12 May 08
Originally posted by KorchWrong. Your comical explanations and ridiculous justifications are absolute BS. And it doesn't surprise me that you are afraid to address these issues, instead childishly just shouting them down.
Your "point" in page 12 is absolute BS which consist of obviously absurd claims.
12 May 08
Originally posted by tamuzitamuzi wrote:
But you have not set me straight, all you do is continue to insult me. I don't want this thread to be a flamewar, thats why i tried to take it to PMs. You wanted nothing of it, you were completely unreceptive to anything and if it wasn't your way you wanted it dropped, I dropped the conversation.
Again, I don't want this thread to be a flamewar, all you're ...[text shortened]... I don't want there to be judgment over who is right or wrong, you should drop this, I have.
You make your argument "valid" by denigrating the ethos of everyone arguing against them by stating that they are "low rated people" and therefore what they say is pointless. You set a "High rated vs low rated standard and imply that lowraters don't have anything to say, hence why you didn't "bother to read the other pages". Get off your high horse and come play with us in the mud, its better here.
I did NONE of that, and I would never do that. I explained it right after your initial misunderstanding, but you just keep claiming you know better what I meant! in our private messages you even wanted me to prove that I actually thought exactly what I wrote, as if it wasn't enough to simply write it.
if you think I'm the kind of guy who gives up just because you keep repeating your lies, you're sadly mistaken. I will not let it go.
and for the record, the post before this one was the FIRST time I've insulted you. I think it's about time after you insulting me for days both in private and in public. -if you think me being blunt about it is insulting, well that's just too damn bad. I'm not responsible for your misunderstanding, nor in any way inclined to be polite to you after you piss on me.
13 May 08
Originally posted by eldragonflyWe agree on this much. Now, look back through this thread to see who has smeared the distinction between online correspondence play and other forms of online play.
Wrong. It is an error to define online chess solely as cc chess, ...
I'll help with the research:
Originally posted by eldragonfly
... i still see no solid proof that the whole idea behind on-line chess gaming sites is to use books and databases.
13 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by tamuziyou are wrong, there's no question about it. but as long as you stop repeating your lies about me...
"end of story. move along. "
"Again, I don't want this thread to be a flamewar, all you're doing is attacking me and calling on the public. I don't want there to be judgment over who is right or wrong, you should drop this, I have."
13 May 08
Originally posted by eldragonflyIts comical and ridiculous only by some stupid minority of patzers. Face the fact patzer - you are miserable minority. And I really advice you to read some chess book.
Wrong. Your comical explanations and ridiculous justifications are absolute BS. And it doesn't surprise me that you are afraid to address these issues, instead childishly just shouting them down.
13 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by eldragonflyIts obvious that you have zero knowledge about CC chess. To argue your baseless claims you may answer my previous question which you avoided:
Wrong. It is an error to define online chess solely as cc chess, and it is an error to assume that cc chess implies the use of databases and books.
Can you name at least one CC chess site (like RHP) where using of books and databases is forbidden? Can you name at least one CC federation which have forbidden using of books and databases?
Also I would like to ask you - why do you afraid to discuss with CC master?
13 May 08
Even if the argument is, "Who cares if everyone allows book/DB use in CC chess - it's still unethical", that is easily dismissed. CC games can go on for years. Do we really expect CC players to ignore all the opening improvements found in their favorite opening lines? After all, they'd better avoid studying them, because they've got games going on with those openings at any given time.
This would lead to the absurd situation of those who start games later on having better theoretical knowledge, because they are able to read the later books and DBs before starting those games. No, the only fair way to do it is to allow all players to look at all books and DBs at any point in the game.
13 May 08
Originally posted by eldragonflyListen to me, Montag. Once to each fireman, at least once in his career, he just itches to know what these books are all about. He just aches to know. Isn't that so?
Wrong. Nor have any players, beyond the few confused individuals here, come out in support of using books and databases to help decide moves in a game. Your hollow and ridiculous justifications are plain silly and just don't wash.
13 May 08
Originally posted by SwissGambitBravo. Here SwissGambit highlights a key point of ethics succinctly and with impeccable logic. That his argument goes against nothing on the other side, for no one has advanced an ethical argument against database use, is irrelevant. It still helps to understand why databases should be permitted, as they indeed are.
Even if the argument is, "Who cares if everyone allows book/DB use in CC chess - it's still unethical", that is easily dismissed. CC games can go on for years. Do we really expect CC players to ignore all the opening improvements found in their favorite opening lines? After all, they'd better avoid studying them, because they've got games going on with t ...[text shortened]... way to do it is to allow all players to look at all books and DBs at any point in the game.