From chess

Let's look at it chronologically: 1) MrQb started the topic with a post directly disparaging everyone who plays chess here with a short time control (1-2 minutes), calling such players "incomprehensible types". Reading MrQb's first post, there is no doubt that from a semiotic perspective this message contains an emotionally strongly negatively charged assessment of such players; 2) I responded to MrQb's initial post very delicately and politely, drawing attention, among other things, to the fact that many of the world's top chess players play 1-2 minute chess and that it is inappropriate to disparage this game; 3) without bothering to check the obvious truth of the facts I presented, MrQb then posted a message in which he questioned my statement and drew a stupid and vulgar parallel with watching porn. Moreover, in his message posted on 14.01.2016 at 22:40, he directly disparages the previous poster (Mets58), writing "I'll try to say it one more time and very slowly...", i.e. accusing Mets58 of having little understanding of his own illogical and stupid argumentation; 4) the crux of the whole story is the fact that MrQb, who talks about Fischer chess throughout this topic, doesn't even know what Fischer chess is. Who is being disparaging and stupid here, and who is simply drawing attention to the vulgarity and stupidity of one poster?

1) To be precise, in that sentence he said: "completely incomprehensible types for me". Whether that's derogatory is up to each person to decide, but in my opinion it's not, and certainly not as derogatory as calling someone stupid and belittling their intellect, which you did. 2) True, but in later comments you didn't behave so politely anymore... 3) That was his opinion and it's well known that most people, especially men, watch or have watched porn, so this comparison is not that far-fetched, and besides, it was probably half-joking. I wouldn't take what you brought up as a reproach to Mets58. 4) Yes, it seems like he really doesn't know that. But none of that gives you a reason to come and label someone stupid and belittle their intellect, especially in a public forum. If you really want to do that, use a private message for that! ;) Good luck.

The smart kitty knew I wasn't offended - we have a democratic society and freedom of speech - let's take it as a health :)

Yes, the kitty seems to know everything. If he would learn to distinguish between labeling and giving an adequate assessment and belittling and stating a poor standard, he could become something of a kitty. Amen! Prose!

Thanks, Mets! :] Some of the keywords that hawkbrow used about MrQb: stupidity, low intellect. This can be considered derogatory and even offensive. The fact that hawkbrow doesn't like MrQb's thoughts and that he doesn't agree with him doesn't give him the right to bash him here, he could still have a little more intelligence and politeness, so as not to stoop so low, in this case it leaves a much more negative impression of hawkbrow himself. And even if this forum were the right place for it (which it isn't), MrQb's wisdom and intellect cannot be judged based on a few forum posts (yes, even if he doesn't know the essence of Fischer's chess). Cheers! PS Thanks also for the negative votes on my previous posts, whoever wrote them! Haters gonna hate...

Quite a strange distinction: my (thoroughly motivated) assessment of MrQb's intellectual capacity is derogatory and insulting, while MrQb's (without logical justification) calling players "incomprehensible types" or driv4r's own (essentially unmotivated) claim that I could have more intelligence and politeness is, in driv4r's opinion, completely acceptable.

I recently read a new book by Paul Keres, there is not much talk about flashing, more about simultaneouss, which both the main character himself and his colleagues practiced on the one hand for the sake of earning money, but more importantly - to promote chess! Having taken part in P. Keres' simultaneous as a schoolboy, I remember very clearly what it meant to me! The tone of the person who set the topic, disparaging fast chess players, bothered me too... It would actually be most correct to say that one does not interfere with the other, at least on the example of P. Keres, who became an Estonian master in chess with all kinds of time controls and gave countless simultaneouss, most of which were considerably more difficult than 2 minutes of chess with 1 opponent. Chess - like the world in general - has become fast and indeed leading chess players sometimes play with extreme time controls to test some kind of opening "crooked variations"; sometimes for money; sometimes for fun; sometimes for training before competitions, to practice playing in a time crunch. Some prefer games under 3 minutes because then there are fewer chances that the opponent will use the program. So 10 years ago, having actively participated in competitions, I saw enough and also practiced "clock breaking" ... If you really constantly and only play very fast chess and do not engage in analysis at all, it will not affect development, especially for young people (in chess), well, what P.Keres also said. To play even a 40-move quality game in 1-2 minutes still requires a lot of time and work ... I knew quite a few guys from Tartu at the time, whom even the masters were afraid of in a flash, because they specialized in ultra-fast play. The game was of course played for small money and was often lured with a time control of 2/5 or 1/5, which was of course not accurate for the clocks of that time and the clock could also be "tweaked" in the challenger's favor :D . They didn't go to tournaments, they were so-called Werner players and their opening theories were "crooked", specially developed for fast play and psychology. I believe that in a competition like today's Pühäjärve tournament, their places would have been quite high. In conclusion, I still want to say that you have to understand the game first, then you can try fast (ultra-fast) for a change, but not constantly, but there's nothing wrong with a 1-minute game, because chess is a beautiful game :) . In so-called home conditions (and why not here in Vind too), I recommend trying exciting multi-competitions with different time controls in one tournament standings, even 10, 5, 3 or 5,3,2 and if the clocks are better, then why not also 1 . In my opinion, time controls with a plus are necessary (lives) however for longer games, when you need to mark moves and online, when the internet connections are not equal.

The players who are gone don't want to play, for example, 10 2 hui I have 5 minutes and I have to go. If you are a big fan of 10 2 then of course you are against it, but some play like that and 3 2, 2 0 are not bad times to play.

if* and some* typos..

Try talking about chess :p , in tennis it happens 3/2 (it was a joke, just in case). I guess your point was that not everyone might have that much free time, especially during work hours, to play even a clean 5 minutes? .. That there was a little break and you could quickly play a quick game in a formation that suits you to stimulate your thoughts? ... But some people get offended, saying why don't you accept or something?