Do you believe in UFOs?

[Carl Hibbard]

Point taken. So who owns it? How does one buy it?

This is still supposed to be a Chess forum so I am really not sure I should be allowing all this 'not' chess utter nonsense

[Paolo Casaschi]

Well, I have Niels Bohr on my side. I'm less hesitant to provide references for statements I make.

Extending his assumption to chess, I suppose Bohr would prefer playing chess with the Black pieces

Reading the quoted article, the explanation is about "reacting" actions being instinctive and thus faster (more effective) than "proactive" action. Since statistics show that playing chess the first shooter (White) clearly has the advantage, can we conclude that defending in chess is NOT an instinctive (re)action?

This still makes me think of the strange feeling when playing blitz, defending with practically forced moves, the opponent attacking and having all the options to go ashtray. In a strange way it's easier to play the defendant side there...

[Simon Spivack]

... allowing all this 'not' chess utter nonsense

Isn't this sign of exasperation a "touch personal"?

Unfortunately, some posts almost certainly project a very bad image of the game (perhaps such authors have given up chess ). They also discourage more sensible contributions and better posters, a kind of Gresham's Law.

It takes immeasurably longer to conscientiously wipe spittle off the floor that it does to discharge it. Using a spittoon, known here as a romper room, takes a lot of the work out of the cleaning. An occasional washing by the moderators, say once a week, to get rid of the worst, would do the trick. Whilst cleaning the saliva a moderator could determine whether a mad romper deserves promotion. This way casual viewers will see that bizarre behaviour is no more common amongst chess players than in the wider world, but it is tolerated, and steps are taken to manage it.

There have been reasonable threads in the "Not Chess" section, for instance on "Voting systems". One should tackle the disease, not its symptoms.

[George Szaszvari]

Extending his assumption to chess, I suppose Bohr would prefer playing chess with the Black pieces

Reading the quoted article, the explanation is about "reacting" actions being instinctive and thus faster (more effective) than "proactive" action. Since statistics show that playing chess the first shooter (White) clearly has the advantage, can we conclude that defending in chess is NOT an instinctive (re)action?

This still makes me think of the strange feeling when playing blitz, defending with practically forced moves, the opponent attacking and having all the options to go ashtray. In a strange way it's easier to play the defendant side there...

Whether having the firrst move really does confer an advantage has been a matter of interesting discussion ever
since I've been involved in chess (1960s), and I have to say, from my experience, that in many ways it was easier
to prepare with black than white. After white's opening move black gets to choose which defence to play, then
white can can choose which system against that defence, but then a well prepared black can choose which sub-
system or variation to go with and so on. It's about who shows their hand first, perhaps with parallels to certain
card games. There is also a theory that with best moves on both sides black wins by zugzwang, but that must
remain pure speculation until computers are able to play the perfect game of chess.