There are two kinds of chess players...

There are two kinds of chess players:  Those who can be placed into one of two categories, and those who cannot.

So are you the first kind or the second kind?

I disagree because all chess players can be placed into the category called chess players, therefore there is no chess player kind who cannot.

Because you defined one of the two categories as those who cannot and there is no kind of chess player who fits into that category,

as a result, there is only one kind of chess player unless your definitions of the two kinds change.

I have yet to find a way to satisfactorily agree with your disagreement. Though we have not agreed to disagree, which in and of itself is not a disagreement, unless you explicitly refuse to make that agreement, I have neither explicitly disagreed with your reply itself; that is, until now. Here's where I differ with you - it is within the category of chess that I'm saying there are two subcategories, the fact that chess in and of itself is a category notwithstanding.  It's a hierachical thing.  Now, were you to take issue with some other fundamental premise, you might gain some ground, and I would most likely have more work to do refuting your rebuttal, or rebutting your refutation, as it were, and hence may be.  Time will tell.

This theory creates a false dichotomy.

Genuine dichotomies are typically too binary and obvious.  A good false dichotomy, now there's a treasure indeed!

You would make a good lawyer. Failing that try politics.

And failing that, try "General Discussions" forum on chess.com? :-}

"Refutal" would have been funnier.

Perhaps, were it not for the fact that that approach has been played out.

There are three types of people.  Those who can count, and those who can't.

I thought it went:  There are 10 types of people in the world.  Those who know binary and those who don't.

All in good fun. I'd challenge you to a speed blitz to ungridlock the filibuster, but you'd probably win with a sub variation, so let's just agree to agree now and I'll try to find a way to save face after you find a way to refute the irrefutable at which point we'll call it a novelty for novelty's sake. Then Yereslov and Daeth can battle it out with best 2 out of 3 paper, scissors rock to see who gets to name it. 

I'm afraid you've caught me with my pants down.

Was that just a random response, or was it actually intended to mean something?

hmmm   I wonder which category I fall into.....Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, Catch a tiger by the toe.  If he hollers, let him go!!!!!!

heyyyy   It rhymes!!!!  Well done  Felix  hahahahaaha

I can mean anything you want it to, as long as it doesn't involve me.

Some chess players fold.  Other chess players crumple.  Still others neither fold nor crumple.  No chess players fold and crumple, as crumpling negates folding, and one cannot meaningfully fold that which has already been crumpled.

Unless it's motionless and pliable, like skin.   Skin: Crumple - still skin (ask Rumplstilskin).  But typically crumpling results myriad micro folds, which don't need to be implicitly denigrated as meaningless by the likes of you, just because they have an apparent element of useless randomness and aesthetic discord to them.