Urk was banned???what kind of abuse?😕
Why URK shouldn't have been banned
Sort:
0
#3
One of the consequences of high technology in online chess is that it is impossible to know which players are strong and which ones reek. The only thing you know about him that is factual is that his account was closed for abusing other members on this site and Chess.com took care of the problem quite handily.
????
0
#6
So lets examine your logic. Urk should not have been banned because it results in a rating inflation to the undeserving 'poor'. Can we see your maths please to examine what extent this inflation occurs and by how much the undeserving poor benefit. Are we talking 5 ELO points, 10 ELO points, 100 ELO points, 500 ELO points? How much?
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
Urk was a high rated player. When such players get banned, they leave behind large footprints.
For instance, rating inflation. By banning a member for abuse, especially a high-rated one like Urk, you open the door for massive rating inflation to undeserving members.
So you are really saying high rated player shouldn't get banned giving them immunity to break every rule? Such thinking is not rational and not fitting the society as is it nowadays.
A chess player at a tournament breaking the rules hardly wouldn't be allowed to stay either, independent his rank.
[Event "Live Chess"]
[Site "Chess.com"]
[Date "2017.04.30"]
[White "shakilkhanA1"]
[Black "Chucklov5454"]
[WhiteElo "1275"]
[BlackElo "1222"]
[TimeControl "300"]
[ECO "D02"]
[Termination "shakilkhanA1 won by checkmate"]
[Result "1-0"]
[CurrentPosition "8/6pk/2q2pbp/2P1Q3/1P6/P2r3P/5PP1/3RR1K1 w - - 0 34"]
1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 Bf5 3.Nc3 e6 4.a3 Nf6 5.h3 h6 6.e3 Nc6 7.Bb5 Be7 8.O-O O-O 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.Re1 Rb8 11.e4 dxe4 12.Ne5 Bd6 13.Nxc6 Qd7 14.Nxb8 Rxb8 15.b4 Bg6 16.Bb2 Nd5 17.Nxe4 Re8 18.c3 Be7 19.Nc5 Bxc5 20.dxc5 Qe7 21.c4 Nf6 22.c6 Rd8 23.Qa4 Ne4 24.Qxa7 Nd6 25.c5 Nc4 26.Bc3 e5 27.Qa6 Qe6 28.Qb7 Rd3 29.Qb8+ Kh7 30.Bxe5 Nxe5 31.Qxc7 Qf6 32.Qxe5 Qxc6 33.Rad1 f6 34.Qe7 Rxa3 35.Rd7 Qc7 36.Qxg7# 1-0
How did Urk get banned?
give me a best chess trick
White, who is higher rated than Urk, had a won game before the flag fell.
Losing a high rated player would actually cause rating deflation, unless you return all lost rating points to Urk. However it is statistically insignificant.
Nothing against Urk, I liked reading his posts here. But saying that banning of high ranking players is not right only because it may lead to some ranking distortion sounds same as saying that a rich people should not be punished for a crime only because their hairdressers income may suffer because of that. I really hope that there was no big deal with whatever Urk was banned for and that the ban will be lifted soon.
[COMMENT DELETED]
0
#18
dylpill999 wrote:
urk got banned for "Not Following Community Guidelines" which means he was probably abusing members. I remember my first thread. I asked if beginners should use engines for game analysis or would it be best to not use an engine at all. His response to my question was that I shouldn't bother with any engine to analyze crappy games even if their your own. That was how he typically talked to members. What really got him off though was when the opportunity arose to subject a lower rated player than himself to a humiliating tongue lashing because they weren't good enough players to receive any kind of respect. This is why Chess.com tossed him out on his ear and closed his account for abuse. What I can't understand is why so many members(like our OP) would kiss his rear all over our forums so that urk would give their heads a pat. It was quite a bit nauseating to see urk's many admirers begin wagging their tails for me. I am just telling it how it is. Sorry.
0
#19
Hey_Randi wrote:
dylpill999 wrote:
urk got banned for "Not Following Community Guidelines" which means he was probably abusing members. I remember my first thread. I asked if beginners should use engines for game analysis or would it be best to not use an engine at all. His response to my question was that I shouldn't bother with any engine to analyze crappy games even if their your own. That was how he typically talked to members. What really got him off though was when the opportunity arose to subject a lower rated player than himself to a humiliating tongue lashing because they weren't good enough players to receive any kind of respect. This is why Chess.com tossed him out on his ear and closed his account for abuse. What I can't understand is why so many members(like our OP) would kiss his rear all over our forums so that urk would give their heads a pat. It was quite a bit nauseating to see urk's many admirers begin wagging their tails for me. I am just telling it how it is. Sorry.
I read that thread when you posted it, Hey_Randi. I actually thought he was being a little rude to you but you seemed grateful to Urk for being blunt. I agree that he came across as a little too blunt sometimes, but overall he seemed like an okay guy. I'm not an admirer of him in any way, I just prefer to see the good side rather than the bad.
0
#20
Your right Slow_pawn. I was greatful for his advice to go try analyzing GM games and I have been doing just that. His advice was excellent. I would not have thought about doing that. But when urk posted the second time he may have realized that his first post didn't make him look good. That was because right after he posted me about my crappy games several kind members sent me several lovely posts with helpful tips and well wishes. Lastly I did tell urk that I appreciated his frankness because that was my way of offering urk an out. I didn't want urk to feel bad in anyway because of his silly post and I wanted to leave on good terms with him and not seem as if I had my knickers in a knot. Thank you Slow_pawn. It was so kind of you to remember me. Cheers! 🍺
Urk was a high rated player. When such players get banned, they leave behind large footprints.
For instance, rating inflation. By banning a member for abuse, especially a high-rated one like Urk, you open the door for massive rating inflation to undeserving members.
For instance, check out this game that Urk lost on time, bringing a player all the way up to 1900 for "winning" it.