Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 27
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6? (Read 128316 times)
drkodos
God Member
*****
Offline


I see....stars.

Posts: 778
Location: Jupiter, and beyond
Joined: 03/29/07
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #386 - 02/24/09 at 16:32:25
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 02/24/09 at 16:25:03:
Oh my god, don't tell me that sloughter wants Poland.



Here is an example of his anti-semitic, misogynistic remarks from his "work":

"The brain of the smartest jew in the world is smaller than a woman's--and the smartest jew sin the world is a LIAR, plagiarist, and idiot"


"This "brilliant", "pacifist" jew, who condemned us for nuking Japan, is referring to a people who, almost totally destroyed in a jew-created world war, succeeded in ridding themselves of the scourge of jews, and within half a century rebuilding their country to achieve family incomes almost twice as high as ours

and proved that exiling the jew is worth every electron of effort required to accomplish that noble goal"



Markovich, in all seriousness, as a person married to a woman of Jewish persuasion, who has herself lost family members in Concentration camps, the words of Richard Moody Jr are a deeply painful reminder that there are those out there that would walk my wife and kids into an oven if given that opportunity.

He is a front-man of seriously cult of hatred.  I am not joking at all about this.  


It it talks like a Nazi and walks like a Nazi, it is a Nazi.

Defending sloughter in any fashion is akin to defending Goebels, Goering or any other member of the Third Reich.
  

I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #385 - 02/24/09 at 16:25:03
Post Tools
Oh my god, don't tell me that sloughter wants Poland.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
drkodos
God Member
*****
Offline


I see....stars.

Posts: 778
Location: Jupiter, and beyond
Joined: 03/29/07
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #384 - 02/24/09 at 16:10:05
Post Tools
He should be banned for violating the TOS in which it explicity states:

"You agree, through your use of this YaBB forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually-oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or you have consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also inappropriate to this YaBB forum."



His entire scheme is one big Spam-a-lot to promote his books among his fellow cultists and to attract more members to said cult.

I also see the irony in that I have also willfully breached said TOS and I am willing to live with whatever repurcussions grow from my actions.

Matemax:  Ignorance will not work with this guy, nor did it work with Hitler.  Sloughter has crossed over the Poland-Germany border and that is why I have been carpet bombing his attempts at fortifying his advance positions.

And as much fun as I am having with rhetorical target practice, my aim the entire time has been to take this thread into the closest Black Hole in the Gamma Quadrant in the hopes of restoring some sanity here so that I can continue to learn something from the real chess players.
  

I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10512
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #383 - 02/24/09 at 15:54:42
Post Tools
I always have thought that Einstein had taken the maths for his special relativity from the Austrian-Dutch mathematician/physicist HA Lorentz. Before you guys accuse me of exaggerated patriottism, my source is the American book Elementary Modern Physics by RT Weidner and RL Sells.

Concerning Sloughter: while Antillian is right, that the level of this thread approaches Absolute Zero, this imo is not enough reason to ban Sloughter. This is his thread; he does not spoil other threads. As soon as that happens it is time for a ban indeed.

Sorry Markovich, I don't back you (yet?)
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #382 - 02/24/09 at 15:27:53
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04:
Are you familiar with my article: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century?


I hate to say it, but sloughter is on to something here.
Still he gets no marks for originality.

It is known that for his 1905 article about special relativity,
Einstein drew very heavily on a paper by Poincare without crediting him.
Some remarks about the 'transformation group' cannot have been devised by a 1905 physicist, even if more interested in math than Einstein.
E=mc2 and the notion of relative time are found in Poincare.
In his reference work Sir Edmund Whittaker talks about 'the relativity of Poincare-Lorentz'.

This is not yet mainstream knowledge because restoring credit where due is usually slow, especially when the media can't wait to create icons.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Matemax
God Member
*****
Offline


Chesspub gives you strength!

Posts: 1302
Joined: 11/04/07
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #381 - 02/24/09 at 15:02:39
Post Tools
Quote:
I am sorry, but this is the end.  I'm writing to Tony with a request to have you banned, and I hope others do so as well.

The easiest way of banning is to ignore those people. If they dont get attention (and thats what they want, not a discussion) they will leave and find a different place.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #380 - 02/24/09 at 14:49:42
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04:
You know my name since it has appeared on this site several  times; alas, however, I don't know YOUR name. Are you familiar with my article: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century? or my article appearing on the cover of Infinite Energy Magazine on Plate Dynamics? or my 3 hour broadcast on George Noory's Coast To Coast?, or my article in the Mensa Bulletin called, "Communal Blind Spot Theory" where I give a seminar on how to permit the High IQ Mensans to think more efficiently? Show me any intellectual evidence of parity in your accomplishments and I will refrain from referring to you as an intellectual Lilliputian.


Cheesus K. Reist!
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Antillian
God Member
*****
Offline


Brilliance without dazzle!

Posts: 1753
Joined: 01/05/03
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #379 - 02/24/09 at 14:35:55
Post Tools
Agree that this thread has descended into the abyss now. It is not even funny anymore. I suggest it is time to lock it.
  

"Breakthrough results come about by a series of good decisions, diligently executed and accumulated one on top of another." Jim Collins --- Good to Great
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #378 - 02/24/09 at 14:20:50
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 01:07:31:
Reality is in the eye of the beholder. I see a bunch of scared little boys who hide behind the anonymity of their screen names and pretend to dispense wisdom when, they are, just a bunch of pathetic little boys who always like to raise their hands to get attention from the teacher. I really feel sorry for you post members---what pathetic lives you must lead!


I am sorry, but this is the end.  I'm writing to Tony with a request to have you banned, and I hope others do so as well.

You only have to read any of the other threads on chesspub to see how serious people are here about sharing chess ideas and learning from what others have to say.  The community here is not closed, but is very open to newcomers.  It welcomes not only those with chess knowledge to contribute, but anyone who comes in a constructive and questing spirit.  Though there is the occasional spat, this also happens to be one of the most polite forums that you'll come across on the internet.  A little decency is all that's expected here.

You instead come here with a markedly superior tone and dispense definitive lectures in support of chess ideas that are pretty well understood to be false.  It appears you think that your chess engine, your personal knowledge of the deep structure of chess (in spite of being a rather weak player yourself), and your private conversations with Lev Alburt place you on a plane of chess understanding higher that that occupied by anyone else here (in spite of some here being quite strong players, and most being stronger than you). 

Anyone with any sort of social sense would understand that this kind of conduct is much more likely to irritate people than to draw them into useful conversation.  I advised you in the beginning to take a less superior tone, but it was advice that went unheeded.

Now having run into so much opposition, you react in this way (see quotation).  You don't pay attention to any of the chess thinking that people share with you, instead coming back with more superiority. 

Your whole approach to this forum makes constructive discussion impossible.  People here either have to yield to your highly dubious conclusions and hail you as the font of chess wisdom, or be decried as naysayers, pigheaded poohbahs, or scared little boys in need of a real life.   

I don't know what you find satisfying about any of this.  For a long time I thought that you should be tolerated, and that perhaps you'd eventually come around to some sort of decent mode of interaction with others here.  But you haven't, and instead you resort to ever more imperious and insulting rejoinders.

So I've had it with you, and I'm going to do my best to get you kicked out of here.

P.S.  I have no problem with anyone posting here anonymously, but my own true identity is well known here, and as you will recall, I even sent you a couple of messages signed with my real name.

P.P.S.  I rather strongly suspect that your failure to make progress in chess is due to your stubborn unwillingness to accept your present degree of ignorance and your shortcomings as a player.  You should think about that.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ghenghisclown
God Member
*****
Offline


Pedicare Vestri Latin

Posts: 1022
Location: HollyWeird
Joined: 07/19/06
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #377 - 02/24/09 at 14:20:09
Post Tools
drkodos wrote on 02/24/09 at 06:55:15:
sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04:
You know my name since it has appeared on this site several  times; alas, however, I don't know YOUR name. Are you familiar with my article: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century?



You religious zealots don't really understand how science works, do you?  For your next act I suspect you will refute the Holocaust?  If people here really knew what you were, what type of person you really are, they would be ashamed to even take your money.  Except for those types like you that make living bastardizing the works of brilliant people and disparaging them long after they are dead and gone and can no longer provide defense.  You are an insult to faith, a joke of an author, and truly a harbinger of hatred with regards to secular humanism.  I only hope that when you really snap for good you take out only yourself and do not even perpetuate property damage to others.   I remain shocked that a Ukrainian-Jewish person would deal with you and it now remains forever a blemish on the face of Lev Alburt for sleeping with the enemy and making money from  such a hateful and vitriolic person.  

I hereby curse you!  In the name of the Romani!    You have been cursed and all who are near and dear to you shall suffer systemic acne from your actions and no amount of Proactiv-X will ease their blemish!!




I'm pretty shocked myself at how bad this is turning out. It's one thing when a guy espouses ridiculous opinions on a board game, but when he tries to discredit one of history's most creative thinkers (In the name of Aryans?) now it's getting into the tin-hat-to-block-out the CIA-mind-control-zone.


Quote:
...or my 3 hour broadcast on George Noory's Coast To Coast?



Sloughter, for the love of Pete, are you serious? This example produces the opposite of your intention. I mean for crying outloud,



KENT FRICKIN' HOVIND WAS A GUEST ON THIS SHOW!! ITS FOR CRACK POTS!

If you want to know about science and critical thought, why don't you go and read Richard Dawkins and leave "thinking" and science to other people.




  

"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10512
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #376 - 02/24/09 at 14:00:49
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 02/24/09 at 04:17:53:
Peer reviewed? The first question to ask.


Of course not. Nobody on this planet has an IQ high enough to peer review Sloughter's articles on any subject. He is the one to do the peer reviewing. I am sure he also peer reviews the articles in NIC-yearbooks.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #375 - 02/24/09 at 11:53:57
Post Tools
4.Ng5!? is a very interesting alternative indeed. I am highly surprised that it hasn't been subjected to a serious analysis yet, as White seems to develop a very strong attack. For example: 4...Qg5 (4...Qf6 5.Nf3 Qd8 is bad in view of 6.b4! and Black is getting sloughtered) 5.d4!! A brilliant concept! White attacks both the c5-bishop and g5-queen at the same time, whilst seizing control of the centre! Here are some examples of how quickly Black has collapsed in the face of such a powerful onslaught:

[Event "Michigan Novice"]
[Site "Auburn Hills"]
[Date "2005.01.16"]
[Round "4.10"]
[White "Maier, Jonathan"]
[Black "Bora, Safal"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C50"]
[PlyCount "15"]
[EventDate "2005.01.15"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "5"]
[EventCountry "USA"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2005.11.24"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Ng5 Qxg5 5. d4 Bxd4 6. Bxg5 Bxb2 7. Qf3 Bxa1
8. Qxf7# 1-0

[Event "Pan American-ch Amateur"]
[Site "Hermosillo"]
[Date "2001.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Farias Bojorquez, Cristobal"]
[Black "Acuna Serna, Judas"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C50"]
[PlyCount "45"]
[EventDate "2001.12.01"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "MEX"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2002.11.25"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Ng5 Qxg5 5. d4 d6 6. Bxg5 Nxd4 7. O-O Nf6 8.
Bxf6 gxf6 9. Nc3 Bd7 10. Qh5 Nxc2 11. Qxf7+ Kd8 12. Rad1 Re8 13. Bb5 Bxb5 14.
Nxb5 Re7 15. Qf8+ Re8 16. Qxf6+ Re7 17. Qh8+ Re8 18. Qxh7 Re7 19. Qg8+ Re8 20.
Qc4 c6 21. Qxc2 cxb5 22. Qxc5 Rc8 23. Qxd6# 1-0

The critical line is 5...Qg2, but then 6.Qh5!! wins: 6...Qh1 (6...d5 is better) 7.Kd2 Bd4 8.Qf7 Kd8 9.Qf8#, as in the game Scholar-Fool, Sloughterhouse 2009.

I am surprised that nobody had discovered the ingenious 6.Qh5 in the 500+ years that the game of chess as it is today has existed.

  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MUBAs Opponent
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 70
Joined: 02/06/07
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #374 - 02/24/09 at 11:27:39
Post Tools
TN wrote on 02/24/09 at 06:43:25:
@GM Sloughter(ed),

Have you refuted 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5? I am interested to know your refutation as this ground-breaking evidence could overturn 500 years of theory and prove a major improvement over the play of hundreds of Grandmasters.

Pah, that's so easy to refute that I could do it in my sleep. 4. Ng5 Bxf2+ 5. Kf1 +-
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
drkodos
God Member
*****
Offline


I see....stars.

Posts: 778
Location: Jupiter, and beyond
Joined: 03/29/07
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #373 - 02/24/09 at 06:55:15
Post Tools
sloughter wrote on 02/24/09 at 03:43:04:
You know my name since it has appeared on this site several  times; alas, however, I don't know YOUR name. Are you familiar with my article: Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century?



You religious zealots don't really understand how science works, do you?  For your next act I suspect you will refute the Holocaust?  If people here really knew what you were, what type of person you really are, they would be ashamed to even take your money.  Except for those types like you that make living bastardizing the works of brilliant people and disparaging them long after they are dead and gone and can no longer provide defense.  You are an insult to faith, a joke of an author, and truly a harbinger of hatred with regards to secular humanism.  I only hope that when you really snap for good you take out only yourself and do not even perpetuate property damage to others.   I remain shocked that a Ukrainian-Jewish person would deal with you and it now remains forever a blemish on the face of Lev Alburt for sleeping with the enemy and making money from  such a hateful and vitriolic person. 

I hereby curse you!  In the name of the Romani!    You have been cursed and all who are near and dear to you shall suffer systemic acne from your actions and no amount of Proactiv-X will ease their blemish!!

  

I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: refutation of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6?
Reply #372 - 02/24/09 at 06:43:25
Post Tools
@GM Sloughter(ed),

Have you refuted 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5? I am interested to know your refutation as this ground-breaking evidence could overturn 500 years of theory and prove a major improvement over the play of hundreds of Grandmasters.
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 27
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo