Craig, 

Where did you get that quote? ("Why did you sacrifice that piece?...")  It sounds like something Tal might have said, and I love it!

Eloquent post above by Inn2! I couldn't agree more.

hello, 

(none of my business, but i find clicking on what seems like interesting topics only to find pointless spats a waste of time  ):

anyway just to say (not directed at anyone in particular), strong opinions are okay (see e.g. Markovich, Topnotch etc.), better than no opinion at all like the graveyard this forum is becoming lately... but there's no need to go personal, or even respond to personal jabs in like manner. I don't completely agree with the Kant statement, because i think (at least for the purposes of a fundamentally friendly recreational internet forum like this one) that if somebody treats you in what you think is an unsatisfactory manner, you give him abit of forebearnce first, and only if he continues, then you retaliate. This is because i think most of the time, the retaliation is usually far worse than the initial 'insult', and an argument develops. If there was abit more tolerance at first (even among the "victims"), many arguments would not have developed into animosity, and we don't risk alienating the strong players who frequent this board. its a  somewhat strange argument to make i know, which really only works on the assumption that  the posters here are generally nice people, and know when to back off. From my experience here, you can count on that

Uberdecker wrote on 05/08/06 at 11:40:35:


Now Now Hubert, arent we getting waaay too personal in our arguments here?? Linking a certain person's behaviour/reaction which you find displeasing to their supposed 'loss of face' is rather speculative isnt it?? 

I'm pretty sure that these guys are big enough to handle any chessic 'loss of face' . To claim that they reacted in a way that is aggravating or vexatious to you due to a certain 'face loss' in a French or KG etc would just give the impression to newcomers here that they are a petty, immature & insecure lot which really isnt the case.   

From what ive been following so far, the issue that these guys hv with you is more your tone, choice of words and seemingly easy dismissal of lines or positions which arent to your liking. (it does seem that you adhere strictly to pure positional objectivity more than anything else) Speaking of which I've taken issue with how easily you dismiss the 6...e5 move in the najdorf as being  compromising for black. If you dislike black's position because you are uncomfortable/ dont like the backward d6 pawn or the gaping hole on d5 is one thing & that's fine by me, but to say that it is compromising is quite another thing & that i feel is way too strong a statement to use.  Ive yet to see a GM or IM take issue with its supposed 'weakness' or claim something the way you have. There is a "Najdorf 6...e5 or 6...e6" thread in the Open Sicilian section, you may post or back up your arguments there if you so wish or take issue with my writing. 
 
p/s i'm not sure if the phrase/slang 'lose face' is internationally known or something used only in S'pore & Malaysia. Anyway it is related to experiencing great embarresment or loss of pride. (not exactly 100%, but you get the idea)

"I really don't see why you feel the need to be so confrontational and jeering."

Yeah, you are right. Everybody at this forum is complaining, whining, confrontational, jeering. Castlerock is, Frendo is, TalJechin is, SevenViolets is, AKheiN is, Dragonslayer is, CraigEvans is, I am. Only you are not. 


"Strpzr or another advocate of hope-chess"

Of course it is completely unjustified to call this teasing, haunting or whatever. Of course calling you a member of the Anti-Gambit School is.

Have a nice day. 

"It all boils down to Emmanuel Kant's famous rule: treat other people like you want to be treated yourself."

I guess Kant must have been inspired by another guy, see Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 for detailed variations...

Btw, keep moving those f-pawns MNb!! (I guess 1. d4 f5 2. f4 d5 would be on the cards if we took the advise of Kant & co seriously...)

Dear Uberdeker,

it seems appropriate to take up my responsibilities as god member once again.
First of all I want to stress, how much I appreciate your analytical contributions. Thanks to you I have learned more about the KG-Fischer Defence in the last two weeks than in two years before. Your 2.a4 against the French is undoubtedly highly spirited. Keep up the good work.
Still there is something you should give a serious thought.
There are some very friendly posters on this forum. Eg Woofwoof, Inn2, Michael Ayton, Castlerock and Bonsai never are rude or impolite and never mock other people. At the other hand they can accept a good joke. You must have consideration with them and avoid being insulting.
Before you refer to the pot and the kettle, I must give in, that I have a nasty character. I have had many quarrels here, that is how I got 2000+ posts. Would Markovich still recall? It is in a thread on the Bc5 Ruy Lopez. Gambit (Lev D Zilbermints) once intended to sue me. For my attitude I have been reproached by Alumbrado and Smyslov_Fan (would théy remember?). The cause is, that I like to treat posters the same way they treat others.
My advice to you is to obey two rules.
1. Know when to stop. Haunting Strptzr was fun. From his own posts I conclude, that he can take it. But you should, like me, have noticed, that he has retired for a while now. We must respect that and leave him for a while. Therefor your last reference, especially the hope chess part, was superfluous and needless, even if you are right.
2. If you like to tease and mock, expect to become a victim yourself. Precisely that happened in the Best Anti-French thread. Sure TalJechin was confrontational etcetera. He was, because you are yourself. Take it like a man and don't complain.

It all boils down to Emmanuel Kant's famous rule: treat other people like you want to be treated yourself. If you enjoy a good quarrel now and then, like me, turn this rule the other way round: treat other people like they treat other people.

Back to chess now.
Gr.

The problem with 1...f5 is that it allows the dutch after 2.d4 - most people know my opinion on that. However, I do not believe for a second that there are "problems" for black after 1...e5. 2.d4 is clearly rubbish, 2.e4 is a Vienna, which means you must be advocating 2.Nf3 as the move for white.

2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 and we have a scotch without white's e4 thrust. I would say that black is already equal here. 

1.Nc3 e5 is completely playable - I have played 1...e5 the twice I've faced 1.Nc3 OTB, and have come out of the opening well both times. There is no reason why someone should be bluffed into 1...d5 in my view.

I would reconsider the tone you choose to portray on the forums, also. More than one person has expressed non-amusement at it, and if you make a comment then you should be prepared to back it up, yourself.