no I think platinum members should always go first =)
Is Chess Ostentatious?
Sort:
kid_of_chess wrote:
no I think platinum members should always go first =)
<Sniff>. Platinum peons. 
Jul 12, 2010
0
#4
If you can move with pawns and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither Queen nor roving Knight can hurt you,
If all piece count with you, but none too much;
Pretty high falutin' company you're keeping these days, Grobe.
Hey, once you spring for a platinum crown you might as well keep the kind of company that can appreciate that kind of thing.
TheGrobe wrote:
A lot of my friends, when I tell them I play chess, tell me that chess is ostentatious because the platinum pieces always go first. They reckon it should be decided on the toss of a 1933 double gold eagle coin. What do others think?
Haven't I heard something like this before????
Hey, thegrobe, I thought these copycat threads were the domain of 'flags!
Anyway, isn't the word "ostentatious" kind of ostentatious?
bigpoison wrote: Hey, thegrobe, I thought these copycat threads were the domain of 'flags!
Yeah, 'flags really dropped the ball on this one.
bigpoison wrote:Anyway, isn't the word "ostentatious" kind of ostentatious?
Indubitably.
I do think that mundane and banal are even worse than ostentatious, though.
All of you need to be absolved!
Well, you know, chess.com only offers gold, platinum, and diamond memberships. Chess is far too pretentious to be triffled with silver.
A lot of my friends, when I tell them I play chess, tell me that chess is ostentatious because the platinum pieces always go first. They reckon it should be decided on the toss of a 1933 double gold eagle coin. What do others think?