All have had their say. I'm locking the thread.

@gambit - you are on a short leash from here on in.

@mnb - the same is true for you.

Gambit wrote on 03/27/21 at 00:39:57:

So you don't (want to?) understand the difference between a fact and a judgment either.
After this blooper my experience on internet has taught me that things only can go downhill. So I haven't read any further.

Fact: you always turn down corr. chess challenges.
Judgment according to your "logic": you invariably turn your tail.
My judgment: you're a hypocrite.
Fact: When I confront you with my judgments you invariably start a rant.
My judgment: my previous judgment is confirmed.
Fact: you never post your nonsense in the Dragon section.
Fact: I'm the moderator there.
Hypothesis: you understand that your nonsense in unacceptable in my eyes.
My juddgment: you abuse the tolerance of moderators like Proustiskeen or worse, the absence of moderators.

My advise to my colleague: delete everything without chess content, ie everything from Gambit's first comment on IM Bronznik from 12/11/20. Like I wrote above I disagree with Jupp - the only remedy for trolling is systematically remove comments with troll content, whether intentionally or not.
In this thread there are already more comments on Gambit's attitude than on IM Bronznik's book and that's a bad thing afaIc.

Let me respond here with refutations to your posts.

(1) There was no "slander" involved. I stated facts such as they are. When I challenged Broznik and he refused to play, that became an established fact. Thus, to say that he turned tail is accurate.  I do not care if he is an unrated or Grandmaster, for that is not the point. Rather, the point is that he refused to defend over-the-board on Internet what he wrote.

(2) As a journalist writing for a newspaper, I am very familiar with the First Amendment. Slander is something that is not true. A fact is something that is true. You should know that.

(3) Bibs, I play chess better than you do. Have you invented any chess lines? I have not seen any, sir. If you look in the databases, my openings are played the world over. As far as trolling, I disagree. You do not like my opinions because, in my view, they ran counter to so-called established wisdom.  See #4 for next point.

(4) Chess theory is based on the premise that inventors of lines and analyses are prepared to back it up with games. Polugaevsky played his variation in the Sicilian Defense; Benko played the Benko Gambit; Korchnoi played 1 d4 f5 2 h3; Diemer played the BDG... Point is, all these players were willing to defend challenges to their analyses and games.

Today I see too many authors and players that will write something, proclaim a "refutation", and then refuse to defend what they wrote in a tournament game. I really do not care if you are an unrated or World Champion. If you have written and put forward a variation, then have the courage to defend it against all comers, from novice to Grandmaster.  Writing a book is one thing, but defending what you wrote is quite another.

I have always defended what I wrote and played over the board. Why? Because I stick up for my principles and my openings. 

(5) After Kasparov lost to Depp Blue in 1997, it became clear that humans should play humans and computers should play computers. Point is, a machine has a database programmed and can think faster, while a human cannot.  Likewise, the prevalence of chess engines has taken a lot of fun out of correspondence chess. This is because some 1500 can use a chess engine to win games, with people being none the wiser.

I have seen chess sites where cheaters have been banned by the thousands. Why do you think I am distrustful of correspondence chess to a certain extent? Because there is the possibility that you are not playing against a human but against his computer!!

So, there you have my responses. If you want to play me in an OTB  game, say G/30 on Internet Chess Club or some other site, let me know.

Thank you for your attention.

proustiskeen wrote on 03/26/21 at 14:20:48:


Hi new mod! Thank you for agreeing to do this task. No matter what you do, somebody will object. I vote for a light touch. Don't work too hard.

Hi - new mod here.

Gambit has had a long leash on this board for years. Most people have just ignored his worst impulses. But not here.

I'm inclined to let things stand, given the history of the board, but will keep an eye on this and delete if it gets worse / continues.

@Gambit

Don’t you bore yourself with the same old routine? Looking in the mirror, sighing and yawning? It’s always been tedious. 

I refer the poster to my earlier answer. 

Bronznik is a decent player and a very good author, and is to be respected. 

You, however, are a weak player and a troll, and are not to be respected. Jog on. 

Tony K and Mods - please manage Lev's / Gambit’s slandering of published authors. It’s ugly. We can do better here. 

If I was an author I would also decline all challenges via Internet categorically:)

The funny thing is, I often see those kind of challenges on c****.com when IMs give their opinion and some 1600 player disagrees and challenges the IM to a match about who is right. Besides the point that the IM has certainly other commitments and it would be a giant waste of time, there are two scenarios that can occur:
1.) The IM kicks his ass because he is the stronger player
2.) The other player cheats so he wins the discussion - (maybe even the more likely scenario)

So yeah, no point in accepting those challenges.

Gambit wrote on 12/11/20 at 23:31:39:

Exactly what you did when I challenged you to play a double internet match - two corr. games, two blitz games. Your yellow lion tail disappeared faster from sight than lightning.
Bronznik's book is one of the best chess books I ever bought. I wished someone wrote a similar book on 1.e4.