Dustnrogers for 1400/1500's !

Sorry to go on about this but I can't believe that Dustnrogers is going
to be allowed to play in the 1300 ranking group in the tourney.

I take on board all that's been said but in this instance I'm convinced
that this player has manipulated his own rating in order to be a big
fish in a little pond.

OK, he's been unlucky enough to lose a lot of games through move
timeouts which gave his rating a real battering. Having said that he
does have 141 games on the go as we speak so it's hardly surprising.

His current rating is 1423

For example, these games were completed just AFTER his Tourney
entry had been logged and his rating increased by over a hundred in a
day. He could just as easily completed them before entering.

95770 & 95771 were both resignations after 3 moves by Nikki Rogers -
not Dustin's brother by any chance?

95781 & 95785 were move time outs against Markcardis and Ronster -
both games having only 3 moves made in each.

If you're reading this Dustnrogers can you put us straight about this -
and which rating group do you think you belong in?


Rhymester

I played him during his initial rise before his timeouts. I have been
stable between 1500 and 1550 for a few months now and he beat me.
I wouldn't say he outclassed me but he should clearly be at least 1500
as you say. Can't really understand him wanting to go in the 1300s.
Nick

I'm playing three games with him now. It will be 2 wins and one draw.
I have beaten him when he was unexperienced players and I have
beaten him on gameknot. He playes solid but tend to place himself in
inferior positions by slowly weaken his position.

He should definetly be a 1500 but not more. There are a couple of
1400's that can outweigh him but not many.

So why not let him keep his pathetic act.

I should be in the 1600's but I'm not, yet. There are several players
not having the rating they should have.

I think the tournament should take this because it will always appear
underrated players.

In dustinrogers case, on gameknot also, he played himself a lot but
was a fairly good player, not more.

Regards, Nils (currently 1467).

Arrogance is one thing-- putting down another player is another. What
is accomplished by calling Dustnrogers "a pathetic act"? Does that
make you feel better about yourself somehow? THAT is pathetic, in
my opinion. Let your chess-playing ability do your talking for you--
every time you post, you make yourself look more foolish. If you are
as good as you say you are, then it will show in time.

Shut up and play chess-- that should be the new motto for RHP.
Tim
The Dark Squire

Good for you, tell it the way it is Tim. We are here to play chess. I'm
in the 1200 group but will be up there one of these days. Peace for
all.
Gene
The Elder

Well put both of you!!

Nice title Gene...I like it!

Never got to talk to you about wood...I am a hobbyist knifemaker and
know a little about doing handles...so I know "burl" and what it
means...we can take this into general forum and chat about it or
through private email.

Dave
KO TD

I have written a reply but, of course, it was moderated. Even my
second reply was. All I can say is read better and you should
apologize for your words.

I will give you a chance to state you case...if some of your posts
were "moderated" as you say...then obviously there was a reason.

What is your point in all of this?

I am about to post the pairings but you are making me a little worried
about you.

So please...tell us what you need to say.

Dave

Below this post, Dave has given you the opportunity to state your
case, and I encourage you to do so. However, do not expect any
apologies from me-- perhaps you should consider an apology to
Dustnrogers (yes, that is how he spells it-- I do, in fact, read quite
carefully). What you wrote was uncalled for, unsportsmanlike, and
goes against what this site is supposed to be about, which is a bunch
of people forming a community over the Internet with the common
bond of a love of chess. My response to you was a statement of my
opinion, and I stand by it.

I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
Peace--
Tim
The Dark Squire

*He has played himself on several occations to inflate his rating, isn't
that a pathetic act?
*I just want everybody to play under the same conditions.
*'Shut up and play chess'- sure why don't you go ahead and set an
example? You rant around here a lot more than I do. Stop posting
then instead of whining.
*If you, little hothead, would read some of my posts (yes one of the
5) you would see that one is signed with 'not to be taken too
seriously, Nils'. That says some.
*Chess is psychological warfare- I seem to have made an impact on
you, which is good. It's not as good the puerile way to reply on my
post.
*It will show in time how good I am, yes, and you have shown me how
far you can go in chess.

-The Dark Squirrel Stomper, Nils

I appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond. Let me
address a couple of the points you made, and then hopefully we can
both let this go and get back to chess (although I certainly welcome
any continuing dialogue you may wish to have with me).

First of all, I do not know for a fact that D played against himself to
inflate his rating-- if he did so, I do agree that this is rather sad, but
perhaps we should let him speak for himself on this issue.

As far as I am concerned, I do not "rant" here-- I do post rather
often, compared to some, but I like to think that what I say has some
merit and some validity. Everything I have posted here was, in MY
opinion, said with the good of the site in mind. If there is anyone who
disgarees with that statement, I invite them to say so below this post.

And I certainly do not "whine."

I am far from a hothead ("little" hothead?? I'll leave that one alone)--
I simply respond with strong language when I feel that someone else
is being done an injustice. You may say anything you wish about me--
I have a far thicker skin than you think, and words on a computer
monitor can do very little to hurt me. And I have, in fact, read all of
your posts, including the one which was signed "not to be taken too
seriously." And I did not take your bragging too seriously. I DID take
your insulting another player seriously, and I would respond the same
way to anyone who did the same thing. This is not a personal
vendetta against you.

You have not, in fact, made any impact on me whatsoever, in terms of
chess. If we do meet in future rounds of the tournament, I will play
against you the same as I play against anyone else. As for
my "puerile" reply to your post-- please feel free to explain what,
exactly, was puerile about it.

And how have I shown you "how far I can go in chess"? That, my
good man, will have to wait.

If you care to respond to this, I would be happy to see it. I am NOT
attempting to engage in a battle with you-- we are simply having a
dialogue. If you wish to escalate it with harsh words and insults, you
will find yourself having that conversation alone.
Tim
The Dark Squire

First let me tell you that I draw a sharp line between harmless jokes
and personal insults.

Let's get straight down to facts:
a, I have, with the superior system gameknot has, seen that he has
played himself. He had about 12 accounts all playing themselves. It
was quickly discovered there and he left. For about 5 months ago he
came here- quickly rised in rating and was accused, correct, with the
same thing. He timed out with all his accounts.
b, Based on this I felt it was justified to call it a pathetic act and who
shouldn't agree.
c, You stepped in without having enough information and called me a
pathetic act and wrote that I should shut up and play.

I think your acting was too rushy without considering that I might know
something more about the point than you did and you succeeded in
being insulting also. I'm not having a dialogue- I'm having a
monologue with a brick wall *pounds himself in the head for the loss
of time*. There I have said what I wanted to say. I will now shut up
and play chess- I advice you to to the opposite since you seem good
at it.

Best of luck with your games, Nils.

In my opinion, it's really not a big deal. Originally, I was concerned w/
it and I posted that players should be given an option to enter into
higher categories than their current rating. Perhaps we can have an
open tornament at some point w/ this set up. But for this one, the
rules are straight forward and I think should be held. There will always
be exceptions and "unfair" situations inherant w/ open tounaments
like this. But if we start judging how good a player is or where his
rating should be, it opens up another whole can of worms. I think
there are some of us in the 1300's who can stump him. I currently
have 2 games w/ him. In one, I am clearly ahead. In the other I
think I have a slight edge as well. So you never know.
Upsets are part of what makes tournaments fun.