< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|Feb-01-07|| ||positionalgenius: <Kaissa>Whoa! ONE example. Well then I guess he's guilty!
btw,you referred to "multiple" people. Thats just one.
Also,it appears you are jealous that another player has deep tactical vision and you don't. Sorry:)|
|Feb-01-07|| ||DWINS: Wow! I just got home from work and logged on and I love what I'm seeing. <chessmoron> must be exposed and the more people who are discussing this the better.|
<positionalgenius>, all you have to do is look at <chessmoron's> posts. There are hundreds of them and they are all available. Time after time after time he comes up with all the best moves and defenses that even world champions missed. Coincidently, they also happen to match my computer's analysis move for move.
There is no room for debate whether or not he uses a computer. He does so without even a shadow of a doubt. I will continue to point this out until he admits to it. As long as he then gives credit where credit is due, I won't post about this again. <chessmoron>, people will still appreciate the time you spent finding good moves without having to pretend that you are a great player.
|Feb-01-07|| ||Kaissa99: PositionalGenius, you are not a very smart fellow are you? Just look at the most current puzzle - today's, he claimed that he found the solution that was even better than in the game. Check his other past posts. He asked to find any example - just one -from a Saturday or Sunday puzzle , I just pointed out the most obvious one.|
There will always be someone who is smarter,better,faster stronger than yourself, I do not have a problem with this but apparently, Chess Moron does.
Like I said I am not interested in extending this dialogue any further -time for dinner.
|Feb-01-07|| ||Mendrys: Considering that Kaissa99 only seems to post when he is criticizing <chessmoron> it would seem that maybe <chessmoron> is right. As well it should be noted that the above quotes given by <Kaissa99>:|
<"Black sacrifices more or less all of his pieces in what seems to be an orgy of tactics. If you could work out just a tiny bit of what follows, then hats off!" -- Jacob Aagaard
And this is what you posted:
"Interesting. I actually saw the beautiful combination by <tpstar> in a instant. Qxg1+ and e2+ and the bishop shuts out the King ever capturing the soon to be promoted pawn.">
need to be taken in context. <Chessmoron> was commenting on the position several moves after Aagard's comments when the position was much clearer and did not take a GM to see that black was winning.
|Feb-01-07|| ||keypusher: <chessmoron> You have your own trolls who follow you around. Be proud!|
|Feb-01-07|| ||Mendrys: Maybe we could spend our time better just kibbitzing instead of going on vendetta's against certain regular posters here. I really could care less if <chessmoron> uses a computer or not. Why some seem to care a great deal if he does or not is beyond me.|
|Feb-01-07|| ||positionalgenius: <Mendrys>Exactly.|
|Feb-01-07|| ||Towershield: Maroczy vs O Tenner, 1926:<<<Towershield> Are you using a computer here?> Don't tell me that humans can't make these desperation moves if you are going to be mated. I know these moves are meaningless but come on, when your king is in danger of being mated you look for checks. It's not that hard!>|
Why, of course, a caveman could find those "desperation-moves". But a strong player (or even a decent player) would not bother to comment on it.
<It's not that hard!>It sound's exactly like someone who relies on his/her computer and has some doubts about his/her own playing ability, given the context.
In defense of <chessmoron> this puzzle wasn't so complicated. In fact Qe2 is a pretty obvious tactic, when you see that Nd4 is undefended and that white has problems with the back rank.
|Feb-01-07|| ||Towershield: FYI <chessmoron> claims to be a "Chinese Candidate master" see J Stocek vs Eingorn, 1998|
|Feb-01-07|| ||DWINS: <Towershield>, Exactly. It was in response to your asking <chessmoron> if he uses a computer that I first posted that he did.|
I had long known that <chessmoron> uses a computer but had never commented on it. However, when he out and out denied it I felt compelled to expose him and will continue to do so until he finally grows a pair and admits that he does so. I really dislike unethical people. There are many others on this site but he is the most prolific poster and as such must be exposed.
|Feb-01-07|| ||positionalgenius: ..and the trolls are out.|
|Feb-01-07|| ||keypusher: <However, when he out and out denied it I felt compelled to expose him and will continue to do so until he finally grows a pair and admits that he does so. I really dislike unethical people. There are many others on this site but he is the most prolific poster and as such must be exposed.>|
Hurrah, the internet police are keeping us safe!
Get a life, DWINS.
|Feb-01-07|| ||DWINS: <keypusher>, Lead your life the way you want to. If I see a fraud in real life or on the internet I will expose it. Some people appreciate it.|
|Feb-01-07|| ||Whack8888: Does 28...Ne2+ work also--
28...Ne2+ and if 29. Kh1 (the only King move available) 29...Rf1+ will mate
29. Rexe2 loses to Rf1# and if 29. Rdxe2 Qxe2 and if 30. Rexe2 Rf1# and all 30. Queen moves either lead to mate on e1 or on f1.
Does anyone see why this would be worse than what was actually played--it is pretty much the same combination but just in a slightly different order of attack.
|Feb-01-07|| ||Whack8888: Ok, looked back through the pages a bit--29. Rdxe2 Qxe2 and then 30. Nf6+ preventing the mate on f1 and I believe it is a pretty even R, Q and a bunch of pawns endgame|
|Feb-01-07|| ||beatles fan: Incredable... everyone is against Chessmoron|
|Feb-01-07|| ||chessmoron: <beatles fan> I only see 2. Go ahead hate me as well.|
|Feb-01-07|| ||ganstaman: <DWINS: There is no room for debate whether or not he uses a computer. He does so without even a shadow of a doubt. I will continue to point this out until he admits to it.>|
1) It's great to be so closed minded. Truly a mark of great intelligence.
2) Even if he uses a computer, so what? Oh no, someone's ego may be hurt because some random guy on an anonymous internet forum claimed to solve a puzzle more easily than him. Boo hoo.
3) Puzzle solving ability and actually playing ability aren't the same thing. Every position in a game is not 'white-to-play-and-win.' If you treat it like it is, you won't do so well.
4) Nice game. That back rank never had a chance.
|Feb-01-07|| ||mitsuo: In the defense of <chessmoron>, if he is still under verbal attack, I also found the solution leading to the backrank mate, and I can assure everyone that my rating is far below the 2000 level. If I am able to find this, despite taking a fair chunk of time, then I would not be surprised if <chessmoron> found the solution as well, for his posts are clearly more qualified than mine.|
<Just look at the most current puzzle - today's, he claimed that he found the solution that was even better than in the game.>
<There will always be someone who is smarter,better,faster stronger than yourself, I do not have a problem with this but apparently, Chess Moron does.>
You may wish to clarify your argument, since, with your two quotes in conjunction, it seems that your line of reasoning has a few holes in it.
|Feb-02-07|| ||positionalgenius: Btw,that backrank mate was easy. Any good player would easily spot it.|
|Feb-02-07|| ||uniqueid: Although I love the drama going on here between <chessmoron> and others, I'd like throw my advice and end it for everyone's good. <chessmoron> it never hurts to be humble. Im not sure if you want some kind of validation of your skills against the rest of us here, an internet forum is not the right place to look for that !!|
|Feb-02-07|| ||who: <gangstaman> Hans Berliner thinks from move 1 white should think the position is "white to play and win".|
|Feb-02-07|| ||keypusher: <<chessmoron> it never hurts to be humble. Im not sure if you want some kind of validation of your skills against the rest of us here, an internet forum is not the right place to look for that !!>|
Not to continue beating this dead horse, but what is the problem people have with <chessmoron>? Do people really think you have to be some kind of super-GM to see 29...Rf1+? Yes, the player of the Black pieces here didn't see it, but we've seen examples of much stronger players missing much easier combinations many times. Hell, we've seen a WC overlook a mate in one!
If <chessmoron> has been particularly arrogant or show-offy, I guess I have just missed it. If I have missed it, please, please don't enlighten me, because I DON'T CARE. Neither should anyone else.
For those who feel compelled to object to his posts everytime he points out a combination, why not take him up on his offer and play a game with him? Maybe he's just good.
|Feb-02-07|| ||uniqueid: <keypusher> I couldnt care less if <chessmoron> uses a program or not, what I do feel is a pain is scrolling through useless kibitzes of people claiming to have solved the puzzle within microseconds. I just want to see some good analysis that I cannot do myself because of my limited resources.|
|Feb-02-07|| ||chessmoron: <uniqueid> I never imply anything that I solve in nanosecond. I am a frequent kibitzer who comments on these daily puzzles and makes me a simple target to criticize my abilities. |
If you want analysis on games, see my game collection.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·