for staff, a must read

ooooh....that one hurt! where did you ever come up with such a witty comment???

i agree with the second part.

on the issue where you quote me, yes, i was disappointed. your feedback, though, is a personal attack, instead of mentioning any relevant issue. if you have any, post them. i bet that, even after your insult, martin will respond.

please note that i mention staff frequently, and, in the title! that is the elephant in the thread here, not martin. not a single staff member will bother, which is sad. it's as if development has usurped function.

you are certainly entitled to your opinion. martin, however, is a site apologist and general, all around simpleton.

Frank Zappa or Deep Purple.

https://youtu.be/F7ZF2xaNhyw?si=yuCDM36xuDQ9Txim

nope.

Valid argument

Ability to play bullet (or any time control) successfully has zero bearing on tool sharpness. A sharp tool knows that 🧐

You’re really raising the level of discourse with your superior intelligence.

Handled

ok. i'll engage. how on earth do you think you can determine the cognitive capabilities of 'most who post here?' seems a tad subjective, no?

c'mon, ziryab. show me what you've got. maybe put me in my place with some of that native american poetry that you teach...

hardly.

Your account is new, but it is not your first account. Also, you either did not read the TOS or you choose to violate it.

wrrong again, esteemed professor of native american poetry!

ok. i will take another shot at this. and i will favor small words so people like martin stahl and 'professor' ziryab might attempt to mount a coherent defense.

my premise here is twofold, to wit: a) martin stahl is an unpaid (and all too often uninformed) stooge for the chess.com website, and b) martin tends to 'drive in the slow lane' and doesn't seem to even grasp the fact that he is being used by the site.

as my first point i will issue a challenge. can anyone find a forum thread that includes a comment critical of the chess.com website where martin sides with the poster? i can find dozens where he sides with the site and there are doubtless hundreds more. (i'm not talking about issues of programming glitches. those are to be expected.) in martin's eye's it seems that chesss.com is correct 100% of the time and its users voicing dissent are wrong 100% of the time. anyone with even a high 2-digit IQ or better knows the chances of this being the case is nil.

for my next point i will refer to another thread. recently, someone posted a premise that chess.com sometimes uses bots in live chess when there is a lack of suitable players online at the time. martin quickly responded claiming that this is not the case. so i asked him a simple question--'how do you know?' his response was epic! 'because they don't. they don't need to.' i would submit that this level of logic (or, actually, lack thereof) would be get you laughed out of 7th grade debate club. for the record, i have no idea whether or not chess.com uses bots in live chess. this isnt the issue. what is at issue here is that martin stahl doesnt know either. he is not a chess.com programmer. he doesnt even work there. he simply repeats what he is told by chess.com staff. he peddles their position in the forums and he does this for free. if you think that chess.com's staff is going to be 100% honest with its user base 100% of the time, you, like martin are in my opinion, an inhabitant of life's slow lane. (if, on the other hand, martin DID know for certainty that bots are not included in live chess yet he couldnt muster a better response than he did, then i think i have defended part b of my premise via this point alone!)

'professor' ziryab implies in his comment above that i am in violation of chess.com's TOS. maybe i am. maybe i'm not. but if chess.com wants to close my account and ban me from this site for speaking the truth, that's fine with me. there are better chess sites out there anyway.

ok. that's enough for now, but if pressed i can site other examples. anything you would like to say to rebut any of this martin or do you stilll consider this 'handled?' (if so, i can't wait.) how about you, professor ziryab? anything to say? perhaps you can provide us with some of your vast wisdom derived from your studies of native american poetry!!

Your reading skills are all I need to see. Martin reads better.

But maybe what looks like poor reading skills reflects general ignorance instead.

example, please.