I simply try to be helpful whether I'm telling someone that he's wrong or answering questions or shamelessly promoting my blog. I carry no grudges. Even the poster whom I blocked after he called me a cheater was only blocked temporarily.
I still think you are missing that fact that what I said could be construed as an accusation, but there is still another possibility for what I meant. The fact it could be construed that way was incidental. You apparently felt threatened for some reason. If you aren't guilty, why get so upset if someone didn't make a direct accusation ?
Seriously, I challenge you to go back and read the posts. I welcome you to create a thread about it, in the cheating forum and we will let the jury decide.
We aren't supposed to accuse anyone of anything here falsely, that includes accusing someone of making false accusations because, they are false accusations in and of themselves.
We also aren't supposed to discuss cheating and cheating accusations outside of the cheating forum. Are you really interested in operating within the rules, or do you just say that for show ?
If the discussion of alternate meaning of your words belongs in the cheating forum, then you have admitted than their plain sense (which is a clear accusation) is the correct understanding.
We can all interpret what ever we'd like , how ever we'd like, to support our own opinions, regardless of the place or subject matter. I keep asking for you to remove your biases from this and yet you insist only giving yourself the benefit of the doubt. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt in your thread that, though maybe you don't put 2 and 2 together well all of the time, you might have one hell of a database to draw moves from and some how you construe that as, I was accusing you of foul play, simply because it appeared to me that your intelligence alone, didn't support your chess skills. Perhaps your database that, you admitted you created in SCID does ?
I really don't care whether you consider it a bad joke or an accusation. I wasn't sure how else to get my point across about whether creating a database, far more comprehensive should be considered cheating, but your double standard over this matter clearly shows that you think it should be considered cheating, if it can prove I accused you of it, but not when it refers to your move choices and performance in your games....seriously dude...like I said you wouldn't make a good attorney...
I have never used SCID. You do need some reading lessons.
I think I actually need to check with staff because, I could have sworn you mention the three links provided by the OP and you creating your own database on SCID but have since edited it try quelling my argument. In the even that I did read it else where, though I don't see it anywhere in the rest of the thread either, which by the way is quite peculiar to me, It is possible I was confused and wrong. However, until such a time that I can verify it, I certainly am sticking to my guns. I am way too young to be going senile already.
I was the OP in the thread that you are referencing. Here's the initial post. (Now somebodyyson is gonna attack me again for posting it.)
The endless threads about database use in correspondence ("online", turn-based, slow) chess are dominated by players who display misconceptions concerning how and why databases are used. Most of these old canards have been discussed in detail in a series of posts that I have placed on my blog.Have a look at these posts so that we can have an intelligent discussion.
Playing a novelty on move twenty in a line of the French Defense brought victory in the final game of a tournament, evened the score with my opponent, and gave me a share of first place. The event was a French Defense Thematic on Chess.com that began in July 2009 and finished a few days ago. The event began with 32 players paired in groups of four. Within each group, contestants played two games against each opponent with the top two in each group advancing to the next round. By the fifth round there were five players in two groups. There would have been three players in the final round, but the third player was banned for cheating. The banned player scored an impressive 28-0-0 record and was in clear first until the purge.
When I started playing correspondence chess, I began to value another sort of assistance: reference books. While playing my games, I would pore through every chess book within reach looking for comparable positions. Playing better correspondence chess became a principal motive for acquiring certain books. The benefits of this research spilled over into my non-aided games. More often I found myself playing openings that I had studied in great detail with practical application to some game in progress.
Now, consider the beginning of the game when there are thirty-two pieces on the board. After one move--White and Black--there are four hundred possible positions that can be reached. White can lose by checkmate on the second move eight ways, and can deliver checkmate on the third via347 unique sequences. By the end of the fourth move (eight plies), there are 84,998,978,956 possible move sequences. Let's round the number to eighty-five billion.
Read every link. There may be a reference to SCID, but there are no references to me using it. I have used ChessBase 8 and ChessBase 11 to modify my databases. I have over 200 chess books, and some of these are mentioned too. I have the first 113 issues of Chess Informant, and these play a significant role in one of the articles.
comment deleted by me because it was unnecesarily snarky. he asks a question, we answer, and he doesn't respond. ...