Sarcasm is not always obvious, but I felt quite confident that it was present here. After all, the facts given in the OP's first paragraph would indicate that the French is a top-level opening, in direct contrast with the second paragraph.
Magnus plays the Awful French
Sort:
i cant believe i wasted my time reading through this thread...sigh. i want my 3 minutes back...sigh...that's impossible.
I was just trying to say that the first post is one of those posts where the sarcasm was fairly obvious. I know I'm not an authority on sarcasm and I know that my post was not funny. Perhaps I shouldn't post in these sorts of threads any more.
SirDavid wrote:
I was just trying to say that the first post is one of those posts where the sarcasm was fairly obvious. I know I'm not an authority on sarcasm and I know that my post was not funny. Perhaps I shouldn't post in these sorts of threads any more.
I'm going to say it was semi obvious, if that makes any sense.
Elubas wrote:
SirDavid wrote:
I was just trying to say that the first post is one of those posts where the sarcasm was fairly obvious. I know I'm not an authority on sarcasm and I know that my post was not funny. Perhaps I shouldn't post in these sorts of threads any more.
I'm going to say it was semi obvious, if that makes any sense.
I'm coming over to Elbus side here - with topics like did fischer fake his death to secretly play icc or how e4 has been refuted and d4 is sound the idea that someone would post how the french is weak and has no counter play isn't that far out there.
Elubas wrote:
marvellosity wrote:
Elubas wrote:
I really think that when people say this unclear stuff they should just make a small note that it was sarcasm at the end, I mean that probably doesn't hurt the post, and then the nice part is us readers can build up all that rage... and then release in relief. And then laugh. Hopefully.
I entirely disagree. It should be pretty obvious when it's in jest, like it was here even without the disclaimer that followed.
That way, there are 2 benefits:
a) the not-dumb among us get to appreciate the sarcasm or irony without it being somewhat marred by having to be pointed out, and
b) the not-dumb among us get to snicker smugly at all the donkeys who failed to pick it up.
But like I said, it's not always easy to detect sarcasm. I was thinking "maybe, but I'm not sure". It may have been obvious to you, but you can't speak for everybody. I thought it could easily go either way. In fact I was even leaning towards sarcasm, which is why I only said "are you serious?". But clearly other people didn't get it at first, no big deal when it's the internet and not a real place.
I don't think that confusion is good, even if they are just dumb. Unless you find the people who thought something wasn't sarcastic funny, but I find it more annoying that things aren't entirely clear the first few pages. The only thing to me that hinted sarcasm was when he said carlsen won, but still said the french is bad, but maybe that would mean that since he only used it once it doesn't mean anything, and that was a possibility that was going through my head.
You're also wrong that because some people don't make a 100% decision (because they could be leaning towards it) that they're dumb. No, I can get the sarcasm out of the first posts yes, but I can't absolutely confirm it wasn't still a hate post, and there are serious topics (though totally unjusitifed) like this, many french bashers on the site.
Well, I managed it. Maybe I've just ascended to a higher plane of existence?
orangehonda: it's not so far out there, but that's why you actually read the post to see how it's written.
God damn, what is it with americans and irony/sarcasm?
marvellosity wrote:
Elubas wrote:
marvellosity wrote:
Elubas wrote:
I really think that when people say this unclear stuff they should just make a small note that it was sarcasm at the end, I mean that probably doesn't hurt the post, and then the nice part is us readers can build up all that rage... and then release in relief. And then laugh. Hopefully.
I entirely disagree. It should be pretty obvious when it's in jest, like it was here even without the disclaimer that followed.
That way, there are 2 benefits:
a) the not-dumb among us get to appreciate the sarcasm or irony without it being somewhat marred by having to be pointed out, and
b) the not-dumb among us get to snicker smugly at all the donkeys who failed to pick it up.
But like I said, it's not always easy to detect sarcasm. I was thinking "maybe, but I'm not sure". It may have been obvious to you, but you can't speak for everybody. I thought it could easily go either way. In fact I was even leaning towards sarcasm, which is why I only said "are you serious?". But clearly other people didn't get it at first, no big deal when it's the internet and not a real place.
I don't think that confusion is good, even if they are just dumb. Unless you find the people who thought something wasn't sarcastic funny, but I find it more annoying that things aren't entirely clear the first few pages. The only thing to me that hinted sarcasm was when he said carlsen won, but still said the french is bad, but maybe that would mean that since he only used it once it doesn't mean anything, and that was a possibility that was going through my head.
You're also wrong that because some people don't make a 100% decision (because they could be leaning towards it) that they're dumb. No, I can get the sarcasm out of the first posts yes, but I can't absolutely confirm it wasn't still a hate post, and there are serious topics (though totally unjusitifed) like this, many french bashers on the site.
Well, I managed it. Maybe I've just ascended to a higher plane of existence?
orangehonda: it's not so far out there, but that's why you actually read the post to see how it's written.
God damn, what is it with americans and irony/sarcasm?
Managed the confusion of all of the readers, or "figured it out"? Personally I could do without the pages of useless posts seeing on if it was sarcasm or not because it wasn't clear enough.
Once again Marvel, I could see things that hinted out of sarcasm, but at the same time I saw some things that reminded me of french haters posting similar topics. "Higher plane of existence"? Seriously? I hope it's sarcasm, but that one was hard to tell.
marvellosity wrote:
Elubas wrote:
marvellosity wrote:
Elubas wrote:
I really think that when people say this unclear stuff they should just make a small note that it was sarcasm at the end, I mean that probably doesn't hurt the post, and then the nice part is us readers can build up all that rage... and then release in relief. And then laugh. Hopefully.
I entirely disagree. It should be pretty obvious when it's in jest, like it was here even without the disclaimer that followed.
That way, there are 2 benefits:
a) the not-dumb among us get to appreciate the sarcasm or irony without it being somewhat marred by having to be pointed out, and
b) the not-dumb among us get to snicker smugly at all the donkeys who failed to pick it up.
But like I said, it's not always easy to detect sarcasm. I was thinking "maybe, but I'm not sure". It may have been obvious to you, but you can't speak for everybody. I thought it could easily go either way. In fact I was even leaning towards sarcasm, which is why I only said "are you serious?". But clearly other people didn't get it at first, no big deal when it's the internet and not a real place.
I don't think that confusion is good, even if they are just dumb. Unless you find the people who thought something wasn't sarcastic funny, but I find it more annoying that things aren't entirely clear the first few pages. The only thing to me that hinted sarcasm was when he said carlsen won, but still said the french is bad, but maybe that would mean that since he only used it once it doesn't mean anything, and that was a possibility that was going through my head.
You're also wrong that because some people don't make a 100% decision (because they could be leaning towards it) that they're dumb. No, I can get the sarcasm out of the first posts yes, but I can't absolutely confirm it wasn't still a hate post, and there are serious topics (though totally unjusitifed) like this, many french bashers on the site.
Well, I managed it. Maybe I've just ascended to a higher plane of existence?
orangehonda: it's not so far out there, but that's why you actually read the post to see how it's written.
God damn, what is it with americans and irony/sarcasm?
Sarcasm is funniest when the victim doesn't realize it. American's are idiots, Marv. Trust me, I am one.
bigpoison wrote:
marvellosity wrote:
Elubas wrote:
marvellosity wrote:
Elubas wrote:
I really think that when people say this unclear stuff they should just make a small note that it was sarcasm at the end, I mean that probably doesn't hurt the post, and then the nice part is us readers can build up all that rage... and then release in relief. And then laugh. Hopefully.
I entirely disagree. It should be pretty obvious when it's in jest, like it was here even without the disclaimer that followed.
That way, there are 2 benefits:
a) the not-dumb among us get to appreciate the sarcasm or irony without it being somewhat marred by having to be pointed out, and
b) the not-dumb among us get to snicker smugly at all the donkeys who failed to pick it up.
But like I said, it's not always easy to detect sarcasm. I was thinking "maybe, but I'm not sure". It may have been obvious to you, but you can't speak for everybody. I thought it could easily go either way. In fact I was even leaning towards sarcasm, which is why I only said "are you serious?". But clearly other people didn't get it at first, no big deal when it's the internet and not a real place.
I don't think that confusion is good, even if they are just dumb. Unless you find the people who thought something wasn't sarcastic funny, but I find it more annoying that things aren't entirely clear the first few pages. The only thing to me that hinted sarcasm was when he said carlsen won, but still said the french is bad, but maybe that would mean that since he only used it once it doesn't mean anything, and that was a possibility that was going through my head.
You're also wrong that because some people don't make a 100% decision (because they could be leaning towards it) that they're dumb. No, I can get the sarcasm out of the first posts yes, but I can't absolutely confirm it wasn't still a hate post, and there are serious topics (though totally unjusitifed) like this, many french bashers on the site.
Well, I managed it. Maybe I've just ascended to a higher plane of existence?
orangehonda: it's not so far out there, but that's why you actually read the post to see how it's written.
God damn, what is it with americans and irony/sarcasm?
Sarcasm is funniest when the victim doesn't realize it. American's are idiots, Marv. Trust me, I am one.
Well, all of the bumbling ones that everybody notices gives America it's reputation.
Elubas: you think I haven't seen French-bashing threads too?
bigpoison: I trust implictly in you that you put that apostrophe there on purpose.
marvellosity wrote:
Elubas: you think I haven't seen French-bashing threads too?
bigpoison: I trust implictly in you that you put that apostrophe there on purpose.
I did say that Im an idiot.
This stigma against Americans... aww. Well, man, if Carlsen is playing it, it must be terrible! Weaver W. Adams is rolling in his grave and getting ready to write that refutation right now.
Cutebold wrote:
This stigma against Americans... aww. Well, man, if Carlsen is playing it, it must be terrible! Weaver W. Adams is rolling in his grave and getting ready to write that refutation right now.
No stigma, Cutey - just bafflement :)
Count me among the baffled then.
very passive......though it can be tricky if you're patient.
Madeinthemind wrote:
very passive......though it can be tricky if you're patient.
See, anti french threads can come from people who think it's very passive. It's a very solid structure, but it would be wrong to classify it as "very passive". I suppose some passive lines are there like 3 Nc3 dxe4 (though when I play this against strong players hoping for a draw I have done extremely well with no losses and some wins!) but most lines where white closes the center with e5 black gets dynamic counterchances. Yeah black's center is super solid, but in fact it's this solid central strcuture that allows him to go all out on white's pawn chain.
dc1985 wrote:
rich wrote:
ManicDragon wrote:
rich wrote:
ManicDragon wrote:
rich wrote:
ManicDragon wrote:
I agree. The French Defence is horrendously weak, offers no counter-play, and has essentially been refuted. And to top it all off, it's a boring abomination.
That's sarcasm for those people who aren't paying attention.
Actually the French is okay. This seems weird coming from someone who plays 1.a3 which is a weak move.
"That's sarcasm for those people who aren't paying attention."
Maybe I should have put it in bold for the people who really, really aren't paying attention. Like, in-a-coma-not-paying-attention.
And I'm not sure I consider you to be an authority on openings, Rich.
1.a3 is too rubbish. d4, c4, and e4 are all superior.
Rich, I'm just going to let this one drop. I have a very difficult time locating your miniature world so that I can argue with you in a way that will actually get through and register.
Please, for the sake of my sanity, don't quote this and start stating things in your "matter-of-fact" way.
Why was you calling the French a bad opening? 1.a3 is by far worse and never played at top level. Don't call other openings when you use even sillier ones.
Rich, for goodness' sake, ManicDragon was using SARCASM! He even stated that he was, in fact, being sarcastic.
For the original thread... How exactly is the French a weak opening? There are plenty of masters and grandmasters who play the French! The top ten or so players may not, but this could very well be a matter of taste.
By the way... You show dislike for the French, yet you play it... routinely... Sounds suspicious to me! =)
When people play Qg4 AFTER PLAYING THE WINAWER I get pretty annoyed but other than the constant QG4 threat the french is ok.
Elubas wrote:
Madeinthemind wrote:
very passive......though it can be tricky if you're patient.
See, anti french threads can come from people who think it's very passive. It's a very solid structure, but it would be wrong to classify it as "very passive". I suppose some passive lines are there like 3 Nc3 dxe4 (though when I play this against strong players hoping for a draw I have done extremely well with no losses and some wins!) but most lines where white closes the center with e5 black gets dynamic counterchances. Yeah black's center is super solid, but in fact it's this solid central strcuture that allows him to go all out on white's pawn chain.
i wasn't being serious. i personally don't mind the french as long as i am in control of the game. it allows me to develop some nasty tactics while maintaining a long term positional plan which is something you can't acheive with other openings. it's usually a tactical or positional game, but the french allows for some flexibility in this regard and that's why i say it can be tricky if you are patient. i was pointing out that players who are quick to write it off and who are not grandmasters are simply impatient in their analysis.
Between posts about supranormal chess and how castling violates time and space somewhere along the way my sarcasm radar gets turned off and I start taking the posts at face value