Borislav Ivanov is BACK!

Sort:
LoekBergman

@Umberto_Unity: use of caps lock is considered shouting. Furhtermore does it not strengthen your message nor the readability of the text.

You don't have to evaluate how important it is. It has been proven to be important. His videos are distributed on youtube too.

Can you give us a list of other sources that provide the same chess based type of 'evidence' as Lilov has presented in his videos? The relativity theory of Einstein is also based on the work of Maxwell and Lorentz and Newton and .... What is wrong with that?

If you have a company that sells a product and you have a medium channel that publishes your information, would you try to advertise your product there or somewhere else? That combination does not imply that that information is placed in chessbase.com because Lilov advertises there. Where do you think that you can find more advertisements about cars? In a car magazine or in a magazine about bikes? And when there is an article about the new model of a car brand, do you think that that magazine has also an advertisement of that model or not?

waffllemaster
LoveYouSoMuch wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
Thomas_Hauser wrote:

It is very clear that none of you know how Wikipedia works.  There are rules and procedures on Wikipedia that govern who gets an article and who doesn't.  It is not based on what chess people think "should" be the criteria. 

Not even Chess.com itself qualifies to have a Wikipedia article, nor is Chess.com even listed on Wikipedia's article on "List of Internet Chess Servers". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_chess_servers

I looked at that page and its references.  If you're trying to say wikipedia has high standards this only undermines your point and makes wiki (and the kids who bicker about editing it) look foolish.

I really hope this stuff only happens to fringe articles like chess websites and that credible people are keeping useful articles safe from these children e.g. history, math, etc.

lol, yeah right? don't mind the experts, leave it to the bureaucrats instead. love the discussion here!
sorry guys, chess.com is not notable enough according to wikipedia criteria! LOL

ironically i guess that's how politics are handled nowadays...

I was able to google up some stories where various wiki editors edit bias into tons of different articles, defame colleagues, etc which is sad but I guess expected.  Also makes the chess.com thing pretty minor in comparison.

re: the talk page you linked, I skimmed here and there.  Looks like a bunch of kids making poor arguments over an unimportant subject while trying to sound intellectual.  Yuck.  Letting anyone be an "editor" seems to both be wiki's biggest strength and weakness.

There's some history on this forum with the person who comes by now and then with different IDs and talks about chess.com's lack of a wiki page.  Sometimes I wonder if it's the same 2 (IIRC) kids who got laughed at for 50 pages about 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 and started a very crude pro 2.Qh5 / anti chess.com website (which no longer exists).  Just a musing due to the events being around the same time.

I saw a 2013 post on the wiki talk page with what used to be one person's chess.com user name.  I guess he and others are still fighting about it.  It's too bad the system they have at wiki is so poor that it goes on and on like this.  Batgirl said she wrote one of the now deleted articles with good references and it didn't read like an advertisement (two, apparently now former, sticking points of this person).  Eric commented that he didn't care enough to wade into it.  This was over a year ago now I think.

SocialPanda
LoekBergman wrote:

 

If you have a company that sells a product and you have a medium channel that publishes your information, would you try to advertise your product there or somewhere else? 

I think that chessbase is the main information source for most people, maybe also chessvibes could be considered a high impact media.

SocialPanda
Umberto_Unity wrote:

Socialista, tell us more about your Chess coach, do you think he's notable enough for Wikipedia?

He wrote articles for newspapers. But of course, you know how small are chess columns. If there were interviews and he appeared on the newspapers, it has been lost on time, because he won his championships on the early 60s.

adamstask
LoekBergman wrote:

@Umberto_Unity: use of caps lock is considered shouting. Furhtermore does it not strengthen your message nor the readability of the text.

@Loek: I don't think he was using caps lock. They're not caps. I think he copied this material from somewhere, and the formatting pasted up this way. I think he was just redistributing some text from somewhere else. 

LoekBergman
Umberto_Unity wrote:

You say "it has been proven to be important."

How so?  How has it been proven to be imporant?  Proven where?

Everywhere on the internet. Do you know Valeri Lilov? Since when? His videos are mentioned in places where there is talked about Borislav Ivanov.

Important is off course related and restricted to the Ivanov case. It is not important in comparison to the event that the Belgian football team has qualified itself for the Worl Championship Football in Brazil and the team of Bulgaria hasn't.

Now, please tell us your list of publications of which the videos of Lilov are a derivative? Can you show them to us?

waffllemaster

Of course not.  He didn't literally mean derivative.  The word sounded intellectual so he threw it in a sentence.  Notice how he avoided your question completely.

Ugh, I'm too tired for this sort of "discussion" I need to log off Tongue Out  You guys have fun saying a lot about nothing.

adamstask

wafflemeister, which talk page are you referring to?

and re: batgirl, I miss her. I was just reading today about Mouret, and about Greco. I love her writing and her transcribing and her sensibility. 

ponz111

Many threads of any length end up getting"off subject" for a while. This is not really a "bad" or "good" thing as the "off subject" information can be more useful and entertaining and more educational than the main subject being discussed.

And this post is "off subject" also!  

ponz111

By the way a post saying being "off subject" is bad is also "off subject" as are posts giving reasons for being "off subject"

LoekBergman
waffllemaster wrote:

Of course not.  He didn't literally mean derivative.  The word sounded intellectual so he threw it in a sentence.  Notice how he avoided your question completely.

Ugh, I'm too tired for this sort of "discussion" I need to log off   You guys have fun saying a lot about nothing.

Thanks wafflemaster. I noticed it too and gave him another more chance to answer. This second time he did not answer too. So be it.

adamstask

@ponz111:hehe, yah, well said. and this is off topic ;->

SocialPanda
waffllemaster wrote:

Of course not.  He didn't literally mean derivative.  The word sounded intellectual so he threw it in a sentence.  Notice how he avoided your question completely.

Ugh, I'm too tired for this sort of "discussion" I need to log off   You guys have fun saying a lot about nothing.

If you say "derivative", I think in things like this:

adamstask

hehe, nice.

adamstask

hmmm, IndyFilm guy also talked about the "wider world" and used the construction "you people". Is this a case of multiple accounts?

adamstask
Indyfilmguy wrote:

 

 

It's local interest on Chess.com, do you realize there is a broader world out there?

...You people seem to sorely lack any sense of proportion in life, common sense...

adamstask
Umberto_Unity wrote:

So what is your view of Lilov's antics on Wikipedia?

yes, the letter and the spirit of Indyfilmguy lives on in Umberto_Unity. 

Lilov has no documented case of antics on Wikipedia, but Indyfilmguy/Umberto_Unity did believe that chesszorro was Lilov.

And to think Umberto_Unity sent me some private messages purporting friendship as my war with Indyfilmguy was heating up. Wow! Talk about sockpuppetry! Multiple accounts on chess.com as well as on wikipedia. People must have lots of time to burn. 

busted. 

adamstask

hahaha, within one minute of me posting this about Umberto_Unity identity with Indyfilmguy Umberto_Unity closes his account.!! two accounts closed in one afternoon. I wonder how many other aliases this lowlife has! I think the Hauser guy is the same person too. We'll see. I'll keep you posted. 

so, so-called sockpuppetry goes on on chess.com too. Multiple accounts by ome person, deception, wow, fun. chess. Fun.  I may just go back to wood chess pieces and print books. 

adamstask

and a third one bites the dust. Thomas_Hauser aka Indyfilmguy aka Umberto_Unity just closed 'his' account too.  we can expect these 'sockpuppets' to appear under yet more aliases. 

adamstask
Lou-for-you wrote:

ProfessorProfesesen wrote:

Indyfilmguy wrote:

 

Yeah, that Yekatarinas "woman" is a total troll.  First in that "Chess is a Draw" thread she boasts of having two Ph.Ds although its clear her grasp of grammar and spelling is sub-grade school level.  More interestingly, she was arguing against the mathematical side of the issue.  Now in this thread she claims to be a "Mathenamatician" (which she never said before in the other thread) and is arguing for a mathematical interpretation of the known facts.

Bizzare behavior.

 

 

YOU DO OF COURSE REALISE THAT ENGLISH MAY NOT BE HER FIRST LANGUAGE RIGHT?!?!

She may have done her Ph.d in some other country. I know that in France you can do your Ph.d completely in french, and it is the same in Russia. You don't have to have perfect english to understand maths.

 

 

Sorry, but what is all this? She is no troll. Suppose she has a Phd in nulear physics, then she can still call herself a mathematician. She defends herself so much, that it is clear that she is defending something in which she has invested a lot and that is dear to her. Indy you are a troll :-)

Lou-for-you, congratulations. you were on to Indyfilmguy before the rest of us. Now we know that Indyfilmguy Thomas_Hauser and Umberto_Unity were all the same troll.