@testaccount42 you mentioned me as the 2150 guy, and that triggered me a bit , so i ve fixed that :)
@Richardd Nice. I learned a lot more than usual from our game btw. Now I'm motivated to get higher up so I can play better competition regularly.
Good to hear. You can challenge me anytime :)
@MeWantCookieMobile
If you ever figure out how to get somone stubborn to sincerely admit they're wrong you should publish a book on it. You would make millions.
If you ever figure out how to get somone stubborn to sincerely admit they're wrong you should publish a book on it. You would make millions.
@sparowe14 #70
I assume that we're talking about this comment...
"Thinking about it more, this opening just looks like its for people who are afraid of 1. c5 and who are too much of cowards to deal with it. I don't respect anyone who plays this seriously." - testaccount42 #3
...where everything that was said in response to #3 is 'fruit of the tree'.
We may look at everyone in this thread and check them for inappropriate REaction...but NOT BEFORE we check OP #3 for "inappropriate ACTION".
-
@everyone There has been a lot of good faith effort into trying to educate OP and anyone that shares the same oversight. Obviously OP has, is, and will continue to deny facts, because every time he says, "I don't agree with that set of facts," there is a new flood if comments of sheer disbelief that someone could deny that '2+2=4'.
-
This is the actual definition of trolling, and it was invented before YouTube existed:
The idea is to state falsehood with the purpose of eliciting reactions from the person(s) listening, where when they object with your obviously incorrect statements, you pretend to "set the hook" and "reel them in".
You continue this practice until your victim gives up trying to talk sense to you.
You find glee in being able to control people.
-
I watched this in live action once, where my buddy was trolling someone in a conversation/argument.
At first, my buddy appeared to be seriously engaged.
But then, at a certain point, he just started making the most ludicrous counter-claims.
It didn't don on his victim that he was bored with the conversation and might be telling lies for kicks.
As my buddy calmly explained the equivalent of: "2+2 doesn't equal 4, 2+2 equals 5, and people that don't understand this are wrong and need to catch up," he made physical motions like he was casting bait into the ocean and slowly reeling in the line.
The second that his victim got all huffy-puffy and vested in the conversation, with exclamations of, "WHAT!?!? How can you POSSIBLY think that's true?!" my buddy made the motion like he was setting a hook and fighting a fish.
While his red-faced victim was adamantly stating the facts (at 21300 words a minute), my buddy, with a big smile on his face, acted out like he was ferociously reeling and fighting a fish.
In the middle of his victim's blast, he looked over to me with a big smile and exclaimed "I got a BIG one on!" as he continued to pretend like he was fighting a tuna.
His victim, so enthralled with the idea that someone would disagree with the facts, didn't-even-notice.
This continued for about 3-4 minutes, and it's one of the few times that I've laughed so hard that tears were flooding from my eyes, as I took knee, and was begging for it to stop. My stomach took half an hour to stop aching.
Every time his victim would protest, it sent me back to the floor in a new wave of laughter.
Finally, 'the fish' caught on, said, "Ha ha, yeah I get what you guys are doing," and walked away.
This is what trolling is.
-
I pasted a screenshot that proves that the exact opposite of everything that OP says he believes, is true. #33
Jonesmh followed up with a haymaker of him losing to the Smith. #35
Autumndust cleaned up what was left on the floor. #50
And a dozen others, in between and after, made the case plain as well.
OP's response was, "Nuh uh," and then continued to robotically restate his premise.
Obviously, OP is not listening to anyone at all.
Obviously, OP is simply waiting for his turn to speak again.
Obviously, OP knows what we're saying, acknowledges the validity of what we're saying, and is pretending to disagree with it in order to elicit another 10-20-30 pages of dialogue.
-
With that said, there have been about a dozen different people investing their time and energy in attempting to correct the OP, and a whole pile of very good and informative points have been made in the process.
A newcomer to the sport would be much better off having read this post, than not.
Overall, I'd say that this thread is a "win" for the Lichess forums.
I assume that we're talking about this comment...
"Thinking about it more, this opening just looks like its for people who are afraid of 1. c5 and who are too much of cowards to deal with it. I don't respect anyone who plays this seriously." - testaccount42 #3
...where everything that was said in response to #3 is 'fruit of the tree'.
We may look at everyone in this thread and check them for inappropriate REaction...but NOT BEFORE we check OP #3 for "inappropriate ACTION".
-
@everyone There has been a lot of good faith effort into trying to educate OP and anyone that shares the same oversight. Obviously OP has, is, and will continue to deny facts, because every time he says, "I don't agree with that set of facts," there is a new flood if comments of sheer disbelief that someone could deny that '2+2=4'.
-
This is the actual definition of trolling, and it was invented before YouTube existed:
The idea is to state falsehood with the purpose of eliciting reactions from the person(s) listening, where when they object with your obviously incorrect statements, you pretend to "set the hook" and "reel them in".
You continue this practice until your victim gives up trying to talk sense to you.
You find glee in being able to control people.
-
I watched this in live action once, where my buddy was trolling someone in a conversation/argument.
At first, my buddy appeared to be seriously engaged.
But then, at a certain point, he just started making the most ludicrous counter-claims.
It didn't don on his victim that he was bored with the conversation and might be telling lies for kicks.
As my buddy calmly explained the equivalent of: "2+2 doesn't equal 4, 2+2 equals 5, and people that don't understand this are wrong and need to catch up," he made physical motions like he was casting bait into the ocean and slowly reeling in the line.
The second that his victim got all huffy-puffy and vested in the conversation, with exclamations of, "WHAT!?!? How can you POSSIBLY think that's true?!" my buddy made the motion like he was setting a hook and fighting a fish.
While his red-faced victim was adamantly stating the facts (at 21300 words a minute), my buddy, with a big smile on his face, acted out like he was ferociously reeling and fighting a fish.
In the middle of his victim's blast, he looked over to me with a big smile and exclaimed "I got a BIG one on!" as he continued to pretend like he was fighting a tuna.
His victim, so enthralled with the idea that someone would disagree with the facts, didn't-even-notice.
This continued for about 3-4 minutes, and it's one of the few times that I've laughed so hard that tears were flooding from my eyes, as I took knee, and was begging for it to stop. My stomach took half an hour to stop aching.
Every time his victim would protest, it sent me back to the floor in a new wave of laughter.
Finally, 'the fish' caught on, said, "Ha ha, yeah I get what you guys are doing," and walked away.
This is what trolling is.
-
I pasted a screenshot that proves that the exact opposite of everything that OP says he believes, is true. #33
Jonesmh followed up with a haymaker of him losing to the Smith. #35
Autumndust cleaned up what was left on the floor. #50
And a dozen others, in between and after, made the case plain as well.
OP's response was, "Nuh uh," and then continued to robotically restate his premise.
Obviously, OP is not listening to anyone at all.
Obviously, OP is simply waiting for his turn to speak again.
Obviously, OP knows what we're saying, acknowledges the validity of what we're saying, and is pretending to disagree with it in order to elicit another 10-20-30 pages of dialogue.
-
With that said, there have been about a dozen different people investing their time and energy in attempting to correct the OP, and a whole pile of very good and informative points have been made in the process.
A newcomer to the sport would be much better off having read this post, than not.
Overall, I'd say that this thread is a "win" for the Lichess forums.
@Onyx_Chess Yes, I thought that was the original silly statement that started hostilities, plus 'going to sleep' 'two seconds a move' 'lazy' and other absurd frill. I expressed my objections, obliquely, in my first response, "I am one of those cowards who play the Morra" To be fair, the original tag line was a question, "Why do people play this terrible gambit?" and I think it has been answered by we gambitphiles.
To be fair on the underlying value of the "terrible gambit" I cited Bent Larsen, who carries more weight than Marc Esserman, even from the grave. It must certainly be more competitive to learn all those Sicilian lines than to give away a pawn, but the Morra is "playable" without a doubt, and very playable at my level.
Despite the criticism of the original "action," I think the "RE-action" got out of hand. Maybe I'm just not accustomed to the rabid nature of polemics on chess -- which have been current a long time, think of Nimzovich saying of Tarrasch that ridicule could do much to embitter minds -- and I don't think reaction can be excused by the faults of the OP.
Your empirical test is the right one: play it, see if it works, then talk about it. I just might not say it with so much venom.
To be fair on the underlying value of the "terrible gambit" I cited Bent Larsen, who carries more weight than Marc Esserman, even from the grave. It must certainly be more competitive to learn all those Sicilian lines than to give away a pawn, but the Morra is "playable" without a doubt, and very playable at my level.
Despite the criticism of the original "action," I think the "RE-action" got out of hand. Maybe I'm just not accustomed to the rabid nature of polemics on chess -- which have been current a long time, think of Nimzovich saying of Tarrasch that ridicule could do much to embitter minds -- and I don't think reaction can be excused by the faults of the OP.
Your empirical test is the right one: play it, see if it works, then talk about it. I just might not say it with so much venom.
@sparowe14
"No action? No reaction!" is a fact that speaks directly to cause and consequence. It is not an excuse.
Further, could you cite me all of this "venom"?
Further, have you factored into the equation that this is not a good-faith conversation between two chess fans, but rather an exercise in manipulation by the OP?
Let's not act like this is a newcomer to the sport who was just looking for some pointers.
From the title to the content we see intent of contention, and a dedication to 'contention itself' being the whole and sole purpose.
It's a happy accident that a dozen people have taken time and energy to flood this forum with information that is indirectly of benefit chess players.
"No action? No reaction!" is a fact that speaks directly to cause and consequence. It is not an excuse.
Further, could you cite me all of this "venom"?
Further, have you factored into the equation that this is not a good-faith conversation between two chess fans, but rather an exercise in manipulation by the OP?
Let's not act like this is a newcomer to the sport who was just looking for some pointers.
From the title to the content we see intent of contention, and a dedication to 'contention itself' being the whole and sole purpose.
It's a happy accident that a dozen people have taken time and energy to flood this forum with information that is indirectly of benefit chess players.
@Onyx_Chess
Cite you the venom? If you need someone to point it out for you than I'm afraid there is a possibility you may be suffering from incurable narcicism.
Cite you the venom? If you need someone to point it out for you than I'm afraid there is a possibility you may be suffering from incurable narcicism.
@Onyx_Chess I also thought you expressed the venom quite distinctly, while asking that it be cited. I looked at #1 and #3 again. It is paranoia to see those as an "exercise in manipulation." What? How? Who is being manipulated? In what way? It may be narrow-minded and superficial, but you attributed bad motives and went into attack mode. I think it was indeed a "good faith conversation."
Wonder how long we can keep spewing about it? Have you been wounded in some way by the "action" that it is necessary to "react" in order to preserve your self-respect?
Wonder how long we can keep spewing about it? Have you been wounded in some way by the "action" that it is necessary to "react" in order to preserve your self-respect?
@sparowe14
I'm finding way too many double standards that prove an intent and motivation to indict the speaker and not what's being said.
If you can't discern where dozens of people have pointed out that "2+2=4", and how the OP has just moved past, deflected, and 'strawmanned' everything that anyone in this thread with any sense has said, then I don't know what to tell you aside to now suspect you of trolling as well.
Just like when we overlook the venom of the OP to ANNOUNCE the "venom" of people who point it out, without being able to copy-paste a single example.
You tried, found nothing venomous, much less acutely so, and are now reiterating the presence of this mysterious "venom" without content, much less context.
Echo-chambers are not an acceptable substitute for reality.
Again, launching attacks and imputing character, and then indicting what people say in defense of themselves in response, is the action of a dishonest actor. Yes, I have to assume that you, too, are acting in the same vein as OP.
And let's be crystal clear, in the face of a chapter of unadulterated chess-talk, not a single point of contention with what was being said. Nothing but raw ad hominem.
-
Still, given the massive amount of information surrounding openings and the process of evaluation, this thread is still worthwhile.
It would be nice if detracting elements could stop polluting it with logical fallacy so that the productive comments can be easier found by the good-faith actors that happen upon it.
I'm finding way too many double standards that prove an intent and motivation to indict the speaker and not what's being said.
If you can't discern where dozens of people have pointed out that "2+2=4", and how the OP has just moved past, deflected, and 'strawmanned' everything that anyone in this thread with any sense has said, then I don't know what to tell you aside to now suspect you of trolling as well.
Just like when we overlook the venom of the OP to ANNOUNCE the "venom" of people who point it out, without being able to copy-paste a single example.
You tried, found nothing venomous, much less acutely so, and are now reiterating the presence of this mysterious "venom" without content, much less context.
Echo-chambers are not an acceptable substitute for reality.
Again, launching attacks and imputing character, and then indicting what people say in defense of themselves in response, is the action of a dishonest actor. Yes, I have to assume that you, too, are acting in the same vein as OP.
And let's be crystal clear, in the face of a chapter of unadulterated chess-talk, not a single point of contention with what was being said. Nothing but raw ad hominem.
-
Still, given the massive amount of information surrounding openings and the process of evaluation, this thread is still worthwhile.
It would be nice if detracting elements could stop polluting it with logical fallacy so that the productive comments can be easier found by the good-faith actors that happen upon it.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.