2500! Not such an exaggeration. And how computer chess helps

[hgm]

And your remark about WinBoard seems completely irrelevant. In the first place it is easily the best GUI, and in the second place, I would take zero offense to someone asking that, and just explain him politely why his ideas are misguided. (E.g. because there is no profit in marketing open-source software.)

This must be the funniest claim I've read all week! Winboard is the best GUI now? Really? This seems like a claim coming from one of Lyudmil's books!

Really, make a poll and ask people if they use Winboard as their main chess GUI. Then ask why the huge majority would rather pay money for something that actually works, rather than dealing with Winboard's terrible design desicions. And check this out to know why developers are blind to such problems.

Well, so you criticise WinBoard, although it looks nothing like the UI in the link you show.

So would you expect me, in response to this, to call you a 'typical TalChess dipshit', and add "Stick to cheating on-line, you moron"! Because that is what would have happened if I were Brendan and you dared to vent such 'veiled insults' as to my talents as a designer.

I know you as a reasonable guy, and I am very disappointed that you feel the need to defend such behavior. This very thread was started for no other reason than to attack Jose for percieved 'insults' that have already been deleted, and starts with an ad-hominem rant. You think that is normal behavior? If, after you separate fighting children, the one who threw the first punch comes back to rekindle the fight, would you applaud that?

[Ovyron]

Okay, thanks, so I was remembering the convestation backwards.

My point is that velmarin was accusing Brendan of claiming to be a GM, and Brendan never did this. This was defamatory.

If you also forgot what Brendan replied to this it is too bad, because it is not fit for repeating...

I doubt it's worse than you calling Brendan an asshole 5 times in a row, but your posts weren't moved to another subforum, for better or for worse.

And I'm still waiting for someone to defend your case. In the other thread you told Brendan that he was deep in the 'red zone' since nobody else was supporting his actions, and I appeared. I issued the same challenge for you, and that you should step down as a moderator if nobody comes to support you, and I'm still waiting. How deep in the 'red zone' can you go H.G.Muller?

[Ovyron]

I know you as a reasonable guy, and I am very disappointed that you feel the need to defend such behavior. This very thread was started for no other reason than to attack Jose for percieved 'insults' that have already been deleted, and starts with an ad-hominem rant. You think that is normal behavior? If, after you separate fighting children, the one who threw the first punch comes back to rekindle the fight, would you applaud that?

I've been defending such posts by people since my I was Rybka Forum moderator for several years, and yes, I support freedom of speech, and will applaud anyone that isn't afraid to state their opinions.

The charter shouldn't support any kind of censorship, and creating a special subforum for stuff like this where things get moved to, but that people can access to read them instead of deletion worked greatly for this. For people that don't want to see that they're effectively deleted, but for others they can access the conversations that shouldn't be readable only by the forum moderators.

Now, Guenther Simon has been harrassing me constantly since December, and I thought about quitting Talkchess but remained around to avoid making him happy that I quit. It's a nuisance, but I'll defend his rights to harrasing me, because I'd rather hear constantly that I'm a troll that is making people quit Talkchess than have more censorship or freedom of speech limited.

[hgm]

My point is that velmarin was accusing Brendan of claiming to be a GM, and Brendan never did this. This was defamatory.

No. It was wrong, and easily refutable, and therefore not looking very smart. But not defamatory. And that he did this only after a rant by Brendan full of insults directed at him makes a big difference. When two people are fighting, the law attaches a huge significance to who throws the first punch. The other guy is just acting in self-defense. Nevertheless, the posting was deleted by me, so I don't see your point, and your accusation of selective quoting has no basis.

If you also forgot what Brendan replied to this it is too bad, because it is not fit for repeating...

I doubt it's worse than you calling Brendan an asshole 5 times in a row, but your posts weren't moved to another subforum, for better or for worse.

Believe me, it was worse. And even if it would not have been, that would be completely irrelevant. For one it happened only afterwards, and was thus in part a consequence of his misbehavior, rather than an excuse for engaging in it. And if someone insults Brendan, that does not give him any right to insult someone else. BTW, I only judged him to behave like an asshole once. The other mentions were just because he requested clarification, so I just explained him what being called an asshole means in general terms. I don't see why it would be worse to be called the same thing five times in a row anyway. The other 4 times are redundant information, that do not alter the original claim a bit.

And I'm still waiting for someone to defend your case. In the other thread you told Brendan that he was deep in the 'red zone' since nobody else was supporting his actions,

Wrong! I told Brendan he was deep in the red zone for violating the charter, through personal attacks against fellow members and a smear campaign against the moderators. So banning would be logical and deserved. I just gave others an opportunity to point out mitigating circumstances that I overlooked.

and I appeared. I issued the same challenge for you, and that you should step down as a moderator if nobody comes to support you, and I'm still waiting. How deep in the 'red zone' can you go H.G.Muller?

There seems to be a major point you are missing. For one, I am not in any red zone at all; I am just doing my job as a moderator in accordance with my mandate. Which is deleting posts that are reported and violate the charter, and warning repeat offenders that they face a ben if they do not mend their evil ways.

[Ras]

Because sane people don't want to get pulled into this trash.

I have no doubt that the majority of forum users would wish some action were taken that put an end to this soap opera.

Word.

[hgm]

I've been defending such posts by people since my I was Rybka Forum moderator for several years, and yes, I support freedom of speech, and will applaud anyone that isn't afraid to state their opinions.

Ah. But when Jose mentions that a certain person has a certain Elo rating, it is not free speech, but 'defamation'?

The charter shouldn't support any kind of censorship, and creating a special subforum for stuff like this where things get moved to, but that people can access to read them instead of deletion worked greatly for this. For people that don't want to see that they're effectively deleted, but for others they can access the conversations that shouldn't be readable only by the forum moderators.

Completely beside the point. If you don't like the charter here, you can start a campaign for amending it, and if you raise enough support, it can be put up for a vote. If you cannot rally any support for your ideas, you bow to the wish of the majority, or you go to another forum with rules that suite you better. But you cannot arbitrarily violate the charter just because you don't like it, that is not how justice works. Transgressing a law doesn't make you less of a criminal just because you think the law should have been different. You side with offenders, and that puts us on opposite sides of the fence. Blaming the moderators for the fact that you don't like the charter is barking up the wrong tree...

Now, Guenther Simon has been harrassing me constantly since December, and I thought about quitting Talkchess but remained around to avoid making him happy that I quit. It's a nuisance, but I'll defend his rights to harrasing me, because I'd rather hear constantly that I'm a troll that is making people quit Talkchess than have more censorship or freedom of speech limited.

Well, like it or not, Guenther does not have that right, although I can fully understand why he is tempted to behave this way. 'Troll' is not an insult per se, and trolling is not expressly forbidden by the charter. It can be a useful technique to stimulate discussion. I don't think that forum members would have to put up with harrassment, however. We have become awfully quick in labelling someone whose opinion is not convenient to us a 'troll'. Perhaps we should rethink that.

But if no one reports it, it will not be acted against. Like in real life, someone has to press charges for law enforcement to be activated.

[BrendanJNorman]

I've been defending such posts by people since my I was Rybka Forum moderator for several years, and yes, I support freedom of speech, and will applaud anyone that isn't afraid to state their opinions.

Ah. But when Jose mentions that a certain person has a certain Elo rating, it is not free speech, but 'defamation'?

The charter shouldn't support any kind of censorship, and creating a special subforum for stuff like this where things get moved to, but that people can access to read them instead of deletion worked greatly for this. For people that don't want to see that they're effectively deleted, but for others they can access the conversations that shouldn't be readable only by the forum moderators.

Completely beside the point. If you don't like the charter here, you can start a campaign for amending it, and if you raise enough support, it can be put up for a vote. If you cannot rally any support for your ideas, you bow to the wish of the majority, or you go to another forum with rules that suite you better. But you cannot arbitrarily violate the charter just because you don't like it, that is not how justice works. Transgressing a law doesn't make you less of a criminal just because you think the law should have been different. You side with offenders, and that puts us on opposite sides of the fence. Blaming the moderators for the fact that you don't like the charter is barking up the wrong tree...

Now, Guenther Simon has been harrassing me constantly since December, and I thought about quitting Talkchess but remained around to avoid making him happy that I quit. It's a nuisance, but I'll defend his rights to harrasing me, because I'd rather hear constantly that I'm a troll that is making people quit Talkchess than have more censorship or freedom of speech limited.

Well, like it or not, Guenther does not have that right, although I can fully understand why he is tempted to behave this way. 'Troll' is not an insult per se, and trolling is not expressly forbidden by the charter. It can be a useful technique to stimulate discussion. I don't think that forum members would have to put up with harrassment, however. We have become awfully quick in labelling someone whose opinion is not convenient to us a 'troll'. Perhaps we should rethink that.

But if no one reports it, it will not be acted against. Like in real life, someone has to press charges for law enforcement to be activated.

ROFL...

You still here 6 hours later?

This stuff must be real important to you.

Shame on me for being a thorn in your side.

[velmarin]

My point is that velmarin was accusing Brendan of claiming to be a GM, and Brendan never did this. This was defamatory.

Well basically a FIDE score of 2500 is basically a GM. it may be a mistake on my part, but slander is something else.
Just a character like you're spinning the tortilla to pick a fight.
I suppose you enjoy attacking HGM, which seems to be what you're looking for.
I remind you that you have called me troll and other things I prefer not to remember even though I have never named him, because the trash is better to take it out of the house in time, so that they do not smell bad.

[BrendanJNorman]

My point is that velmarin was accusing Brendan of claiming to be a GM, and Brendan never did this. This was defamatory.

Well basically a FIDE score of 2500 is basically a GM. it may be a mistake on my part, but slander is something else.
Just a character like you're spinning the tortilla to pick a fight.
I suppose you enjoy attacking HGM, which seems to be what you're looking for.
I remind you that you have called me troll and other things I prefer not to remember even though I have never named him, because the trash is better to take it out of the house in time, so that they do not smell bad.

Don't worry about it man, it's finished.

Even I think this is getting ridiculous now.

You said some stuff, I took offense, we had a fight...

No big deal now bro...forget it.

As you say, leave the rubbish outside.

I started this thread just to show "look Jose, I wasn't B.Sing when I said I'm aiming for 2500 (not FIDE!)" and also I wanted to share that it was working with engines that helped me to improve to my current level.

HGM came in to show me "whose boss", but other than him carefully nursing his grudge, everything is okay in here.

*"Yo Uly! Appreciate the assist, bro!" *

[Greg Strong]

And I'm still waiting for someone to defend your case. In the other thread you told Brendan that he was deep in the 'red zone' since nobody else was supporting his actions, and I appeared. I issued the same challenge for you, and that you should step down as a moderator if nobody comes to support you, and I'm still waiting. How deep in the 'red zone' can you go H.G.Muller?

I support H. G. as moderator 100%. On occasion - rare occasion - he goes a little farther with his comments than I would personally go, but I can't reasonably expect everyone to make exactly the same decisions I would. Overall, he does an excellent job under very difficult circumstances - circumstances that should not be difficult in the first place but for the fact that we have a few members who either have no idea what constitutes acceptable behavior in polite society or are unable to control themselves.