"Sanny" wrote in message
...
I found it very useful to play against
stronger players, losing again and again
until finally, one day they started getting
frustrated that their cheap shots were no
longer doing the trick; that's when they
had to hunker down and play REAL
chess! Slowly, but surely, you will learn
strategy-- but it will be of little use until
you first "master" tactics.

I am 1100 rated may be ?! How to improve tactics.

**How do tactics improve play is open question.

I know all theory but when I go to play I forget to see that Opponent
will kill my Bishop in second move.

**Exactly my point. When head [or CPU] all full tactics, tragic thing
happen! No see board!

How to know that you have seen all the tactics in Chess is there any
simple way of doing it.

**Well... there question maybe help-bot answer, later on as moon set,
all understand.

Computers can think on 100000s of moves and
solve tactics. How can a Human be good at Tactics?

**Humans can look 1 second, see 8 move knight fork - this different from
fish-fork in evening! - seeing seem spring from mind effortlessly - like see
wallpaper and pattern in wallpaper right away! no need no stinking Hal9000.

I usually forget that a piece is killing my piece and make a move
overlooking simple threats. How can this problem be removed? I play
1-2 games in a month may be It comes by practise.

**Best play 1-2 games in half-hour. Take more time is only fool self that
more time
see more. When lose from overlook, realise self does not-look. Smack head
for
think, when should look. Play more game, try see before think is best order.
Otherwise Idea become unmanageable, like angry water-buffalo in teashop -
smash all fine thing. As is teas-shop : so is mind.

Is Chess Intelligence game or a Practise game?

**Is no chess. Is only chess playing. Intelligence Is.

**The Master Phil-Sama.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

On Mar 28, 11:45 am, "Chess One" wrote:

**The Master Phil-Sama.


I had a Mr. Mopperhead look at the headers
of that post, and after careful analysis it was
determined that since all the Fake Sanny
postings were made from Vermont, it was
either nearly-an-IMnes or Tyler Kingstone who
was responsible. I told Mr. Mopperhead that I
happened to know for a fact that neither of
those two were responsible types, but he said
I needed some "headers" as proof.

IMO, it would be a simple matter to construct
a question to determine which Vermontian was
the culprit: a spelling question perhaps, or a
test to see if the Fake Sanny would mindlessly
ape Larry Parr, if given half a chance. But Mr.
Mopperhead is in charge of the investigation,
and he insists on "headers" and IP addresses
and whatnot. Well, he does have a point; what
if "Robber" Mitchell were to spoof nearly-an-
IMnes' IP address? Surely, he too would miss
the spelling question, giving a false-positive
and implicating the wrong man.

But what Mr. Mopperhead doesn't know is
that I have devised a very simple test for this;
it's a chess problem that nearly-an-IMnes can
solve (using his Rybka program) easily, but
which Rob "da robber" Mitchell would fail,
hanging a piece (as usual). Okay-- maybe I
need to just accept the fact that Mr. Mopper-
head was put in charge, not me. It's /his/
investigation, not mine. I guess I'll just wait
until the real experts do their thing;
meanwhile, I can just sit here, reading about
the many slave-children of John Adams and
George Washington... .


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 11:45 am, "Chess One" wrote:

**The Master Phil-Sama.


I had a Mr. Mopperhead look at the headers
of that post, and after careful analysis it was
determined that since all the Fake Sanny
postings were made from Vermont, it was
either nearly-an-IMnes or Tyler Kingstone who
was responsible.

A common mistake. Tyler, you see is a Californian and besides,
lives in a part of the state where you can see New York State,
which real Vermonters avoid having to see.

I told Mr. Mopperhead that I
happened to know for a fact that neither of
those two were responsible types, but he said
I needed some "headers" as proof.

A soccer term?

IMO, it would be a simple matter to construct
a question to determine which Vermontian was
the culprit: a spelling question perhaps, or a
test to see if the Fake Sanny would mindlessly
ape Larry Parr, if given half a chance. But Mr.
Mopperhead is in charge of the investigation,
and he insists on "headers" and IP addresses
and whatnot. Well, he does have a point; what
if "Robber" Mitchell were to spoof nearly-an-
IMnes' IP address? Surely, he too would miss
the spelling question, giving a false-positive
and implicating the wrong man.

That's true. He can't spell worth a shirt.

But what Mr. Mopperhead doesn't know is
that I have devised a very simple test for this;
it's a chess problem that nearly-an-IMnes can
solve (using his Rybka program) easily, but
which Rob "da robber" Mitchell would fail,
hanging a piece (as usual).

Sadly, Rybka is in the dog-house and I haven't used it since Christmas.
Currently I am using EPD2Diag. Which has a horsey header, or icon,
whereas Rybka has a King& Rook combo.

Okay-- maybe I
need to just accept the fact that Mr. Mopper-
head was put in charge, not me. It's /his/
investigation, not mine.

Mr. Mopperhead was never put in charge of anything that I know of*

Didn't he rather take it on himself as a helpful volunteer to, after his
work
was questioned by Mr. Truong, investigate as a complete cooincidence,
and not to do with his business relationship with Mr. Truong?

*[laugh] that is, USCF have been asked who authorised Mr. M's
investigation and (a) forgot to answer the question or (b) said it was
a secret that lawyers told them not to answer, becaus (c) if they did ...

gulp

PI private I Services

I guess I'll just wait
until the real experts do their thing;
meanwhile, I can just sit here, reading about
the many slave-children of John Adams and
George Washington... .


-- help bot