anyway, you are one of the guys keeping the discussion about the legitimacy of kramnik's title alive so that nothing else can be discussed there. okay, your posts are always very careful so that nobody can really blame you of insulting or bashing kramnik though you display creativity in nitpicking making others wonder if there could be doubts about kramnik's claim for the title (<Kasparov got stripped off his FIDE World Champion title in 1993, so he holds no official title since then.>).

Anyway, I hope that I haven't hurt your feelings, because you are basically showing everybody here that you don't even have the guts to go to the Kramnik page and factually refute any of the points that I'd raised. In stead, you resorted to talking behind people's back in another page. How pathetic...and low-class.

in fact i read some of your posts and know the way you are presenting facts. i even said that you are not comparable to the kramnik-bashers that take possession of the kramnik-page, though you post quite a lot.

so why not going to the kramnik-page and refuting the kramnik-bashers? well, i don't post there quite often and there are enough other posters who fare quite well in unmasking kramnik-bashers (of course not you, you are no kramnik-basher ;-)).

another thing is that i have a life aside from <chessgames.com> and cannot post long articles on the kramnik-page every twenty minutes.

<How pathetic...and low-class.> the only thing that fits this description is your parlance. seems like every breath of air was enough to unsettle you. maybe that's why you present only <facts> on the kramnik-page and let others do the donkeywork?

bashing is bashing, regardless of the person being bashed. so if someone bashes topalov he's a topalov-basher imho. but should i complain about topalov-bashing on the kramnik-page? lol

<maybe that's why you present only facts on the kramnik-page and let others do the donkeywork> Oh. So it is wrong to talk about the truth? If you haven't being lazy and did some reading, the facts that I'd presented were actually accompanied by analysis of those facts. Oops, I just forgot that you're one of those blind Kramnik-supporters that lacks total objectivity when it comes to the truth.

<post long articles on the kramnik-page>Long posts doesn't mean time-consumming. It has to do with your brain and your fingers.

<the only thing that fits this description is your parlance. seems like every breath of air was enough to unsettle you. maybe that's why you present only..> Come on now. You just accused me of Kramnik-bashing without any evidence/facts to support your claim. How low can you sink to?

well, i had evidence and you know that as good as i do but you deleted the evidence. so <How low can you sink to?>

<Oops, I just forgot that you're one of those blind Kramnik-supporters that lacks total objectivity when it comes to the truth.>

i doubt it doesn't have to do with brain but with fingers only to write something like this.

<<bashing is bashing>Can you even differentiate between bashing and debating with facts? Show me an example where I had "bashed" Kramnik. (That's if you can..) If you can't proof something that you've claimed, then you're definitely no different to those real Kramnik-bashers in the Kramnik page. Low and pathetic.>

now you give a false colour. is that what you call <presenting facts and accompanying them with facts>? this was actually an answer to <alicefujimori: <danielpi> and some other posters have similiar gamecollections where they include all the losses by Topalov between all the Kramnik-Topalov encounters. (Basically trying to degrade Topalov comparing to Kramnik). So are you calling them Topalov-bashers as well??> but you don't seem to recognize what you wrote short time ago.

<i doubt it doesn't have to do with brain> The fact that you don't use one when you write your posts doesn't mean that other people don't use them too.

<now you give a false colour>I think the one that is confused is you. The point was, even if <danielpi> had such a gamecollection that still doesn't mean that he is bashing Topalov. The purpose of a gamecollection is for PERSONAL referencing. What <danielpi> personally "thinks" (ie. a gamecollection) about Topalov is different to if he had actually openly posted statements that bashed Kramnik.

For example: You can think about killing someone. But as long as you haven't kill that person, you still haven't commit a murder.

okay, i'll answer you though you are far from being objective. you had a game collection with comments in it that were clearly insulting kramnik as a person. you deleted this collection and now you act as if you never had one but you know you did that and i know you did that so all you can obviously do is trying to insult me. that's not what you need a brain for.

<The fact that you don't use one when you write your posts doesn't mean that other people don't use them too.>

your niveau hit rock bottom.

<I think the one that is confused is you. The point was, even if <danielpi> had such a gamecollection that still doesn't mean that he is bashing Topalov.>

no, you know what your game collection looked like since you made it and deleted it (you remember?). now, creating a game collection doesn't mean bashing but using the description of the games included to insult the player who played (lost) that game means bashing him. that's my opinion.

<For example: You can think about killing someone. But as long as you haven't kill that person, you still haven't commit a murder.>

you can kill a person an blot all evidence out but that the evidence isn't there anymore doesn't mean you didn't kill that person. get the picture?

<What one thinks personally and how one openly make statements are two totally different things. It seems that you cannot differentiate whether someone is bashing or not. The fact that you chose to ignore my question and couldn't find any facts to support your accusations towards me just goes on to show that you're no different to those real Kramnik-bashers in the Kramnk page.>

well, your game collection as long as it existed was open to everybody (i read the comments to the game). do you really want to say that the comments on the games weren't an open statement? lol, that's hilarious!

anyway, denying the existence of the game collection doesn't make sense here since that's a discussion between you and me only or do you really think that six billion human beings are following our discussion and say <i doubt alicefujimori ever had that collection...>.

i have to admit that i was near taking you seriously after your recent posts on the kramnik-page but now all you do is misinterpreting my posts, denying facts and insulting me but i have to disappoint you since i'm above of that.

1) Mind mapping (ie. drawing pictures, etc)

2) Using keywords that could recall your memory.

The use of sensational headings is exactly because of (2) above. When I see those headings, I could immediately recall what happened or which phase of the game did the error occurred.

For example, I've used phrases like "Kramnik just doesn't know how to play the endgame properly" in one of the games as its heading. When I saw that phrase, I could immediately recall that the cause of Kramnik's loss was due to his bad endgame play in that game. Headings like "Enough Najdorf, Kramnik" will remind me that that was the last game that Kramnik had tried the Najdorf. Another example is the heading "Kramnik's bad reaction to suprises". When I see that heading, I could then immediately recall that Kramnik lost that game because he reacted badly to a suprise from his opponent.

1) You kept denying the fact that a gamecollection was suppose to be for personal referencing.

2) The comments didn't insult Kramnik as a "person". The comments were at most harsh on his play during that particular game. I've never personally attacked him as a "person" in those game descriptions with statements like "he sucks", "he's pathetic", "he's boring". For more info on the gamecollection, see my reply to <ughaibu>

<...but using the description of the games included to insult the player who played (lost) that game means bashing him. that's my opinion>

Again. You failed to take into account that a gamecollection is supposed to be for personal referencing. What I think and how I felt about a game is totally different to whether I had openly made insulting statements about him.

<you can kill a person an blot all evidence out but that the evidence isn't there anymore doesn't mean you didn't kill that person. get the picture> But the problem is if you haven't done any killing in the first place, no matter what happens you still haven't done any killing. Get the picture?

<well, your game collection as long as it existed was open to everybody...etc> You're contradicting yourself. You clearly acknowledged that <creating a game collection doesn't mean bashing>. The headings/description is actually part of the gamecollection, you know?

Besides, I've made a gamecollection, but that does not mean that you're forced to click it. The gamecollection was actually "closed" (ie. for my personal viewing) until someone decided to get curious to see how I "think" about the games by clicking into the gamecollection. Surely you can differentiate between how one feels and whether one has actually bashed someone openly, right?

<denying the existence of the game collection doesn't make sense here> I never denied anything. It was YOU that has been putting words into my mouth.

i said that creating a gamecollection itself doesn't mean bashing even if it includes only losses from a special player. but creating a gamecollection with libellous comments on a special player is indeed bashing. that's what you did and everybody could have had a look at the gamecollection even if you just made it for <personal reference>.

so that's my point of view and i kept it short so if you prevaricate anyone else can read what i wrote and anyone else can get an idea of you verbally harassing me and trying to pick a fight with me. i won't discuss this subject anymore. you disgraced yourself enough already by your constant discourteousness.