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.
hmmm. crickets from the esteemed professor. go figure.
Bloody hell it’s been 1 minute
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.
hmmm. crickets from the esteemed professor. go figure.
Bloody hell it’s been 1 minute
Let's lay off Martin. He gives hundreds of hours of his time to make this place better.
Let's lay off Martin. He gives hundreds of hours of his time to make this place better.
um. no.
Let's lay off Martin. He gives hundreds of hours of his time to make this place better.
how about instead, you tell me how i am wrong.
i think we can easily settle this.
i challenge martin_stahl to a bullet match best out of 31 loser closes his account and desktop will be livestreamed. then we'll see who isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
Ability to play bullet (or any time control) successfully has zero bearing on tool sharpness. A sharp tool knows that 🧐
i actually agree with you on this point, martin. when asked about the correlation between chess skill and intelligence, bobby fischer said, 'the only thing being good at chess means is that you are good at chess.'
This site needs to add functionality where you can challenge somebody else to a best out of 31 bullet match and the loser will have their account closed. Also the match will be monitored for software. I would buy diamond membership if that was a diamond feature.
that wouldnt be a very good deal for chess.com. their business model depends on growing their user base not reducing it. and i dont think the thought of you frogging up for a diamond membership is quite the monetary incentive they will need.
...
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!)
....
That's absolutely false.
In regards to your first points, I was involved answering questions on the site because I enjoy being helpful and overall enjoy the site and want to see it continue will into the future, all before I ever became a moderator (from 2009-2015). I know exactly what I'm doing and that the site gains utility out of me doing it.
If I was uncomfortable doing any of it, I wouldn't do it. Sure, it would be nice to get compensation for answering questions and moderation actions, but it's certainly not a deal breaker, especially, as I said, some of those things I was doing long before being a mod.
I also don't think the site is always right and is never at fault. I am realistic, have a background in information technology and related support, and am more understanding of issues that can be encountered, some on the site's side, some client related.
As to the bots on live, staff say they don't use them, I tend to believe them, and no matter what anyone says (or proof given), people that disagree will never be convinced otherwise. 😐
again, you totally miss the point, martin. i dont know--or frankly care -whether the site uses bots in live chess. my point is that YOU DONT KNOW EITHER which you just admitted!!! (you just said staff tells you this and you 'tend' to believe them, right?)
with respect to my first point, don't just claim I'm wrong, show me. when was the last time you sided with a critic rather than blindly accept the word of staff? how long has this been? if you cant point to an example, who can????
you claim you know what you are doing? do you really? your actual responses often indicate otherwise. (do you seriously think the response 'because they don't' to my question 'how do you know?' is anything but laughable?)
all-in-all i think you have a much higher opinion of yourself and your contributions to this site than are warranted. if i am wrong, go ahead and cite me a specific example of it. again. i'm not talkking about issues involving computer glitches as there is no way of avoiding those. so, again....show me i'm wrong. your claim of good intents don't really mean anything to anyone but you.
Nearly everyone on this site who is active in the forums has a high opinion of @Martin_Stahl
No one has a high opinion of you, however. All you’ve done is tear people down, or attempt to do so. That they remain standing is evidence that you are not even good at personal attacks.
Nearly everyone on this site who is active in the forums has a high opinion of @Martin_Stahl
No one has a high opinion of you, however. All you’ve done is tear people down, or attempt to do so. That they remain standing is evidence that you are not even good at personal attacks.
omg are you serious??? every time i make a point, instead of countering, you shift to another tangent. try to focus, professor. tell me where i'm wrong. be specific!!
In a debate, one counter is to attack crediblity, which is what he is doing.
Nearly everyone on this site who is active in the forums has a high opinion of @Martin_Stahl
No one has a high opinion of you, however. All you’ve done is tear people down, or attempt to do so. That they remain standing is evidence that you are not even good at personal attacks.
plus, when did you poll this site about the likability of martin or me? i know you didnt do that. you are just making stuff up because you cant win an actual argument. not very scholarlly of you, professor!!
In a debate, one counter is to attack crediblity, which is what he is doing.
actually, that is incorrect. that is a logical falicy called 'argument from authority,' (if you dont believe me, google it.) and even if it were not a logical falicy, hpw do you feel he has in any way besmirched my credibility??
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.
hmmm. crickets from the esteemed professor. go figure.