31–40 of 192 posts
We are post peak-chess. The interest fell sharply after Kasparov's loss to DeepBlue. I was a member of a chess club, that went from 30 tables to 5 in a span of couple of years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I disagree. Was there an edit to the OP I missed? What are you disagreeing with exactly? It was clearly a statement of opinion about how they found it interesting. You couldn't just elucidate more on the reasoning for the classifications, you had to first tell them they were wrong and then pedantically explain it. Peak fucking HN commenting.
Yes, I'm disagreeing with the claim that it's interesting. Interestingness isn't entirely subjective. Mostly, though, I'm sticking up for the kid, whose sub-1500 rating shouldn't be scoffed at by any chess player who's more than, say, 10 years old.
I read this kid's story in the times and as a native of NYC it just helped to strengthen my conviction that NYC, despite all of its problems, is truly a microcosm of what makes America great. I was a latch-key kid growing up and can clearly remember hopping on the train after class (with my free student pass) to Manhattan and killing some time at some of the best museums in the world (also free for students) and bein…
How can we, as a society, support our future during its most vulnerable time (childhood)? How is it possible that we still have homeless children in a country with so much wealth? (I'm seriously asking. I want to know how many other similarly bright minds aren't being supported to their full potential due to circumstances not their fault, and what public administrative techniques have been proven to work or not work…
> How can we, as a society, support our future during its most vulnerable time (childhood)? How is it possible that we still have homeless children in a country with so much wealth? The argument goes like this: > Because why should I care for someone else's child and why should I shell out money because someone decided to have children even though they shouldn't have ?
For example, I don't want to support some kids' religious education, because I think religion is a form of handcuffs. When we give to a homeless person, we don't want it used for drugs.
In general, we want our giving to support our values. With other people's children, especially children in a different socioeconomic group, that's unlikely.
A year after learning to play chess he has a USCF rating of 1473 and is #27 in America for eight-year-olds. Tani participated in the New York State Championship. He won the category for children of his age, kindergarten to third grade, with five wins and one draw[0]. "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and…
How can we, as a society, support our future during its most vulnerable time (childhood)? How is it possible that we still have homeless children in a country with so much wealth? (I'm seriously asking. I want to know how many other similarly bright minds aren't being supported to their full potential due to circumstances not their fault, and what public administrative techniques have been proven to work or not work…
> How can we, as a society, support our future during its most vulnerable time (childhood)? How is it possible that we still have homeless children in a country with so much wealth? The argument goes like this: > Because why should I care for someone else's child and why should I shell out money because someone decided to have children even though they shouldn't have ?
Prudent or not, the deed is done; the child is here now and has real needs now. Get over punishing the child for being born and do the right thing.
We are post peak-chess. The interest fell sharply after Kasparov's loss to DeepBlue. I was a member of a chess club, that went from 30 tables to 5 in a span of couple of years.
I heard that even grand masters get beaten by cell phone chess games these days.
Yet I don't see cellphone chess programs make first page, for some reason.
Why is that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I disagree. Was there an edit to the OP I missed? What are you disagreeing with exactly? It was clearly a statement of opinion about how they found it interesting. You couldn't just elucidate more on the reasoning for the classifications, you had to first tell them they were wrong and then pedantically explain it. Peak fucking HN commenting.
Yes, I'm disagreeing with the claim that it's interesting. Interestingness isn't entirely subjective. Mostly, though, I'm sticking up for the kid, whose sub-1500 rating shouldn't be scoffed at by any chess player who's more than, say, 10 years old.
In his age category.
At a state level or above, distinction in any age category is a distinction. I think I was about 11 when I learned the game, and before long with no particular study I could beat most of my neighborhood peer group and some adults. Then I actually went to my local middle school competition, was handed a series of decisive defeats, and learned there's a world of people who begin to make a serious study of it in childho…
But to the casual reader who isn't familiar with age brackets in chess tournaments, the implication is that the 8-year-old was competing in a singular competition open to everyone and won. So while it is very impressive that this 8-year-old won the state championship in his age bracket, it is far less impressive than if he had competed against all ages and won.
Sometimes clarification is just that. Nobody is taking anything away from the kid's accomplishments by pointing out that it was an age-bracketed competition unless you're hoping people are mislead into believing the kid did more than he did.