It was never about Firuzja or Carlsen and never about the quality of the games which himself says that is low.
OP wanted to advertise the other site which he calls "best chess server in the world". Anyone that would get in his way would feel his wrath.
Don't make Javier angry
That's just... AMAZING.
The plan was that people would like part 2 and would certainly look for part 1 where the real advertisement of this other site takes place. But notmwain's honest comment about "super annoying animation" put all this plan at risk.Unfortunately OP's over-reaction about "haters" and "bullies" made quite clear that he had an agenda and he didn't want anything to interfere with it. My first thought was that he was one of Carlsen haters that indeed enjoyed the 24 defeats of the World Champion" but no , that was too easy and OP's reaction too angry to be only that.The first minutes of Part 1 revealed his clear intentions.
I think chess.com mods must be informed about that.
you've been warned. javier is not taking this well
OP is going completely over the top in response to constructive criticism.
This is NOTHING like what real bullying looks like. I'm sure there are people who would be OVERJOYED to show you what real bullying looks like if you continue to act so hurt over people CALMLY and CIVILLY telling you what they think could be improved.
My two cents are that the title is clickbaity and provides no information--there is obviously a catch here. No need to get so offended. No need to tell us that all Americans know how to do is bully.
You are quite a bit too sensitive. Tone it down a bit. In my opinion, your wildly over-the-top response was a lot more like real bullying than the constructive criticism that you received.
The plan was that people would like part 2 and would certainly look for part 1 where the real advertisement of this other site takes place. But notmwain's honest comment about "super annoying animation" put all this plan at risk.Unfortunately OP's over-reaction about "haters" and "bullies" made quite clear that he had an agenda and he didn't want anything to interfere with it. My first thought was that he was one of Carlsen haters that indeed enjoyed the 24 defeats of the World Champion" but no , that was too easy and OP's reaction too angry to be only that.The first minutes of Part 1 revealed his clear intentions.
I think chess.com mods must be informed about that.
Totally concur. Not a great day in this chess.com forum.
Don't make Javier angry
Great gif autobunny! loved it! 
The plan was that people would like part 2 and would certainly look for part 1 where the real advertisement of this other site takes place. But notmwain's honest comment about "super annoying animation" put all this plan at risk.Unfortunately OP's over-reaction about "haters" and "bullies" made quite clear that he had an agenda and he didn't want anything to interfere with it. My first thought was that he was one of Carlsen haters that indeed enjoyed the 24 defeats of the World Champion" but no , that was too easy and OP's reaction too angry to be only that.The first minutes of Part 1 revealed his clear intentions.
I think chess.com mods must be informed about that.
You got me!! it was all a machiavelian plan to get people to watch video 1, and yes, we should call the mods and have me arrested or at least thrown out! 
I know this is going to disappoint you, DeirdreSkye , but the only problem with your indredibly ridiculous conspiration theory... 
is that 2 weeks ago I did post a link to the first video here at chess.com!! (lol).
Here's the link: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/15-year-old-defeats-carlsen-24-times-in-one-single-day
I'm sorry for all the negative feedback, but chess.com can be like that sometimes
Yeah , sometimes people just honestly say their opinion , it happens. I apologise for that too.
What a really awful place to live this world has become!
I know, right!
*Me trying to stay neutral be like*
You are so childish lmao. Asking for the final score of the game is apparently bullying.
This may help OP:
We talk to ourselves all the time. Our private, internal monologue is either a constructive narrative or a means of self-harm. The Harsh Master in the story represents the self-critic. The donkey represents the faithful Self, beaten down over time by the harsh critic. The critic seizes on every mistake, perceived flaw, and performance fear. It is always comparing the Self to others, and measuring and comparing it in a self-diminishing way. It second-guesses, mistrusts, and self-flagellates. Worse yet, we mistrust the honest intentions and support of others. Even small mistakes - our own or those of others - become fodder for criticism. Eventually, like the donkey, we decline, become aggressive and finally succumb to defeat by our own hand.
Firoujza lost badly today vs an anonymous GM, so his 24 wins didn' t help him very much
Another twist to the conspiracy theory!
yes, yes, yes. You got me buddy!!. I've published threads for my last 4 videos here at chess.com, but that was just a deflection to camoufflage my true evil plan that you've uncovered.
And I totally agree with you, the mods should get their handcuffs ready. I love you too.
By the way, what's the link to the Nanny's channel? I need some classic recipes instead of so much fast-food! 
Thanks for the link. Very disappointing, cause it's mainly pasta. 
I'm pretty busy making my next video, which, by the way, I'll be happy to provide you a link to, since you seem so keen on investigating my videos.
Regarding your other comments, which I'll gladly address in future posts, are we done with your conspiration theory? any additional comments? Would you care to explain your thoughts on it? You still defend it? We should reach a conclusion to each point of our debate.
Enough with the personal attacks, folks. @JavierGil, if you don't like someone's comments on your post, please block them rather than insulting them. @notmtwain is a longstanding member who often answers new people's queries and we value his contribution.
Also please note that @DeirdeSkye is correct in that Chess.com has a policy against advertising for our competitors in our forums; this also applies to any comparisons (positive or negative) with our competitors, although Chess.com always welcomes specific feedback on what we can do better. I have therefore removed the explicit references to our competitors in the various posts in this thread; in the part 1 video it seems more like a casual expression of your own personal opinion, so I believe that post can stay there for now, but if you were to say the same thing repeatedly in all of them, we'd probably deem that to have crossed the line into advertising.
Thanks,
David, moderator
Enough with the personal attacks, folks. @JavierGil, if you don't like someone's comments on your post, please block them rather than insulting them. @notmtwain is a longstanding member who often answers new people's queries and we value his contribution.
Also please note that @DeirdeSkye is correct in that Chess.com has a policy against advertising for our competitors in our forums; this also applies to any comparisons (positive or negative) with our competitors, although Chess.com always welcomes specific feedback on what we can do better. I have therefore removed the explicit references to our competitors in the various posts in this thread; in the part 1 video it seems more like a casual expression of your own personal opinion, so I believe that post can stay there for now, but if you were to say the same thing repeatedly in all of them, we'd probably deem that to have crossed the line into advertising.
Thanks,
David, moderator
@david, I reported @DeirdeSkye for using vulgar language on some thread. I can't remember which.
Thank you everyone. I think we should just let this thread fade away.
Thank you everyone. I think we should just let this thread fade away.
Are you satisfied with your self now?
Not really but I read David's post and think I look forward more to getting a chance to post on the merits of a future video by Mr. Gil than to the dim prospects of getting an apology. It will be interesting to see if he responds in a positive manner.
/ I know how you block anyone who disagrees with you. Wonder why almost no one responded to all the threads you made last week?
I want to make a few remarks and not be part of this afterward. I object to the misuse of logic.
Let's say a man comments on a girl's appearance, saying her eyes look nice. If she responds "It's ONLY my eyes you like?", what do you think would be running through the mind of the man? Making one comment does not imply in any way at all that there would not be more comments that could be said but are not said, and some may even be positive if the first comment were negative or perceived as negative.
Additonally, and as I put in my book, there are a vast number of degrees one may make a pronouncement. If you want to do name-calling, I suggest modifying it. Example:
1. You are a troll.
2. You act like a troll.
3. You seem to be a troll.
4. I get the feeling you are a troll.
5. Are you a troll?
and more....
" If all you can do after watching a 29 minutes tutorial is put down the video because you can only focus on the talking head and make zero possitive comments, it's quite evident that you too are a troll!"
Let's all be nicer and use words in a less biting fashion, and moreover, strive to be logical.
Have a nice day everyone!
Unfortunately, if you had started that sentence with "Let's say a man comments on a girl's appearance, saying her eyes look ugly...", your whole argument would not sound like a complete misrepresentation of the events. But I agree with you 100% on your point about "vast number of degrees one may make a pronouncement".
holy shit