15 year-old Alireza Firouzja defeats Carlsen 24 times in one day!!

notmtwain

Thank you everyone.  I think we should just let this thread fade away.

notmtwain
RonPaulsSteelBalls wrote:
notmtwain wrote:

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?

JavierGil
GMproposedsolutions wrote:

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". 

JavierGil
notmtwain wrote:

I am sorry I said I didn't like the graphics. It was just my reaction. It seemed unnatural. The lecture was fine. I just didn't like the animation.

 

Apologies accepted. It takes a man to apologise. 

My reaction was over the top, and for this I too apologise. I guess we should all learn to be more sensitive towards the work and feelings of the people we´re trying to have a conversation with.

JavierGil
RonPaulsSteelBalls wrote:

his was a great video. Thanks Javier

 

Thanks mate, much appreciated!

JavierGil

DeirdreSkye: 

I'm not saying you are, but you behave like a trouble seeker (Thanks GMproposedsolutions, I'm learning!) and I'll add you to my ban list tomorrow. 

Other people have made similar comments here at chess.com. I'm mainly writing this so that others can review your history and decide for themselves. 

JavierGil
jchess161 wrote:
david wrote:

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.

 

David, chess.com is not exactly a chess server, but rather a chess portal, and they're 2 different things. I would never call a place such as FICS a chess portal. 

Rodog

Yeah, chess.com should state which other sites are competitors.For example ICCF is recognised chess federation(like FIDE and USCF), so their site( https://www.iccf.com/) cannot be called competitor.

ChrisWainscott
Future reference, when making a multiple part video series it’s often helpful to recap a few things at the beginning of the successive videos.

Seems like that might have prevented some mud slinging.
wollyhood
Rodog wrote:

Yeah, chess.com should state which other sites are competitors.For example ICCF is recognised chess federation(like FIDE and USCF), so their site( https://www.iccf.com/) cannot be called competitor.

How many chess federations are there in the world?

Rodog
wollyhood wrote:
Rodog wrote:

Yeah, chess.com should state which other sites are competitors.For example ICCF is recognised chess federation(like FIDE and USCF), so their site( https://www.iccf.com/) cannot be called competitor.

How many chess federations are there in the world?

A lot if we count every national federation.International ones are only FIDE(OTB) and ICCF(correspondence).

GMproposedsolutions

DS poor use of logic. You improperly judged me in judging. LOL. Think hard now.

LewisTu
Rodog wrote:

Yeah, chess.com should state which other sites are competitors.For example ICCF is recognised chess federation(like FIDE and USCF), so their site( https://www.iccf.com/) cannot be called competitor.

If they state those sites, there is that chance that more people will check them out.

david

The idea is that we don't want to get into arguing which site is the best, especially when something that is claimed is not necessarily true any more, even if it may have been true once upon a time in the past. We're more than happy to listen to specific feature or functionality requests, but that can be done without saying that some other site does it that way.

The Support team investigate reports that are submitted via the Help Request system - they'll generally let you know where abouts in the process that is, at least initially.

Rodog

@David, can you explain me why chess.com doesn't accept titles from International Correspondence Chess Federation?They existed from 1951 and works together with FIDE- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Correspondence_Chess_Federation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Correspondence_Chess_Grandmaster

david
Rodog wrote:

@David, can you explain me why chess.com doesn't accept titles from International Correspondence Chess Federation?They existed from 1951 and works together with FIDE- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Correspondence_Chess_Federation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Correspondence_Chess_Grandmaster

Sadly, no - I have no idea. Sounds like the ideal sort of post for the Site Feedback category and it would make perfect sense to log a Support query about via Help --> Ask a Question --> Contact

youblundered_XD

😮