Bubba73

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.

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 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!

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

 

Thanks for uploading File:LuzhinDefense.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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) 17:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Bohatirchuk.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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) 17:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Erich Eliskases.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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) 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fender Bassman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solid-state.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BendixG15.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on File:Winder high school shooting.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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)Reply

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

 

Thanks for uploading File:BendixG15.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (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)Reply

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)Reply

.OK. I looked at it briefly and thanked you for the edits. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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 Wikipedia has an article on Q vs N/B, since that's pretty straightforward.) Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Cool! Out of interest, where was the pawn? :) Double sharp (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think both were knight pawns. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

I was impressed by Q verses two minor pieces in Fine's Basic Chess Endings, but tablebases changed much of that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

That is what I've been thinking too. You could try it with a chess engine or endgame databases. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)Reply