Tell me why I should leave this site

Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMad
nmdavidb was banned for alleged outside assistance, not throwing poop at you.

I'll take this opportunity to again brand you a liar

Can I ask you a question, MacMad?
What on Earth possessed you to play like this against a -1000 in a game finished just over a year ago, when you were rated 1166?
Game 3188398


I'm not suggesting foul play, I'd merely like you to give your side of the story.
Many people on this site would like to improve their chess & your insights could be extremely helpful to them.
🙂

Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMad
Look up the meaning of irony

Of course.. The "definitions" game the first choice of dullminded and self-absorbed flunkies.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
Of course.. The "definitions" game the first choice of dullminded and self-absorbed flunkies.

Of course... The direct insult game: the first choice of those with not a lot to say, but still want to get their names mentioned on the board

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If this post is generated by software....

Thread 87944 last post

www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=87944&page=1#post_1660647

...then I want to know who makes it and where I can get it!

tell me what part rubbed you the wrong way then.

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Can I ask you a question, MacMad?
What on Earth possessed you to play like this against a -1000 in a game finished just over a year ago, when you were rated 1166?
Game 3188398
[pgn]
[Event "Open invite"]
[Site "http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com"]
[Date "2007.02.17"]
[EndDate "2007.02.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "AURORALST"]
[Black "Mad Mac ...[text shortened]... their chess & your insights could be extremely helpful to them.
🙂

I don't recall the game, but after looking at it I can say it was truly awful. If I can give one piece of advice to those rated 1166 - take longer than a tenth of a second to make a move

Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMad
...despite your 'overwhelming evidence' sent to the game mods, I'm still here.

Now, that leaves us with two scenarios...

you have sure earned that title

That looks like an admission of guilt to me.

Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMad
I don't recall the game, but after looking at it I can say it was truly awful. If I can give one piece of advice to those rated 1166 - take longer than a tenth of a second to make a move

That game was played in February of 2007 when you finished only 10 games and played badly in most of them. Just two months later in April 2007, you finished more than 30 games, won virtually all of them and raised your rating more than 500 points.

Taking more time had nothing to do with it.

In the words of the esteemed Dave Tebb: A rapidly rising graph is actually a very good indicator of likely engine use and would definitely be taken into account by the game mods.

http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=95994&page=15

Originally posted by no1marauder
Taking more time had nothing to do with it.

Another falsehood.

Of course, taking your time to review the board rather than making the first move your eye catches is going to result in better moves.

There are other factors, but I'd argue this is the difference between a sub 1200 and about 1500-ish from my own experience

Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMad
Another falsehood.

You trying to explain away your first 10 games is rather silly, and then to go on to gain an easy 500 points in 30 games is rather obvious and blatant.

Originally posted by eldragonfly
You trying to explain away your first 10 games is rather silly, and then to go on to gain an easy 500 points in 20 games is rather obvious and blatant.

1500 posts of drivel: you should receive some sort of medal

Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMad
Another falsehood.

Of course, taking your time to review the board rather than making the first move your eye catches is going to result in better moves.

There are other factors, but I'd argue this is the difference between a sub 1200 and about 1500-ish from my own experience

But you played many more moves in April 2007 than you did in February 2007, so the "I took more time on each move" line is obviously false.

The difference between your performance in February 2007 and April 2007 isn't the difference between a 1200ish and 1500ish; it's the difference between a 1200ish and a 2200ish (approximately; perhaps higher). There are only two possible explanations for that change in a performance in such a short time and both are 3(b) here.

Originally posted by no1marauder
But you played many more moves in April 2007 than you did in February 2007, so the "I took more time on each move" line is obviously false.

The difference between your performance in February 2007 and April 2007 isn't the difference between a 1200ish and 1500ish; it's the difference between a 1200ish and a 2200ish (approximately; perhap ...[text shortened]... e explanations for that change in a performance in such a short time and both are 3(b) here.

Your comparision to 2200 is completely unfounded, and added for effect.

The irony in this whole thing is, if it wasn't for you I wouldn't actually be on this site anymore, I'd be long gone. Feel free to finish our other game any time you like

Originally posted by Mahout
For a reason I can't explain I don't believe elgragonfly is stupid. If the forum were flooded with posts of this nature then yes I'd agree it would be a waste of time checking in here. Intelligent reasoned argument is popular here and on many occasions the posts I've read have help helped to change or form my own opinions.

Meeting eldragonfly here was som ...[text shortened]... ggests a lack of creativity and I'm probably giving eldragonfly too positive a review.

He might not be stupid but I can base my opinion of him only from what he has shown on this forum. I'm not one for faith.

BTW: I've read expressions like "unfortunate statements are beyond redemption" and many others probably a dozen times. It is extremely predictable and context independent. Even logical fallacies, which are highly dependent on context are spewed with as much relevance as his petty insults. For example, he wrote "ad hominem= logical fallacy." in response to Originally posted by Kepler
I would expect that if a site is "absolutely overrun" then the vast majority (say 90%+) of players would actually be engines. If you had used a little less hyperbole (simply "overrun" ) then I would suppose that a simple majority (>50% ) would be engine users. I have no idea what you would regard as "overrun", either absolutely or otherwise, hence the question. I am just trying to get a handle on the scale of the problem. When he uses new words and expressions, it still follows the same formula and is thus not dependent on anyone's position. For example, the response to you used a different set of vocabulary and insults but still offered no rational support for his position.

This is why my comment about him being a program is only a half-joke. Writing a program that can reason and attack the relevant points in a logical way is extremely difficult and hasn't been realized yet. It would require true Artificial Intelligence. On the other hand, writing a program that cycles through a bank of insults of varying styles is not. Adding Mad Libs style text completion, to make the insults seem context dependent is also easy (I even wrote a Python program for Mad Libs). Using poor spelling and English simply makes the character more believable. Even the little things for context, like adding quotes or using the names of the posters can be automated without difficulty. If some programmer in the field of AI or just having some fun has successfully masqueraded his program as a human, then it has essentially passed the Turing test for machine intelligence. This is the criteria: "a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine, each of which try to appear human; if the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the machine is said to pass the test." There have been many attempts through chatbots but most fail. One of the standard ones is Eliza. Chat with it here: http://nlp-addiction.com/eliza/ While this may be farfetched, it is completely feasible.

Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMad
Your comparision to 2200 is completely unfounded, and added for effect.

The irony in this whole thing is, if it wasn't for you I wouldn't actually be on this site anymore, I'd be long gone. Feel free to finish our other game any time you like

Math 101: you can't go from 1194 to 1696 in approximately 30 games without your performance in those 30 games being far above 1700 esp. when you played hundreds of game before that.

I prefer you not voluntarily leave the site. I'm in no hurry to finish our games.

Originally posted by Mad Mac MacMad
Your comparision to 2200 is completely unfounded, and added for effect.

No actually it is rooted in simple maths.