Originally posted by no1marauderSo the number of games a person has played or the subscription status determines whether a person is right? Is that what you are saying?
You're an idiot, in progress. Since I didn't answer his question my answer was "okay". Maybe you should play more than 47 games before you start giving advice (erroneous at that) at what is and isn't allowed at RHP. And buy a star; you still won't own RHP like you seem to think you do now, but it'll gain you a tiny bit of street cred.
Or are you just trying to make a personal attack on me? (Of course, this is the right answer, isn't it?)
I think dpressnell is worried if the discussion continues on a game in progress somebody will slip and give help to one of the players and it wouldn't be fair to the other player. It's really hard to determine whether something is helpful or not, as in this case whether to send somebody to a website or database for information is a violation of discussion of ongoing games. If Mateulose wrote, for example, "Why do I always lose when people put their queen's on the edge of the board?" and you said, "because you don't develop nomally," that would pass on general terms, but if he yells about a game going on where the person put his queen...etc, that would not. In a convoluted way I'm saying just don't answer any question that refers to a specific live game in question, then you avoid all controversy. Cause you know how it is in forums, people get carried away and just bang on the keys. One person may be circumspect, like Marauder, another might just drop a piece of advice that could be useful. Who knows what will pop up?
Originally posted by buddy2When I saw mat's first post, I looked at the game, and almost reflexively offered my opinion of the first move, but caught myself before I did, remembering that it's a game in progress. ("Wait a minute, what am I doing hitting reply, this game is not over!"😉
I think dpressnell is worried if the discussion continues on a game in progress somebody will slip and give help to one of the players and it wouldn't be fair to the other player. It's really hard to determine whether something is helpful or not, as in this case whether to send somebody to a website or database for information is a violation of discussion ...[text shortened]... er, another might just drop a piece of advice that could be useful. Who knows what will pop up?
Discussion of ongoing games is very easy to get into just because the link to the game is posted in the forum and discussion is invited. Play the game to its end, and then discuss it. Not before.
Originally posted by dpressnell(b) You will not use chess software, chess computers or consult any third party to assist you in any game (unless expressly agreed prior to any game). Chess books and databases can be consulted during play.
When I saw mat's first post, I looked at the game, and almost reflexively offered my opinion of the first move, but caught myself before I did, remembering that it's a game in progress. ("Wait a minute, what am I doing hitting reply, this game is not over!"😉
Discussion of ongoing games is very easy to get into just because the link to the game is ...[text shortened]... orum and discussion is invited. Play the game to its end, and then discuss it. Not before.
After reading this I don't think your post would have been in violation. I also don't think posting a link to a database, etc., is in violation of the rule as writtten. I think obligation 3b from the TOS prevents the using of information, which is very different from the creation of information. It may be unethical to make the information easily accessible on a general forum. But that is a different thing and VERY open to interpretation.
It's also interesting that the first statement excludes chess software but then includes databases. Now I remember why I never studied law.
Obligation 3c, now there is an interesting one...
Originally posted by dpressnellActually I'm saying: A) You're wrong; I gave no advice on a game in progress and B) You're a twit. A and B are interrelated in this case; you are giving an incorrect assessment about the 3rd person assistance rule of the TOS and as you are an inexperienced player at RHP it is unsurprising you don't understand the rule. And if you're going to act like you run the site, with your repeated CAPITAL LETTER POSTS about a subject you're wrong about, you could at least have the common decency to fork over the $30 bucks a year that the other know-it-alls like me have!
So the number of games a person has played or the subscription status determines whether a person is right? Is that what you are saying?
Or are you just trying to make a personal attack on me? (Of course, this is the right answer, isn't it?)
And Buddy2: I have no intention of suggesting moves in an ongoing games as am sure you're aware by reading my posts in this Forum. Actually, Mateulose was bragging about inventing an opening and I merely pointed out it was an established opening, gave its name and a site discussing it. Nothing more.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo I was right. It's a personal attack.
Actually I'm saying: A) You're wrong; I gave no advice on a game in progress and B) You're a twit. A and B are interrelated in this case; you are giving an incorrect assessment about the 3rd person assistance rule of the TOS an ...[text shortened]... hed opening, gave its name and a site discussing it. Nothing more.
But just to see if there is some merit to your claim that you are more experienced at this site than me, I checked the day you joined, and I checked the day I joined.
Bah, well the game is over, I didn't care less really. Stupid tactical engine, weakens it's own kingside, opens up the queenside, and extends it's central pawns when still uncastled and it still wins. Obviously doesn't care shiatz for positional play, all tactics, all Fritz, TYPICAL, f*** U meman!
Originally posted by mateuloseWhen you make these cheating allegations, do you actually use Fritz to see if Fritz agrees with the moves?
Bah, well the game is over, I didn't care less really. Stupid tactical engine, weakens it's own kingside, opens up the queenside, and extends it's central pawns when still uncastled and it still wins. Obviously doesn't care shiatz for positional play, all tactics, all Fritz, TYPICAL, f*** U meman!
Originally posted by mateuloseDo you ever have an idea what you are talking about? If you put your pieces on such ridiculous squares (Be3) and allow your opponent to expand in the centre with tempo, they'll drop off. Black's play seems quite logical and positionally well-founded.
Bah, well the game is over, I didn't care less really. Stupid tactical engine, weakens it's own kingside, opens up the queenside, and extends it's central pawns when still uncastled and it still wins. Obviously doesn't care shiatz for positional play, all tactics, all Fritz, TYPICAL, f*** U meman!
Originally posted by OsseWhen one player develops his pieces forward, and the other player develops his backwards and sideways, it's not hard to predict what will happen.
Do you ever have an idea what you are talking about? If you put your pieces on such ridiculous squares (Be3) and allow your opponent to expand in the centre with tempo, they'll drop off. Black's play seems quite logical and positionally well-founded.
Also, what's this stuff about "open up the queenside"? Lot's of openings do that.
Then there's "weakens the kingside." It doesn't look weak to me.
Then, "extends it's central pawns when still uncastled." If that's bad, then just about every common opening is busted!
Originally posted by mateuloseOriginally posted by Ragnorak
Bah, well the game is over, I didn't care less really. Stupid tactical engine, weakens it's own kingside, opens up the queenside, and extends it's central pawns when still uncastled and it still wins. Obviously doesn't care shiatz for positional play, all tactics, all Fritz, TYPICAL, f*** U meman!
Tell you what. Next time you're up against a 2000+ rated played on here, try out one of your openings and let us know how u get on. Personally, I'd be surprised if the game lasted more than 20 moves.
I stand by this, and would expect the same to happen against any 2000+ player that you tried your cooked up opening on.
D
Originally posted by no1marauderi just went searching with google ... and found nothing.
Who the hell do you think you are????? How dare you distort my post to say I support discussion of in progress games! I said referring people to a database is perfectly allowable on RHP which it is and is done in these forums all the time. I expect an immediate apology.
so i went for a walk down the street ... and i found it!
i found dpressnell's better judgement ... and an apology was given 🙂
originally #@&*'d up by mat:
Game 879929
what the hell were you thinking ????????
i know you you play as badly as me ... but ...
5 Qc1?? ok a simple tactical blunder ... i can live with that
but later ... you disgrace me ... as usual you eat the damn pawn with 8 dc5 ... every 1600 player knows (2000 players won't understand this, probably mate in 8 or something trivial like that) you should leave it up in the air, and continue to hold the centre ... were you just scared of opening your rook file onto meman's king?
dammit man ... you, a carokann player should enjoy ... 8 e3 Nh5 9 Bg3 Nxg3 10hxg3 ... its going to be lots of fun!