Originally posted by JusuhI have never seen her flame on the board after getting grief, so in my eyes is "polite".
okay maybe I over-reacted a little. But that "she is polite" seems so odd. I dont think she is more polite than anyone else (expect ravello and Xantoboy)
Enough said really... on my behalf anyway.
🙂
Originally posted by rmackenPolite ... maybe
I happen to find Lolette very polite, whats your excuse?
Utterly stupid ... definitely
Thread 45572
Originally posted by gambit3Really? From the "beating Fritz" perspective, I preferred this one - a wide open position and a long-term sacrifice. I think it's harder to beat computers in this way than gradually building up an attack in a closed position (although true, that attack was carried out superbly.)
This game is not so nice. Seems to me you took Fritz(?) apart and made it look easy.
1 edit
Originally posted by gambit3I have never tried, but I suspect I would put up a real fight! By the by, this is correspondence chess, not OTB, which means there is alot more time for analysis and to do things like "you took Fritz(?) apart and made it look easy".
This game is not so nice. Seems to me you took Fritz(?) apart and made it look easy. Can you beat Fritz in a over the board game?
Originally posted by fifthdivisionso its a lie ... How can an IM lose (4x already) agains mediocre 1800-2000 players at RHP ??
No, I wouldn't. I don't feel I have to justify my chessic status. That is not what I created this thread for.
Are you trying to be funny ...
When I took lessons from an IM he kicked my butt blindfolded with 2 minutes on the clock when I had all the time in the world and could look at the board ... EVERY TIME
No way anyone is believing that you're an IM !!
Originally posted by The Slow PawnCome on. fifthdivision was asked, he didn't volunteer or boast or whatnot. It doesn't seem important to him so don't get all het up and conspiracy theoretical. IMs aren't invincible; I've beaten several of them on the ICC.
so its a lie ... How can an IM lose (4x already) agains mediocre 1800-2000 players at RHP ??
Are you trying to be funny ...
When I took lessons from an IM he kicked my butt blindfolded with 2 minutes on the clock when I had all the time in the world and could look at the board ... EVERY TIME
No way anyone is believing that you're an IM !!
Originally posted by fifthdivisionDo you not think it is somewhat rash to publicise your IM status if you cannot/will not prove it. Especially after two incidents involving people claiming to be Yasser Sierwan, Jean Hebert and Marc Piceu. Perhaps you could offer confirmation of your status to Russ/Chris (the site admin). I'm sure that this would satisfy any concerns the public of the site have. That way you wouldn't have to publicise who you are.
No, I wouldn't. I don't feel I have to justify my chessic status. That is not what I created this thread for.
Originally posted by Freddie2006No I don't think it is rash. They asked if I had one and so I told them. I am not claiming to be anyone and do not wish to reveal my identity. I do not care what the concerns of the public of the site have, when I joined here, I didn't see anywhere in the TOS that I would have to prove who I am and my status just because I play good chess.
Do you not think it is somewhat rash to publicise your IM status if you cannot/will not prove it. Especially after two incidents involving people claiming to be Yasser Sierwan, Jean Hebert and Marc Piceu. Perhaps you could offer confirmation of your status to Russ/Chris (the site admin). I'm sure that this would satisfy any concerns the public of the site have. That way you wouldn't have to publicise who you are.
- Joined
- 21 Aug 03
- Moves
- 655812
Originally posted by Freddie2006so, a player is kind enough to post an interesting analysis of a couple of games against a player. so far so good. Responds to a simple question with a yes - and we jump up and say "prove it".
Do you not think it is somewhat rash to publicise your IM status if you cannot/will not prove it. Especially after two incidents involving people claiming to be Yasser Sierwan, Jean Hebert and Marc Piceu. Perhaps you could offer confirmation of your status to Russ/Chris (the site admin). I'm sure that this would satisfy any concerns the public of the site have. That way you wouldn't have to publicise who you are.
pathetic.
Originally posted by TommyCI did not like this game so much because Fritz went down seemingly without fighting. I like a great game where both sides have a chance to win. Something like the Lasker Schlechter title match game ten. The Marshall "Gold Coin Game" was played well from the Black side but it seems to me that White did not play so well. This game is like the Marshall game. One side played very well. The other side did not play so well. Maybe I am such a low rate that I cannot understand Black's play here and White's play in the "Gold Coin Game".
Really? From the "beating Fritz" perspective, I preferred this one - a wide open position and a long-term sacrifice. I think it's harder to beat computers in this way than gradually building up an attack in a closed position (although true, that attack was carried out superbly.)
1 edit
Originally posted by pineapple42User 91691
so, a player is kind enough to post an interesting analysis of a couple of games against a player. so far so good. Responds to a simple question with a yes - and we jump up and say "prove it".
pathetic.
User 74544
User 181663
No one asked these people to prove it and look who they turned out to be. And if they were asked to prove it, they left in a rush and didn't come back/got banned.