Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
23:08 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Promenade Chess Jokes |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (1) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Saturday, Apr 5, 2014 19:43] | Chess Jokes
Read somewhere on the internet:
"Who employs the Sicilian Defence?
Obviously in the Mafia wars!"
| | | (2) Posted by Joaquim Crusats [Saturday, Apr 5, 2014 21:56] |
This reminds me of an entry we submitted in 2010 to a tourney of “chess problem cartoons”.
Since the award never appeared, I have now posted it in my blog:
http://joaquimchessproblem.blogspot.com.es/2014/04/chess-problem-cartoon.html
| | | (3) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Apr 6, 2014 13:08] |
That was a really interesting Cartoon Hannelius !!
| | | (4) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Apr 6, 2014 15:26] |
Please kick those judges to kingdom come, I WANT to see the
entries of that tournament, even if anticipated, with a
bad key and uneconomic!
Hauke
P.S. A Hannelius (like a Banny) is very "neudeutsch" (logic n# school),
come to think it, right?
| | | (5) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Apr 6, 2014 20:27]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [14-04-06] |
This good joke on another chess opening, was posted by "David" in chess.com ----
An elderly chess player was preparing at home. His much younger wife brought him a cup of tea and of biscuits.
"Tell me," he asked , "if I died would you marry another chess player?'
"I think I would," she replied.
"Would you give him my library on the Ruy Lopez?"
"No,he only plays 1.d4."
| | | (6) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Sunday, Apr 6, 2014 21:49] |
During a tournament, a strong chess player was watching his friend's game and discovered that he could make a brilliant winning move. Then, as discretely as possible, he suddenly started singing the Beatles song "The night before."
His friend understood the hint and found the winning move: Sb4.
| | | (7) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Apr 7, 2014 10:55] |
I know, jokes shouldn't be analyzed :-), but: If Nb4 was such a
brilliant move that only a GM could conceive it, wouldn't then
the problem with seeing Nb4 being seeing the follow-up too...
and the friend be better off playing less brilliant and not
sacrificing anything?
| | | (8) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Monday, Apr 7, 2014 20:04]; edited by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [14-04-07] |
Well, I'm analyzing way too much in my daily life, so why not. :-)
So, does your reply refute the joke? I don't think so. Actually, I can see at least two possibilities that make the joke sound (or do they make it dualistic?):
1) I simply stated that he was a "strong" chess player, and that Nb4 was "brilliant." This does by no means have to imply that we are talking about a GM level move; actually, I am almost surprised that nobody have yet pointed out my complete lack of precise definitions.
2) Nb4 may have been a ZOMG move (http://matplus.net/start.php?px=1396897222&app=forum&act=posts&fid=gen&tid=408).
| | | (9) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Apr 7, 2014 21:36] |
I will not analyse the follow up moves. But..hm.... does this belong to the joke category.... perhaps better suited for a new thread "Cheating in Chess" :)
| | | (10) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Apr 7, 2014 23:49]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-04-08] |
@Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe,
> "...I am almost surprised that nobody [has] yet pointed out my complete lack of precise definitions..."
None of your terms are strained by imprecise definition; what your "joke" could use is a punch-line.
There is nothing funny about proudly ignoring the problem community's failure to provide honest definitions for their fundamental terms (terms which are used as the basis for divisions in their Album -- which is, itself, a faulty construct of self-promotion).
To dismiss this, and content yourself with the contrary pretense (a definition built upon ignorant jeers), constitutes a disgraceful method of obtaining approval (read: this is not comedy, it is a grotesque form of want).
Whatever idol this behavior may net, a higher price is always paid in the subversion of same.
Even the blindfolded could not miss that this failure of definition constitutes a deliberate corruption; and, there is nothing amusing about people who enjoin this community's obscene denial -- it is simply pathetic to value, above all else, that which does not merit even the corruption it entangles.
One can hardly be encouraged to barter community integrity, for something of less value than these increasingly meaningless FIDE titles; but, lower valued transactions (the silence, denial, and censorship which surround these Album points) have become a routine, in the problem chess community.
The joke, my friends, is on you.
I, for one, wish this community had not allowed itself to become such a punch-line.
Have the courage to take the first step: acknowledge this community's failure to honestly define fundamental terms.
If nothing else, future humorists (and historians) may interpret that individual action as a cry (albeit hedged) for mercy.
If enough of us take that first step, there's a small chance that it might embolden our present delegates to perform their duty (after all, they do owe something, for having usurped their imaginary votes).
If all these shiny badges (and titles like cotton candy) can not be redeemed for the most fundamental value (basic integrity), how ever will this circus -- which allows itself to be run by clowns, which is forever captivated by its own house of mirrors -- come to appreciate what its audience must surrender, for admission?
Ignoring the reasons for declining participation is not the definition of strategy.
ps:
Because "The Night Before" has been penned (by John & Paul), Queen may see too, mate. :)
| | | (11) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Tuesday, Apr 8, 2014 03:39] |
I still would advise against showing a gardez by singing God(,) Save The Queen
| | | (12) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 8, 2014 09:53]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-04-08] |
This is not a matter of "precision" -- our problem community systematically refuses to provide ANY definition for several of its most fundamental terms (e.g., Orthodox versus Fairy, Strategy versus Tactics, etc).
These frequently employed terms serve a profound classification function.
Much depends upon their explicit, logical, and unambiguous meaning.
Contrary to what has been implied, these definitions have not been postponed by some deliberative body, laboring to make precision adjustments, in order to extract a delicately complex semantic meaning.
So, why the failure?
The simple (and undeniable) truth is that partisan networks have deliberately inhibited all efforts of forward progress, in order to protect their own self-interest.
There are those who fear that the establishment of any logical definition might pose an existential threat to their cause (and, almost universally, their cause reduces to the pursuit of album-points, and titles).
The only other rational explanation would be that these are the first human beings, since you know who invaded you know where, to advance a contradictory manifesto of strictly regimented incoherence.
Either way, there is no denying that any logical meaning would impact our classification system (which directly follows from the fundamental definition); but, we can't even approach the issue of mitigating those difficulties, in this forum, because here the problemists line up like pawns to unwittingly advance somebody else's stagnation agenda.
And, in exchange (for being pawned), come the blessings of a wickedly perverse sense of group belonging.
Trouble is: what baits these pawns (in this case: Truth as a common enemy), simultaneously repels the officer.
Remember when the problemists conspired to make Joke-Problems, which cleverly expressed failures in the player's rule book?
Well, observe that same lineup, now -- they can't even tend to their own fundamentals! HAHAHA!
And regard their sad excuses -- one problemist even argued (in this very forum) that it might be mathematically impossible to prove that these fundamental terms can be properly defined, in a Codex. LMFAO!
In this thread, it is implied that a precision measurement obstructs the revelation of a fundamental term's meaning. Oh, my ribs!
To those looking for comedy in the chess world, I'd advise self-deprecating problemist satire -- regardless what some here would refuse to hear, this is the biggest joke running.
The problem is, problemists don't have the timing necessary to separate their own tragedy from the joke.
| | | (13) Posted by Neal Turner [Tuesday, Apr 8, 2014 09:59]; edited by Neal Turner [14-04-08] |
I find it strange that Kevin hasn't realised that Problemists are Free Spirits who are averse to being tied down by strict rules and definitions.
We need to be free to roam anywhere in Chess Space - we're not interested in 'No Entry' or 'Keep Off the Grass' signs - we go where we want!
The fact that this field is full of ambiguity and fuzziness is for many part of its charm.
There's no High Priesthood - everybody gets to have their own take on things.
When differences arise they can be thrashed out on forums like this - or better still in the Originals sections in problem magazines.
Problemists are not Philosophers - we don't use up our energy going round in circles trying to define our terms.
Problemists are not Lawyers - we use our time to make Problems not rules.
But without rules we just get Anarchy - Yes! Bring it on!
| | | (14) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 8, 2014 10:02]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-04-08] |
Neal,
Probmeists here are the incarnation of the embodiment of the definition of a "keep off my lawn" sign.
All march together, unto nowhere, with all the regiment of a small, connected-pawn-wall on an infinitely empty board; and, they leave a trail of sad excuses for having violated their own rules.
And, beware the censor sweep of these "free-spirits," too!
If collective bullying to inhibit rational thought is what constitutes fun, please understand that a distorted sense of belonging has likely warped your good judgement.
| | | (15) Posted by Per Olin [Tuesday, Apr 8, 2014 11:48]; edited by Per Olin [14-04-08] |
Neal, I don't believe that all 'Problemists are Free Spirits who are averse to being tied down by strict rules and definitions'. If that were the case, then we would not have this discussion. As this is a thread for chess jokes, I sum up my view on the Codex by a serious joke / aforism:
There is no definition for fairy chess, but this non-existing definition is different for retro problems.
| | | (16) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 8, 2014 12:54]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-04-08] |
PS: here's a funny definition...
CONGRESS of Chess Composition (käNGgrəs) n. - a homogeneous group of lifelong problem makers, which gathers as a delegation of racketeered democracy, in order to perform the antonym of progress, in the interest of advancing a free-spirit notion of orthodoxy (the most vacuous of all "unknowable and undefinable" terminological constructs, ever called to function as a fundamentally vital classification parameter).
It is what it is... except when it aint what it aint (such as when things go in accordance with Per's aphorism).
Should not somebody there earn the votes they pretend we gave them?
It doesn't inspire confidence to systematically deny an obvious failure, by pretending that the precision of a trivial definition is somehow an impediment beyond all known engineering challenges.
Frankly, I don't appreciate the passive-aggressive tone of the offhand remark, which originally pulled me into this silly thread -- it was purely an ad hominem instrument, intended to dismiss any person behind a worthy (and yes, completely unrelated) plea for clarity.
I came to this thread hoping for a good joke.
What I found was pithy, revolting, offensive, and completely contrary to our shared cause.
But, I suppose all this may constitute the formal announcement of a new candidate for delegate.
| | | (17) Posted by Neal Turner [Tuesday, Apr 8, 2014 13:45]; edited by Neal Turner [14-04-08] |
From this and other threads I get the idea that Kevin's beef is that ambiguity and lack of clarity in Problem Chess is one of the reasons newcomers are reluctant to enter the fray.
But supposing we had the situation were there was some Document within which could be found Everything, exactly defined in the most precise and unambiguous fashion.
What would be the effect on a newcomer perusing this Document?
I contend that he would run to the nearest bar and over a couple of stiff drinks thank his lucky stars that he'd escaped the fate that was awaiting him!
| | | (18) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Apr 8, 2014 14:47] |
I don't think *any* newcomer is likely to start with Fairy Chess.
I've seen people run away already from the *hint* that
there are other thing than e.g. and n# (latter being worse enough).
OK, back to the cheating. If you come in a Star Wars tee,
your friend knows he shall play a2-d2. (Or maybe r2-d2, but
then the event is a fairy solving contest. Homework: Construct
a problem with the key r2-d2. But be sure to justify the use of a
>17*>1 board...and all 239 fairy conditions. :-)
If you carry the collected Shakespeare, he shall capture 2b.
Or not 2b. You don't know yourself, because the old saying goes,
Qxb2 is bad even if it's good.
Your German friend might find it conspicuous you suddenly drink Kefir (Ke4).
There is an anecdote of a GM hearing a baby cry "a...a...a..." and thus
being inspired to push the a pawn through [citation needed]
Hauke
| | | (19) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 8, 2014 21:42]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-04-08] |
Neal,
A disoriented escapee from the Fairy Chess Twilight Zone rushes into an unfamiliar bar...
"What'll you have, newcomer," asks the eager barkeep.
"Give me a Grasshoper, and make it a double," says the now unsettled occupant of a spinning bar stool.
"Strike one, rookie," the bartender announces, "We serve only two drinks here: the Camel Concoction, and the Mao Tai. What'll it be?"
"Hmmm," ponders the twirling customer, "I'm not familiar with either of those two drinks -- what are the ingredients of each?"
"Recip-- Man," the bartender scoffs, "you expect this one bar to keep the recipe for all two of our possible drinking options? That's three strikes -- yer outta here!"
The dizzied, failed patron begins stumbling toward the exit, looking completely satisfied, save one undamaged liver.
Before he can manage a clean escape, an intoxicated patron feels the need to intuit the motivation of these peculiar ingredient inquiries.
"If I knew what I was drinking," remarks the inebriated clairvoyant, "I'd want to escape into the Fairy Chess Twighlight Zone."
On the corner, just beyond the bar entrance, a squinting Rod Serling appears to be conversing with unspecified bar traffic. "Language," he imparts in the blinking neon, "thought patterns forged by meaning, fitted into the ammunition of precise word forms -- it gives the focused mind a precise recipe for conquest over the stupor of illiteracy. But, here, in the Fairy Chess Twighlight Zone, where cool customers are pointlessly defenseless..."
The regulars, in pursuit of meaningless swill, all pass by, certain they must have heard Rod's epilogue before...
At best, they'll issue an unrelated query, en passant -- taking comfort in finding reason to deny themselves a license to carry meaning.
The bar's name is not precisely "Free Spirits," but that's as close as the owners can puzzle out, from the few remaining letters.
It's still serving (two unspecified drinks, and one well lighted exit), right around closing time.
All along, everybody knew that neither drink was ever served in accordance with the proper recipe.
When the check arrives, friends, you'll understand: for no meaning were all the checkered cabs left idle.
Better get used to it; and, don't ask questions.
| | | (20) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Tuesday, Apr 8, 2014 22:44] |
QUOTE
Frankly, I don't appreciate the passive-aggressive tone of the offhand remark, which originally pulled me into this silly thread -- it was purely an ad hominem instrument, intended to dismiss any person behind a worthy (and yes, completely unrelated) plea for clarity.
Sorry about that, Kevin. I never intended to be offensive.
Back to the cheating discussion, there is a Norwegian song named E6. It refers to the trans-Norwegian highway bearing the same name, but surely it can be used for cheating in chess too. And so can every song by the band A1.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum Promenade Chess Jokes |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
