llamonade2 wrote:
@ThrillerFan has a reputation of being antagonistic, but his posts have content and he's not an idiot.
Don't take what he says personally and you'll have useful pieces to add to the puzzle.
(as much as he has a disdain for coddling people, I think he'd improve his posts by recognizing there's a middle ground worth aiming at, somewhere in there)
It seemed to me to be desirable for there to be some sort of warning about a Stonewall repertoire. I was reluctant to make such a statement myself, so I am glad that someone spoke up about it. On the other hand, I think it would be desirable to consider how the situation of an ~800 player differs from that of an ~2100 player.
@TrillerFan: «the Stonewall Attack is garbage». Can you show a forced win for black in the SA? Can't you? Then you comment is garbage.
I said Garbage, not Refuted!
Anything that gives White a slightly worse position is garbage. White goes first! Black should be suffering the "slightly worse position".
Learn English! Look up "Garbage" and look up "Refuted". They are not synonymous!
Not to mention, you are a 1500 weasel. I have an OTB rating of well over 2000. Hmmm...which player might actually know what they are talking about?
Your contribution to topic is negative:
- you have made it harder for @manifest_glory, a beginner, to learn from what was a reasonably phrased question
- you are talking down other members because their ratings are too low .....and talking down people because of their rating is the last thing that should be done on this forum.
I concur.
While ThrillerFan is a good and generally knowledgeable chess player, he unfortunately has a tendency to venture into arrogance and ad hominem attacks when someone dares to disagree with him.
Disagree is the wrong choice of words. There is a major difference between disagreeing, and being outright wrong in an arrogant and snide manner. You can also be wrong in an asking type of tone. All 3 will get different responses.
Disagreeing: I hate the Grunfeld, but am well aware that it's a fully sound defense, and if you "disagree" and think it's a great opening, that's a matter of taste, and I respect Grunfeld fans. You will simply never get me to play the Black side of it!
Questioning: I explain something, and a player, often lower rated, does not understand the "why" behind something. I mention, for example, that 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 that the move 5...Bd7 is now dubious and that other moves that directly go for the attack on d4, like 5...Qb6, 5...Nh6, or 5...Nge7, is stronger. The person does not understand why, and they ask for an explanation why 5...Bd7 is inferior. I respond with an explanation, or if I already fully explained it in another thread, I might put the link to the thread and tell them to read comment number X (where X is a number).
Snide BS: See Post #12 in this thread. That's the BS that will get you an ear full from me! So contrary to your statements that I'm always arrogant, try reading some of the posts in threads that are not full of BS responses, like in the Openings area, there's one about Opening crossroads in the subject line. My first post is on page 2, I believe post 26. You'll notice that nobody is a jerk, and you don't see me speaking down to said posters. There was another where a player was having problems with the Sicilian, and I gave my answer, and there was a follow-up question, which I gladly answered, and he saw where I was coming from. That doesn't mean you have to agree with the reasoning. He may decide to play the Moscow Sicilian. That's up to him.