"+500" means I'm strongly in agreement with <Ohio's> post.

In a normal situation <OCF> might ask what I meant by this or that. Instead he flew off the handle by mistakenly thinking he understood it was about right vs. wrong and not cause and effect. You were quick to join him in support, thinking it was another US vs. THEM thing, which it's not.

I thought you thought jess and OCF were in conflict. I knew they weren't. Sorry for the confusion.

I don't think <Ohio> "flew off the handle."

I think your points about the truce attempt are largely without accuracy or merit.

I also think your posts on this matter are likely to make the problem worse, rather than better.

I see no evidence the attempted truce is "dividing the people."

However, posts like the ones you've just made here on the admin page (and why here? They are fully aware of the situation already) are far more likely to "divide the people."

That's my take on your posts.

With regard to your confusion about other peoples' posts here:

<Ohio> was clear. <hms123> was clear. I was clear. All of us understood each other perfectly.

The only confused person here seems to be you.

However, no crime in that. Perhaps you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Finally,

Thanks again for your help on that Live Chess Footage link to <Botvinnik-Flohr 1935> again- That was crucial information.

Flying off the handle is to miss the point of an argument during a heated exchange. In this exchange I listed the historic sources of conflict between AJ and the others, but you addressed whether allowing such conflict to continue is "Morally Right" - thus you lost the point of the argument - and then attacked me instead of the problem. As I have not kibitzed on a Goldsby thread in a month - doing that to defend William Stewart, <AJ>'s daughters, and dealing with <Lennonfan>, I am certainly not the problem.

If you want a further explanation of my proposal please see the forum of <hms123>. That goes for <JFQ> as well, since I'm not interesting in providing lengthy retorts in the <CG> forum.

It also goes for the admins in the hope that they will reconsider their current position.

I, should (really) smite y'all and start anew.

We shall only keep a few trustworthy islands free from harm - but a deluge of trolls over the rest of it.

Afterwards, when almost everyone has left, we shall ban the trolls - and promise never to let it happen again.

Also, it indicates the relative importance of a game in the tournament, since lower board numbers are occupied by players with the best scores.

The normal criterion for inclusion in the database is clear: at least one of the players should have a rating of 2200 or more. Since AJ has a rating floor of 2200, his games will always qualify, whether we like it or not.

There are other online databases which take different approaches. Some, such as NIChess, are restricted to GM games. Others, like Chess365, take anything from anyone - if you log on you may upload all your games, regardless of playing strength. It has thousands of games between 1100s.

In a way, I find these amusing. They can even be instructive -- if one of my OTB opponents makes a weak move in the opening, I'm unlikely to see it replicated in a GM database. But in something like 365 there's bound to be an example or two - and I can see if I punished the error as efficiently as, uh, some 1125 guy in Swabia.

Overall, I like the CG 'Middle Way'. It allows those of us who are of less than master strength to see a few of our games included (though there are some of my games in most databases, from events like the Irish Championships). If a 2200 player chooses to upload a lot of easy wins, they're not going to skew the stats. And you can choose to avoid them.

I've concluded that the policy itself does not alter players opinions' against such games, especially when they are coupled with the author's self-congratulatory annotations. Put simply, these games are, and have been a source of conflict. The current resolution is a truce which attempts to create a 'happy camp' re-training 50-something shut-ins via an internet forum, on how to socialize normally - but it's just an exercise in futility.

Here, here! (Well said.)

Strange - I would have thought that <OhioChessFan> would be one of the last to defend me. Perhaps the truce is having greater benefits than I could have ever imagined. ('?') [Or was he motivated by the simple desire to state the truth? I really do not know.]

BTW, one of the basic requirements for a CG game is "that at least one of the players have a 2200 rating." I think that means that all of my games qualify! Besides, I have personally decided not to load "average" games anymore ... anything under 2000, I won't even bother to send it in ... I think too many people have complained and said that I am "ruining the database." (So I am posting the games on my player page, but NOT submitting them for inclusion in the database.)

Can we please have a forum for the ongoing <2011 RUSSIAN HIGHER LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP>?

Many 2700s are playing. Thanks

TWIC COVERAGE -> http://www.chess.co.uk/twic/chessne...

Let me just outline one example of what I am talking about here: Let's say that I don't like someone's extremely liberal position ... ... ... (VERY silly, I know. But it is the hypothetical reverse of his position.) ... could I then come here and try to "con" the CG staff into finding a way to censor that person? Did you really think that this would work? (I am sure that the CG staff saw right through your little ploy.)

What a load of absolute nonsense! Do you really think that anyone can take this sort of tripe seriously? I mean, it defies every precept (that I know of) in common sense and logic! Get real!

[Note to <Once> I don't consider this post to be a nasty "attack the other guy" type of post, i.e.; a violation of the truce. However, when a PCS student e-mailed me a copy of his post ... I simply could not believe it! I came here and found that several other people had already responded to this guy's rather outlandish idea.]

I hope that this is a pleasing result (development) to everyone.>

Yep. That will do it for me, and should show <Domdaniel> that this wasn't a red herring: those kinds of games have been a major cause of conflict, and you recognized that, which is good!

Might I also add that your adherence to follow the truce is fantastic. Even though I don't think it was smart of you to reject the leverage idea as there is nothing to keep the others in line, I do think this should be an enjoyable period for you - so make the most of it!

But the point is to argue with what people have posted and not to make a personal attack on an individual. Disagreeing with someone's post is perfectly fine. Calling them names or criticising them as individuals is, for my money, a personal attack on another user.