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.