[quote author=Dink Heckler link=1173878878/45#45 date=1173966598]Wrt smileys, it's often difficult to discern a writer's tone in an off-the-cuff internet communication, hence some people use smileys simply to avoid the possibility of any misunderstanding. I think this can be a good thing, if applied intelligently.
[/quote]

In my opinion, it is overall not a good thing, because the posts of those who do not use them are construed as being harsh and unfriendly. It creates more misunderstandings than it avoids.

IMJohnCox wrote on 03/15/07 at 13:49:41:

Ur welcome. It is an interesting subject in any case.
Quote:

Keep in mind that there are 2 seperate things: The perceived accusation of cheating by the boy with the difficult last name and the behaviour of Taylor himself at the tournament. This point is with regards to the latter. And here I agree with the coach (except for the suspicious label). I "coached" (basically consisting of telling his dad to relax) a 7-year-old at the dutch championships and adults were not allowed anywhere near the boards until the games were over. No problems there. I did "coach" at various other youth tournaments, where there wasnt such a strict rule, which would always lead to at least 4 complaints in the same vain as this one (annoying behaviour). At "adult" tournaments I have experienced it once that a player was cautioned for exactly this behaviour (no cheating, just breaking the conversation rule in an annoying way). So a professional and coach (as Taylor is hellbend on repeating) he should know better or just inform the opponent of the situation.
Quote:

Tendentious I agree. I do maintain however that if you are a pro (and have been accused of it before) you should know better.
Quote:

I'd be amazed if they dont do it in UK as well. The problem is with kids that parents and/or coaches will get involved in disputes. Usually that aggrevates the problem. Numerous times I have seen parents barge in on a discussion about a legal move between kids, therefore at the youth tournaments at our club (and also the national championships) it is made very clear to the kids who they should approach and what that person will do.
Quote:

That I agree with. However you also know the difference from chitchat away from the board and the way Taylor's behaviour is described.
Quote:

I kinda agree, though that point is certainly not unimportant to the annoyance factor.
Also note his point 5.
Quote:

Yes, though I dont entirely agree, but such is life.
Quote:

100% agreed. 
Though I am getting much more sympathy for the boy, since he did write the response himself (can you imagine getting accused on the internet in this way at about 15?) and it becomes quite clear that he didnt make the cheating accusation, just a complaint about very annoying behaviour.

Thanks for the link, Willempie. Interesting. I draw rather the opposite conclusion to you; I'd say it rather supported my point - both of my points, indeed.

First off, this Aigner chap repeats many times that Taylor's behaviour was 'suspicious', that is when he can leave off from castigating public displays of affection between married couples.

Second, he says that he has witnessed 'many' cheating allegations arising from similar behaviour.

Third, the regulations that he quotes urge scholastic players to report 'cheating or other rule violations' to the arbiter. I stand to be corrected, but I shall be very surprised if there are similar urgings in the rules governing UK school contests.

Fourth, Mr Aigner at any rate, supported by most of the posters, seems to think that it is incumbent on players to report instances of suspicious behaviour (read as far as I can see, players talking to other players) to the directors. This is not the climate I would prefer to play chess in.

Last, the father too thinks it is relevant that Taylor is much stronger than his wife. It's disingenuous on the one hand to say that is relevant, and on the other to protest that no suggestion about cheating was being made.

David Pruess does seem to be a beacon of what I would consider sanity, mind.

Don't get me wrong, Taylor's made a complete ass of himself and Chesscafe should never have published his stuff. But his accusers aren't winning my heart either.

Well, that's precisely the problem. Since "smileys" have become the norm, those who don't use them are never considered to be joking, and some light teasing is immediately viewed as a personal attack. I speak from experience , on this site and others. On the other hand, sticking your tongue out at someone is apparently supposed to be good-natured and fun...

IMJohnCox wrote on 03/15/07 at 12:23:20:


Well, I do and so do some others here.  So leave f---g off, already.

I don’t see that it’s pejorative to suggest that Americans are broadly speaking more inclined to believe and/or make cheating allegations than Brits.

As to my views being speculative rather than being based on fact, it would be a tired old world if one had to conduct a sociological survey before expressing any opinion. I’ve played tournament chess in Britain since 1972, and I’m a reasonably regular observer of the scene. I can’t recall a single incident where it was suggested that a player had been receiving outside assistance during a game, nor can I ever recall a conversation with anyone which suggested it was an issue.

In America, on the other hand, I believe there was recently a symposium on how to combat cheating in chess organised by Jon Jacobs, with various distinguished speakers and guests. There have been the two well-publicised cheating cases in big-money lower-graded tournaments. I believe Bill Goichberg has lately announced that as part of his anti-cheating protocol at his events Ipods will not longer be allowed. There is the present event where a well-known player is in effect accused of cheating (or if you object to that, let us say obviously not trusted not to cheat). These are facts. I cannot think of comparable events in Britain.

This is before we get into internet fora, where my impression is that one reads more complaints about (say) one’s opponent’s cheating with computers on internet servers from Americans than Brits. But I admit this is impressionistic. I don’t keep records.

I don’t find it unreasonable to hypothesise from these observations that Americans are more concerned about chess cheating than we are.

Asking myself (doubtless a bad habit) why this might be, I observe that America has tournaments where weak players can win much larger prizes than is the case here. I observe that many of these are run by this same Bill Goichberg. I observe that all the three specific cheating allegations I mentioned occurred in these tournaments. I note from the minutes of the cheating symposium I mentioned that concern was expressed specifically about these events and the profit motive.

I observe also – a straw in the wind – that de la Maza’s book marketed itself as enabling the student to win thousands of dollars in prizes. I have not observed similar marketing lines in books here.

Again, I don’t find it unreasonable to hypothesise from those observations that if I were right in my previous hypothesis, one reason why Americans are more concerned about cheating might be the fact that lower-rated players can win relatively large sums of money.

IMJohnCox wrote on 03/15/07 at 09:17:23:

American's belief in the right to bear arms (if not an actual majority then a disturbingly sizeable minority) is a well-known nationalistic stereotype.

Commenting on American's supposed paranoia about cheating in chess seems to be a knee-jerk response by John Cox to ANY discussion of cheating -- it's becoming a predictable mannerism.  Where is this impression of yours coming from again John?  I seem to have forgotten.  Do you play much chess in the US these days?  Are you an avid reader of Chess Life?

I do play chess in the US and I haven't noticed the rampant cheating paranoia which exists in this country, but maybe I'm just too obtuse to observe what is right under my nose...  

(Sorry about the smiley Uberdeker.  At least it's not the one with the tongue!   )

Animated faces mean nothing. Words should be sufficient to express one's thoughts and opinions, however nuanced they may be. There seems to be some kind of code on the internet whereby the use of "smileys" is supposed to lead to a completely different interpretation of one's posts. It's gotten so bad that if you don't use them, you are never considered to be joking. 
I especially dislike the "smiley" (what a horrendous term) which has a tongue sticking out. It's considered funny and genial whereas it's actually unbelievably rude.
 
Another off-topic rant from your favorite flooder.

P.S. John, do you really not know that lunch is referred to as "tea" in England ? Have you been lying about your nationality?!