Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 03:09:35 11/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2005 at 23:06:01, Chessfun wrote: >On November 27, 2005 at 22:34:40, Sune Larsson wrote: > >>On November 27, 2005 at 22:21:12, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On November 27, 2005 at 20:07:12, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On November 27, 2005 at 15:23:33, Chessfun wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 27, 2005 at 11:06:28, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Just for the record and to you as a challenge: >>>>>> >>>>>>I asked Graham, the other moderator, to show me insults by A.S., then he replied >>>>>>that they were all deleted. Then I repeated my question and begged him to show >>>>>>me one single piece of evidence. He couldn't! And he explained that chessplayers >>>>>>are known to be a bit eccentric and such. Steen hadn't had real insults in his >>>>>>messages at all! But it was his special speech that was taken as insulting by >>>>>>the members. >>>>> >>>>>Here is a bit of his "Special Speech" for you. >>>>> >>>>>"If you look here- >>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?463395 >>>>>you will find a weak player beating Fruit 2.2.1." >>>>> >>>>>Sarah. >>>> >>>> >>>>Thanks, I've read that, but couldn't find the insult. Would you please lead me >>>>to the center of the insult in this message? I'm no native speaker, olease dont >>>>forget that. Thanks. >>> >>>Ok let's see how to make it clearer. >>> >>>If you look at this post you will see a WEAK player beat Fruit 2.2.1. If you >>>managed to follow the link you will see a post from Uri Blass. >>> >>>Therefore Uri Blass is a weak player. >>> >>>Sarah. >> >> >> Weak, strong or patzer are all very subjective labels of course. I'm sure both >> you, me and Uri could qualify for all three of those - depending of whom >> we are taking to...;-) >> >> /S > >Sure we could all qualify for the label but the point is the statement "Weak" >was whether anyone wants to admit it or not not made to say the engine is weak. >It was targeted against Uri after an earlier exchange in the thread. > >To say you are all weak I am sure none would be too bothered by that. But to >post a win against an engine and have someone else post saying see weak players >can also beat engines belittles the poster when very easily other terms could >have been used were the example of that win nessessary. > >Sarah. Yes, I'm not so keen on posting own games vs engines anymore. Here, there is often very little chessic comments about such a game. It's just a bit tiresum to see remarks as "you must be a very strong player" - "see also weak no ELO- rated players can win against engines" - "this game must be a fake" - "how many games did you play in this variation before the win happened?" - "playing vs a faster computer you wouldn't have won" - "why didn't you use the tournament book?" etc. Weak, strong or patzer - as I said - these are highly subjective labels. Have you ever played vs a +2500 player - much into chess - knowing much more about the opening in your game - about the middlegameposition coming - seeing much more than yourself in the game? Then I find it hard to label oneself as a strong player - no matter of one's rating is 1990 or 2390... At least I cannot do that. Having talent is something else. /S
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.