Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 11:01:30 12/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 13, 2003 at 11:24:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... > ROTFL! I perfectly well know what's going on, you just keep your "beam " tightly "focused" on one thing, not any other points that have been brought up. Rudeness, notwithstanding. Oh, and yes, I'm typing this from the ISS:o) >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>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 may be right, but we're not, or at least _I'm_ not discussing that issue anymore. With the exception in one line that the decision will stand. > >You need a dictionary in the worst way. I doubt that. At least not anymore than most. BTFYC:o) > >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. I never said you were, and obviously you had nothing to do with it. lol > > >>> >>>>> >>>>>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... > That's due to the fact I'm long passed discussing it. That should be quite obvious. It was to do with _sporstsmanship_ in _chess_ and you don't appear to have very much of that. Of course tournaments are all about winning, I _never_ said otherwise. However, there is a time, even chess for _blood_ when you should lay down your King, and shake your opponants hand. > >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>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. I don't have to, you're doing a fine job all on your own. Bye Bob.
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.