Right. Reported you. I asked a few others to do the same.
Anyone reading this who is as convinced as I am that yere is just a pathethic twerp who decided to troll because we shot down his laughable attack should do this too.
Yereslov's Immortal
Sort:
Helzeth wrote:
Right. Reported you. I asked a few others to do the same.
Anyone reading this who is as convinced as I am that yere is just a pathethic twerp who decided to troll because we shot down his laughable attack should do this too.
How did you shoot it down?
Explain?
In the last game I had a draw if I played Rad8.
You do know that you can still get banned even though you've wasted money on being a premium member here right?
http://support.chess.com/Tickets/Submit/RenderForm/20
People, if you'd please.
Helzeth wrote:
You do know that you can still get banned even though you've wasted money on being a premium member here right?
http://support.chess.com/Tickets/Submit/RenderForm/20
People, if you'd please.
Why would I get banned for nothing?
Did you read the whole thing?
"Please DO NOT send reports for issues you can handle yourself by simply disabling chat. Thank you!"
If you don't like my comments, don't respond.
You are the one who has been malicious. I've just been arrogant.
- Anything slanderous, threatening, or malicious toward any user
Reported. I've made sure a few other users did the same.
If I see you keep trolling like this I'll get more people to read what you write and they'll most certainly do it.
Still insisting on keeping your bullshit act up?
It's not too late to grow up. At least temporarily.
Helzeth wrote:
Anything slanderous, threatening, or malicious toward any user
Reported. I've made sure a few other users did the same.
If I see you keep trolling like this I'll get more people to read what you write and they'll most certainly do it.
Still insisting on keeping your bullshit act up?
It's not too late to grow up. At least temporarily.
How am I being more malicious than you?
You were the one who started calling me an idiot.
Like I said, if you don't like my comments, don't respond.
chrisr2212 wrote:
Helzeth wrote:
Right. Reported you. I asked a few others to do the same.
Anyone reading this who is as convinced as I am that yere is just a pathethic twerp who decided to troll because we shot down his laughable attack should do this too.
How is that not a slanderous attack?
chrisr2212 wrote:
Helzeth wrote:
Right. Reported you. I asked a few others to do the same.
Anyone reading this who is as convinced as I am that yere is just a pathethic twerp who decided to troll because we shot down his laughable attack should do this too.
sick!!
He's the one who keeps responding.
Apparently he enjoys going on this thread.
Yereslov wrote:
chrisr2212 wrote:
Helzeth wrote:
Right. Reported you. I asked a few others to do the same.
Anyone reading this who is as convinced as I am that yere is just a pathethic twerp who decided to troll because we shot down his laughable attack should do this too.
How is that not a slanderous attack?
By being true.
mrguy888 wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
chrisr2212 wrote:
Helzeth wrote:
Right. Reported you. I asked a few others to do the same.
Anyone reading this who is as convinced as I am that yere is just a pathethic twerp who decided to troll because we shot down his laughable attack should do this too.
How is that not a slanderous attack?
By being true.
It doesn't matter what you think. It's a slanderous attack either way.
I posted analysis for everyone to see. I haven't seen a refutation yet.
All I keep seeing is insults.
No, it's not a slanderous attack. Look up the meaning of slander if you don't believe me.
mrguy888 wrote:
No, it's not a slanderous attack. Look up the meaning of slander if you don't believe me.
I know what slanderous means.
Insulting other members qualifies as this.
Yereslov wrote:
mrguy888 wrote:
No, it's not a slanderous attack. Look up the meaning of slander if you don't believe me.
I know what slanderous means. Clearly not.
Insulting other members qualifies as this. I present this statement as proof.
mrguy888 wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
mrguy888 wrote:
No, it's not a slanderous attack. Look up the meaning of slander if you don't believe me.
I know what slanderous means. Clearly not.
Insulting other members qualifies as this. I present this statement as proof.
Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
Yereslov wrote:
mrguy888 wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
mrguy888 wrote:
No, it's not a slanderous attack. Look up the meaning of slander if you don't believe me.
I know what slanderous means. Clearly not.
Insulting other members qualifies as this. I present this statement as proof.
Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
I bolded the part that was missing from what you were calling a slanderous attack.
mrguy888 wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
mrguy888 wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
mrguy888 wrote:
No, it's not a slanderous attack. Look up the meaning of slander if you don't believe me.
I know what slanderous means. Clearly not.
Insulting other members qualifies as this. I present this statement as proof.
Slander: a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
I bolded the part that was missing from what you were calling a slanderous attack.
It's not based on anything at all except his own anger.
I posted analysis, I checked with Rybka, and I even reviewed the game with others.
Everything is on my side. No player here has posted a refutation.
When they do, I'll shut up.
Yereslov wrote:
Helzeth wrote:
Could you provide the variation? This isnt a complicated position by any means, I didnt have to use fritz to say that white is winning, I said it because I assumed you wouldnt trust my word.
But apparently you don't trust fritz word either. It's your money, I guess.
White wins in 100 moves with accurate endgame play.
You're a 1700. Remember that.
One slip and the position is even.
White gets a 0.80 advantage
I'll play ball.
Post a screenshot of rybka showing 0.80 advantage at the position after qh5.
Assuming of course that you werent lying in order to start a conflict because you're a sad attention craving kid.
Well?
Helzeth wrote:
Yereslov wrote:
Helzeth wrote:
Could you provide the variation? This isnt a complicated position by any means, I didnt have to use fritz to say that white is winning, I said it because I assumed you wouldnt trust my word.
But apparently you don't trust fritz word either. It's your money, I guess.
White wins in 100 moves with accurate endgame play.
You're a 1700. Remember that.
One slip and the position is even.
White gets a 0.80 advantage
I'll play ball.
Post a screenshot of rybka showing 0.80 advantage at the position after qh5.
Assuming of course that you werent lying in order to start a conflict because you're a sad attention craving kid.
Well?
How would I take a screen shot?
Nah, no. It's not drawish, it's a dead draw.
The bishops are opposite colored - your opponents is black squared, while yours is already gobbled, so it has no color.
You should demand a draw immediately.
Black is a piece ahead in this game from the very start. He must be winning by your logic.
Material does not count. It's all about the position.