It's McIntosh and they had to pay for Macintosh? Argh.
Let's just be glad that this is all about "Apple" and now "Orange", or the world, while not being a colorless place, would have to fumble along with one less color.
BTW, the.sig "There are 10 types of people..." was funnier. By a lot.
What you have to beat is the house "rake". In the small games they take out some amount regularly from the pot, typically 3-5% or some fixed amount, and in the larger games a time fee, maybe half a small bet (fixed limit game) per half hour or something. You have to cover *that* amount to show a profit.
It's amazing how stupid or at least ignorant the vast majority of posts in this thread. I thought./ readers were actually smarter.
"proven ways to consista[sic]ntly win at black-jack"...
bad nerd! (1) spellcop (2) It's still a game of significant chance; all that's proven is that you can have an advantage. You still may get crushed the next five or twenty session that you play.
It's called gambling if you're bad, and risk or speculation if you're good. But the result is still not certain.
Looked real enough to me. Mind you, there was some noise (17...Rfd8 18. Kh2 Re8 is dodgy or at least dodging). I think GK saw that DJ's position was static with no improvement, and was finding optimal piece positioning himself. There's the human angle: computers just say "these are the best squares," even based on seeing some fairly static moves into the position, while humans could still do a better job of weighing piece positioning after tactical sequences that don't actually win material and thus get pruned out. I'm explaining 23.Nb3 I guess, and also how e8 is in fact the square for the rook (guarding e7).
Still -- in the absence of a real variation, I would indeed like to know why he didn't play on after 28...f6 followed by...Kf7 (29.Nd4 g6).
Slashdot Mirror
It's McIntosh and they had to pay for Macintosh? Argh.
.sig "There are 10 types of people..." was funnier. By a lot.
Let's just be glad that this is all about "Apple" and now "Orange", or the world, while not being a colorless place, would have to fumble along with one less color.
BTW, the
> It's good, but there's some potential for abuse.
Good reason to forget the whole idea.
Same for the Internet.
Had Sir Isaac been sitting under a fig tree:
(1) his insight wouldn't have been as painful
(2) you might be typing on a "Celestial"
(3) in your pocket would be a Fig Newton.
(ba-dump)
=e
What you have to beat is the house "rake". In the small games they take out some amount regularly from the pot, typically 3-5% or some fixed amount, and in the larger games a time fee, maybe half a small bet (fixed limit game) per half hour or something. You have to cover *that* amount to show a profit.
./ readers were actually smarter.
It's amazing how stupid or at least ignorant the vast majority of posts in this thread. I thought
Yes, its easy to get it's meaning mixed up.
"proven ways to consista[sic]ntly win at black-jack"...
bad nerd! (1) spellcop (2) It's still a game of significant chance; all that's proven is that you can have an advantage. You still may get crushed the next five or twenty session that you play.
It's called gambling if you're bad, and risk or speculation if you're good. But the result is still not certain.
or deal very
*very*
slowly.
Looked real enough to me. Mind you, there was some noise (17...Rfd8 18. Kh2 Re8 is dodgy or at least dodging). I think GK saw that DJ's position was static with no improvement, and was finding optimal piece positioning himself. There's the human angle: computers just say "these are the best squares," even based on seeing some fairly static moves into the position, while humans could still do a better job of weighing piece positioning after tactical sequences that don't actually win material and thus get pruned out. I'm explaining 23.Nb3 I guess, and also how e8 is in fact the square for the rook (guarding e7).
...Kf7 (29.Nd4 g6).
Still -- in the absence of a real variation, I would indeed like to know why he didn't play on after 28...f6 followed by
Gain vs. Risk.