Rob wrote:

I must say I am disappointed at the level of honor in the chess
community. It appears to be rife with pseudohistoricl elites who scorn
others who have not committed a greater deal of their lives to studing
the minutae of obscure chess idioms.

If an error is made it is pounced upon and the utter is mercilessly
attacked. Continously and maliciously until they stop posting or
contributing to the discourse. These Chess Nazis want you to follow
them in lockstep. Should you not agree they will use all of their
powers to attampt to destroy you. Most outgrow this need well out of
middle school. It is odd that this group seems to have matured not much
beyond this stage.

There will be many who that offense at this post. Those who do them
readily admit they are those of whom I speak. These people are self
important and are of little merit. WHen will these chess nazis be
driven from our ranks? When will the Hitlers of this group simply self
destruct within the confines of their "cyber bunkers"?

I call for the Chess Nazis to simply begin your own group and leave the
rest of us to think and breath free, unimcumbered under the iron fists
of your ridicule and persicutions for our opinions and ideas.


Those Chess Nazis aren't going to go away; you need to
face the hard fact that they will only disappear with time,
by slowly dying off, one by one. Meanwhile, it must suffice
that their propaganda and ad hominem techniques have
been fully exposed for what they truly are.

---------

In contrast to your portrayal of this problem as one resulting
from a simple lack of maturity, with some posters still being
retarded in their development, I think it results from a sort of
mental sclerosis, a thick buildup of crud on the cranial walls,
so to speak. This crud takes the form of biases, accumulated
over time, and as it "thickens", the mental processes of its
victims become clouded such that logic and reason can no
longer function properly.

One example is the heavy anti-Karpov bias which plagues
GM Evans and his cronies such that they still chant the same
mantras of old, which have already been refuted outright. They
"forget" this, as the refutations were simply rejected as not
conforming to their preset -- and already cemented -- biases.

It reminds me a little of one idea which kept popping up
over the years. I kept hearing or reading that, according to
scientific theory, the bumblebee "cannot fly". Too much weight,
not enough wingspan, insuffcient beats per second --
whatever, the current theory could not account for the flight of
the heaviest of bees, and so they were, well, held to be
somehow rogue fliers, outlaws if you will. Yet to my mind,
this *immediately* suggested that the theory itself was
quite obviously flawed, not that there was anything wrong
with bumblebees flying. To even consider writing an article
about this would, to me, be an embarassment, for it shows
that scientists have been "bested" in a sense, by mere bees!

My favorite example of "Chess Nazi" Larry Evans' bungling
is his idiotic attempts to insist that only he was a "strong
enough player" to determine whether or not a particular game
was deliberately thrown. Most unfortunate for him, another,
even stronger chess player examined the very same game,
coming to the opposite conclusion! It was yet another case of
the tail wagging the dog; GM Evans *wanted* the game to be
proved thrown, and so this was his preordained "conclusion",
no matter what the facts may have been.

-- help bot