Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Is the Monkey's Bum (And the Monkey's Bum Deferred) Decent?


  • 13 months ago · Quote · #41

    chesshole

    mindless invective?  don't know what that means and I don't really care.  I just got called stupid by an IM so of course I say something back.  

     

    All I was talking about was one issue (chess database use) and so far the responses I received back were: sarcastic response about what the IM really thinks about the position and my supposed insulting him, being called stupid by an IM, and now 'mindless invective'.  

     

    You obviously just want to keep posting to get some kind of one-up on me.  I've made all my points and am tired of responding to off-topic things like: 'you feel important by insulting an IM' 'you are an example of stupidity' and now 'this is mindless invective'  People here haven't really responded directly to the points I have made and it is annoying.   But don't worry, with this latest post you will have another opportunity to make fun of me Undecided

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #42

    zborg

    Learn to write concisely.  And take a chill pill.

    You've lost perspective.  It happens to the best (and worst) of us.

    Have a Nice Day, too.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #43

    chesshole

    zborg wrote:

    Lead to write concisely.  And take a chill pill.

    You've lost perspective.  It happens to the best (and worst) of us.

    Have a Nice Day, too.

    Lead to write concisely?  Oh, the irony.  I don't think I will be taking writing lessons from you any time soon. Take a chill pill?  If someone calls me stupid, I am saying something back to him.  I will also say something back to someone that calls my posts mindless. 

     

    Have a nice day yourself.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #44

    bresando

    chesshole wrote:
    zborg wrote:

    Lead to write concisely.  And take a chill pill.

    You've lost perspective.  It happens to the best (and worst) of us.

    Have a Nice Day, too.

     If someone calls me stupid, I am saying something back to him.  I will also say something back to someone that calls my posts mindless. 

     

    Have a nice day yourself.

    Oh, poor chesshole, he was behaving perfectly but then the mean, mean IM called him stupid, so he was forced to fight back.

    It's not like the IM posted politely and was called improfessional, posted politely again and was called the one who writes glib comments, and then he finally called him stupid in view of the overwhelming evidence, oh no, not at all. chesshole was the victim.

    I'm done with this, have a nice day eveyone.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #45

    chesshole

    bresando wrote:

    He didn't say "there are 10 games, white scored miserably and so the opening is bad", as you are pretending he did. He merely posted some numbers, which may hint at the opeining extreme impopularity (without being a conclusive demostration of course). As you are foundamentally admitting yourself, the only reason you're reacting like this is that he is an IM. You probably tought that disagreeing with  a strong player would have made you look cool, but if you do so without any reason, the effect is really quite the opposite. Nevertheless, he was good enough to come back and post 5 selected games for you to look at, as an example of black defensive resources (just as an example; he didn't say "look at how black wins by force in this line"). This was a good moment to start a discussion, but since you just wanted to disagree with him, you ignored his feedback by pointing out that one of the games was played between players with a very different rating, and ignored the rest. He is the only one who provided actual moves in all the discussion, yet according to you he's the one being "unprofessional". Curious isn't it?

    I can't read the mind of the world best chessplayers, but I don't think my conjecture is that "wild". We're not talking about some difficult to reach positionat move 16. After 1.e4 g6, the Monkey bum can arise basically by force in 4 moves if white wants, and yet it has been played an handful of times since the sixties; and the pawn sac does effectivety look clumsy. With this in mind It seems to me an educated guess (rather than a wild conjecture) to say that the general consensus seems to be that the line is dubious. 

    You're right, however, in saying that i shouldn't have stepped into the discussion and let this thread die on its own; sorry for that. I will not post again.

    That is cute that you felt compelled to respond to me after saying that you were done posting.  I knew you couldn't help yourself could you? Tongue Out  You have to have the last word don't youUndecided  You write again that you will not post again, let's see what you do.

    I called the IM's act of mentioning the 10 game database unprofessional.  I called his comment 'glib' because that is what is was.  I didn't say I was behaving perfect did I?  I said if someone calls me 'stupid' then I will say something back to him.  Don't try to put words in my mouth.

    I did word my argument rather strongly at first but then he insulted my intelligence when he said, 'I thought you could figure it out...Alas, I was wrong' and basically 'You are stupid'  All I said was if someone calls me stupid I will say something back.

    Now as for you, let's see if you will have the self-control to be true to your word by refraining from posting and not trying to one-up me again Tongue Out

    P.S. the word is 'unprofessional'

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #46

    zborg

    No one reads these mindlessly long quotations.  Give it up.

    Just fix your typos, and be done with it.  As I do.  Laughing

    P.S. Spell check is (apparently) still not working, and the Monkey's Bum remains playable, albeit not recommended.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #47

    chesshole

    zborg wrote:

    No one reads these mindlessly long quotations.  Give it up.

    Just fix your typos, and be done with it.  As I do.  

    P.S. Spell check is (apparently) still not working, and the Monkey's Bum remains playable, albeit not recommended.  End of Story.

    the quotations wouldn't be so long if people didn't type that much.  You obviously feel compelled to keep responding.  We haven't been talking about the opening for the last several posts, I have been responding to personal attacks.  I am not sure what you want me to 'give up' when you write me a post saying my own posts are 'mindless' and I don't have 'perspective'  Do you think I will take your condescension like a little boy?  

    I know you will feel compelled to respond and get the last word but:

    Give it up.

     

    I also have one piece of advice for you: Lead to read concisely (sic)

    End of Story.

     

    Here is what you are going to do because I can predict the future: you will write a response that tries to make you seem like the authority or the good guy, then you will pretend to be the 'bigger man' by saying 'good day' or 'I'm done posting,' but when I respond back to you, you will keep trying to be the authority and be condescending toward me.  A backup strategy for you would be to call me stupid just like the esteemed IM in this topic has already done.  

    Good luck, I hope you will find the correct response that will soothe your ego and make you feel like you one-upped me.Wink         

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #48

    goommba88

    i wouldnt rely on that line as a main variation for white, seeing as there are not many pirc defense players who know what they are doing that will play a weakening move such as e6/ when their kings bishop is fin.

     

    later 

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #49

    zborg

    A persecution complex with a public display.  Poor fellow, @ChessHolyWater.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #50

    chesshole

    By the way Bresando, I am about to show you what 'I'm done with this' means

    I am done posting here.  If someone comes up with a clever insult or post about me then good for you.  If you are lucky it will look like you came up with a post so clever that I couldn't figure out a way to respond to it.  I suggest that in preparing this post that you do not take advice from the IM, whose advice will be along the lines of saying 'You're stupid.'

    See Bresando, this is what it means to be a man of your word.  This is my last post.  End of Story.

    Good luck people, as the Human Torch would say 'Flame ON!'. Have a good day.  


  • 13 months ago · Quote · #51

    zborg

    Forget the chill pill.  @ChessHolyWater needs something much stronger.  Laughing

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #52

    DrSpudnik

    Who knew such a lame opening gimmick would provoke such hostility.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #53

    netzach

    Tomorrow will be another nice mindless day am sure.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #54

    bongcloudftw

    @chesshole -you aren't the first to have an argument with the IM (because of his personality/comments) and you certainly won't be the last. he's known for generally true but harsh comments. correct way is to leave his ego by itself, accept his view and chill out cuz there will always be many people supporting him if you attempt to argue.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #55

    steve_bute

    pfren wrote:

    I gotta give up. Human stupidity is unbeatable, and chesshole is the living proof.

    Critical thinking, as a school subject, disappeared several decades ago in North America. We should apologize to the rest of the world for this, but we're too stupid now to understand what we did to ourselves.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #56

    kamuimaru

    Um, gosh. I wasn't actually going to play it. I don't even play 1. e4 ;; I play 1. d4. I was just interested in knowing if it was playable or not. I post this thread and come back to a big argument D=

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #57

    qbsuperstar03

    chesshole wrote:
    bresando wrote:

    He didn't say "there are 10 games, white scored miserably and so the opening is bad", as you are pretending he did. He merely posted some numbers, which may hint at the opeining extreme impopularity (without being a conclusive demostration of course). As you are foundamentally admitting yourself, the only reason you're reacting like this is that he is an IM. You probably tought that disagreeing with  a strong player would have made you look cool, but if you do so without any reason, the effect is really quite the opposite. Nevertheless, he was good enough to come back and post 5 selected games for you to look at, as an example of black defensive resources (just as an example; he didn't say "look at how black wins by force in this line"). This was a good moment to start a discussion, but since you just wanted to disagree with him, you ignored his feedback by pointing out that one of the games was played between players with a very different rating, and ignored the rest. He is the only one who provided actual moves in all the discussion, yet according to you he's the one being "unprofessional". Curious isn't it?

    I can't read the mind of the world best chessplayers, but I don't think my conjecture is that "wild". We're not talking about some difficult to reach positionat move 16. After 1.e4 g6, the Monkey bum can arise basically by force in 4 moves if white wants, and yet it has been played an handful of times since the sixties; and the pawn sac does effectivety look clumsy. With this in mind It seems to me an educated guess (rather than a wild conjecture) to say that the general consensus seems to be that the line is dubious. 

    You're right, however, in saying that i shouldn't have stepped into the discussion and let this thread die on its own; sorry for that. I will not post again.

    Good, be a good boy and not post again.  Your points make no sense and you are right, the thread was dead.  I disagreed with a strong player about a particular point and the issue was about the point, not the fact that he was a strong player.

    Your points are unsound, you keep combining your points as if they all make sense together.  No, you cannot combine bringing up a sample of 10 games and use that as a conjecture about the widespread feeling that it is dubious and then analyze the position yourself and pretend that it still make sense to bring up a 10 game sample.  

    You keep saying I am disagreeing without reason against an IM.  I have stated many times in this thread what the reason is so I do not understand what you are talking about.  I am saying it is unprofessional to bring up a 10 game sample set as an analysis of the opening.  You change points by bringing up the fact that he posted moves.  Or perhaps the IM was being professional when he insulted my intelligence.

     

    My whole point was him bringing up the sample set of 10 games.  It looked to me like his sample of 5 games was really one game played between a high ranked player and a lower ranked player, but I guess I was mistaken.  That is when the IM responded with his smarmy comment, so that is why I went back at him a little.  Regardless, my point about him bringing up the 10 game sample still stands.

    Hint:I am pretty sure that you will not find a good comeback after this comment 

    And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you feed a troll.

     

    Have a nice day. :)

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #58

    Squirre1

    I might just be a lonely forest squirrel... but only having a sample size of 10 is probably proof enough this is a terrible opening.

    However, I totally support trying out new inventive creations, especially when I feel many chess players rely too much on memorized lines and ideas. It's good to see some innovation, even if it unsound sometimes.

    TIP: Never argue with someone with a name like chesshole. It rhymes with a certain word for a certain reason.


Back to Top

Post your reply: