The OP was too long for me to read. The same probably applies for many other potential posters.
Yeah, if you want replies, your post should be short and stupid.
It is not that it is too long, but it is condescending and poorly written.
That's pretty irrelevant. Long posts never get many replies unless there is an easy question in the title. Then they just don't get read.
Interesting threads get very few replies, a thread with an obvious answer which should last 1 post gets 236 so far.
This is true. My thread ˝Tyranny of the poor and stupid˝ has only 12 replies. What does this tell us about our fellow disputants?
The exception proves the rule.
By the definition of rule, an exception would disprove it.
this is a common English expression with a long history. Feel free to research it.
Regardless if it's common or not, and regardless if it has a long history; it's a false statement. Using the current definition of prove, anyways.
I am not interested in giving you free English lessons. Go find a tutor.
I'm not asking for English lessons.
The OP was too long for me to read. The same probably applies for many other potential posters.
Yeah, if you want replies, your post should be short and stupid.
It is not that it is too long, but it is condescending and poorly written.
That's pretty irrelevant. Long posts never get many replies unless there is an easy question in the title. Then they just don't get read.
I do not understand why some would be offended. Did you read the text? Are you offended? It is obvious that some people shy away from provocative texts and tend to comment on those where they feel safe.
Yes, I read it. I was not offended, but it was tortuous to read. Please take this in the best way...write it in your native language and find a translator. Your English is not good enough yet to express your ideas in a coherent way. I really do think that is why no one repsonded.
Frankly, I also find your ideas rather sophomoric, but that is not the major problem with your essay. "
I understand your essay, but again, you writing skills are lacking. You use too many words to make rather simple points, with little cohesion. You use the word "tyranny" in the title, but never in the essay. Why not? You give no specific examples of any claims that you make. Why not? I could go on and on, but the essential issue is that you seem to be trying to argue against socialism, but you simply ramble from one complaint about socialists to the other without focus.
Why is it sophomoric?
Firstly, a definition:
Conceited, in that you call the object of your criticism "stupid" in the title, but never back up that claim in the text.
Conceited, in that you act like you are saying something new and unique, and end the essay with a challenge to others to argue with you.
Overconfident in your knowlege, in that you make various claims and statements without ever even seeing any need to cite specific examples.
Immature in that you seem to think you are the first person to argue for capitialists and against socialists. Really? Do you think this is a unique idea? I can turn on the radio any day of the week and listen to Rush Limbaugh make the same points, and say it better. I can just turn on Fox news and hear the same things.
I'm late to the party, so I read through all thirteen pages and compiled the best posts as a quick summary:
OldChessDog wrote:
You miss the logic of the database if you think that you can simply play the moves with the highest percentages. You have to understand why to move a particular way. All the databases in the world won't tell you that.
The database does tell you what moves are most popular, and will show you candidate moves you didn't consider. That's useful information to help you to improve.
There are no shortcuts--it's up to you to analyze the positions and decide what you think is best.
colinsaul wrote:
I think better chess players will make better use of databases if both sides are allowed to use one, so I reckon it's a question of choice between players before hand.
If I'm beaten by someone who understands how to use a database good luck to my opponent.
How enforceable is a no database rule in online chess?
owltuna wrote:
chessjuggler wrote:
Is a database different from using a computer? I would say that using a computer would be wrong, but is a database also a computer? Or is it just looking up prior games? Please tell me, because I'm not sure! Thanks! :) Jason
"Using a computer" is not what is forbidden on this site. If that were the case, nobody could use the site, because you need a computer to access it. Using a chess engine to assist in analyzing an ongoing game is what is forbidden on this site, therefore it is cheating if one is using that tool for that purpose. Other sites allow it.
In days past, the database was ECO or MCO or a big collection of Chess Life or New in Chess. The possessor of a good collection could be expected to have a high correspondance rating.
Nowadays, the playing field is more level, because the extensive and easy to search online databases are available to everyone with an internet connection.
TheGrobe wrote:
This one's a written rule (and yes, it's in the TOS -- something we should all have read when we created our accounts):
No Cheating or Computer Help
You can NEVER use chess programs (Chessmaster, Fritz, etc) to analyze current ongoing games unlessspecifically permitted (such as a computer tournament, etc). The only type of computer assistance allowed is games databases for opening lines in Turn-based Chess and Vote Chess. You cannot receive ANY outside assistance on Live Chess games.
TheGrobe wrote:
I don't think you understand how databases are ideally used. It's not rote copying of someone else's game -- all you have to do is deviate from the line to foil that approach. Opening databases have many, many pitfalls if not used in conjunction with a deeper understanding of the opening you're playing.
Doggy_Style wrote:
There's no need for a player to repeat the horrible moves of the past. Break the cycle, play better moves, and understand why they are better.
We all stand on the shoulders of giants.
owltuna wrote:
And a lot of people need to get over it. All of the people who think opening research in correspondance chess is cheating are wrong. It's up to them to come to grips with their misconceptions, and if they choose not to, they should then do the sensible and decent thing and mind their own business. The game is obviously not for them.
owltuna wrote:
Maybe walk a mile in the shoes of people who have been playing correspondance chess for decades, and have to put up with constant accusations of cheating from chess beginners on this site who won't take the time to try to understand the spirit of the game.
Bobbarooski wrote:
These latest comments raise another interesting point. Since I've never used a database nor an engine to select moves, I mistakenly lumped them together. I stand corrected, as apparently, an engine is not allowed because it finds moves for you. Whereas a database merely shows moves that grandmasters played in similar positions, and it's up to the player to do his own research. Do I have the distinction correct, or am I still missing the point?
Whatever the answer, I still like my strategy of play first, analyze after. But I'm only an annoying idealistic beginner.
Sred wrote:
Correspondence chess has been around for hundreds of years now. Some of the greatest players found it interesting and useful for good reasons.
But hey, lets change the rules because some guys think that it "feels like cheating".
I would add only that the topic is not new. There have been dozens of threads on this topic on chess.com and hundreds on other chess sites. To contribute to an understanding of how databases may be used, I have penned a few words that are accessible via http://chessskill.blogspot.com/search/label/databases.
In particular, my post "Busting the Benoni" http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2013/07/busting-benoni.html, explains how I used my database to create some initiative into the middlegame. I made important choices along the way, choices that were grounded in several year's experience with the opening in question.
Eventually, we left all reference material, and I had to find the right moves.
You've stated a lot of exaggerations here, I see no reason why the word tyranny should be used in the text when it sends a clear message. To make a point in the title of an essay and not address it in the essay is just poor writing. If you had insight into geopolitical events you'll know what I'm talking about. To not cite references is just poor writing. TO assume I have no knowledge is simply condescending. Although I think that you're just trolling because you did not expressed your opinion but instead criticisms are addressed only to the form of the text. You wondered why few people bothered responding to you. I told you why. You do not like my answer. Are you able to formulate what exactly you personally do not like in the text? I have not indicated whether I agree or disagree with you and I am not interested in debating this with you here for two reasons:
1. The topic is boring and OVERDONE. I can watch people talk about this everyday on television. You have not added anything unique to the conversation.
2. Religious and political discussion are not allowed in this section of the chess.com forums. Again that is a WRITTEN rule. Go read the top pinned post in "off topic".
If you really want to debate this, you will get a LOT of responses if you join the group "Open Discussion", where political and religious debate are allowed. It is unmoderated. Go here, and I MIGHT talk to you about it there. I am a regular:
You've stated a lot of exaggerations here, I see no reason why the word tyranny should be used in the text when it sends a clear message. To make a point in the title of an essay and not address it in the essay is just poor writing. If you had insight into geopolitical events you'll know what I'm talking about. To not cite references is just poor writing. TO assume I have no knowledge is simply condescending. Although I think that you're just trolling because you did not expressed your opinion but instead criticisms are addressed only to the form of the text. You wondered why few people bothered responding to you. I told you why. You do not like my answer. Are you able to formulate what exactly you personally do not like in the text? I have not indicated whether I agree or disagree with you and I am not interested in debating this with you here for two reasons:
1. The topic is boring and OVERDONE. I can watch people talk about this everyday on television. You have not added anything unique to the conversation.
2. Religious and political discussion are not allowed in this section of the chess.com forums. Again that is a WRITTEN rule. Go read the top pinned post in "off topic".
If you really want to debate this, you will get a LOT of responses if you join the group "Open Discussion", where political and religious debate are allowed. It is unmoderated. Go here, and I MIGHT talk to you about it there. I am a regular:
Yes, I'll suddenly stop what I'm doing just because you do not like it ... well, maybe it would be better for you not to comment on my topics if you are not pleased with them.
It is not a matter of me not liking it. It is against the rules of chess.com. I showed you where you ARE allowed to discuss it. No reason to get pissy.
You asked why no one responded to you. I told you. Now you want me to not respond? Strange.
Here is the rule found here: :
There are a few simple rules for posting on Chess.com.
#1 - Respect others. Do not be mean.
#2 - No profanity, swearing, or inappropriate language or topics.
#3 - No religious or political debate or commentary in these forums. Religion and politics are important and deeply personal, but Chess.com is a friendly community where we come together around a common love for chess and debating these two topics tend to pull people apart. If you would like to discuss religion or politics, you may want to join this group => Open Discussion Group.
None of my posts was deleted, therefore your accusations are unfounded.
Accusations? I was giving you friendly advice.
No one reported it, nor will I, but it is very much the rule. I provided a link to show it.
You are either paranoid, or specifically looking for a fight. Again, if you want to argue politics, go to Open Discussion. You will find PLENTY of people that will respond to you.
if one goes to the game of a couple of other playes that is in progress, at the bottom of the onscreen board there is a "comment" choice with the stipulation that the players will not be able to read the comments until after the game. an obvious reason for that, correct? i had a case of a game where my oppenent "messaged" another player,apparently had them look at "our" game, asking advice about whether he should or should not offer a draw. i thought that was "chicken"...no offense to the bird. if one brings another "player" or "electronic" third person into the mix in my mind, is overstepping the bounds of "fairplay". i do the "daily puzzle" daily. i like the "computer workout". i like youtubes of the likes of "anand's 5 minute game". i can continually educate myself and it may be the case that i change tactics mid-game. fresh discoveries could happen on a court, ball diamond, cricketfield, soccerfield while a game is in progress. as to the argument above about the phantom soccer goalie ? ill borrow from a wise chessmate who said, "you embarrass yourself" much below the usual, "apples and organges" comparison. the crux for me is the "third person" input analogy.
Well, your opponent violated the written rules of this site. That's not what this thread is about.
ok chessmate, ill put it simple for you then without examples: any use of "third person", electronic or in the flesh would constitute a move of 2 or more players vs 1 player. if a player is aware enough to play chess, i would hope one would be able discern the difference and be able to figure it out themselves on both levels...the ethical and the particular move itself.
None of my posts was deleted, therefore your accusations are unfounded.
Accusations? I was giving you friendly advice.
No one reported it, nor will I, but it is very much the rule. I provided a link to show it.
You are either paranoid, or specifically looking for a fight. Again, if you want to argue politics, go to Open Discussion. You will find PLENTY of people that will respond to you.
I reported it. :)
None of my posts was deleted, therefore your accusations are unfounded.
Accusations? I was giving you friendly advice.
No one reported it, nor will I, but it is very much the rule. I provided a link to show it.
You are either paranoid, or specifically looking for a fight. Again, if you want to argue politics, go to Open Discussion. You will find PLENTY of people that will respond to you.
Your claims are exaggerated and therefore offensive.
What "claims" are you even talking about?
That was in response to you saying that I made "accusations" of you. What "accusations" did I make? I am pretty sure that you just proved that I was right...you are clearly looking for a fight.
That was in response to you saying that I made "accusations" of you. What "accusations" did I make? I am pretty sure that you just proved that I was right...you are clearly looking for a fight.
You made a judgment. The burden of defense is on your side.
If my "accusation" was that you are either paranoid or looking for a fight, QED.
That was in response to you saying that I made "accusations" of you. What "accusations" did I make? I am pretty sure that you just proved that I was right...you are clearly looking for a fight.
You made a judgment. The burden of defense is on your side.
QED
I do not understand what you mean.
You are asking me to defend the statement "You are either paranoid or looking for a fight". You made this into a fight, when there was none there. Q.E.D.
Interesting threads get very few replies, a thread with an obvious answer which should last 1 post gets 236 so far.
the obvious answer to the topic should be "NO".
It is not a matter of me not liking it. It is against the rules of chess.com. I showed you where you ARE allowed to discuss it. No reason to get pissy.
You asked why no one responded to you. I told you. Now you want me to not respond? Strange.
Here is the rule found here: :
There are a few simple rules for posting on Chess.com.
#1 - Respect others. Do not be mean.
#2 - No profanity, swearing, or inappropriate language or topics.
#3 - No religious or political debate or commentary in these forums. Religion and politics are important and deeply personal, but Chess.com is a friendly community where we come together around a common love for chess and debating these two topics tend to pull people apart. If you would like to discuss religion or politics, you may want to join this group => Open Discussion Group.
None of my posts was deleted, therefore your accusations are unfounded.
There is an updated verion of these that can now be found here:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/making-the-chesscom-forums-better
Additionally, the following behaviors are not allowed in the main public forums and chat rooms:
That was in response to you saying that I made "accusations" of you. What "accusations" did I make? I am pretty sure that you just proved that I was right...you are clearly looking for a fight.
You made a judgment. The burden of defense is on your side.
QED
I do not understand what you mean.
You are asking me to defend the statement "You are either paranoid or looking for a fight". You made this into a fight, when there was none there. Q.E.D.
It seems that you're the one who attacks.
You asked for an opinion, I gave it to you.
if one goes to the game of a couple of other playes that is in progress, at the bottom of the onscreen board there is a "comment" choice with the stipulation that the players will not be able to read the comments until after the game. an obvious reason for that, correct? i had a case of a game where my oppenent "messaged" another player,apparently had them look at "our" game, asking advice about whether he should or should not offer a draw. i thought that was "chicken"...no offense to the bird. if one brings another "player" or "electronic" third person into the mix in my mind, is overstepping the bounds of "fairplay". i do the "daily puzzle" daily. i like the "computer workout". i like youtubes of the likes of "anand's 5 minute game". i can continually educate myself and it may be the case that i change tactics mid-game. fresh discoveries could happen on a court, ball diamond, cricketfield, soccerfield while a game is in progress. as to the argument above about the phantom soccer goalie ? ill borrow from a wise chessmate who said, "you embarrass yourself" much below the usual, "apples and organges" comparison. the crux for me is the "third person" input analogy.
Well, your opponent violated the written rules of this site. That's not what this thread is about.
ok chessmate, ill put it simple for you then without examples: any use of "third person", electronic or in the flesh would constitute a move of 2 or more players vs 1 player. if a player is aware enough to play chess, i would hope one would be able discern the difference and be able to figure it out themselves on both levels...the ethical and the particular move itself.
Yes, help from a third person is cheating. We all agree about that. Do you think a database is a person or what's your point?
Thanks for the update, TheGrobe!
I did not realize the major changes to the "off-topic" category. I stand corrected.
It looks like Narkoman can post that type of message in that area. I still think that he will find a lot more people to respond and engage with him in Open Discussion, though. It is a very active group, where people LOVE arguing politics and religion. He would get 20 replies to his post the first day, if not more.
That being said, people attack ideas pretty viciously. If he thinks I was rough on his essay, he probably does not have thick enough skin for that group. It can get pretty rough.
Interesting threads get very few replies, a thread with an obvious answer which should last 1 post gets 236 so far.
This is true. My thread ˝Tyranny of the poor and stupid˝ has only 12 replies. What does this tell us about our fellow disputants?
The exception proves the rule.
By the definition of rule, an exception would disprove it.
this is a common English expression with a long history. Feel free to research it.
Regardless if it's common or not, and regardless if it has a long history; it's a false statement. Using the current definition of prove, anyways.
I am not interested in giving you free English lessons. Go find a tutor.