(Ralph Betza) wrote in message ...
...
The venomously negative reaction to what I said is interesting. I am FM, and
of course NM. That puts me in the top 1% or so of chessplayers, although
when I go out and play chess in the real world I often play against such
strong players that I feel like a weakling. The usenet respondents who have
so maligned me may be chessplayers. If so, they have not given their
credentials. Perhaps they are all powerful masters.

'Is there such depravity in man as that he should injure another without
benefit to himself?'
--Samuel Johnson (Rasselas)

Mr. Betza:

If one could not play chess, then it's unlikely that one would be even reading,
let alone writing any responses, in this newsgroup, rec.games.chess.analysis.
One's 'credentials' (Elo rating, FIDE titles) at playing chess are relevant in
discussion here to chess analysis, but not so much to chess-players' etiquette.

Or perhaps none of them have beaten GMs in tournament games, perhaps none
of them have compiled a lifetime + against IMs in tournament games,
perhaps the reason that they are such failures as chessplayers is that they
cannot internalize or even sympathize with the extremely unforgiving
mental attitude that one needs to be a pretty good chessplayer.

Do you expect that every 'pretty good chess-player' always must agree with you?
In response to *your question* in *your post that created this thread*, some
readers here have expressed their sincere opinions, usually with the original
intention of being helpful to you. And you have responded by belittling them
all as 'such failures as chess-players' (anyone whom you presume should be
weaker than you, peak Elo = 2340).

How has it happened that nowadays these weak players have the nerve to speak
so disrespectfully to masters? I reported a feeling which I really felt,
and which, as I reported, seemed somehow wrong; a feeling which I did not
express against the weaker opponent (who recently caught me in a bad streak
and won 2 of 3 in a short sequence!).

'O tempora! O mores!' (Cicero)

Joan : And you, my one faithful? What comfort have you for Saint Joan?
The Soldier: Well, what do they all amount to, these kings and captains and
bishops and lawyers and such like? They just leave you in the
ditch to bleed to death; and the next thing is, you meet them
down there, for all the airs they give themselves. What I say is,
you have as good a right to your notions as they have to theirs,
and perhaps better. (Settling himself for a lecture on the subject)
You see, it's like this. If--(the first stroke of midnight is heard
softly from a distant bell). Excuse me: a pressing appointment--
(He goes on tiptoe)....(The hour continues to strike.)
Joan : O God that madest this beautiful earth, when will it be ready to
receive Thy saints? How long, O Lord, how long?

--George Bernard Shaw (Saint Joan)

Look at the responses, so emotional, so unreasoned.
(*one* selected response snipped)
Whichever respondent said that, consider that I have called you a bad word.

You have unfairly ignored every other response in dismissing them all as 'so
emotional, so unreasoned'.

Warwick (pleasantly): The burning was purely political. There was no personal
feeling against you, I assure you.
Joan : I bear no malice, my lord.
--George Bernard Shaw (Saint Joan)

When I read your originating post in this thread, I thought that you were
asking for our honest responses, not just demanding our humble agreement.
As you seem already fully convinced that you are right to 'feel insulted'
just by being told 'thanks for the lesson' by your opponent and that all our
opinions (sorry, we cannot help being 'such failures as chess-players') must
be worthless, then why did you even trouble to ask any of us what we honestly
think of you? Instead, why don't you just ask your close friend, Narcissus?

'It is a dangerous thing to see anything in the sphere of a vain blusterer
before the vain blusterer sees it himself.'
--Charles Dickens (Hard Times)

--Nick

Ralph Betza wrote:
In article ,
Mark Houlsby wrote:
Ralph Betza wrote:
In article ,
Manny wrote:
(Ralph Betza) wrote in message
...
Oh and... a propos your reply to Mr. Nemmers... if you
play to win *from
the outset* (with either colour) against Fischer or
Korchnoi or anyone
with a rating of more than 2300 you will *definitely*
lose. I guarantee
it.

Isn't it amazing, then, that my own rating is over 2300?

It's not amazing at all. Rather, it's not at all surprising.

How can that
have happened if I am as weak as you suggest?


I suggest *no such thing* you ignorant, self-absorbed, rude idiot. I
said: "...if you play to win *from
the outset* (with either colour) against Fischer or Korchnoi or anyone
with a rating of more than 2300 you will *definitely* lose. I guarantee
it."

This is as true for you as it is for *anybody else* INCLUDING all
players rated over 2700. If you can *prove* that it is not true then we
require *evidence* of this proof from you...

If you cannot provide such evidence then you are destined to remain an
ignorant, self-absorbed, rude idiot.

Mark

p.s. I am a patzer rated U1500, you'd be wasting your time if you played
me, yet I seem to command more respect around here than you do.

Go figure.

snip
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.games.chess.analysis

Ralph Betza wrote:
In article ,
Manny wrote:
I finally realize the original post was not so much to solicit honest
opinions but to create an argument so he can (almost) justify raising
the issue of once beating Fischer and Byrne.

No, I was upset at ppl accusing me of saying things I didn't say.

For example, you just accused me of claiming to have beaten Bobby.
No way. You have no idea how strong he was at a time limit of 5-0;
there was no chance of ever beating him.

It's extremely interesting that you deign to reply only to Manny, since
his honest mistake affords you the opportunity to take another cheap
shot.

I didn't accuse you of "saying things you didn't say". Rather, it was
the other way around. You already owe apologies to several people here.
Do you intend to continue to add to the tally?

Mark

--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?rec.games.chess.analysis

amazing that i actually read all this crap, where it's only prupose is that
the first guy can say he's got a rating of 2300 and played bobby
congratulations....

"Ralph Betza" schreef in bericht
...
In article ,
Mark Houlsby wrote:
Ralph Betza wrote:
In article ,
Manny wrote:
(Ralph Betza) wrote in message
...
Oh and... a propos your reply to Mr. Nemmers... if you play to win *from
the outset* (with either colour) against Fischer or Korchnoi or anyone
with a rating of more than 2300 you will *definitely* lose. I guarantee
it.

Isn't it amazing, then, that my own rating is over 2300? How can that
have happened if I am as weak as you suggest?

And by the way, when I played a few 5-0 games with Bobby in 1964, I lost
every
game. And when I played one game against Korchnoi in whatever year it was
(a blitz "deuxieme coupe ecole pigier Zurich") I lost but then I woke up
at
03:00 AM with the position in my mind where I clould have forced a draw.

The venomously negative reaction to what I said is interesting. I am FM,
and
of course NM. That puts me in the top 1% or so of chessplayers, although
when I go out and play chess in the real world I often play against such
strong players that I feel like a weakling. The usenet respondents who
have
so maligned me may be chessplayers. If so, they have not given their
credentials. Perhaps they are all powerful masters.

Or perhaps none of them have beaten GMs in tournament games, perhaps none
of them have compiled a lifetime + against IMs in tournament games,
perhaps the reason that they are such failures as chessplayers is that
they
cannot internalize or even sympathize with the extremely unforgiving
mental attitude that one needs to be a pretty good chessplayer.

I achieved the top one per cent, but I only considered myself pretty good
because I measured myself against the giants. Now I'm a bit too old and
not nearly as good as I once was. The odds are that I still play quite a
bit better than this yahoo.

How has it happened that nowadays these weak players have the nerve to
speak
so disrespectfully to masters? I reported a feeling which I really felt,
and which, as I reported, seemed somehow wrong; a feeling which I did not
express against the weaker opponent (who recently caught me in a bad
streak
and won 2 of 3 in a short sequence!).

Look at the responses, so emotional, so unreasoned.

"Shame on me for playing weaker players". We have rating systems for
that. You need to beat the weakie at a huge percent, and it ain't easy.
In 1965, I was rated 1940 and I beat GM R Byrne in a tournament game, not
just a blitz game; and in those years I gained hugely from all the masters
I played and lost points to weakies. Learning to consistently beat weakies
was the hardest thing in my chess career. "Shame on me for playing weaker
players".

Whichever respondent said that, consider that I have called you a bad
word.

And for this specific poster, ", if you are anywhere
in the
NY Metropolitan Area, perhaps it will be convenient for you to meet me
face to face, perhaps at the Manhattan CC, where we can sit down across
the chessboard and play a few games for reasonably large amounts of cash
at whatever time limit you wish.