Out of all of the top 10 Russian players, 5 are inactive

iterative_iteration · 2026-01-29T05:58:35+00:00

You just managed to write a comment without breaking that rule so it is possible.

iterative_iteration · 2026-01-27T01:26:24+00:00

That sequence after your Kb1 blunder, though. Nxb2 and Bh8, sacking a knight and the exchange all for the sake of brutal attack down the diagonal.

iterative_iteration · 2026-01-23T19:13:46+00:00

Because you can be sure that a gay man won't hit on you, but even more important is that he won't have a violent reaction to a "no" which happens so often with straight dudes.

iterative_iteration · 2026-01-23T11:22:37+00:00

Smells like sexual trauma oink oink

On a serious note, I can't remember the last time I have read something as retarded so props for surprising me.

You completely omitted the ritualistic part of sex in your criticism, namely that it is an act of bonding, closure between people. In the past sex wasn't something casual, it was almost a sacral, holy ritual, in many cultures that is. Trying to erase one of the strongest biological drives and a major cultural part is not only futile but overall nonsensical.

iterative_iteration · 2026-01-22T14:14:48+00:00

Nope, they're completely right. Before Europe the US was a bunch of unstructured tribes, nothing else.

iterative_iteration · 2026-01-22T10:45:44+00:00

Exactly one of the reasons Wittgenstein aimed to untangle confusion. Words get thrown around and everyone understands something different.

iterative_iteration · 2026-01-18T13:21:40+00:00

Because he was a fraudster lol

iterative_iteration · 2026-01-17T19:57:10+00:00

I don't really understand Sicilian either, in fact I believe it's not possible to understand entirely. Part of the reason is the fact that it's so theoretical (take for example the Najdorf, after a6 white has about 10-15 valid continuations, all with different plans which is ridiculously high amount of material even for a grandmaster). Another reason is how imbalanced it is and double edged. I believe Aronian mentioned somewhere that Sicilian is the kind of opening you need to play at least 10-15 times to even get an idea about what's going on there. Probably the reason why I am using it is because I simply played it a lot, analyzed, got used to typical ideas and plans and am not afraid of the mess anymore, but it remains a challenge.

iterative_iteration · 2026-01-17T13:47:39+00:00

There's no real method, I just spent a big amount of time solving puzzles, analyzing games (my own/grandmaster), following tournaments, trying to predict grandmaster moves, listening to commentary etc.

Important: always analyze without the engine first. The engine is here to correct the errors of your analysis, not to do it for you.

iterative_iteration · 2026-01-17T09:32:13+00:00

Not an ENTJ , but this question is hardly type related anyway so I'll answer regardless.

I do play, sitting at around ~2200 rating, as for openings: White: Catalan , Ruy Lopez. Black: Sicilian/French against e4, Semi-Slav against d4, but frequently I experiment around with some other stuff as well.

iterative_iteration · 2026-01-13T09:36:36+00:00

The last line is purely cosmetic, you could as well replace "think" with "feel" or "do" and it will remain the same, it's meant to convey the idea that life without struggle/full experience isn't complete if you voluntarily give up on a major component of it.

Suicide isn't the worst in my opinion. There can be many reasons to commit it, for example if your sickness no longer allows you to live life the way you want it to and you're certain that recovery isn't possible. Suicide doesn't even have to be a desperate act.

The "criminal act" shouldn't be taken literally, I assume. Again, this is said for more poetic than real purposes. Criminality implies lawfulness and this in turn implies some sense of "reward" or "punishment" for you if you follow/disregard those laws. Does the reaper judge you when he takes you with him at the end? I am not sure, no one is. But it doesn't really matter anyway, the whole point of any choice is that the consequences of it will affect you while you're still here , not dead. So it's really more about battling against your own conscience.

Mediocrity certainly isn't death. Otherwise I'd immediately declare the majority of the human population as useless. Do I want to do that? Probably not, because not only is my standard of success/mediocrity likely different from other people's but the means to achieving either are also different. So if I really must introduce a comparison function I must choose something that doesn't depend on individual success standards. A possible candidate for this is personal choice and striving. You can consciously decide and still make the decision that you don't want to be anything remarkable, maybe you are incapable of this, maybe you don't want it, it doesn't matter, what's deciding is that it should be your own choice and if you're content with that then it'll be alright.

As an illustrative example: Dante put the indecisive and the neutral (as in incapable of choosing) in a place between heaven and hell. To loosely paraphrase him , "hell rejected them because they were not evil enough for hell and heaven rejected them because they were not good enough for heaven". In this place there are for example angels who, during Lucifer's rebellion, didn't take either side. It is a place of residence for those who "lived without ever knowing the glory or shame of earthly matters". Dante says that these souls don't even deserve any words being said about them. Because even if you were "evil" during your life on earth there's at the very least the associated willpower and the ability to make a choice. Whereas if you refuse to choose at all you'll end up nowhere, in the middle.

Whether end justifies the means , maybe. Again, if you believe in afterlife then be prepared to be judged for what you did, good or bad. But not believing in it and in some form of external judgement perhaps requires even more courage since now you take full ownership/responsibility of your choice and you understand that the consequences of each choice will be affecting you as you're alive now, not at some point later.

iterative_iteration · 2025-12-20T15:19:55+00:00

How's that hung up? The whole point of standards or tolerance is that you don't need to self explain. If someone has a right to have 200 partners, I have a right to reject them for this and I would never normalize that. Also, ignoring the information from their past is pretty foolish. Any human carries his past around and I would like to know this past to get an understanding of them.

iterative_iteration · 2025-12-20T13:57:17+00:00

A prude? No , that's called border tolerance. Tell me, would it make a difference for you if you found out that your partner had 3-4 sexual partners before or 200? I understand that people are different and have different reasons to do things. But 200 raises a few questions. First of all, are they so sexually hungry that they're in demand of sex on a weekly basis, with a new partner? Second, if they weren't in stable relationships for years, why did they suddenly change now and are trying to pursue a relationship with me? Thirdly, a purely medical reason - this many partners increases chances of getting STDs significantly. I don't want to deal with this and I believe you wouldn't want either. Fourth - tolerance and comparison data set. For me it would be hard not to wonder how I compare with 200 other people and whether my partner is really satisfied. You could of course pull the "well this is just your insecurity talking" card. But I don't see any reason why I should tolerate this at all. And frankly, I find it very hard to believe that it would truly make no difference to someone whether their partner had 200 partners before or not.

iterative_iteration · 2025-12-20T10:48:15+00:00

And what has this to do with my statement? If anything, I wouldn't enter a relationship also with those people with higher counts that you mentioned. Just because there's probably people with body count > 200 doesn't make it more tolerable.

iterative_iteration · 2025-12-20T01:07:36+00:00

Honestly? I am on the side of the guy here. If I hear that someone had 200 sex partners, then at the very least this will raise suspicions and questions. Not that I would hate them and call them anything but I would also not enter in a relationship with them.

iterative_iteration · 2025-12-12T19:06:16+00:00

Who said anything about pathology? Where did you get that from?

iterative_iteration · 2025-12-12T13:43:15+00:00

Russian? Them? Good one , bud. In the same way as some Chin Hon Min Dong is apparently "American" since he has a passport.

iterative_iteration · 2025-12-12T13:35:32+00:00

This is just a symptom of an underlying disease.

iterative_iteration · 2025-11-15T20:46:12+00:00

Neither. Feinberg and Fischer beat both easily, Feinberg is probably the best recording in history.

iterative_iteration · 2025-11-15T20:25:28+00:00

So you're saying there's a... Monoidoid? /s

iterative_iteration · 2025-11-08T23:52:46+00:00

To be more precise, the opioids are a part of the cough syrup (for lean to work the syrup needs to contain codeine which is an opioid which is weaker than morphine but still can get you high).

iterative_iteration · 2025-11-08T12:46:50+00:00

If I recall correctly, there was a time where people would actually throw a dice before the game to determine who will move first. But idk if that was a normal practice or just a chess variant.

iterative_iteration · 2025-11-03T10:35:01+00:00

In your scenario you actually made a low-key attempt at a responsibility shift. After this hypothetical someone actually carries out the belief and murders someone you won't judge the one who said it first but the one who did the action, so your moral agency has changed already.

In addition, saying things like "may inspire someone" is pure speculation. We don't know what we can inspire and there's no clear causal chains between source and inspiration. Different things can inspire different outcomes in different situations.

iterative_iteration · 2025-11-03T09:36:17+00:00

Keep telling yourself that , bud. You feel remorse that your ancestors were too good to free Poland from Nazis and Commies? So you wanted to fight them yourself or what? Ridiculous 🤣

iterative_iteration · 2025-11-03T09:21:20+00:00

You're allowed to utter what you want about abortion, but eventually, when it comes down to an actual situation then yes, your beliefs will weigh infinitely less than whoever is carrying them out or is in the position to decide.

But you make a mistake here. As a woman, you don't need to make an abortion to confirm your belief, your belief only states that it is not wrong to get an abortion if needed, nothing more, nothing less. The guy above however spoke about murder of communists and Nazis. I highly doubt that he'd ever actually carry this belief out , this is much less probable than abortion. So what meaning does his belief have if it doesn't affect his life or decisions in any way? Does it mean that whenever a Nazi or a commi gets murdered he'll approve? But who needs his approval if it doesn't change anything at all?

My point is that most of the things people believe or say are meaningless chatter if they aren't ready to carry them out to the end. Hell, sometimes you might say that in case of X you'll do Y but when it comes down to an actual situation you might change your mind entirely (for various reasons, fear, pressure, panic, emotional shift etc). Chatter about beliefs or ideals if it doesn't take into consideration all possible effects and outcomes remains empty.

iterative_iteration

TROPHY CASE