|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: <dehanne><Of course not... he only hates Kramnik. ;-)>Nah... "I don't hate Kramnik. He was my student and I just gave him the title." - Kasparov |
 |
Aug-25-06
 | | square dance: <hmmm...Looks like someone avoided my question above.> was this for me? what did i avoid? the word "terrible" is a harder criticism than kasparov has been using towards other players on playchess as far as ive seen. that was already pointed out. by avoiding, do you mean not repeating myself? if you're this desperate for attention why dont you just get a myspace or something? maybe there you wont be a joke. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: <square dance>It's not as "hard" as you would like it to be seen. Besides, was the word "terrible" addressing Radja's move or his chess ability? Think about it. Oh, read this too: <I've read books with annotations like "a horrific blunder", "a terrible mistake", "an awful move" and even "What is this? A gesture of despair?" So does that mean that the author of these annotations all had grudges against the player being annotated?> Anyway, if you're that desperate to start arguments all around chessgames.com, then there are other forums out there that can satisfy you. Maybe there, you won't be a fool. |
|
Aug-25-06
 | | acirce: <alicefujimori> Everyone knows that you are the one who keeps spending your time trying to start arguments and fights around here. I don't why what it is that drives people of your kind but that's apparently how it is. For example, this whole thing started by you saying <If you think Kasparov said that because he has a grudge on Radja, then you seriously got some problems.> Nobody had jumped on anyone before that, but you were eager to say something inflammatory. |
|
Aug-25-06
| | square dance: <alice> the books you read with whatever annotations are irrelevant as the subject is kasparov calling radjabov's move horrible. sure, "terrible" isnt always a horrible criticism, but you have to consider the context. given his relationship with radja and his other more neutral kibitzes on playchess, <bobbybishop>'s conclusion was a rather easy one to draw and its already been demonstrated why. all you've presented is annotations from books that have nothing to do with this topic. if you can find some previous kibitzes from kasparov on playchess where he calls someone elses move "terrible" or something synonymous i'll take that as evidence that <bobbybishop> and i overreacted. and of course i'd expect that this person wasnt kramnik, karpov, etc. ;-) |
|
Aug-25-06
| | square dance: <acirce> exactly. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: <acirce><Everyone knows that you are the one who keeps spending your time trying to start arguments and fights around here.>Everyone knows that you've brushed off another kibitzer by calling him annoying when he said something that you did not like to hear. <Nobody had jumped on anyone before that, but you were eager to say something inflammatory.>Inflammatory? Or actually in defence of the person being baselessly accused? (ie. Kasparov in this case) So far, no one can come up with anything concrete proving that: 1) The word "terrible" is too harsh to describe the actual game in question. 2) Kasparov said the word "terrible" because he has a grudge against Radjabov and not because Kasparov reckoned that the actual game deserves such an annotation. |
|
Aug-25-06
| | square dance: <alice> typical argument from you: when you are proven wrong you check your list of perceived wrongs from that person and then bring them up. address the issue at hand. everything else has been dealt with already. <Inflammatory? Or actually in defence of the person being baselessly accused? (ie. Kasparov in this case) So far, no one can come up with anything concrete proving that:> the point you're missing is that <bobbybishop> made a reasonable statement based off of the facts and you attacked him for it. therefore its not a baseless accusation. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: <square dance><"terrible" isnt always a horrible criticism, but you have to consider the context.> The context is, Kasparov said that when Radja exchanged queens where: 1) He chose the most unfavourable moment to exchange queens, which soon led to a very quick downfall and defeat. 2) He had been avoiding the queen exchange for 8-9 moves but finally decided to exchange it at the worst moment. (ie.Shows indecisiveness and bad judegement) Is that not good enough for the move to be coined "terrible"? Was "terrible" really such an unfair word to use given that sequence of event? <all you've presented is annotations from books that have nothing to do with this topic.>Oh...but you still cannot answer whether all those authors have a grudge against the player being annotated. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: <square dance><the point you're missing is that <bobbybishop> made a reasonable statement based off of the facts and you attacked him for it. therefore its not a baseless accusation.>Yeah, after failing to address the questions that I pose to him. (ie. The actual move being commented and how the game unfolded before and after the move being commented.) |
|
Aug-25-06
| | square dance: <alice> <The context is, Kasparov said that when Radja exchanged queens where:
1) He chose the most unfavourable moment to exchange queens, which soon led to a very quick downfall and defeat. 2) He had been avoiding the queen exchange for 8-9 moves but finally decided to exchange it at the worst moment. (ie.Shows indecisiveness and bad judegement) Is that not good enough for the move to be coined "terrible"? Was "terrible" really such an unfair word to use given that sequence of event?> no one is disputing that the move was in fact terrible. BUT, kasparov hasnt been, as far as i know, in the habit of calling moves terrible while kibitzing on playchess. do you understand this now? <Oh...but you still cannot answer whether all those authors have a grudge against the player being annotated.> are you actually this stupid? since kasparov doesnt use the word "terrible" while kibitzing on playchess it stands out. if the other authors are typically using words like "terrible" or "horrible", etc then its par for the course. |
|
Aug-25-06
| | square dance: <Yeah, after failing to address the questions that I pose to him.> thats just not true. way to be dishonest. he made his comment and then you attacked him for it. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: <square dance><no one is disputing that the move was in fact terrible. BUT, kasparov hasnt been, as far as i know, in the habit of calling moves terrible while kibitzing on playchess. do you understand this now?>Just because no one ever heard of Kasparov saying the word "terrible" in playchess.com that does not mean thathe said this out of grudge and not because the move actually warrants it. Do you understand this now? Even you acknowledge that the move was indeed terrible. So why can't Kasparov call it terrible because of the actual move in question? <thats just not true. way to be dishonest. he made his comment and then you attacked him for it.>How did I attacked him? I was just defending the unfairly accused. It was quite obvious from all these posts that <bobbybishop> did not even consider the possibility that Kasparov said that because the move actually warrants it? Instead, he decided to accuse Kasparov of saying that due to having a grudge against Radja and when I pointed to him that the comment is actually a fair one when applied to the move being commented, he did not address any of it. |
|
Aug-25-06
| | square dance: <alice> <Just because no one ever heard of Kasparov saying the word "terrible" in playchess.com that does not mean thathe said this out of grudge and not because the move actually warrants it.> the very fact that <bobbybishop> had never heard kasparov use such a word on playchess combined with kasparov's dislike of radja is ample reason for him to come to the conclusion he did. its completely reasonable. its just like many other things that are completely reasonable that may, or may not be true. argue with him fine, but why attack him when you're so sensitive to attacks yourself? <How did I attacked him?> you just admitted you attacked him!! < <square dance><the point you're missing is that <bobbybishop> made a reasonable statement based off of the facts and you attacked him for it. therefore its not a baseless accusation.>Yeah, after failing to address the questions that I pose to him. (ie. The actual move being commented and how the game unfolded before and after the move being commented.)> <I was just defending the unfairly accused.> how do you know he was unfairly accused? more likely its that you just took the opportunity to flame someone here same as you always do. you're not interested in reasonable debate ever. you complain that i personally attacked you months ago, yet you called <joshka> an idiot just a few days ago and attacked <bobbybishop> for no reason. |
|
| Aug-25-06 | | alicefujimori: <square dance><the very fact that <bobbybishop> had never heard kasparov use such a word on playchess combined with kasparov's dislike of radja is ample reason for him to come to the conclusion he did. its completely reasonable.>How reasonable is that? Kasparov was commenting on the move, so the only objectively reasonable way to interpret it is first look at the actual move and game and how the game unfolded before and after the game to evaluate if the word "terrible" was really appropriate. Now that's reasonable. Now some personal opinion without addressing the core of the issue. (ie.the move in question) <you just admitted you attacked him!!>Rubbish. The quote <"Yeah, after failing to address the questions that I pose to him. (ie. The actual move being commented and how the game unfolded before and after the move being commented.)"> was a response to this <"therefore its not a baseless accusation">. You could've figured it out if you actually read all our posts. There was no attacking whatsoever AFTER he failed to address the questions that I pose to him regarding the move and game being commented. <how do you know he was unfairly accused?>Then how the hell do you and <bobbybishop> know that he was FAIRLY accused? Innocent until proven guilty, my friend. Besides, judging from the actual move that Kasparov was commenting and how the game unfolded before and after that move, the word "terrible" is appropriate in describing that move. So can you deny this fact? <more likely its that you just took the opportunity to flame someone here same as you always do.>Nah..it's more like you're taking the opportunity to "babysit" here as you always do. <you complain that i personally attacked you months ago, yet you called <joshka> an idiot just a few days ago>Oh...look who's talking? How many people have you been calling idiots and stupid in cg.com now? Please look at yourself before judging others. :) |
|
Aug-25-06
| | BobbyBishop: thanks <square dance> for defending my position and thinking my assumtion had some reasonable basis. jeez how did my innocuous little comment erupt into all this?? the answer: <alice> is insane..lol. it's no use arguing or trying to reason with persons like this as she just seems to get a thrill from repeating the same stuff over and over ad nauseum and automatically taking a contradictory stance no matter how resonable other's retorts may be. or are you obsessed with GK? do you want to run away with him and have his love child? i think that if GK ever came to a sudden stop, your <alice> face would go half way up his..um..you know what. |
|
Aug-25-06
| | square dance: <bobby> yeah, she's a nutjob. i dont think anyone would dispute that. she starts arguments yet accuses me of doing so. endlessy complains about my personal insults towards her yet has no problem insulting others for no reason, constantly lies, etc. for example:<<square dance><the point you're missing is that <bobbybishop> made a reasonable statement based off of the facts and you attacked him for it. therefore its not a baseless accusation.>Yeah, after failing to address the questions that I pose to him. (ie. The actual move being commented and how the game unfolded before and after the move being commented.)> its quite clear what she's answering "Yeah" to. |
|
Aug-25-06
| | euripides: Are <alice> and <square> the same person ? |
|
Aug-25-06
| | euripides: or perhaps married ? |
|
Aug-25-06
| | BobbyBishop: wow <square> i just came from the RJF page..ur arguing with this woman all over creation..lol |
|
Aug-25-06
| | square dance: <bobby> yes. if i disagree with anything she says she immediately brings up a 6 month old argument where she made a fool out of herself. <euripides> i dont know if thats supposed to be clever or something. maybe i just dont get english humor. |
|
Aug-25-06
 | | Eric Schiller: I'm not sure what the big feud is all about, but I can say that I have heard Gary Kasparov used the word "terrible" and far far worse language when describing moves in going over games. In fact, many of the terms he used would violate posting guidelines here. He has never been reluctant to disparage moves andstrategies that he finds inferior. And he has done this often in public places. |
|
Aug-25-06
| | square dance: <eric schiller> and no one doubts that for a second. but on playchess he's been far more reserved, at least from what ive seen. and that, along with his dislike of radjabov, lead to <bobbybishop>'s reasonable post that he was attacked for. |
|
Aug-25-06
| | BobbyBishop: yes she originally said "If you think Kasparov said that because he has a grudge on Radja, then you seriously got some problems". what kind of problems could she mean? mental? social? anger management? i thought that was kind of uncalled for since my claim wasn't all that outrageous and was really just some light-hearted humour. and just by judging from some of her posts on here, she's got some case to be claiming that others have problems! |
|
| Sep-05-06 | | SNiraj: <Of course not... he only hates Kramnik. ;-)> Hahaha! |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
sac: 26.Nxf5
