This is obviously cowardly, but is it permitted?>

This is false, as I will prove shortly. As for the post in question (that's right, a *single* post, not "continues" as <Jim> claims), I like to post links in my forum if it is something I want to have handy.

Rogoff, on a slow day, usually gets 4 new pages. On a heavy activity day, it can get into double digits.

My forum is up to just 15 pages now, for its lifetime(!), and I am one of the first cg.com users, from the early 2000s.

But if I just post a link, for example, then I will forget the topic and have to actually click on it to see what it's about.

This post, for example:

thegoodanarchist chessforum (kibitz #369)

<JB> writes stuff like

<saffuna: <the goodanarchist> has put me on ignore, ...

This is obviously cowardly, ...>

yet when he writes a lie about me in Rogoff, and I ask him to post evidence to substantiate that, he won't even acknowledge the post.

Then later, as he does with <BP>, <Bartle> will claim that <BP> cannot post any lie that <JB> has told in the forum.

I just wanted to have a link handy, so if <JB> tries this on me, I won't have to go searching for my rebuttal, because I have it at my finger tips.

One post! So when <Jim Bartle> complains < (tga) continues to criticize me in his forum> this is very misleading and deceptive.

ON TOP OF ALL OF THIS, I would like to point that I never put <Jim Bartle> on ignore.

Yes, that's correct. <Jim Bartle> could have posted anything he wanted to in my forum, during the whole time he was in here complaining that he couldn't do so.

Now, I want to observe the posting guidelines - that's just who I am.

So in order to do so, I will merely ask this *hypothetical* question:

<tga> does have me on ignore. I cannot post on his forum.

I don't mind being called a liar. I only ask that anyone who does it posts a quote of mine that is false. Nobody has been able to do that.

<perf> takes it and he gives it out.

As far as <tga> is considered: A coward, unless he stops posting about me where I can't respond.>

See, this is what I am talking about. This simply isn't true.

<Jim Barle> was never on my ignore list, and <saffuna> is <JB>

If someone posts falsehoods, shouldn't we be able to name what this activity is?

In any event, I am tired of you trying to bully Daniel into playing the role of your thought policeman.

It's bad enough that the media censor the political Right in this country, with people like you fully supporting the suppression of free speech, but now you want the founder of the website to start doing the same thing, at *your* bidding?

I am going to take your weapon away now, <Jim>. You will have to find a new tool to use in pursuit of cyber bullying, as the post in my forum to which you are referring is no longer available to you.

<tga> does have me on ignore. I cannot post on his forum.>

Incorrect. <Jim Bartle> HAS NEVER BEEN ON MY IGNORE LIST!

<I don't mind being called a liar. I only ask that anyone who does it posts a quote of mine that is false. Nobody has been able to do that.>

Wrong again. I did so. Here it is:

thegoodanarchist chessforum (kibitz #372)

Unless you can post evidence to support your accusation that I tried to gaslight you about the alt right.

<perf> takes it and he gives it out.>

Now THAT is a fair, objective statement.

if you post in my forum, the first post must be one of two things.

Either retract your lie about me "gaslighting" you regarding the alt right,

OR,

provide evidence to support this accusation. And me asking you a question is NOT evidence.

Oh, THAT game. I was reviewing submissions myself and decided to not include that one because I didn't see any point in making a move-for-move identical copy of the same trap. It's generally our policy to contain each trap once (ala L Darling vs R Wood, 1983) unless it shows up on an IM/GM level more than once.

But if you say there was some difference (move order? an accelerated version of it?). It must have gone over my head. So OK, I rescind my decision, here you go: R Taylor vs Neil Cruden, 2008

click for larger view

But in the famous Fischer game the position was

click for larger view

May I direct you to the Premium Membership Help Page

<What a chessforum IS:

A "chessforum" is a personal discussion forum operated by a premium Chessgames member. Unlike most forums at chessgames, the topic of discussion on a chessforum is not necessarily tied to a specific player, opening, game, tournament, etc., but instead can be under the guidance of the chessforum owner.

What a chessforum is NOT:

It's not a blog where you are free to discuss anything you like. It's not a political soapbox. It's not a place where obscenity is tolerated, nor is it to be used for advertising commercial services. <<<<It's not a place to be used for badmouthing other Chessgames users.>>>> In short, our normal posting policy applies to chessforums.>

I'll say for the millionth time (not just to the two of you) — if you have a problem with somebody, ignore them, and LET IT GO. In the worst possible case, go ahead and post a giant opus, your litany of complaints, get it all out of your system, go ahead and nail it to the church door, then LET IT GO. Don't keep picking at old wounds. You'll be happier, they'll be happier, I'll be happier, other members will be happier, there is absolutely no downside.

This has probably been considered before. How about having sub-forums? These would act a bit like threads. Then we could, for example, have a Rogoff/Religion forum for the zealots or a Rogoff/Politics for pundits with their hair on fire.

I would really like to see all that Rogoff wisdom removed from his forum. He is a pretty nice guy by all accounts and it's an insult to trash his house like that. Of course, we've burned that bridge a long time ago, eh?>

I like you <Boomie> but I am going to say I think this idea here is just terrible.

The toxic political discussion is quarantined to one player forum. It is like a tin can of tomato sauce with the lid opened by a can opener.

True as far as it goes. However I was just using Rogoff as an example. I would prefer those off topic rants be moved to their own home. Why don't we have a Religion or Politics forum for that stuff? Surely we don't have to pretend that we don't go off topic on occasion.

How???

Should I line up votive candles to spell out the word "mess" and then light them?

Now at our club Stan Yee has been going on about having a Black and a White Q (extra ones) beside the board. I thought I knew the rule, that you could push the pawn to the queening square and then replace it with a Q as was done. But then at the tie break of the Ultimate the commentators shouted: "Illegal move, illegal move!" (I was puzzled I thought the player was in check so I ran the video back) Randy was good about it, and his father...but it is a good thing as I thought one could do that.

So I could have easily fallen for it. Might be something for people to note as if anyone is playing a critical game it could be tragic. Perhaps it is not so critical in classic time control?

But I learned the rules in 1959 I think and the new rules I just go along with and have never studied too much.

[I just thought he meant you cant keep moving the pawn around or use a Rook upside down. There was a case years ago when you could use a pawn when Karpov had "queened" a pawn and (this was on TV in GB) and it was comical as a pawn was running around the board! Thus he "pawned" rather that "queened"!

Maybe there could be a new rule that the pawn has to stay there as an immobile pawn?

You can't solve this by saying that there are plenty of other sites on the Internet to talk about politics because it's not merely a matter of talking about politics per se, but talking about politics with the people you know, and those people could be members of this website.

Sometimes chess players get sick and tired of chess and need a break from it, but they still know the people that they interact with on a site like this. This is all about community building

The correct solution is to provide a space for members of the community, who have actually helped build the site if you think about it, who want to talk about politics and religion. I happen to think that the rogoff page is the wrong page to do it.

I think it would be a good thing if we came here tomorrow with the entire history of the Rogoff page wiped completely clean. The only adjustment that the webmaster would have to make, is to not discourage the use of personal forums for things like politics and religion. In other words, let the members use their forms like a personal blog. If this does not suit the webmaster, then it might be OK to put up a page for politics, religion and philosophy.

Undoubtedly. But apparently that's what people want, or they wouldn't be doing it.

It's been said — only half-jokingly — that within any sufficiently large group of people on the internet, left to their own to discuss any topic at all, sooner or later somebody will compare somebody else to Hitler.

I think Rogoff deserves his page back but for historical reasons it's served as a "lightning rod" for people who apparently enjoy (or can't look away) from the trainwreck that occurs there daily.

But for all its flaws I can say one positive thing about the mess we call the Rogoff page: if you really are offending by the goings on there, there are 80,000 other player pages none of which rise to that level of fighting. In other words, you don't HAVE to read it.

Yet clearly a lot of people do. The Whistles we get regarding that page inevitably come from people who post there on a daily basis. It's like a kind of masochism: it's torture to read the page, and they do so faithfully every day.

I am always reminded of Statler and Waldorf's stanza from the Muppets' theme song:

Why do we always come here?
I guess we'll never know
It's like a kind of torture
To have to watch the show...

I think Rogoff deserves his page back but for historical reasons it's served as a "lightning rod" for people who apparently enjoy (or can't look away) from the trainwreck that occurs there daily.>

Why Rogoff?