Misplaced Pages

User talk:Bubba73: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:48, 21 January 2007 editBubba73 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers93,211 edits re: Your AfD on Fischer's endgame← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:23, 11 January 2025 edit undoJohn of Reading (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers767,664 edits National Register of Historic Places listings in Jackson County, Mississippi: new section 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Can't retire}}
<div class="usermessage"><div class="plainlinks">'''Note: If you leave a message for me here, I will probably respond here, unless you ask for a response on your talk page. ''' <font color="#5a3696"></font>'''</div></div>
{{Usertalkpage}}


<div class="usermessage"><div class="plainlinks">'''Note: If you leave a message for me here, I will probably respond here, unless you ask for a response on your talk page. ''' '''</div></div>
*]



{{Leave a message}}
{{service awards|year=2005|month=3|day=15|edits=80000|align=left|format=book}}

{{Talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 196K
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(131d)
|archive = User talk:Bubba73/Archive %(counter)d
}}

*]

*]
*] *]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]

{{clear}}

== Still Learning ==

==references==
{{reflist}}

== list of surviving starfighter aircraft ==

In addition to the list of surviving F-104 Starfighter aircraft, There is a model CF-104F on display I Innisfail Alberta legion Branch #105. If you google the legion branch and look under images you will see it as it is currently mounted.

== The Beatles Invite ==
{{WikiProject The Beatles Invite}}
== TB ==

{{tb|Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Computing#Alternative_to_Synergy_.28software.29.3F}}

== September 2017 ==
If any of your comments were deleted this would have been as a result of an edit conflict.

Actually if you look in the history file you will find that it was actually ''you'' who reverted ''my'' edits on 29 Sep 2017.

== ] ==

Hi. We're into the last five days of the ]. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
<!-- Message sent by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=WiR_list_1&oldid=812113281 -->
== Right to use picture? ==

Hi

I like to use your picture of the Sherman necktie in our publication "All Scale Rails" We would give you photo credit, but will need to have you sign our release form. Let me know if we could and where I could email the release form?

Our email is:

contact@allscalerails.com

Thank You
Kevin Domrois
allscalerails.com
== File:BendixG15.jpg listed for discussion ==
] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] (]) 10:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
==] nomination of ]==
]

A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

<blockquote>Shooting happened only ~4 hours ago, a free file could 100% be produced in the coming few days. This may be a bad SD, please leave a message on my talk page if this is.</blockquote>

Under the ], pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=File%3AWinder+high+school+shooting.jpg|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-reason-notice --> ] <small>(] - ] - ])</small> 22:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

==Discussion at ]==
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. -- ] (]) 04:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->
==Orphaned non-free image File:BendixG15.jpg==
] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]).

Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 02:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

== since you did a lot of work for ] over a decade ago ==

Was wondering if you might be interested in giving ] (which I created today, because I was surprised it didn't yet exist as its own page) a quick look. Your suggestions would be much appreciated, even if you don't have time to work on it. :) ] (]) 18:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

: .OK. I looked at it briefly and thanked you for the edits. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks!
::Do you think there's any other endgames that we should have standalone articles on? (Off the top of my head: maybe NP vs N, BP vs B, BP vs N, NP vs B, R vs N, R vs B. Well, I guess BB vs N would be fun, but are there that many sources? Dunno why Russian Misplaced Pages has an article on Q vs N/B, since that's pretty straightforward.) ] (]) 15:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

::: Those are all interesting to me, but I don't know if they need an article. There is ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::The thing I find most interesting about Q vs R is the fact that it's not generally won on arbitrarily large boards, which perhaps explains its difficulty on 8×8 – there's not really a deep reason why it should be won in some sense. So perhaps morally the best way to do the B+N checkmate is the triangle method, since that generalises to arbitrarily large boards while the W-manoeuvre doesn't.
::::And Q vs R+P (which I felt needed to be a section on the Q vs R article) is really complicated. :( ] (]) 03:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

::::: I didn't know that about Q vs R on large boards. I've had R+P versus Q at least twice, and drew them. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::Cool! Out of interest, where was the pawn? :) ] (]) 04:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


::::::: I think both were knight pawns. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
== SVG?? ==
::::::::Makes sense. From what I remember reading to write the article, they give the best drawing chances. ] (]) 03:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, when I made that list in the comment, I was thinking firstly of (1) whether it's common and (2) how many subtleties there are. That's why I didn't consider RN vs R, because it is almost always drawn, and much more easily than RB vs R. And, well, the importance of RP vs R and QP vs Q suggest doing the minor-piece equivalents as well.
::::(It strikes me as a slight pity that Nunn changed his mind and did not include BN vs N.) ] (]) 06:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


BTW, another thing you might find interesting from investigations: it seems that some of the weakness of the R in 1v1 pawnless endgames comes from the fact that the R cannot force mate by itself without zugzwang, and the defender thus needs to be reduced to a bare king. A "charging rook" that replaces the backward moves of the R with those of a K actually wins in general against B or N, because it does not need zugzwang to force mate!!
Is it possible to upload SVG files, and have wiki automatically convert it on the fly to png? If so how do I do this, when I tried to upload an SVG it said it was not a recommended format, I did not see a way to force it to go. I noticed in the uploaded files area you have a couple that are .svg.png. Also, could you please resond on my talk page? Thanks. --] 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Another fun fact from his work is that the Karstedt fortress in Q vs BN will hold for the weaker side even if you ]. (But good luck getting to it, I imagine.) ] (]) 10:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
: Sorry, I don't know. ] ], 03:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


: I was impressed by Q verses two minor pieces in Fine's ''Basic Chess Endings'', but tablebases changed much of that. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
== Vote ==
::The ] (a R-N compound in the sense that the Q is a R-B compound) oddly differs from the Q here: it beats all three pairs of minor pieces (NN, NB, BB), but the win against the bishop pair sometimes gets cursed by the 50-move rule. The ] (a B-N compound) does worse as expected: the only pair it has significant winning chances against is NB, and even then it sometimes gets cursed by the 50-move rule. () ] (]) 05:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


:: A friend of mine was into fairy chess, but I never got into it.
For the record I changed my vote to ''move to project namespace'' to save the 'list'. Please reconsider your vote. Thanks. --] 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:: You were asking about R+P vs Q. One of them was memorable. It was at a club game and I was behind in material. My daughter was there, but she had finished her game, and I went over and tried to get her come watch my game, because I had a plan. (But she wouldn't come over and watch.) I sacrificed material, leaving the opponent with only a pawn, which queened. But I had R+P and an easy draw. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:You voted to '''keep''' the "list of articles related to quackery" but we do not have enough votes. So your vote won't count towards anything. Now, our only option is to vote for '''move to project namespace''' as a development project. Thanks. --] 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
:::Interesting!
:::I kind of think that most of the pawnless endgames are academic. Apart from Q vs R, R vs minor, and R+minor vs R, they don't seem to be all that common in practice. So in that sense, the fairy versions are only slightly more academic, as are the versions with differently sized boards. But they can sometimes be illuminating as to what exactly is going on that makes the orthodox versions difficult, like the comparison above where it seems that the R's inability to mate alone without zugzwang is behind what makes R vs B and R vs N general draws on 8×8. Then again, mentions that R vs B is generally won for the R on 6×6, 6×7, and 6×8, but is generally drawn on 6×9, 7×7 (doesn't matter which colour the B is on), 7×8, or 8×8. So maybe it is still more complicated than that.
:::The late John Beasley conjectured in the same VC issue that for any ''n'', there's some sufficiently large board such that king and ''n'' knights cannot mate the lone king. I'm unaware of later results resolving this either way, but would tend to agree with his intuition.
:::(BTW, I kind of feel that the B-N and R-N compounds are somewhere between "fairy" and "orthodox", as they're so easily described in terms of standard pieces and ]. And maybe cases with same-coloured bishops are also somewhere in that limbo, because even though they can be reached by a legal sequence of moves, it seems unlikely that it would ever be the best move to underpromote that way. But YMMV of course.) ] (]) 05:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


== a chess endgame question ==


Asked it on the refdesk, but didn't get an answer, so maybe you know.
== Kramnik played weakly? ==


In the endgame of R + B + wrong rook pawn on R7 vs R (where the enemy king is sitting on R8 blocking the pawn), do you have to give up the pawn to make progress? ] (]) 16:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I just wanted to add, that the result of the match can not be considered as being an overwhelming victory for the chess engine. In German media (I don't have any usable citation) there were remarks, that Kramnik didn't play with the concentration and the commitment like he used to do it in his championship match againt Topalow. Commenting every single move is not the intention of this article, but I think, that a blunder like this is a good example for my doubts, that he took that all really seriously. Remove it, if you think this shouldn't be mentioned. Bye... ] 14:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


: Good question. I watch some of the refdesks, but not always. I salvaged a draw in a crucial tournament game in 1972 because of the wrong rook pawn, and I studied it afterwards. It has happened since. But offhand, I don't know. I have a very large collection of endgame books, but I am in the process of moving to a new house (within 2 weeks) and all of the books are at the other house.


: I do remember something similar with a R+RP versus B, with the king in the corner, but the RP was the RIGHT rook pawn. But the stronger side had to give up the pawn at the right moment to get to a won K+R versus K+B endgame (which is generally drawn). So he pawn might have to be given up. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
==Space nit-pick, Roswell==


:: Some R+B vs. R positions are won, so you might have to give up the pawn when the resulting R+B vs. R position is a win. 23:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I dunno about the nit-pick charge - the first four-day flight was the first flight to be up for four days, which the flight in question did not manage. This is even more true for the first two-week flight, where G7 was listed even though S9 was the first flight to be in space for two weeks. I mean, for a page which such a huge debate over what "rendezvous" means, I am rather amazed that there seems to be no problem with calling a flight which lasted 13 days and 18 hours the "first" two week flight when clearly it was not.
:::Thanks. Yeah, from looking at specific positions it seems plausible that once you bring the king to support the pawn, the defender gets forced into very passive rook placement, and the resulting R+B vs R will be won. I was however uncertain if this procedure works in general, and if it is the only way forward. ] (]) 06:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: That is what I've been thinking too. You could try it with a chess engine or endgame databases. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
Besides, in this place we should be "nit-picky". IMHO.] 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
::Hey Bubba, just want to say that I hope your nose isn't a bit out of joint over this space stuff. I did a quick peek of your profile and it seems we are on the same page on a lot of stuff - especially in terms of scientific skeptism.
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
::As for Roswell, I have been rather surprised to essentially been given free reign to redo the entire piece! I started to do it, section by section, and then a crew from the paranormal group at wiki came in and did a restructure, wikified it etc. But they largely embraced my approach and an attempt by Dr Fil to put a pile of "unbalanced" notes on the page was quickly shot down. He is still around, but I think he knows he won't win here anymore. He's added a lot of crap to a subsidiary page, Roswell UFO Witnesse Accounts, and we've had lenghty debates there. But as it currently stands, the net effect of all his "unbalanced" tags on a page which is near-totally pro-ufo in the alien accounts (which is STILL not good enough for him) leaves the impression with the uninitiated that the "lack of balance" probably resides in the near-total pro-ufo credulity on the page.


If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
::For the first time, control of the Roswell UFO page is in the hand of skeptics like myself who permit a balanced debate. Most didn't think it was possible, but I think we've managed it. ] 01:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


</div>
Thanks for your gracious response. I didn't intend to pick a fight here, and it seems some felt I had. I can come off that way. As for Roswell and Dr Fil, I've known him from Space.com days and we had a number of titanic debates there. He and a guy named Skyeagle (I am pretty sure they are not the same) would get into these debates where they would concede NOTHING. It was ludicrous. Once, I made the point that Roswell was forgotten until 1978 and Friedman, then he (Sky) pulled out some quotes from a 1950 Time article which seemed to say otherwise. Well, once I actually got the article from the library I saw that it clearly had NOTHING to do with Roswell, he refused to concede he had misled us. SOme of these guys are clearly... obsessed. I asked Timothy Printy to look at it and he said he was pleased with what we had done, and I am curious as to what if anything you might feel needs clarification, to be included, etc.
</div>
Cheers. ] 03:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/01&oldid=1258243333 -->
==] nomination of ]==
]


A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:
== Welcome to ] ==
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Bubba73! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply ]. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other ], or you can post a message on ]. ]<sup>'''] ]'''</sup> 03:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


<blockquote>]: File tagged as permission pending with no VRT confirmation for more than 30 days, no recent interaction (ticket is ])</blockquote>
== Title Change ==


Under the ], pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.
Greetings. The article list of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --] 03:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=File%3AWinder+high+school+shooting.jpg|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-reason-notice --> &mdash; ] (]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
== re: Your AfD on Fischer's endgame ==


== National Register of Historic Places listings in Jackson County, Mississippi ==
From your post, it seems you are now convinced the endgame is indeed valid. You can request an end to the AfD by using the overstrike annotation on your opening remarks of the debate requesting the deletion. Then, you could insert a comment immediately underneath the overstruck remarks and explain why and perhaps make a recommendation (merge seems the best but that should be your determination. Thanks for your diligence in researching this further and obtaining a translation. Most AfD nominators would not do what you did. Cheers, ] 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi! If you're around, could you have a look at ], where you might be able to help resolve a muddle. -- ] (]) 08:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
: I don't know. The superiority of the R+B over R+N is discussed in Capablanca's 1921 book ''Chess Fundamentals'', the chapter "advanced endgame strategy". I have not been able to find any reference to it called "Fischer's endgame" in English. Even Kasparov's book on Fischer (which he originally wrote in Russian) discusses the position with Taimanov, but does not call it "Fischer's endgame". I think that he would probably mention that if it was a common term. I have no personal stake in this, but other reasons I think it should be deleted are because it is only a stub and the notability is questionable. ] says that something should have two independent sources to be notable, but this has only that one, and some editors are questioning its accuracy. For now, I'll let the AfD continue. ] ], 15:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 08:23, 11 January 2025

CAN'T RETIRE Bubba73 tried to leave Misplaced Pages, but found that he couldn't do so…
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bubba73.
Note: If you leave a message for me here, I will probably respond here, unless you ask for a response on your talk page.


Please leave a new message.
This editor is a Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix, Errata Sheet, and Author's Signature.
This is Bubba73's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 4 months 

Still Learning

references

list of surviving starfighter aircraft

In addition to the list of surviving F-104 Starfighter aircraft, There is a model CF-104F on display I Innisfail Alberta legion Branch #105. If you google the legion branch and look under images you will see it as it is currently mounted.

The Beatles Invite

Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Misplaced Pages? Please feel free to join us.
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet!
Todo list:

To-do list for User:Bubba73:

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:


If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.

TB

Hello, Bubba73. You have new messages at Misplaced Pages:Reference_desk/Computing#Alternative_to_Synergy_.28software.29.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

September 2017

If any of your comments were deleted this would have been as a result of an edit conflict.

Actually if you look in the history file you will find that it was actually you who reverted my edits on 29 Sep 2017.

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Right to use picture?

Hi

I like to use your picture of the Sherman necktie in our publication "All Scale Rails" We would give you photo credit, but will need to have you sign our release form. Let me know if we could and where I could email the release form?

Our email is:

contact@allscalerails.com

Thank You

Kevin Domrois

allscalerails.com

File:BendixG15.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BendixG15.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Winder high school shooting.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Winder high school shooting.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

Shooting happened only ~4 hours ago, a free file could 100% be produced in the coming few days. This may be a bad SD, please leave a message on my talk page if this is.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 22:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:NFCC § NFCC#4 and previous publication

 You are invited to join the discussion at WT:NFCC § NFCC#4 and previous publication. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BendixG15.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BendixG15.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

since you did a lot of work for Queen and pawn versus queen endgame over a decade ago

Was wondering if you might be interested in giving Queen versus rook endgame (which I created today, because I was surprised it didn't yet exist as its own page) a quick look. Your suggestions would be much appreciated, even if you don't have time to work on it. :) Double sharp (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

.OK. I looked at it briefly and thanked you for the edits. Bubba73 19:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks!
Do you think there's any other endgames that we should have standalone articles on? (Off the top of my head: maybe NP vs N, BP vs B, BP vs N, NP vs B, R vs N, R vs B. Well, I guess BB vs N would be fun, but are there that many sources? Dunno why Russian Misplaced Pages has an article on Q vs N/B, since that's pretty straightforward.) Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Those are all interesting to me, but I don't know if they need an article. There is Rook and bishop versus rook endgame. Bubba73 02:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
The thing I find most interesting about Q vs R is the fact that it's not generally won on arbitrarily large boards, which perhaps explains its difficulty on 8×8 – there's not really a deep reason why it should be won in some sense. So perhaps morally the best way to do the B+N checkmate is the triangle method, since that generalises to arbitrarily large boards while the W-manoeuvre doesn't.
And Q vs R+P (which I felt needed to be a section on the Q vs R article) is really complicated. :( Double sharp (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I didn't know that about Q vs R on large boards. I've had R+P versus Q at least twice, and drew them. Bubba73 04:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Cool! Out of interest, where was the pawn? :) Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I think both were knight pawns. Bubba73 23:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense. From what I remember reading to write the article, they give the best drawing chances. Double sharp (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, when I made that list in the comment, I was thinking firstly of (1) whether it's common and (2) how many subtleties there are. That's why I didn't consider RN vs R, because it is almost always drawn, and much more easily than RB vs R. And, well, the importance of RP vs R and QP vs Q suggest doing the minor-piece equivalents as well.
(It strikes me as a slight pity that Nunn changed his mind and did not include BN vs N.) Double sharp (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, another thing you might find interesting from H. G. Muller's investigations: it seems that some of the weakness of the R in 1v1 pawnless endgames comes from the fact that the R cannot force mate by itself without zugzwang, and the defender thus needs to be reduced to a bare king. A "charging rook" that replaces the backward moves of the R with those of a K actually wins in general against B or N, because it does not need zugzwang to force mate!!

Another fun fact from his work is that the Karstedt fortress in Q vs BN will hold for the weaker side even if you give the Q the N's move as well. (But good luck getting to it, I imagine.) Double sharp (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I was impressed by Q verses two minor pieces in Fine's Basic Chess Endings, but tablebases changed much of that. Bubba73 04:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The empress (a R-N compound in the sense that the Q is a R-B compound) oddly differs from the Q here: it beats all three pairs of minor pieces (NN, NB, BB), but the win against the bishop pair sometimes gets cursed by the 50-move rule. The princess (a B-N compound) does worse as expected: the only pair it has significant winning chances against is NB, and even then it sometimes gets cursed by the 50-move rule. (Source.) Double sharp (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
A friend of mine was into fairy chess, but I never got into it.
You were asking about R+P vs Q. One of them was memorable. It was at a club game and I was behind in material. My daughter was there, but she had finished her game, and I went over and tried to get her come watch my game, because I had a plan. (But she wouldn't come over and watch.) I sacrificed material, leaving the opponent with only a pawn, which queened. But I had R+P and an easy draw. Bubba73 05:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Interesting!
I kind of think that most of the pawnless endgames are academic. Apart from Q vs R, R vs minor, and R+minor vs R, they don't seem to be all that common in practice. So in that sense, the fairy versions are only slightly more academic, as are the versions with differently sized boards. But they can sometimes be illuminating as to what exactly is going on that makes the orthodox versions difficult, like the comparison above where it seems that the R's inability to mate alone without zugzwang is behind what makes R vs B and R vs N general draws on 8×8. Then again, I just realised that Variant Chess 60 mentions that R vs B is generally won for the R on 6×6, 6×7, and 6×8, but is generally drawn on 6×9, 7×7 (doesn't matter which colour the B is on), 7×8, or 8×8. So maybe it is still more complicated than that.
The late John Beasley conjectured in the same VC issue that for any n, there's some sufficiently large board such that king and n knights cannot mate the lone king. I'm unaware of later results resolving this either way, but would tend to agree with his intuition.
(BTW, I kind of feel that the B-N and R-N compounds are somewhere between "fairy" and "orthodox", as they're so easily described in terms of standard pieces and Capablanca proposed to add them to standard chess. And maybe cases with same-coloured bishops are also somewhere in that limbo, because even though they can be reached by a legal sequence of moves, it seems unlikely that it would ever be the best move to underpromote that way. But YMMV of course.) Double sharp (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

a chess endgame question

Asked it on the refdesk, but didn't get an answer, so maybe you know.

In the endgame of R + B + wrong rook pawn on R7 vs R (where the enemy king is sitting on R8 blocking the pawn), do you have to give up the pawn to make progress? Double sharp (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Good question. I watch some of the refdesks, but not always. I salvaged a draw in a crucial tournament game in 1972 because of the wrong rook pawn, and I studied it afterwards. It has happened since. But offhand, I don't know. I have a very large collection of endgame books, but I am in the process of moving to a new house (within 2 weeks) and all of the books are at the other house.
I do remember something similar with a R+RP versus B, with the king in the corner, but the RP was the RIGHT rook pawn. But the stronger side had to give up the pawn at the right moment to get to a won K+R versus K+B endgame (which is generally drawn). So he pawn might have to be given up. Bubba73 22:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Some R+B vs. R positions are won, so you might have to give up the pawn when the resulting R+B vs. R position is a win. 23:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Yeah, from looking at specific positions it seems plausible that once you bring the king to support the pawn, the defender gets forced into very passive rook placement, and the resulting R+B vs R will be won. I was however uncertain if this procedure works in general, and if it is the only way forward. Double sharp (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
That is what I've been thinking too. You could try it with a chess engine or endgame databases. Bubba73 01:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Winder high school shooting.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Winder high school shooting.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

WP:F11: File tagged as permission pending with no VRT confirmation for more than 30 days, no recent interaction (ticket is ticket:2024090610000436)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Jackson County, Mississippi

Hi! If you're around, could you have a look at my talk page on Commons, where you might be able to help resolve a muddle. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)