrote "hyphen" INTENTIONALLY? Hmmmmmmmmmmm......

As far as being the CREATOR of chessbuddy, I hope to gosh I never said that. Co-creator...nope.......IMPETUS is the correct word. The java based version of chessbuddy is MY brainchild. In my early days of cheating during the early days of the internet, a chess program DID NOT exist that would move the pieces for you. See, I wanted to cheat at 1 minute games.....and even pulling all of my secret tricks like generating artificial LAG, the most moves I could get off was about 32-36 moves. I needed a program that would just move the pieces for you and thereby crank out AT LEAST 60 moves. I assembled a small team of programmers and we came up with the program chessbuddy. When I played at a java based site in the mid 90s called Classic games by TEN (a subsidiary of Excite) I DOMINATED the one minute games. I masqueraded as a LEGIT USCF 2400 bullet player and went by the name of MOCRATES. I would like to here if anyone here remembers that character, full of arrogance and conceit I was.

Anyway, we sold all rights to chessbuddy and I haven't had any affilitation with it for YEARS.

ps...did you spot the error?


"ps...did you spot the error?"

My guess is that the intentional error is the following, though it wouldn't surprise me if there are more (intentional or not).

"I would like to here if anyone here remembers that character ..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The same can be said for Tiger Woods. He is the only black player on the PGA ..."

The ethnic background of Tiger Woods is one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Thai, one-quarter African American, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch. Was referring to him as "black" also a "typo"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I will illustrate, through ANALOGY, why this is not so. PAY ATTENTION!!!!

Probability can ONLY be used when all things are EQUAL. For example, if I have 10 red socks in a drawer and 1 white sock ... "


For those forum menbers who do not have a background in statistics, this is known as a uniform distribution. Talent (chess or otherwise) in humans (male or female) is not distributed uniformally, but rather in a normal distribution (commonly known as a bell curve). Therefore, the analogy is not valid and in no way supports the original premise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: The premise espoused by "cheater_1" has not been proven. To be fair, it has also not been disproven. It remains a conjecture, nothing more.

"Pupils, pupils, please have a seat...shhhhh.... Professor cheater_1 is about to go over today's lesson."

The instructor is not competent to teach the material.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by cheater1


ps...did you spot the error?
I have a harder one! Trying to spot a correct and well founded statement.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by MetBierOp
I have a harder one! Trying to spot a correct and well founded statement.
That's beyond my pay grade.








Originally posted by cheater1
WULEBGR gets the PROOFING award for today.

It's not about the proofing; it's about the lack of a foundation for your assertions. You have made assertions for which you cannot offer sound evidence, and for which others have offered unmistakable disproof. Instead of addressing these refutations, you offer feeble acknowledgment of some of the abundant facile errors that have been noted, such as your confusion regarding hyphens and apostrophes, or the number of dots that form ellipses.

Vote Up
Vote Down

It is TRUE that I purposely choose to ignore questions. I refuse to answer rhetorical questions. I WILL confront any legitimate challenger, HEAD ON, and show you why I am right and you are wrong.

Please, STICK TO CHESS!!!! Going off topic like this irritates me. I have over 30 years of chess experience as well as some programming experience to fall back on. I know what I'm talkin' 'bout.

Once again, I deal ONLY in facts. No conjecture. No opinions. No speculation. FACTS. Cold and Hard.

I am researching my next topic for posting, here. Once my previous posts drop off the leader board, I will post my next topic. ALOT of work goes into what I do, please don't belittle my efforts. It IS a chess related post, as always, and it is supported by cited FACTS from CREDIBLE sources. You'll just have to wait.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Yet again the original poster of this thread posts incorrect information claiming such to be facts.'10 red socks and 1 white sock',the probability of choosing the white one is neither 1 in 10 nor 1 in eleven as any person with a minimal knowledge of mathematical sciences clearly understands.The ' odds' or 'probability'of selecting the one and only white sock among 10 red socks without being able to see them in a drawer or anywhere else unseen,cannot in fact be calculated at any point in such a random selection process due to the unknown and unpredictable effects of 'random chance', more commonly known as 'luck'.It is true that 11 independent selections will result in more red sock selections than white,however the white sock is also more than just likely to be selected more than just one time, from 11 independent sock selections of 1 white and 10 red.😉


Originally posted by cheater1
Once again, I deal ONLY in lies. Mere conjecture. Warped opinions. Rampant speculation. LIES. Bald-faced and Hard-headed.
Fixed.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Fixed.
Rec'd

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by cheater1
I am researching ...
Thanks for the laugh.