< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
|Jul-28-12|| ||waustad: <al wazir>Especially in postal chess. He payed postage to make those extra moves.|
|Jul-28-12|| ||remolino: <Abel Iranda> With all due respect, what a stupid line you found. Sorry about the tone.|
|Jul-28-12|| ||remolino: <Abel Iranda> With all due respect, your line makes no sense vs. the line found by LTJ.|
|Jul-28-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <remolino> I'm glad that you like the 19. Rxa4! Qxa4 20. Nc5 line: It's definitely a cool mate!|
|Jul-28-12|| ||Abdel Irada: Let me try to make myself clear to all concerned: My objection is not to LTJ's analysis. He is right; my line *was* a less efficient way to win.|
In fact, had he simply said something like, "Abdel, I found a stronger continuation that forces immediate mate, and here it is...." I would have thanked him for the correction.
But in this case, the thrust of my kibitz concerned the validity of this variation of the Berlin Defense. I noted in passing that Black was already lost, and offered *a* way to prove it; that there was a quicker way to do it is not irrelevant, but it does strike me, under the circumstances, as rather a Lilliputian casus belli.
Meanwhile, I think we would all do well to emulate the objectivity and maturity of psmith. This is supposed to be a community of chess players seeking to improve the game for all concerned, not a set of cliques warring over which end of the egg to open.
|Jul-28-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <Abdel Irada> Points of interest:|
a) I agree that <psmith> demonstrated fantastic positivity. He found words that express validation for both of our notes.
b) My finding a superior tactical line over yours, although it seems Lilliputian to you and whether you like it or not, is actually a statement of objective chess truth; this is my main point.
c) It would still be great if someone comes in here and posts some analysis on the pertinent opening ideas for Black.
|Jul-28-12|| ||I play the Fred: This exchange reminds me of a run-in I had fairly early on here.|
In the game Kasparov-Topalov 1999, a user posted an alternative line for black that unfortunately lost to a mate-in-one. It happens, and I did not make light of it. In response, I posted his reply and gave the refutation. Well, the OP claimed my refutation was busted - in so doing tried to change what he had posted before! (Two other users noticed before I did)
I was angry. But all the OP did was make himself look worse, because his CYA variation was complete nonsense. It hung pieces all over the place, allowed mates for both sides, ignored huge threats - he inadvertently made the same move twice, for example 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 e4.
I probably shouldn't have escalated the matter, but I get annoyed when people just can't admit that they messed up. In the case of a faulty chess move, it's simple: something along the lines of, "Geez, how did I miss that one? Thanks"
I'm not saying either <LTJ> or <Abdel> are in the wrong here, just that this situation reminded me of one I had had. In other words, I had no point. I often have no point. It's part of my charm.
|Jul-28-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <I play the Fred> Good post!|
|Jul-28-12|| ||perfidious: <waustad> Tax write-off, of course.|
|Jul-29-12|| ||Abdel Irada: Actually, I quite like to be corrected. It's among the most painless ways to learn. And in this case, I was careless, and analyzed only a line of inferior efficiency, although White's position was so strong that it also won easily.|
I never denied that LTJ's line was better, and I take this opportunity to commend him for calling it to my attention. However, the way he phrased his comments reminded me of a player in Santa Cruz who's become famous for resigning and then vociferously ridiculing the way his opponents went about winning. "Hraa! Hraa! Hraa! You fish!" he used to cackle. "Six moves ago, you could have won my bishop for nothing, and all you did was win the exchange."
It would, of course, have been undiplomatic to remind him that he had still lost the game.
|Jul-29-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <Abdel Irada> The difference between the player in Santa Cruz and myself, is that I didn't lose anything. |
I brought attention to the inferiority of your tactical line firstly by presenting diagrams that demonstrated a much more efficient win (without having directed any words to you); and only after you directed a post at me, did I respond to you in words.
This, by the way, highlights the hyporcrisy that you have demonstrated already by having said this a couple of posts ago:
<<>Abdel Irada: My objection is not to LTJ's analysis. He is right; my line *was* a less efficient way to win. In fact, had he simply said something like, "Abdel, I found a stronger continuation that forces immediate mate, and here it is...." I would have thanked him for the correction.>
Seeing as how I didn't even say anything to you when I presented my superior tactical line to your inferior line, you should have just thanked me - as per what you said you "would have" done in the paragraph before this one.
|Jul-29-12|| ||perfidious: <Joker> Don't give up your day job.|
|Jul-29-12|| ||Shams: <LTJ><you should have just thanked me> |
I have resisted saying anything thus far, but your original post offered two (2) diagrams for a two (2) move combination. How is that not just very condescending?
|Jul-29-12|| ||perfidious: <Shams> There are numerous other examples of such condescension contained in this thread by that poster. Rather a piece of work, I should say.|
|Jul-30-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <Shams> It's not my place to go against your interpretation: If you think that offering two diagrams for a two-move mating combination that another kibitzer failed to see in the first place is condescending, than so be it.|
|Jul-30-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: PS. <then> so be it.|
|Jul-30-12|| ||Abdel Irada: But this is precisely my point: Your post not merely reeked of condescension; it oozed over the page and befouled the entire thread. Do you really imagine that, because I carelessly overlooked a faster win in casual analysis of a position containing numerous paths to victory, I must be a patzer so in need of your spoon-fed guidance that you had to supply not one but two diagrams, and then hammer home your point with that bit about "tactically inferior" analysis?|
And if you doubt my ability to accept correction when it is offered respectfully, examine some of the other threads in which I've participated; I certainly do not claim infallibility, and when I find myself in error, I acknowledge it, learn from it, and move on ... if I'm permitted. So far, you're the only one I've met who isn't willing to accept that.
|Jul-30-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <Abdel Irada> If you want to move on from this conversation, I accept. I have always accepted that stance. |
The truth is that you're still talking - much like the dude from Santa Cruz who lost but kept on talking.
Everyone here knows that you were tactically bested, whether your analysis was casual or otherwise; accept that and move on.
|Jul-30-12|| ||Abdel Irada: Ah. I see you must have the last word. Good way to "move on."|
But I will let the matter drop if you will.
|Jul-30-12|| ||Shams: <Abdel Irada> If I may -- just let it go. <LTJ> is not a bad guy at all, actually he's a really good guy. His problem is temporary: he's young, probably a teenager. Even at his worst he's less of a snot than I was at his age. Others have grown up on this site and he will too. In the meantime he is determined to pick the wrong fights...but obstinacy is a good quality in a chess player, is it not? And he's a good chess player, as we all know from comparing his guess-the-move scores to the site average. ;)|
|Jul-30-12|| ||Abdel Irada: <Shams>:
Point well taken. I was just noting to my wife that LTJ *is* young. And I would never suggest that he isn't a good player: As he points out, he did get 7/7 this week (as he often does); in fact, I did the same, and am therefore aware that it is no mean feat. Credit is therefore duly extended.
|Jul-30-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <Shams> I never picked a fight, I corrected Abdel Irada on his tactically inferior line - end of story.|
He chose to say that my tone was uncalled for - that's cool. Once again, I celebrate the diversity of personal interpretation.
Objective Chess Truth however is not personal. I found a line that leads to Checkmate, Abdel Irada did not.
"On the chessboard, lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in the checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite." - WC Lasker
You can flap your labia about me all you want, but just as Abdel Irada attempted to compare me to some dude from Santa Cruz (that he really is) and failed, so have you failed in comparing me to the mucus that you really are.
Thanks for showing your true colours.
PS. Welcome to my ignore list!
|Jul-30-12|| ||LoveThatJoker: <Abdel Irada> You talked about dropping this conversation, but you yourself have not.|
You lost and you keep talking - you are not only a hypocrite, but you are what you project on others.
I am putting you on my ignore list, so as to truly end this conversation.
|Jul-30-12|| ||Abdel Irada: Congratulations to <LoveThatJoker>.|
At this rate, he will soon (in his own mind if nowhere else) have the site to himself. Then he need no longer be vexed by the continuing presence of minds not his own.
|Jul-31-12|| ||kevin86: White's queen gets trapped...and he WINS black's queen.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·