01 Anand 2798,1 -4,9 (1) 2 1969
02 Kramnik 2788,0 0 (0) 0 1975
03 Morozevich 2774,7 +0,7 (1) 8 1977
04 Topalov 2767,0 0 (0) 0 1975
05 Carlsen 2766,8 +1,8 (1) 2 1990
06 Aronian 2761,3 -1,7 (1) 1 1982
07 Radjabov 2753,1 +2,1 (1) 8 1987
08 Ivanchuk 2750,7 +10,7 (2) 15 1969
09 Svidler 2743,4 -2,6 (2) 19 1976
10 Shirov 2741,4 +1,4 (2) 11 1972
11 Leko 2741,0 0 (0) 0 1979
12 Mamedyarov 2738,9 -13,1 (1) 10 1985
13 Adams 2736,9 +7,9 (1) 7 1971
14 Karjakin 2731,5 -0,5 (1) 11 1990
15 Kamsky 2726,9 +0,9 (1) 9 1974
16 Gelfand 2721,5 -1,5 (1) 9 1968
17 Movsesian 2718,8 +23,8 (4) 22 1978
18 Grischuk 2718,0 +2 (1) 8 1983
19 Ponomariov 2717,6 -1,4 (1) 10 1983
20 Eljanov 2717,0 +30 (3) 19 1983
21 Bu 2716,6 +8,6 (1) 10 1985
22 Polgar 2709,0 0 (0) 0 1976
23 Ni 2708,3 +5,3 (1) 11 1983
24 Jakovenko 2707,8 -3,2 (2) 14 1983
25 Bacrot 2706,1 +1,1 (3) 18 1983
26 Alekseev 2704,2 -6,8 (1) 10 1985
27 Wang Hao 2700,1 +16,1 (1) 11 1989

<i've stopped kibitzing> at chessgames.com due to a <personal vendetta against me, lead by achieve> (achieve chessforum) but assisted by other kibitzers like sitzkrieg (User: sitzkrieg) and jessicafischerqueen (User: jessicafischerqueen), but more kibitzers have been "consulted" in achieve's work to "nail me". seemingly, i'm a danger for free speech and civil relationships between cg.com members and i don't know what else.

previously i've been labeled "mental" and "psycho" by the <duo brankat & achieve> in their respective user forums, and now achieve has dedicated his forum to this campaign against me. obviously, this isn't about any specific issue - achieve says it's based on "principles" - but in reality it's probably <the biggest personal attack> in cg.com's history. i wonder what cg.com admins will do about it.

the rest of this and the following post are various examples of achieve's preparational "work" - the format is "link <date kibitzer>. as long as achieve doesn't do any deletion of posts, more can be found in his userforum and in rolfo's forum (Rolfo chessforum).

---

achieve chessforum <Apr-16-08
achieve:>

"<sitzkrieg> Please read what frogbert wrote at <brankat>'s page. I am considering a formal, (long overdue) complaint to CG, for multiple reasons.

But before I do that I would like to consult with you privately, either by email and/or phone...

[...]

You were right, he can't put this to rest- and I want to put a stop to this repulsive type of behaviour."

Rolfo chessforum <Apr-17-08
achieve - directed at me>

"Why do you go around following me in a in various degrees tasteless way?

You're spreading lies about <sitzkrieg> in a most vulgar way, and I am about to point that out the CG.com

[...]
Just so they know and can inform me on how to deal with this nauseating behaviour of yours. [...]

PS - stop bothereing Rolfo all the time, looking for the support you don't even need, considering the condescending tone you sometimes employ toward him... (Yes - it's all on record)

Rolfo must be a very patient man."

achieve chessforum <Apr-19-08
achieve:>

"<frogbert>

I removed your lie about me.

You seem to think you can judge and determine everything -- but you are the least qualified -- I will prove that later on.

BE WARNED!"

achieve chessforum <Apr-19-08
achieve:>

"<Slomarko> Thanks for your comments. As far as the discussion with Frog is concerned -- my main goal is to show him the difference between the standard he (sorta) enforces on people at the C-page - and the lack of that standard he maintains himself.

GIVEN THIS -- it is possible to look at all this from various angles - but what most bothered me were the corrections I got when visiting friends' pages without mentioning his name in my post.

But after going through more than 150 pages at the Carlsen page, I realised there was more at stake."

achieve chessforum <Apr-19-08
sitzkrieg:>

"<slomarko> Some other people seem to think frogbert lied about the whistle blowing (not that it matters much, but still) One kibitzers told me that frogbert started using the term ad hominem after you first used those words in the deleted posts, which frogbert claimed not to have seen.

Do you remember if it is correct that you first used the term in one of the deleted posts( <ad hominem attack>) ?"

achieve chessforum <Apr-19-08
sitzkrieg:>

"<achieve> have you noted what <frogbert> tries to do at the rolfo page? He initially accused slomarko of lying, when he said frogbert might have blown the whistle. Now he tries to shift his accusations to insult at the but in first instance he accused slo of lies; thereby lying himself. One really can learn a lot of his forum skills;) "

achieve chessforum <Apr-19-08
achieve:>

"<sitzkrieg: <achieve> have you noted what <frogbert> tries to do at the rolfo page?>

I've read them and have an opinion.

Just be patient.

I'm still editing gathered material."

achieve chessforum <Apr-20-08
jessicafischerqueen - directed at achieve:>

"[...]

First, just from my end-- I can't stand the manner in which <frogbert> posts for two reasons.

1. I find his style supercilious and disingenuous-- he manages to insult others in a way that he can deny later. The use of the often insipid ";)" symbol is key to his apporach-- although many use it in a purely postive way, such as <Malthorpe>.

2. I hate the way he used his (real) connection with <Carlsen's> father to start acting as if he were <de facto> moderator of the <Carlsen page>. My anger about this was minimal, however, until he energetically tried to organize a mass Ignore-boycott of <slomarko> and <sitzkrieg>.

That said, I made the major mistake of accusing him of being a liar about knowing the <Magnus circle> personally and I felt forced to apologize for that-- I was badly mistken and I wish I'd done some research before shooting my mouth off.

On another topic-- no matter what you choose to do with your efforts in the <Magnus page> controversey, at the very least you will have done a thorough job of determining the true nature of the posting history there.

[...]

1. I don't think you are wasting your time

2. You are doing a lot of work that will benefit others

3. I can see you are angry, but you are doing something constructive with that anger (unlike myself, who just reacted with insults)

<<frogbert><<<<<<<<<<<"its probably the biggest personal attack in CG.com's history">>>>>>>>

I'm afraid not. LIFE master AJ and benjamin lau own that one. Simple solution: add them to your ignore list.>

i certainly have not. <zarg> suggested that (see what problems you've created for me, zarg? ;o). i said that a) cg.com doesn't allow that and b) i don't want that.

it's the same about jessica's untrue statements about boycotting sitzkrieg and slomarko: <xaurus> has "promoted" the option of ignoring certain users. finally, when <bukkerogtakker> said he'd put sitz and slo on ignore, i said "i'll do it, too", but never asked anyone else to do it, whether before or after - unlike a few others who made pr for the ignore option.

<stop looking around for quotes>

<<xaurus> has "promoted" the option of ignoring certain users. finally, when <bukkerogtakker> said he'd put sitz and slo on ignore, i said "i'll do it, too", but never asked anyone else to do it, whether before or after - unlike a few others who made pr for the ignore option> Also correct.

Det som er trist, synes jeg, er at hadde vi alle sittet på en pub med en øl og noen sjakkbrett, ville vi hatt en god stund, med en felles stor interesse - sjakk. Kommunikasjon i et internettforum er vanskelig, og ting som kan flires vekk med en replikk over en øl, vokser til store problemer på nettet.

All the best - gus inn .

And it is sometimes a pitty we dont sit together and have a few beers and a good laugh.

sitzkrieg, achieve - and where can i defend myself against the BIG accusation that i'm the most repulsive kibitzer (both quantity and quality) on the magnus carlsen page?

<sitzkrieg: <achieve> I have a relatively busy week so I haven't followed recent developments closely but good post! (2nd last of you). I hope you are not to 'disturbed' by the new accusations against you by frog. I pressume most kibitzers will be smart enough to see through him. I posted a short reply on his accusations, but as was to be expected he deleted them, and frankly, I also think it's not worth bothering about his weekly accusations anyway.

Although i don't know your conclusions-contrary to what frogbert said it was an objective investigation by you alone, also counting bad posts of me and others- I think you did a good thing by classifying and counting them. I.m.o. frogberts reaction in itself shows that he is afraid of attention of <cg> that may be drawn on the matter.>

yeah, i'm terribly afraid of cg.com admins. please don't show the report to them. please...

Please, please stop, I think most actors here have learnt from this sad period. Give it a try, please.

From last days' posts :
<THEN he says that i'm lying>, "It's pathetic in itself that things had to come this far, but it is thanks to ....", <like i said above, the number of times you've attacked me due to your own imagination..>, "You have -constantly- been in arguments and quarrels since your entrance at this site", <..- i consider it a waste of time. and i consider you a waste of time - there's a reason why i ..>, on and on and on. INDEED just like Tolkien's creatures, isn't it ?
Therefore : without index finger pointing : stop and behave. All. The one who starts whining again from now is taking a heavy burden of responsibility !!! - As stated in Norwegian earlier here today : (Indeed some of you) ..have a preputation to take care of, stay head high over other's low marks..!!