Current bannings

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"...too many writers in the RHP forums seem incapable
of engaging in civil discussions of even moderate intelligence."


how is that not mud slinging behind people's backs?

not much different than the 'info' you got about no1 in similar fashion.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The only one lacking civility in this thread is you.
Anyway i must apologize to the rest of the forum for unleashing the wraith of Duchess64.A woman scorn and all that.....

As for the witch hunt type argument "Several players have (independently) told me that..." Very Childish..Very Very Childish.....thats me signing out of this thread forever :-).

The post that was quoted here has been removed

If the Chess Forum isn't the place for off-topic personal attacks, perhaps you shouldn't have engaged in and persist in engaging in them here. I was evaluating the position you were claiming was a "probable draw"; you should have confined your remarks to discussion of the position rather than talking about my "reputation". What a bunch of backbiters who apparently don't have the ballsz to post in the forums have to say is beneath my contempt.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

if you ask intelligent questions, the possibility of getting intelligent discussion is greatly increased. as for civility, such a thing has no value when it's used to evade truth. blunt and brutal honesty counts in my book far more than the most eloquent evasive maneuver. no1 will tell you like he sees it, regardless of whether it rubs you up the wrong way or not. that's a rare quality, and often mistaken for 'unfavourable reputation' by people who see disagreement as a personal insult.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

you're as much a woman as I am. and even if you were, what the hell does that have to do with anything?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

your hypocrisy is hilarious.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

How come you have been here barely 5 minutes, have less than 40 games under your belt and a mere 23 posts yet you have been blessed by several people telling you independently that no1 is a bad bugger?

How come I was never told this when I first started posting?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Perhaps these anonymous "experts" would do better to actually post their analysis of positions that arise in discussions in the Chess Forum rather than denigrating players in PMs. That way we could all benefit from their vast chess knowledge.

Originally posted by Xenpak
The only one lacking civility in this thread is you.
Anyway i must apologize to the rest of the forum for unleashing the wraith of Duchess64.A woman scorn and all that.....

As for the witch hunt type argument "Several players have (independently) told me that..." Very Childish..Very Very Childish.....thats me signing out of this thread forever :-).

How does duchess64's gender have anything to do with this discussion? Can't you make an argument without resorting to what is basically name calling and gender bias?

Anyway, the point of her argument, that it seems unfair that games against cheating opponents are not counted when the person not cheating has a drawn or winning position, seems at least reasonable enough to be open for intelligent discussion.

I can see why the games aren't counted (for one, it makes things easier for admins by cutting out extra work), but I can also see why it would make sense to give credit to an individual who is able to draw or win despite the use of a chess engine by their opponent.