Difference between revisions of "Talk:1800: Chess Notation"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 25: Line 25:
HOLY CRAP HOW MUCH OF THIS PAGE IS ''ACTUALLY NECESSARY'' TO EXPLAIN THE JOKE --[[Special:Contributions/|]] 22:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
HOLY CRAP HOW MUCH OF THIS PAGE IS ''ACTUALLY NECESSARY'' TO EXPLAIN THE JOKE --[[Special:Contributions/|]] 22:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
:I came here to say just that. [[User:SuperSupermario24|<span style="color: #c21aff;">Just some random derp</span>]] 18:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:11, 19 February 2017

So... This is just a really excellent pun? "Drawn" conversation? 15:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The pun gets better when you think about drawn and stalemated conversations, both of which will be scored 0.5 - 0.5. A stalemate occurs when no legal moves are possible, but the opponent isn't in check.-- 16:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I have 2 questions does Randall know about this wiki and if there is an "incomplete" comic and I complete the explanation or other issue can I delete the incomplete notification thingy or does an admin have to do that?XFez (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can remove the incomplete tag. Likewise, anyone can add it back again if they feel the explanation can be improved. 18:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
My answer at the last comic:
Hi XFez, sorry for the late reply but this was hard to find. I don't know if Randall knows..., but maybe he does. But he does NOT support this wiki in any way -- like he does not here: http://forums.xkcd.com (while everything is now on https that board isn't ;) ). So there is no final explanation and he says 100 points! To your second question: You are allowed to remove the "incomplete tag". But the given criteria is not enough, often that simple text covers not all. Please check also the discussion page. So, when you are not sure just change the criteria text and mention it at the discussion page. And for older comics you probably should talk to someone else here because nobody checks every comic every day.--Dgbrt (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Randall knows of this page for sure. How often he goes here for a laugh is hard to say, but I would guess he would never comment on anything. But who knows if he checks here to see if has made a mistake. Sometimes errors are corrected after they get mentioned here. Often very early in Randall's time zone. Who knows if he sees this here. He has given a 100 % proof that he knows about this page in his official transcript. He actually made a direct link to Explain xkcd for a better transcript than his own. Alas there was not transcript until this year, where I made it: See this trivia under Payloads, that I added earlier in 2017. --Kynde (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the mouseover text saying that it was a blunder to tell white hat that he is scoring it because that will cause white hat to actively compete, instead of simply losing because he didn't know there was a game? [a guest and fan] (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Why is the figure on the left not wearing a beret? 21:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Under the "Chess games and conversations" section, "differences" subsection, it says that "people's statements sometimes last an eternity or even longer". Eternity = infinite time, duration without beginning or end. It's impossible for a person to make a statement lasting longer than his or her lifespan, and realistically for someone to continue speaking for more than an hour or so is extremely rare (someone giving a speech or presentation, for example, which isn't the type of "conversation" we're dealing with). Is the word "eternity" being used in a hyperbolic sense? If so, I'm not sure I understand exactly what this sentence is trying to say. 04:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

How did the conversation end in a draw? Was it by agreement? Was it actually "drawn" as mentioned below? 20:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"Fine." "Fine." Agreement. 23:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The move to score conversations itself was probably a blunder, but it seems that, since the sentence is copied verbatim, that the move to declare your scoring of conversations to somebody else is a blunder. Because that's weird and nobody wants to hear about it. 18:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello all. Just pointing out that stalemate it's not one of the most common ways to draw a chess game. It's quite rare in fact. Agreement, threefold repetition, perpetual check (and maybe even insufficent material) are statisticaly more usual. Keep up the great job, Albi.-- 09:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The last part of the first section, Chess notation (and annotation), says that Cueball would score a conversation "1-0" whether he won it or lost it (depending upon who started the conversation). That is totally ambiguous; he would need more annotation to show whether he started the conversation and won it or the opposite. If I were scoring it - but I'm not a chess player - I would just score it as if I were always white, and it would be clear whether I won or not. What's the point of scoring the conversation if you can't read the score later on? He didn't say he was recording and scoring his conversations, he just said he was scoring them. 21:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


I came here to say just that. Just some random derp 18:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)