Author: A. Steen
Date: 21:44:11 11/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2005 at 00:13:39, enrico carrisco wrote: >On November 21, 2005 at 00:01:48, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>>>Simply put, you need a more complex example. :) >> >>I completely agree. > >A more specific example was given in the second response -- the same one in >which you replied to (for those needing the dots connected...) > >-elc. OK, I am evidently slow, but now even I get it. If one has a "profile" (containing some measure of fact, fiction or therebetwuxt and between) one can be abusive and insulting (example - see above "for those needing the dots connected") even when one's reasoning has been refuted. But if one safeguards one's privacy, one can and will be harassed by the abusers. Got it! :) btw, and on the subject of abilities to join up the dots... when I recklessly peeped at the Chess Thinker's Forum (what a misnomer) some weeks ago I saw quite a few people remarking how excellent, fantastic, unbelievable etc the result of one "Omar" was in an ability test that had been posted. He got about 143 (that's per my memory, Search doesn't seem to work here) and said he needed every second of the allotted time. Others quoted lower scores for themselves. Well, I took the same timed test (a lot of it was much like joining up the dots, which you say I am poor at). I got 150, which I can tell you is the maximum as I made no mistake (despite several of the questions having cooks, requiring me to decide which solution the setter had decided was the "right" one). And I had almost half the time in hand when I finished (no credit for that). I guess that means this is not the place for me... :( -Dot-Dot-Dot. :) Best, A.S.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.