ilywrin

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
Precisely,
An artificial position. Anyone with a grading above 1200 Elo could drop some pieces on a board and make a puzzle of it.

For a person entirely ignorant on the subject, you sound quite sure of yourself. 🙄

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
For a person entirely ignorant on the subject, you sound quite sure of yourself. 🙄

What a rude remark! No need for that.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
What a rude remark! No need for that.

I believe your original post was the rude remark, insulting problemists everywhere, and in doing so also disparaging hundreds of years of chess history.

The remark did also indicate a rather all-encompassing ignorance of the subject (which BigDoggProblem pointed out), but ignorance is no sin, as long as a person makes the effort to correct the situation with study and education.

We all begin as ignorant chess players, and part of the fun is in the learning.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
What a rude remark! No need for that.

Exactly. So stop insulting Problemists and show some tact for a change, please.

Paul Leggett nailed it.

You may not agree with my views on chess problems. but to resort to personal insults is just childish behaviour.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
You may not agree with my views on chess problems. but to resort to personal insults is just childish behaviour.

You flung the first insults, so you don't get to say I "resorted" to insults.

You are the typical forum ignoramus that comes in with a blustering and dismissive attitude, gets exposed for having an knowledge of the subject inversely proportional to the level of arrogance displayed on it, and then starts crying foul as if your behavior up to that point had been the epitome of innocence.

Well, it doesn't fool me for a bit. And if you continue the insults, I'll light you up in kind.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
You flung the first insults, so you don't get to say I "resorted" to insults.

Just for the record, BiggDoggProblem, point out to me exactly where in this thread I made a personal insult to you.

Originally posted by Duncan Clarke
Just for the record, BiggDoggProblem, point out to me exactly where in this thread I made a personal insult to you.

This:

An artificial position. Anyone with a grading above 1200 Elo could drop some pieces on a board and make a puzzle of it.

I've spent many hours composing and solving chess problems, and it is much harder than simply "dropping pieces on the board".

I found your comment both ignorant, and insulting.

Well, I am sorry that you took offence at what I wrote. But it wasn't directed at you personally.

But now that you tell me that you are a problem composer and solver, I think that I can understand why you may have taken offence.

Good. I'm glad all that has been sorted out.

Actually dropping pieces randomly on a board can occasionally bring some kind of joy.

Sometimes just for the want of something else to do I visit here.

http://chessok.com/?page_id=361

And drop bits and pawns randomly on the board to see what turns up.

Recently this was the first position I dropped on a board and with White to play White wins the Queen and mates.



One can then dress up the final act. (Skewers and Pins) to make a problem out of it.

Taking the above example and dressing it up in a very basic fashion.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
This:

An artificial position. Anyone with a grading above 1200 Elo could drop some pieces on a board and make a puzzle of it.

I've spent many hours composing and solving chess problems, and it is much harder than simply "dropping pieces on the board".

I found your comment both ignorant, and insulting.

That is not a personal insult. You directly insulted Duncan Clarke he did not directly insult you. His initial post simply stated his dislike of mate in 2 problems - he did not insult anyone. Since he did not comment on one of your problems his post simply cannot be regarded as a personal insult. In this thread you resorted to a personal insult first and then accused the person you were insulting of doing it first. I don't mind insulting people and you are a hypocrite and a bully.

For the record I disagree with Duncan Clarke's opinion of chess problems, but I will take issue with people who try to stop him expressing his opinions and here that is you.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I believe your original post was the rude remark, insulting problemists everywhere, and in doing so also disparaging hundreds of years of chess history.

The remark did also indicate a rather all-encompassing ignorance of the subject (which BigDoggProblem pointed out), but ignorance is no sin, as long as a person makes the effort to correct the situat ...[text shortened]... nd education.

We all begin as ignorant chess players, and part of the fun is in the learning.

Duncan Clarke's first post in this thread was:

An interesting problem. But like most mate in 2 problems.

1. The victim king cannot move.
2. The winning player has dominating forces and could win easily, anyway.
3. Time spent looking for the 2 move mate, may well be better spent.

It isn't rude and it isn't a personal insult, it's an opinion about chess problems. I disagree with point 1, I agree with 2, point 3 is irrelevant - it's a problem not a game and problems are an art in themselves, they aren't necessarily intended as training for over the board games - it's also arguably wrong as witness the example in greenpawn's "lucky socks" blog where Rich missed a mate in one against Rowson - the time really would have been better spent looking at the position for longer as he went on to lose! All Duncan Clarke did was fail to recognize that the purpose of chess problems isn't chess training - he didn't insult anyone, certainly not personally - I don't think he deserves the response he got.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Duncan Clarke's first post in this thread was:

An interesting problem. But like most mate in 2 problems.

1. The victim king cannot move.
2. The winning player has dominating forces and could win easily, anyway.
3. Time spent looking for the 2 move mate, may well be better spent.

It isn't rude and it isn't a personal insult, ...[text shortened]... didn't insult anyone, certainly not personally - I don't think he deserves the response he got.

I was not precise in my post- it was his third post which was the insulting one. I apologize for my carelessness in the reference, but the point still stands.

No one is telling him he is not allowed to have an opinion, but he is responsible for it. I thought he owned it well in the end, and I gave him a "thumbs up" for his response.
Like GP, I thought we had moved on, but apparently not.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I believe your original post was the rude remark, insulting problemists everywhere, and in doing so also disparaging hundreds of years of chess history.

The remark did also indicate a rather all-encompassing ignorance of the subject (which BigDoggProblem pointed out), but ignorance is no sin, as long as a person makes the effort to correct the situation ...[text shortened]... dy and education.

We all begin as ignorant chess players, and part of the fun is in the learning.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
"We all begin as ignorant chess players, and part of the fun is in the learning."
___________

Well said.