Urk's Law
Sort:
Feb 23, 2017
0
#2
I was expecting your next post to be on an amazing theoretical novelty you had discovered.
Working on it. There is just so many to consider.
Ok @Urk what do you think of this
A6 is my novelty I think. It prevents the white bishop from coming to B5. I looked as some opening book after and its not there. Hopefully we see Magnus do this in the future. I played black and won the game.
Feb 23, 2017
0
#5
Looks like your novelty 4...a6 confused your opponent and interfered with his scheme of development. You then followed up with the strong 9....Bg4! which caused him to protect his Nf3 awkwardly, leading to the loss of his queen. I see...
Feb 23, 2017
0
#6
4)...a6 is unnecessary.Bb5 is not a real threat.You should play ...d6 else white can push in e5 and u need move the knight away losing time and space.
Smoggyabbainopadano wrote:
4)...a6 is unnecessary.Bb5 is not a real threat.You should play ...d6 else white can push in e5 and u need move the knight away losing time and space.
But then it wouldn't be a novelty.
urk wrote:
Looks like your novelty 4...a6 confused your opponent and interfered with his scheme of development. You then followed up with the strong 9....Bg4! which caused him to protect his Nf3 awkwardly, leading to the loss of his queen. I see...
Yes, I hoping this novelty always leads to a capture of the opponent's Queen. I might have just solved chess. In one variation at least.
kaynight wrote:
Someone mention trolls?
Nope, he said "comedians".
hahaha love these threads😂😂😂
this thread irks me
badenwurtca wrote:
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
I'm creating this thread in order to help moderators distinguish trollish threads from threads that promote intellectual chess discussion.
Urk's Law is as follows:
1. If Urk is not the number 2 post on the thread, it might be a thread made by one of those Chess.com "comedians" and should considered being moved to off-topic.
2. There is a chance that Urk is asleep, in this case wait 24 hours. If Urk doesn't respond in that time frame, the thread should definitely be moved to off-topic.
I hope this helps chess.com moderators. Together we can keep General Chess discussion a place of serious chess discussion.
Thank you.
--- Okay it is true that " General Chess Discussion " should be for Chess topics. This thread however is about a specific member of this site ( judging by the title up at the top & the OP's 1st post ) and therefore should be in the " Off Topic Forum ".
The thread is a guideline for moderating General Chess Discussion. Therefore, pertains to General Chess Discussion.
I see Moderators can't follow simple instructions. No matter, I'll move it back to its rightful place in the forums.
And please have some respect for me. If you're going to even think about moving one of my threads to that dreadful "Off-topic" section please let me know in advance. I would rather have my thread deleted than see it in that atrocious section.
badenwurtca wrote:
VladimirHerceg91 wrote:
And please have some respect for me. If you're going to even think about moving one of my threads to that dreadful "Off-topic" section please let me know in advance. I would rather have my thread deleted than see it in that atrocious section.
--- Well if one agrees with your statement regarding the purpose of this thread ( ie: how the staff should moderate the threads ) then perhaps this thread itself should be in the " Site Feedback & Suggestions Forum " ?
Nobody reads that. That's pretty much Chess.com's junk mail section.
To the mods: This thread that was designed to help you to better moderate the forums was thrown out of General Chess discussion. I feel disrespected and above all betrayed.
I ask now if this thread can deleted, for I can't stand the sight of one of my threads being in any other place than General Chess discussion.
Thank you.
I'm creating this thread in order to help moderators distinguish trollish threads from threads that promote intellectual chess discussion.
Urk's Law is as follows:
1. If Urk is not the number 2 post on the thread, it might be a thread made by one of those Chess.com "comedians" and should considered being moved to off-topic.
2. There is a chance that Urk is asleep, in this case wait 24 hours. If Urk doesn't respond in that time frame, the thread should definitely be moved to off-topic.
I hope this helps chess.com moderators. Together we can keep General Chess discussion a place of serious chess discussion.
Thank you.