Stonewall

najdorf96

+1 kid. You're cool in my opinion. I think tickler means well, overall. Tough love methinks. I guess the lesson here is just be you. Keep grinding bro. ✌🏽

TheCalculatorKid
najdorf96 wrote:

+1 kid. You're cool in my opinion. I think tickler means well, overall. Tough love methinks. I guess the lesson here is just be you. Keep grinding bro. ✌🏽

 

I'm sure on some level he does mean we'll, he just doesn't come across that well. 

 

Wise words my man. 

btickler
TheCalculatorKid wrote:

Your point is moot. I wanted an answer and I got an answer. 

No it does mildly amuse me seeing the way you conduct yourself in these exchanges and the extent to which you have become emotionally involved. This thread is a prime example. You offered nothing to the thread, you came here to try to make a point, one which was hilariously wrong. 

You have a gross misunderstanding 9f chess etiquette. Even at the highest level of games you will find players who do not resign blitz games. As you said, you do not play blitz hence why you do not understand it. 

Of course it doesn't bother you, you hurl insults in every post you write. It bothers me that I allowed myself to sink to your level. 

- Only moot for someone that only cares about results and not methodology.

- The lady doth protest too much, methinks.  How many times are you going to re-iterate how you are only "mildly amused"?  You can project your emotional involvement if you like.  

- You're trying to weasel out again...nobody has ever said you should always resign blitz games in losing positions...taking a lone king walk down a queen+ with 25 (*cough* 45) seconds on the clock was the issue.

- I make salient points that you find insulting.  A subtle distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.  You, however, *have* resorted to namecalling, so clearly I'm not the captain of your sinking submarine...you are responsible for your own "level" and have already sunk to depths I consistently avoid here on the forums.  In the end, if it actually bothered you, you would probably stop...oh, but you can't walk away...because those salient points I made earlier today are dead on the nose wink.png.  You can't lose, ever.  

What a conundrum then....respond some more and just continue to prove my point, or let this sit uncontested?  Which saves more face for you?  Neither will be perfect.  Perhaps another round of "I am mildly amused...".  Nah, that wouldn't fool anybody, too transparent.

btickler
najdorf96 wrote:

+1 kid. You're cool in my opinion. I think tickler means well, overall. Tough love methinks. I guess the lesson here is just be you. Keep grinding bro. ✌🏽

If by "means well" you mean that I:

A. Want to show somebody a new perspective they are not seeing

B. Want to point out examples of how *not* to conduct oneself/handle things for other people reading threads now or later down the road

...then yes, I always mean well.  The thing is, A is rarely ever accomplished, and is just a bonus.  B is the main goal.  This is because I rarely engage in something like this unless I detect a level of douchebaggery that is going to be quite hard to overcome by anyone, much less a stranger on a forum.  Consider it a form of public service, if a slightly thorny one wink.png.

I don't really care if that gives me a reputation of being hard-nosed on the forums.  The difference between myself and the various trolls and malcontents I interact with is that I give kind for kind.  You won't ever see me going after some innocent bystander's post...in fact, you will rarely if ever see me posting in the first handful of posts on a thread...because I give the benefit of the doubt and wait for a trend to emerge.

RussBell

Stonewall Attack resources...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/stonewall-attack

TheCalculatorKid
btickler wrote:
TheCalculatorKid wrote:

Your point is moot. I wanted an answer and I got an answer. 

No it does mildly amuse me seeing the way you conduct yourself in these exchanges and the extent to which you have become emotionally involved. This thread is a prime example. You offered nothing to the thread, you came here to try to make a point, one which was hilariously wrong. 

You have a gross misunderstanding 9f chess etiquette. Even at the highest level of games you will find players who do not resign blitz games. As you said, you do not play blitz hence why you do not understand it. 

Of course it doesn't bother you, you hurl insults in every post you write. It bothers me that I allowed myself to sink to your level. 

- Only moot for someone that only cares about results and not methodology.

- The lady doth protest too much, methinks.  How many times are you going to re-iterate how you are only "mildly amused"?  You can project your emotional involvement if you like.  

- You're trying to weasel out again...nobody has ever said you should always resign blitz games in losing positions...taking a lone king walk down a queen+ with 25 (*cough* 45) seconds on the clock was the issue.

- I make salient points that you find insulting.  A subtle distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.  You, however, *have* resorted to namecalling, so clearly I'm not the captain of your sinking submarine...you are responsible for your own "level" and have already sunk to depths I consistently avoid here on the forums.  In the end, if it actually bothered you, you would probably stop...oh, but you can't walk away...because those salient points I made earlier today are dead on the nose .  You can't lose, ever.  

What a conundrum then....respond some more and just continue to prove my point, or let this sit uncontested?  Which saves more face for you?  Neither will be perfect.  Perhaps another round of "I am mildly amused...".  Nah, that wouldn't fool anybody, too transparent.

 

Again your point is moot. 

 

Every time it mildly amuses me. 

 

The 25 second king walk was justified as I secured a stalemate. 

 

Nah you're points aren't salient. Your insults don't actually insult me, it just isn't some thing I like to stoop to. 

 

No conundrum, you replied so I reply back. Easy. 

btickler
TheCalculatorKid wrote:

Again your point is moot. 

Every time it mildly amuses me. 

The 25 second king walk was justified as I secured a stalemate. 

Nah you're points aren't salient. Your insults don't actually insult me, it just isn't some thing I like to stoop to. 

No conundrum, you replied so I reply back. Easy. 

Thanks for proving my point, over and over. 

Note how you replied to this below.  I woke up many hours later and eventually read this and responded, you replied <1 minute later...notifications much?  Ah, but this is only an edit not a new reply...how long will it take now?  And will your must-have-the-last-word-ism fire when you actually still have the last word on the page?  

TheCalculatorKid
btickler wrote:
TheCalculatorKid wrote:

Again your point is moot. 

Every time it mildly amuses me. 

The 25 second king walk was justified as I secured a stalemate. 

Nah you're points aren't salient. Your insults don't actually insult me, it just isn't some thing I like to stoop to. 

No conundrum, you replied so I reply back. Easy. 

Thanks for proving my point.

 You're welcome. 

TheCalculatorKid
FvbunNpysUpjlYhjr wrote:

I used to play stonewall formations very frequently but since Magnus had a good run with the system and everyone and their sister saw their favorite youtuber break those games down I have been going out of my way to play more offbeat stuff for equity over accuracy.

 

I really enjoy playing against lines that look inherently flawed but are backed up be theory. 

 

For the first few moves I think I'm way ahead and then suddenly a tactic comes out of nowhere and I'm like, where did that come from. 

 

Love analysing those. 

TheCalculatorKid
FvbunNpysUpjlYhjr wrote:
TheCalculatorKid wrote:
FvbunNpysUpjlYhjr wrote:

I used to play stonewall formations very frequently but since Magnus had a good run with the system and everyone and their sister saw their favorite youtuber break those games down I have been going out of my way to play more offbeat stuff for equity over accuracy.

 

I really enjoy playing against lines that look inherently flawed but are backed up be theory. 

 

For the first few moves I think I'm way ahead and then suddenly a tactic comes out of nowhere and I'm like, where did that come from. 

 

Love analysing those. 

I like to play lines that require a lot of cerebral play because I believe they are more burdensome to navigate for both sides and I think chess should be a fight

 

I like to think of chess as a war.