I read the entire thread on the bio, and <Karpova> I think you've already handled the affair exactly right- made your point without damaging the thread by engaging <the guy> any further than you already have.

I'll not type his name, because he follows his own name around looking for trouble.

I think that now you have exposed the poor quality of his Rubinstein bio, we no longer need to be too concerned by <the guy> posting a link to his faulty Rubinstein bio.

The main reason is this: even a neophyte, a casual visitor to the Rubinstein page, would instantly tag <the guy> as an unreliable source based solely on his childish bragging.

I've thought about this for a long time and I think this observation extends to any of the posts <the guy> makes on any player page.

In virtually every case it's safe largely to ignore him because he already does such a good job of exposing himself as an unreliable source due to his extreme childishness. He negates himself in this way, making it unnecessary to engage him in any kind of extended discussion about the errors that riddle his posts and also his web pages.

Pointing out his errors is still necessary- as you've done in this case on the Rubinstein page- but after doing that, it's a poor idea to respond further to the inevitable childish rant which will follow. If his rant is not answered, he considers that he's "won" the argument. But he hasn't, and nobody in their right mind would think he did. But the best part about this method is that he won't rant further if nobody responds further to his "winning volley." This limits damage to the player page.

Since he's constitutionally incapable of an adult discussion, any attempt to engage him further will result only in futile and often nasty arguments on the player page in question.

I wish <the guy> wouldn't litter our site with his inaccurate crowing, but Daniel has already said he won't do what we all want, which is to eradicate <the guy>. We can't even remove the link to his Rubinstein bio because Daniel would never delete it if one of us blew the whistle on it.

I suppose we could try blowing the whistle, but I really doubt the link would get deleted from the thread.

Daniel: "I can't ban a member just for being a jerk."

So it's up to us to minimize the damage he might cause on player pages.

<Karpova> I think you've already accomplished this on the Rubinstein page. I think you've already done this in exactly in the way it should be done- making your corrective point without risk of prompting further idiotic diatribe from <the guy>, which would just mess up the page further.

Anyways that's what I think. I think the same about other childish posters who make idiotic provocative off-topic statements on player pages- answering them just encourages them.

I have both volumes of the Donaldson and Minev Rubinstein biography, as do you.

I noticed that when volume 2 came out, you immediately made good use of the information in it by improving the Rubinstein page at Cg.com.

This is why <the guy's> bragging about his chess book collection is so tragicomic in this case.

If his gigantic chess library included the Donaldson and Minev bio, his own Rubinstein bio wouldn't be littered with errors. He's not capable of understanding is that it's not the size, but the quality of a chess library that counts.

If he does own the bio, he clearly hasn't read it eh? Sometimes I wonder if he can even read at all. He certainly can't spell or write grammatical sentences.

Indeed, I can hardly think of someone else so clueless about how he comes across. Almost as if he unconsciously wanted everyone around him to know that he is only trying to promote himself (and chess seems to be his best bet, which is kind of sad considering his output).

<I wish <the guy> wouldn't litter our site with his inaccurate crowing, but Daniel has already said he won't do what we all want, which is to eradicate <the guy>. We can't even remove the link to his Rubinstein bio because Daniel would never delete it if one of us blew the whistle on it.

I suppose we could try blowing the whistle, but I really doubt the link would get deleted from the thread.

Daniel: "I can't ban a member just for being a jerk.">

I was wondering about that and what the real reason is that they didn't ban him yet. I've seen many people getting banned (and often opponents of his) but never him though they go to great lengths to control the damage he's causing by locking discussion on his player page (now "open" again, but for worshipping only as everything else is off-topic there) and his games. But I don't get it, there must be some behind-the-scene reason as this guy is nothing but damaging to the site and the worst troll ever. They even kind of protect him by deleting his worst posts so that he appears relatively civilized to an outsider when others criticise him - just some dude who was bragging a bit.

<Anyways that's what I think. I think the same about other childish posters who make idiotic provocative off-topic statements on player pages- answering them just encourages them.>

I agree with you, the best remedy is to deprive them of what they are longing for.

<He's not capable of understanding is that it's not the size, but the quality of a chess library that counts.>

Hello it's <jessicafischerqueen> here with the new WCC Editing account. I hope you will help us in this new project if you have the time and inclination.

###############

With regard to the thread at hand, thanks for your further trenchant comments on this vexing issue.

I do have some information to help clear up the "mystery of why he's not banned."

For example this point: <They even kind of protect him by deleting his worst posts so that he appears relatively civilized to an outsider when others criticise him >

I can assure you that our site host and moderator Daniel Freeman is not selectively protecting him on purpose. Rather, I think it likely that this phenomenon occurs when one of <the guy's> many detractors blows the whistle on him.

Once the whistle is blown, Daniel will examine the post, same as anyone else's post, and delete it if he thinks it violates site guidelines.

Daniel does not play favorites. I'll quote (paraphrase) <Annie K> on this topic- she regards him to be "one of the most ethical people I've ever met."

I know some of Daniel's private opinions about <the guy's> shenanigans, which I'll not repeat in public, but really it's not hard to guess what they are.

Another point on this topic is that Daniel is the "King of giving 2d chances that become 3d up to infinity chances."

The people you speak of who have been banned- many of them have come back with new accounts.

Even when Daniel recognizes the IP address is the same he allows the "new user" the chance to play by the rules.

Some users have been repeatedly banned in one guise after another.

I can think of two recent morons who insist on creating multiple socks and complaining loudly against Daniel right on the Cg.com forum.

And still Daniel will only take limited action.

So his policy is a double edged sword- No other chess site I've ever seen has moderators as lenient as he is. At any other chess site <The guy> would have been permanently banned, I'm sure.

But the other sites lack something we have here- almost unfettered free speech and an atmosphere in which we know for a fact the moderator will hear us out.

Daniel never fails to reply to an email within 1 or 2 days.

Just try getting a moderator's ear at <chess.com>, a site so stringently policed that they deleted a post for using the word "breast" in a forum. There was actually a long thread discussing that ridiculous decision.

<deep down he is aware of his defects>

I think you are right about this. I think he has a crippling personality disorder, and as such he's to be pitied if anything.

For me, pitying and avoiding works well in tandem, although in the past I've blown up at him as viciously as anyone else has at this site.

But really what you did at the Rubinstein page- I think that is exactly the way to handle him when he posts his ridiculous lies and inaccuracies on a player page.

Correct/contain the damage without escalating into a flame thread that turns our website into a public embarrassment.

I for one don't feel good about the low opinion people like <Edward Winter> and <Olimpiu Urcan> currently hold about our site.

I will have a look into it. This was certainly needed as the WCC pages showed some weaknesses.

-----

Regarding that unrated and untitled guy, I didn't mean to imply that the admins were actively seeking to protect him by deleting his offensive posts. It's just that he writes the most offensive posts while his opponents don't come close to his vulgarity. So it's kind of ironic, that by trying to keep the site clean, the worst offender is made to appear as meek as a lamb which is hurting in the long run.

<Some users have been repeatedly banned in one guise after another.>

Yes, but has that unrated, untitled guy ever been banned? It's still his original account and he is still by far the worst ever here (with regards to obscenity and longevity). He gets away with everything.

<I can think of two recent morons who insist on creating multiple socks and complaining loudly against Daniel right on the Cg.com forum.

And still Daniel will only take limited action.>

The subject of our debate has come to their forum and called them morons and idiots. The limited action was to politely delete the offending post, nothing more.

And from your earlier post:

<Daniel: "I can't ban a member just for being a jerk.">

<So it's kind of ironic> Aha, thanks for that amplification. I agree on that. A truly unfortunate irony, sadly enough.

<Site moderation> Well we have what we have, for better or worse. Personally, if I were the owner of this site, I would have banned <the untitled guy> long ago. More, I wish Daniel would ban him forever. I think the vast majority of members here wish he would be banned.

But I doubt he will ever be banned. So we are stuck in the mode of trying to put up with him, and trying to limit the damage he does on player pages and games pages with his nonsense, lies, crude insults, and incessant bragging.

I agree with you and thank you for your kind words about my way of dealing with that former military police officer whatnot on player and game pages.

<perfidious>

As mentioned, it was down to four tables and by now, I was drifting along doing nothing special.

A player three seats to my left called Tom Cope (more on Tom later) was doing a lot of the running here, playing with a lot of aggro and picking up a fair number of pots without fight pre-flop.

Then along came 88, the best hand I had seen in about an hour and a half, after losing a pot which cost about half my remaining 8K in chips. With about ten BB left, I open-shoved from middle position and Jimmy Boyd, a very good player from West Virginia, snap-called immediately to my left, everyone else folded and he turned over AJ suited (bit of a weak hand for a call with so many players yet to act and for a decent percentage of his stack).

The flop came with a jack and an eight, followed by blanks on the turn and river and I doubled up.

In general, the table tightened up as we gradually lost players at other tables and got closer to the money, but nothing special happened from here until we made the money, were broken up and redrew for seating.

The curious thing is that, when the action came down to three tables, I really remember very little about it all until after we again redrew, having reached twenty players remaining.

Even down to two tables, most of the action was desultory, with possibly the critical hand being played at the other table when we had roughly fourteen left.

TJ Cloutier and Bill Seymour got it all in pre-flop, as TJ had suited AK and the big stack, against QQ for Bill, which held.

Next hand worth mentioning for me was at eleven players left against Howie Wolper, a strong, solid player from New Jersey.

I opened from late position with offsuit K9 and he shoved from the big blind, turning over A7 of spades after my call. Flop came QJT rainbow, with blanks on the turn and river and it was time for the final table.

heh...

Yes "The Gavinator" case does weaken my argument concerning chess.com.

I had no idea you were "in the know" about that site.

<perfidious> would you please give us the name of the book, publishing details and page number for this EDIT?

<perfidious: Sergeant corroborated this much later as follows: <It appears that Lasker had intended to enter for the Dresden Tournamet this year; but for some reason he changed his mind. While it was in progress he wrote to Hoffer, who was in Dresden, as to the chances of a match with the winner of it, which Tarrasch already seemed likely to be. Hoffer approached Tarrasch, whose reply, he asserts, was so unsatisfactory that he did not communicate it verbatim to Lasker. At this date Tarrasch clearly saw no comparison between their records.>>

<"I know the game," said Doc. "Look, Joseph and Mary, chess is possibly the only game in the world in which it is impossible to cheat.">

<Sneaky: The name I can't imagine giving a baby is SMBAT. Please don't tell me how to pronounce it, I don't even want to know!

Of course I refer to the extremely strong Grandmaster Smbat Gariginovich Lputian, who was born in the great Armenian Vowel Famine of '58! ;-)>

I wish I could agree with this. My experience is quite otherwise: I've sent exactly one email almost six months ago, to which I never received a reply in any form.

Needless to say, this does not inspire a sense that my concerns are being heard.

My favorite game? The late Ariel Mengarini was a psychiatrist and played lively Chess - rating I think around 2300+. This was in the 1967 "Eastern Masters"; the second of two Bill Goichberg specials. I won the first in 1966 ("Metropolitan Masters") on tie break over Walter Browne and Larry Kaufman, and this one outright, drawing with Kaufman who was a point behind.

Eastern Masters 1967
Neil McKelvie - Ariel Mengarini Round 2

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Bb4!? 5.c3 Ba5
6.O-O Nge7 7.d4 ed 8.cd d5 9.ed QXd5 10. Bb3 Qa5 11.d5 Na7 12.Bd2 Bd2 13.Qd2 O-O 14. Re1 Ng6 15.Nc3 Bg4 16.Nd4 Rae8 17.Ne4 Nc8 18.f3 Bd7 19.Rac1 Qe5 20.Ne6! fe 21.de Bc6 22.e7+ Kh8 23.ef=Q+ Rf8 24.Ng5 Qf5 25.Nf7+ RXf7 26.BXf7 QXf7 27. Qd8+ Qf8 28.QXf8+ NXf8 29. RXc6 bc 30. Re8 Resigns

4...Bb4 was given in that time's edition of "Modern Chess Openings" as, incredibly, equal after 8..d5 Black loses a lot of tempi. (9...NXd5 loses a piece after 10 BXc6 and 11 Qa4) After 19...Qe5 Mengarini left for the restroom. I waited until he was sitting down again before playing 20. Ne6, and his shocked expression is something I do remember! He should have played 24...Qf6, when he doesn't have to play 25...RXf7.

You know, I read your bio some time ago, and thats just fantastic you played Tal! That has to be one of those bucket list type of things. I was crushed by GM Ron Henley in a simul, which I thought was pretty cool since he was Karpov's 2nd and I tried to play a Gruenfeld????

Thumbs up, Morf

Not to worry-many native English speakers appear to struggle with that one.>