First, I'm going to apologize for losing my temper. I take your accusations as slanderous. However, regardless of the provocation, controlling my temper is my responsibility to myself.
quote:
DNAunion
See, at least we know that I am doing my own analysis here, unlike you, who let’s his 2700+ computer do the work for him.
The work was my own. The only advantage I had over you (in creating the puzzle) was that I knew going in that mate could be forced in 16 moves. The puzzle was not that difficult to figure out.
quote:
DNAunion
That’s what happens when a human does his own analysis: oversights occur.
A human oversight is what occurred in my analysis of your puzzle when I "overlooked" the fact that the Black king could also take e4 in move 14, thus allowing for two alternate final three move sequences to mate. You hanging your rook is more commonly called a blunder.
quote:
DNAunion
In such "blitzish games, any reasonable person would accept that thousands of half-way decent players or better have been in such predicaments, dozens of times each.
As I stated before, it wasn't your moves I questioned. It was Black that gave away the game by allowing the double attack. According to your OP, Black was being played by your son's computer. Thus, the playing level of this computer (by design or operator preference) remains in question.
quote:
DNAunion
You mean the first post...the one with the chess game where absolutely no stalemate occurred?
Yes, you are correct. No stalemate occurred. But I didn't say it did. My initial statement was that you were able to reach:
quote:
a defensive stalemate by repetition posture .
And you did put yourself into this defensive posture. IOW, by allowing the double attack, checkmate was no longer attainable for Black. It was stalemate or nothing. That Black chose to wander around the board for fifty moves rather than stalemate White's king does make the game a "draw" in the proper parlance. I would have just stalemated you and been done with it. Hence, I later referred to it as a "stalemate" game.
If anyone takes a look at my profile, they will see that chess was listed as one of my interests when I joined this forum (interestingly, for someone supposedly so deeply into it, yours makes no mention). I have been interested in the game since I was a teenager (and I'm no youngster anymore).
I was a long time member of the USCF and received Chess Life magazine for many years. I own and have studied many chess books written by such people as Yasser Seirawan, Reuben Fine, Lev Alburt, Jeremy Silman, etc. And, while I dislike organized tournaments, I belong to two chess clubs and regularly hold my own against players with ratings as high as 1700 - 1800.
But if you really have some serious need to think that I still wouldn't know the technical definition of a stalemate, be my guest.
As a general note to other readers: The above description of my interest in chess was necessary to dispel what I take to be slanderous remarks against my integrity, and is not intended as a bid to enter the "pissing" contest. It should be noted that before this necessity arose, my sole comment was that I was "fond of chess".
And now, again, DNAunion, the work was my own. If this somehow presents a crisis for you, you're welcome to employ whatever rationalization makes you feel better. I have no further interest in your agenda.
Amlodhi
™ Version 4.2