Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 00:33:27 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2003 at 22:43:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 12, 2003 at 18:26:03, Terry McCracken wrote: > >>On December 12, 2003 at 17:09:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 12, 2003 at 14:26:18, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On December 12, 2003 at 13:42:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 12, 2003 at 12:52:15, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>AFAIC you have hit an all-time low, as I said to Matt, be careful people might >>>>>>>>>step on you! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>When you said that to me, I thought you were referring to the moderators. >>>>>>>>That's who you were referring to, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No Matt, I was reffering to you, it was pretty clear. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>No, I mean the "people might step on matt" meant "moderators might step on >>>>>>matt". >>>>>> >>>>>>If you meant to imply something else, then you are definitely a comedian. >>>>>> >>>>>>:) >>>>>>Matt >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>He meant "something else". >>>>> >>>>>It was a childish comment, as usual. >>>> >>>>Learn to read, it was Matt behaving badly. >>>>> >>>>>When he "grows up" he will realize that sometimes a game is about >>>>>winning, other times it is about fun, and other times it is about >>>>>things like sportsmanship, training, etc. But a tournament is >>>>>about winning, first and foremost. To suggest otherwise is so >>>>>far beyond ridiculous that it takes sunlight 6 months to get from >>>>>ridiculous to there. Chess players are competitors, first and >>>>>foremost, in tournament play. And if my opponent screws up a won >>>>>position and lets me escape with a perpetual, I'll take it. The >>>>>literature is _full_ of such happenings between GM players, and >>>>>they never get into this sort of nonsensical "but I was really winning, >>>>>and screwed up, and you are a louse for not resigning and giving me the >>>>>point. I only made a _small_ mistake." >>>> >>>>You absolutely have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm growing fatigued >>>>with your vapid insults. >>> >>>I really don't believe you could recognize an insult if it fell on you. The >>>above was _not_ an insult. This paragraph _might_ be considered one however. >> >>Puerile attacks, this speaks volumes of your character, or lack thereof. > >Since you started this, I suppose that volume is even louder? No, you created this, and you have to extricate yourself from this quandary. You created the conudrum, you have to find the solution. Not I. > > >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>I can see GM Walter Browne falling out of his chair laughing. And he >>>>>doesn't laugh much in a chess tournament. :) >>>>> >>>>>If you said that to him _before_ the game ends, you might have a chance. >>>>>He might choke so badly laughing that his flag falls before he can regain >>>>>control. :) >>>>> >>>>>Let's see. Should Kasparov have been given a point or 1/2 point in the >>>>>game he lost so badly against junior, where he had a good position for the >>>>>entire game and made a single move that blew the game? Should the DB team >>>>>have given Kasparov credit for blundering in game 6 in 1997 and called the >>>>>match a draw? Should Shirov, or Kramnik, or ... have expected the same >>>>>when they lost games they should have won and won games they should have >>>>>lost? >>>>> >>>>>Sort of destroys the idea of "competition"... >>>> >>>>You're babbling mindlessly. I'm trying to refrain from answering as it's lost on >>>>you two yardbirds, but you're making it pretty near damn impossible. >>> >>> >>>Right. Get shrill instead of reinforcing your (lack of) argument... >> >>I'm not being shrill in this post at all, just pointing out you're "Out to >>Lunch", Professor. >>You have no arguement, with the exception of the dubious decision made in Graz, >>which will stand, much to your chagrin. > >Not to my "chagrin". To my "dislike". It was a bad decision that supported >direct violation of a rule used for 30+ years. That will _always_ be looked >up with disfavor by myself and others. Chagrin fits perfectly, you are grasping at straws. Most others will forget. > > >>> >>>By the way, you ought to consider taking ritalin. It helps keep your >>>attention on a single topic. You have been all over the planet, yet >>>the discussion was about the decision (bad) made in Graz. >> >>Yes, when all else fails resort to "ad hominems", churlish personal attacks. > >Look up "ad hominem". That wasn't one. That was a suggestion to solve a >real problem you have with short attention span. Just look where we are now >and what the original thread subject was about... I fully comprehend what ad hominem means, and you're guilty of using such pathetic debasing tactic, concede. Robert you are wrong, I know it, and you know it, my attention span is far greater than yours, or most people's admit it, you've lost. I know the entire thread, and I know you don't, you can't, I've kept track you obviously haven't. > > > >> >> >> >>> >>>A little "focus" might keep you on track and off these wild tangents. >> >>I can assure you, most confidently, I'm very focused, it's you who is erratic. > >Your definition of focused doesn't pass any optical clarity standard... I can attest with the utmost confidence, that I surpass the highest standards, OTOH you can't, your memory capacity is inferior. It's crystal clear to me, but muddled in your case. You're taking on the wrong person, I'm not some mindless fool. As long as you take the stance you're superior you'll be buried, along with your archaic concepts.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.