Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Shredder wins in Graz after controversy

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 19:43:37 12/12/03

Go up one level in this thread


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?


>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>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.


>>
>>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...





>
>
>
>>
>>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...



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.