Originally posted by eldragonflyYou should look up the word supposition because you misused it. I spoke from the authority of experience going back thirty years. I can dig up some old correspondence texts from even further back that discuss the matter, but in the absence of reason and true argument from you, I see that as a waste of time.
Show me some real proof of the validity of this statement, otherwise that is just an false supposition. You are just making this up, you are clearly avoiding my direct question, supplying instead bogus justifications and circular explanations.
Originally posted by eldragonflythis statement is reminiscent of the theme tune from the muppets show, just by way of a small reminder, ma ma ma ma ma ma ma muppets, this is what we call the muppets show, dah dah, an then Gonzo blows the trumpet or more likely the bugle and himself up 😀
You are still dancing around the issue, your distortions are laughable and insincere, your circular excuses are absurd. Obviously i am not the only one here who thinks that this is a form cheating and little else. It is hardly the clever "learning tool" that you and others pretend it to be.
Originally posted by PhlabibitDitto! but I fear the poster merely thinks books and DBs are cheating when they are not and nothing will pesuade him otherwise even though they are allowed and most moderately strong players use them.
Perhaps I'm not understanding EXACTLY what you need me to either say or understand. What is the point I am dancing around and I'll try to address that.
P-
Originally posted by WulebgrWrong. Squelchbelch partially retracted his rather implausible assumption, which he mistakenly called an assertion.
You should look up the word supposition because you misused it. I spoke from the authority of experience going back thirty years. I can dig up some old correspondence texts from even further back that discuss the matter, but in the absence of reason and true argument from you, I see that as a waste of time.
Originally posted by Dragon FireIrrelevant. And there's that circular "cornfed" reasoning again.
Ditto! but I fear the poster merely thinks books and DBs are cheating when they are not and nothing will pesuade him otherwise even though they are allowed and most moderately strong players use them.
Originally posted by wormwoodRight? About what?
I may well be, but I'm right regardless.
Other's opinions don't matter if their rank isn't as high as you? You are not right, in fact your argument has no merit at all as you make it because it can be summarized by this:
1. Ad hominem attack at ethos
2. Say whatever the hell I want, because I've already defaced anyone going against me.
And as far as I'm concerned part of this argument doesn't have a right or wrong. Part clearly does, as shown by the rules, part does not.
Originally posted by tamuziThe problem is not in rank itself but in chess qualification. And if eldragonfly cant see difference between OTB chess and CC chess, then I`dont feel surprised that his rating is only 1380.
Right? About what?
Other's opinions don't matter if their rank isn't as high as you? You are not right, in fact your argument has no merit at all as you make it because it can be summarized by this:
1. Ad hominem attack at ethos
2. Say whatever the hell I want, because I've already defaced anyone going against me.
And as far as I'm concerned part of t ...[text shortened]... nt doesn't have a right or wrong. Part clearly does, as shown by the rules, part does not.
Just reading these posts shows overwhelmingly that all the stronger players support the use of books and databases and are on one side of this debate whereas the weaker ones are on the other.
It seems to me that the weaker players feel they are only being beaten because we use books and databases but nothing could be further from the truth. These players would lose games against those advocating the use of books and DBs OTB (without them being used) just as quickly, if not more so, than they do here.
Perhaps this explains why they are weaker. I hope they don't carry this analogy into their every action, perhaps saying a lawyer cannot consult his law books, a judge cannot consult tombs of previous decisions in chambers before sentencing, an Accountant must not consult tax tables and a Doctor must certainly not look up the symptons of his patients illness on a database. Perhaps he considers that as the use of books and databases confers some sort of unfair advantage and by allowing them anyone can be a lawyer, accountant or doctor but overlooks that the effort involved in studying books and learning is very intense in all aspects of life and unless you have a certain level of skill they are useless. Using books and DBs here is hard work and often they are left before achieving anything and they most certainly do not play the game for you. Engines do that but engines are not allowed and I think he has a measure of confusion between the two.
- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
There might be a level of laziness which stops people consulting books/databases and therefore improving if only minimally. Chess can be hard work and its far easier to just push wood than look up and study the positions. Their own defensive reactions of course wouldnt see this as laziness "I dont do it because I believe its cheating" even when its clearly not.