Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:24:06 11/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2005 at 06:09:35, Sune Larsson wrote: >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 Yes, well said. And what is even more strikening: if I have talent I should be educated enough to recognise and tolerate the talents in other collegues in a field. And this mechanism didn't function here in CCC. IF his use of the word "weak" using it in allegation to Uri Blass is ever insultive then all these "questions" you could quote, that were uttered towards Steen, could be understood as insultive with the same rights. I fear that all those you quoted would reply "but I had no offence in mind, it was just a legal question on the base of a true assumption namely that here something could possibly been done wrong!". Ok, and with that same reflection we must grant Steen the insight that many of his correspondents were mainly patzers like himself. Only with the help of his chess messages and provenly wrong attacks he could assume that almost all who attacked him must have been probably more "weaker" players than more likely masters or better. And the irony was, you also found it out, that the use of the word "patzer" is highly ironical if someone included himself! So, how that now could be taken as offensive is beyond me.
This page took 0.01 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.