Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing User Profile Chessforum

Member since Apr-15-08 · Last seen Jan-18-21
In Hoc Signo Vinces

If there's something you want to know, just ask.

>> Click here to see Robed.Bishop's game collections. Full Member

   Robed.Bishop has kibitzed 1355 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Nov-20-20 chessforum (replies)
Robed.Bishop: <thegoodanarchist> I agree that Susan asked for some input, and the first few posts were responsive to her request. The discussion has, however, deteriorated to Rogoff levels. I donít have a dog in the fight and I donít care what happens to the Rogoff pages. From where I ...
   Aug-03-20 Michael Vilenchuk vs R J Moon, 2011 (replies)
Robed.Bishop: <phantasmagorium>: Well certainly the RR v. RK ending did not work out well for black.
   Jul-17-20 playground player chessforum (replies)
Robed.Bishop: Perhaps we need to ensure that our sports teams are racially balanced. Might make for some entertaining games.
   Nov-09-19 Nakamura vs Topalov, 2019 (replies)
Robed.Bishop: Iím sure Topalov is grateful.
   Oct-29-19 S B Hansen vs McShane, 2019
Robed.Bishop: 69. ...Rc5+ wrapped this up nicely.
   Mar-11-19 Robed.Bishop chessforum (replies)
Robed.Bishop: <mckmac> Thank you for stopping by.
   Mar-07-19 Fischer vs R Barry, 1964 (replies)
Robed.Bishop: Stockfish analysis of the final position: 1) +1.65 (24 ply) 46...h5 47.Kb4 Kc6 48.Kxa4 Kc5 49.Ka5 h4 50.e4 Kc4 51.a4 Kc5 52.Ka6 Kc6 53.a5 f6 54.Ka7 Kc7 55.a6 g6 56.g4 h3 57.Ka8 Kb6 58.a7 Kc7 59.g5 fxg5 2) +1.88 (24 ply) 46...Kc6 47.Kb4 h5 48.Kxa4 Kc5 49.g3 Kc4 50.e4 Kc5 51.Ka5
   Mar-06-19 Geza Maroczy (replies)
Robed.Bishop: <Momentum Man> Here's a decent video on the Maroczy Bind by Seirawan: . At least I thought it was decent...
   Mar-02-19 OhioChessFan chessforum (replies)
Robed.Bishop: <OCF> Thatís perhaps a bit vague. Assuming we mean the same user, thereís no one on this site who is better at playing the victim and kissing ass when necessary. Not surprisingly, he needs to be because he is involved in constant conflict. One must ingratiate oneself with
   Jan-28-19 R Rapport vs J van Foreest, 2019 (replies)
Robed.Bishop: According to Stockfish: 1) +4.14 (24 ply) 21...Qe5 22.f4 Qe6 23.Qc3 O-O 24.Nf6+ Kh8 25.Nxd7 Rfe8 26.Nxc5 Qe7 27.Bd4 Kg8 28.Bg4 Ne6 29.Bxe6 fxe6 30.b4 Red8 31.Kb2 Qf7 32.g3 h6 33.Qb3 Rc6 34.Be5 Rxd1 35.Qxd1 Qe7 36.Qf3 Kh7 37.Qg4 2) +4.34 (23 ply) 21...Qe6 22.Qc3 O-O 23.Nf6+ ...
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

The Mighty Pen

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member
  Robed.Bishop: <Unf> No need. I acknowledge that I'm better at it than you.
Apr-05-17  User not found: Wanna wager the princely sum of $27 (a membership) I can find more offensive posts of yours than you can mine, sweetheart? I <know> I'll win, lol.
Apr-05-17  User not found: <Robed.Bishop: <Unf> No need. I acknowledge that I'm better at it than you.>

Oh right. I read that wrong! Well I must say this is a genuinely new experience for me.. Someone who admits that they're more offensive than me! :)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Robed.Bishop: <Unf> I'm afraid that you'll have to follow the conversation a bit closer than that. I acknowledged that I am better at winding people up than you, not that I'm more offensive. I'm afraid the honor of more offensive belongs to you.

You've worked hard for this distinction and you should wear it with pride.

Apr-05-17  User not found: You're probably right. I have a temper and sometimes I lose my rag. It's better than having a completely <lost> rag 24/7 like one or two people here though, right? As for being obnoxious and rude with no humour whatsoever towards people you don't know I think you thrash me... Want to play,? C'mon??
Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <R.B>

I already wrote about saturated fat in <morfishine>'s forum. Here is the link:

morfishine chessforum (kibitz #4876)

Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <R.B.>

Thanks for the discussion.

Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: Anyway, thought you might enjoy this article from Mark's Daily Apple, the website by Mark Sisson. It is the definitive guide to edible oils.

I actually thought about starting my own nutrition website, but he does such a great job that I don't want to even try to compete with him.

Premium Chessgames Member
  thegoodanarchist: <R.B> Your idea of home made wine vinegar sounds great! I am sure it has lots of healthy plant phytonutrients too.
Premium Chessgames Member
  OhioChessFan: Posting here instead of the forum which I think should be left pretty much for site discussion.

<Robed> here's my take, and I'll start by addressing <jbc> <jbc>, yeah, I get ya, there's a new sheriff in town, but who exactly elected or appointed him, or does the mere fact he had the keys to the courthouse and could get the badge out mean he's in charge? Well, yeah, that's a bit of a point, but making an issue of it strikes me as making a show of your cleverness in making the point. Life goes on, whether you score points or not. One way or another, he has the ability-even if not the truly warranted authority-to do what he's doing.

<Robed> I'll be as careful as possible in responding to you. I do not want anyone banned, that's not for me, it wouldn't bother me if some were, but I'm not calling for it. But if there were a game imposed on me, whereby I <had> to vote one person off this site, it would be <morfishine> And it would be an easy vote. And I am certain I wouldn't be the only one to cast that vote. His incredible coarseness and vulgarity and chiding and hypcocrisy and what have you are off the rails. I see a disconnect there, in that he apparently doesn't recognize how awful his behavior has been the last couple of years. To have a person like <that> going around and pushing buttons and blowing the whistle against people who are philosophically opposed to blowing the whistle is beyond infuriating. What exactly is one to do? IMHO, he's a punk who purposely provokes people, and when they respond 1/10th as much in kind as he provokes, he runs and tells. That is a very tough position to be in if you are a person who thinks blowing the whistle should be for the most egregious violations. Everyone has their breaking point, and I suspect that if a group of people decided to go after him and blow the whistle on his horrible posts, it wouldn't take long to see him on the sidelines. And he really doesn't see it coming! Anyway, I think it's childish and hypocritical and a lot of other things, and truly infuriating.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Robed.Bishop: <OCF> As always, you are welcome to post here. I will address your points.

I posted my comments on the <cg> page only because thatís where <jb> posted his comment. I didnít take your posting here as a criticism.

I agree with your thoughts to <jb>; they mirror much of what I said.

Iím not sure why youíre careful in your comments to me as I donít have a short fuse and our conversations have always been civil. Indeed, I doubt thereís a single thing a person could say on this site that would upset me as I have no friends here and I donít get personal in discussions, meaning I do not sling mud. Perhaps, however, I missed the meaning behind your words. I certainly have no ill will for you nor any resentment. If I have done or said anything that would lead you to think otherwise, then I apologize.

I am not critical of <jbís> issues with <morf>. While I donít share them, I donít have a dog in the fight. I get along with <morf>, but I rarely interact with him. Further, and more importantly, <morf> is a big boy and should be able to take care of himself, and I am not here to defend him. If heís not capable of taking care of himself, then he shouldnít be fighting. That was not the point of my post, and I hope it didnít come across as such.

Without addressing <morfís> conduct specifically, I agree in general with your statement regarding users who create their problems, then run to the admins to solve them. In my opinion, this fits Mark exactly and was hinted at in my recent post mentioning him.

As for banning users, please allow me to expand on this topic beyond what you have stated. I do not have a problem with this site banning users, though I might have issues with how this power is applied in a particular situation. My personal view is that this should be done in only extreme situations and as a last resort.

As you may recall, I was one of the <CG7> suspended in the war with <AJ>. It was my opinion then that Daniel should have banned <AJ> from the site and my opinion has not changed in that regard. Indeed, more recently Iíve thought that Daniel should have banned Mark from the site, though Iíve never before stated as such. I will not go into my reasons for that. The point is, Iím not against banning users.

I understand that some members are against such action as it hinders or is antithical to free speech. This site, however, is private and there is no guarantee of free speech. Further, and more to the point, taking the position that the owners of this site canít regulate speech here is a limitation on the ownerís right to run his business as he or she sees fit. I donít agree with this proposition. If I donít like how itís run, I am free to leave. If I were the owner, I certainly wouldnít want someone else having the power to tell me what I must or must not allow my members to say. The fact that this site allows input on the subject is nice, but letís not get carried away. We are, after all, just users. Having said that, I agree that members calling for the banning of others is distasteful at best.

If anyone joined his site thinking they could say anything they wanted without consequences, then they were fools. I cannot say whether <BP> saw his suspension coming, but I certainly knew that one day I would have to pay the piper for my actions with <AJ>. That was a choice I made, and Iíve never complained about serving my sentence.

If <jb> wants to continue his war of words with <morf>, thatís okay with me. But letís not blame the admins for the results. Should puishment run both ways? Of course, if the actions by both merit such punishment. One would hope that the admins understand that, and Iím confident they do, but what do I know? Certainly Mark is still posting, but maybe thatís because no one (not <nobody>!), has blown the whistle. Again, hard to believe that would be necessary. Iím sure Iím not the only person who rolls his eyes when Mark says heís going to ďget backĒ to posting about chess.

As to whether <jb> (or morf) deserves a suspension, I donít have an opinion.

Thank you.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Robed.Bishop: <OCF> One final thought. It is my impression that once Daniel started investigating a complaint, then everyone involved would be at risk. If that is correct, then the fact that <morf> blew the whistle would be irrelevant as the whistle applies to them both, assuming the admin is aware that the problem spans more than one page. Hopefully, the first step in the investigation is reviewing the posts and getting input from the other user.

I am not in a good position to speculate on this, however, as I donít know the procedure. I have never used the whistleblowing function nor been the subject of one that Iím aware of besides the <AJ> affair.

I understand that it almost always takes two to tango.

Sep-20-18  morfishine: <Robed.Bishop> I very much appreciate, your sober and sound comments and objective postings over at the <> forum

I want to clear something up between <OCF> and myself, since this may shed some light onto his actions and positions on matters here at <CG>. When I first came onboard here about 10 years ago or so, he was someone I looked up to and followed. He was a huge advocate of following the rules, you know, no personal attacks, no off-topic posts, no obscenity, etc. I followed that idea by "blowing the whistle" often against people who were out of line, but not necessarily attacking me, (against anybody breaking the rules).

However, when I began criticizing the GOTD puns a few years ago, <OCF> blacklisted me. He in essence became a hypocrite. Now, whenever I would blow the whistle, his tune became "Oh, his feelings are hurt, oh the little baby, etc.".

<OCF> pursues whatever suits him, which includes him having to become a hypocrite. He's one to approach with great caution: The religious hypocrite can be the most dangerous snake

<john barleycorn> is a different matter. He attacked a friend of mine <DcGentle> repeatedly during a challenge game a few years ago to the point I had to tell him to shut up or leave the game.

Its been all downhill ever since. But its easy to see he's a cyber bully who finds posts he doesn't agree with and simply tells this person what an idiot he is. I've seen it a hundred times.

I am no cyber bully at all. However, I will defend my friends and myself. <john barlycorn> has an unfortunate MO of just floating around and using his derisive, arrogant and condescending comments against anyone who crossed his path

Sorry, nobody bullies me around


Thank you <Robed.Bishop> for weighing in with your refreshing objectivity, its not your concern but its good to see people at <CG> who actually care about <CG>

Best, morf

Premium Chessgames Member
  Robed.Bishop: <morf> Thank you.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Robed.Bishop: <Momentum Man> I see that you are still looking for an answer to your earlier question about where to go for chess discussions. While I am not the best tour guide, let me give you my view. And I'm posting it here because you do not have a forum.

If there's a specific game you want to discuss, then post your comments in the game page and pray that another user has an interest and responds.

Much of the conversations take place in the individual forums, and you are free to join in conversations there, or of course get your own forum and start your own discussions. Users' forums are self-edited, meaning the "owner" can delete posts, but I think you'll find most users cordial.

Also, you have come here at a slow time. When there are active tournaments that the site opens a forum for, you will find lively conversation that talks about the tournament, players, etc., at least for the most part. Right now the site does not have a forum for any active tournaments.

While this is by no means exhaustive of your options, I hope it gives you a place to start. Roaming around to <Rogoff> or the <Cafe> isn't going to get you where you want to go.

Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: <Robed.Bishop: <Momentum Man> ...If there's a specific game you want to discuss, then post your comments in the game page and pray that another user has an interest and responds.>

Yes; and luckily, on the home page, users can see which games have recently been kibitzed on (<Recent Kibitzing>).

I always have a look there. Often there will be a game from the 1900s and I think "I bet that's KEG", and it is.

<Momentum man> can also hover his Momentum Man Mouse over the game-link to see the gist of the comment.

<When there are active tournaments that the site opens a forum for, you will find lively conversation that talks about the tournament, players, etc., at least for the most part. Right now the site does not have a forum for any active tournaments.>

Those tournaments often have Live Games, which is an erudite free-for-all. I really think this site should have many more live games. How hard can it be?

<While this is by no means exhaustive of your options, I hope it gives you a place to start. Roaming around to <Rogoff> or the <Cafe> isn't going to get you where you want to go.>

LOL Rogoff & KC. Institutes for the Terminally Bewildered.

Premium Chessgames Member
  mckmac: <Offramp>:<...LOL Rogoff & KC. Institutes for the Terminally Bewildered.> Fair call, but both places are important in the sense that they are the two shared public spaces here.

Maybe if more members of sound mind and decent manners would start to post at Rogoff and the KC, we might start to see a shift in tone.

<Robed.Bishop> Greetings from Auckland, New Zealand!

Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: I tried to get involved at Rogoff. I asked a question about an ongoing topic and was rewarded with the answer <RTFF>.

I looked this combination of letters up on the internet.

It was an imprecation to be more assiduous in my scrutiny of the forumís content.

I was unwilling so to do, and I left it forevermore.

Premium Chessgames Member
  mckmac: <Offramp> I don't blame you - how totally charming. I think the only way to handle the Rogoff page is to actually not get involved, to just let the chaos and vitriol wash over you.

I mean there are feuds there that are just going to go on and on. But there are also some smart grown up posters talking sense about interesting stuff. That's why I visit there, and I've noticed that if I don't attack people personally, I am generally shown the same consideration back. My two bobs worth anyway..

Premium Chessgames Member
  Robed.Bishop: <offramp: Rogoff & KC. Institutes for the Terminally Bewildered.>

<mckmac: Maybe if more members of sound mind and decent manners would start to post at Rogoff and the KC, we might start to see a shift in tone.> And <I think the only way to handle the Rogoff page is to actually not get involved, to just let the chaos and vitriol wash over you.>

I don't object to the <Rogoff> forum simply because Rogoff is either aware of his forum or he is not. If he's not, no harm done. If he is and doesn't complain, then fine. If he wants it cleaned up, then it should be.

<Rogoff> is a microcosm of America's current political atmosphere. I look in on it about every two months, sometimes just to see if anything has changed and sometimes just for laughs.

Here's the action in a "standard debate." A user from Side One (either liberal or conservative) posts a link to an article that is critical of the other political party, usually with a message that this type of behavior or action is typical of that party. This garners a response from Side Two disagreeing with the article and the associated comments. So far so good.

The insults begin at round two, usually by twisting the responding user's name in a way that's meant to be funny. Naturally, Side Two responds in a similar fashion.

The real fun starts at round three when not only are names twisted, but here the actual insults begin, insults against character, logic, and reason. Usually these insults are accompanied by references to past arguments or behaviors, such as "as usual, it is impossible to reason with a nitwit who can't tell the difference between <fill in any number of things.>

Having reached the end of the road (around the time a new subject is posted), each side declares victory, hurling more invectives and insults during the victory lap.

This repeats itself over and over again with no end in sight and no resolution or agreement at the end of any "debate." I don't begrudge them the fun, if that's your kind of enjoyment. I'm only disturbed when the vitriol is carried on to other pages, when a post by a member of Team One is automatically followed by a post from Team Two containing references to <Rogoff> history and containing - you guessed it - insults. The have lost the ability to speak to each other in a rational manner.

This knee-jerk reaction has become almost as automatic as the feud between Mark and Keyser Soze. When one posts, the other invariably posts an insult after, leading to brief flare-ups that are eventually scrubbed from the site. As if we users really care about their feud and who's right and who's wrong.

I mention this here because this past week we had an instance of this. I saw Mark's comment on the Chessgames page and posted a response that basically said we don't care about the feud and the site should adopt a rule that if either of them insults the other, he should be subject to an automatic week-long suspension. By the time I was done posting my response, Mark's comment had been deleted. By the time I refreshed the page, my comment was also gone. That set a new record for me (now my personal best) for the quickest deletion of a post.

Good day to both of you.

Mar-07-19  Momentum Man: Mr. Bishop,

Thanks for the advice about posting on a game page.

That was the first thing I tried, and got no reply, so I went exploring for other boards that were active.

It looks like you think I will spark some activity, if I keep trying other game pages, so I will.

Premium Chessgames Member
  mckmac: <Robed.Bishop: I don't object to the <Rogoff> forum simply because Rogoff is either aware of his forum or he is not. If he's not, no harm done. If he is and doesn't complain, then fine. If he wants it cleaned up, then it should be.>

I suspect that was the way the much missed Daniel Freeman saw the 'Rogoff problem', as well. Nicely said.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Robed.Bishop: <mckmac> Thank you for stopping by.
Mar-14-19  Nisjesram: <robed.bishop> <Here's the action in a "standard debate" [in rogoffland]>


Nice post, <robed.bishop> :)

However, from every now and then there are smart, insightful comments by both left wingers and rightwingers. By <keypusher> from right wing , for example.

Cheers :)


Premium Chessgames Member
  diceman: <Robed.Bishop:

<Rogoff> is a microcosm of America's current political atmosphere.>

The plan.
Divide and conquer.

When your candidates are as incompetent, corrupt, dishonest as Obama/Clinton, hate needs to drive the vote on election day.

<Here's the action in a "standard debate.">

Liberalism can never debate.
Debate requires you have a side.
Liberalism has destroyed and bankrupted
everything its touched.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 6)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 6 OF 6 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.

NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific user only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

You are not logged in to
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC