Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:24:23 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 03:33:27, Terry McCracken wrote: >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. There is no "conundrum" here, there is a "problem" And I didn't create it, the TD in Graz created it. I don't have to find a solution, because I (and others) _already_ know the solution. You, on the other hand, are off the planet somewhere and have no idea what is going on... >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>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. >> I'm not grasping at straws or anything else. It is a concrete/open-and-shut solution to a problem that should never have happened. You need a dictionary in the worst way. I'm not embarassed by the decision at all. _I_ didn't have anything to do with it. I'm much more interested in seing the decision "fixed" so that it is fair to everyone. >> >>>> >>>>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. Right. Just look at how you are arguing the points of the original discussion _right now_. (hint: You haven't talked about the TD decision in several consecutive posts now.) "focus" indeed... >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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. I doubt I'll ever be buried by you, however.
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.