20 Mar 19
@darfius saidWow, making disparaging remarks about someone's chess playing. I honestly didn't think you could sink any lower.
The laws of logic are the axioms we must presuppose to live in a rational world. They literally are "simply the way things are."
Attempting to refute what I say by citing my lack of qualifications is a variation on the fallacy of arguing from authority. The inversion of citing an "expert" is dismissing a non-expert without considering what is said.
My "qualifications" ...[text shortened]... do with the logic itself. You're not smart.
You've refuted nothing. Stick to playing bad chess.
I officially retract my previous 'welcome back to the site.'
20 Mar 19
@darfius saidAh, an 1800 player is a GOOD player then. Good to know. Now pat yourself on your back.
The laws of logic are the axioms we must presuppose to live in a rational world. They literally are "simply the way things are."
Attempting to refute what I say by citing my lack of qualifications is a variation on the fallacy of arguing from authority. The inversion of citing an "expert" is dismissing a non-expert without considering what is said.
My "qualifications" ...[text shortened]... do with the logic itself. You're not smart.
You've refuted nothing. Stick to playing bad chess.
20 Mar 19
@sonhouse saidI'm a chess master "in real life." It's tough to get higher rated here with all the computer cheats and not caring. But I still don't pat myself on the back. It's just that bad chess players tend to be stupid people, too.
Ah, an 1800 player is a GOOD player then. Good to know. Now pat yourself on your back.
21 Mar 19
@darfius saidI have not used your lack of qualifications to refute anything.
Attempting to refute what I say by citing my lack of qualifications is a variation on the fallacy of arguing from authority. The inversion of citing an "expert" is dismissing a non-expert without considering what is said.
How could I when I do not know what your qualifications are?
As to that being a "variation on the fallacy" you are just making it up!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
21 Mar 19
@darfius saidI think you have clearly shown how smart you are on this forum.
I'm a chess master "in real life." It's tough to get higher rated here with all the computer cheats and not caring. But I still don't pat myself on the back. It's just that bad chess players tend to be stupid people, too.
@darfius saidHeads up. Chess Masters don't usually belittle lower rated players. Nor do Christians, when I think about it...
I'm a chess master "in real life." It's tough to get higher rated here with all the computer cheats and not caring. But I still don't pat myself on the back. It's just that bad chess players tend to be stupid people, too.
Edit: I played through a couple of your games. What am I missing that validates your claim to be a chess master?!
24 Mar 19
@whodey saidYou mean the fact there was a Cambrian Explosion means creationism is correct? What drugs have you been taking again?
So why is evolution punctuated?
Why have a Cambrian Explosion, for example?
In fact, why a "Big Bang"?
@darfius saidWhat is your USCF rating? Mine is about the same as here.
I'm a chess master "in real life." It's tough to get higher rated here with all the computer cheats and not caring. But I still don't pat myself on the back. It's just that bad chess players tend to be stupid people, too.
In your game with Hazelhurst Kid, you missed a 2 move mate, going for the rook fork. Would a master have missed that?