This user has been banned.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/robbie-gatti-blackface-tiger-woods_us_58b50bfce4b0a8a9b7859e45?
apparently, this a-hole is extremely ignorant of the history of blackface. Moron.
a big thank you also to Warbler for letting us play a game in his thread too.
No problem! Feel free to play again.
That’s exactly right. My phone keeps capitalizing the first letter, and I don’t always remember to make it lowercase.
Was my feedback helpful?
I think it will be once I go over it in detail using a chessboard.
Feedback for Warbler:
So here is the promised feedback. Sorry it took so long. First, while I neglected to take advantage of a pawn fork on turn 6, I traded bishops with you, thus making you move your pawn away from the king’s side. Since you castled on that side, it proved to be a huge weakness for you, which I took advantage of down the road. From a strategic standpoint, you generally want to keep your three pawns on kingside on their starting squares, or perhaps move them one square forward. You performed a fianchetto, which on its own can be a sound strategy, but with your pawn out of place, this presented a huge vulnerability that I knew I could exploit once you had castled.
On turn 10, I knew I had limited my own options, first by missing the knight fork, and next by having my remaining bishop blocked in pretty well by my own pieces. But I saw an opportunity. Your most advanced pawn was defended by only one other pawn. If I could remove that pawn, I’d have a shot at gaining a pawn advantage and removing your portion of control of the center, generally the most important part of the field to control. I moved my queen to where she could attack your pawn on a subsequent move on c7 (generally it is frowned upon to bring your queen out too early, but if I blitzed your weak flank, I thought I could secure an early checkmate). When you moved your bishop to h3, this was a huge mistake, as now your king’s file is completely exposed, your bishop is undefended and on the same diagonal as my remaining bishop. I realized I could do even more damage. I traded knights. You captured with your pawn, which allowed me to put my queen in an offensive position, gain the other pawn on f4, and begin moving in on your weak kingside.
You lamented that you should have captured my knight with your queen instead of the pawn. However, you would have suffered worse if you did. My move would have then been:
… e5 (threatening your queen)
fxef Bxh3 (winning your bishop)You could have followed up with:
exf6 Bxf1 (capturing your rook and gaining a bigger material advantage)And you could either take my bishop or capture the pawn on g7, which would drastically weaken my position, but my material advantage would probably be insurmountable. So in reality, taking the f4 pawn with your pawn was to your advantage.
I did try to get your undefended bishop by then advancing my pawn to e5, either forcing a trade and giving me greater offensive potential on your weak flank, or if you didn’t pay attention, giving me a free bishop and even more advantage on that side. However, you attacked my queen with your knight, and an interplay between us continued.
Ultimately, through a series of moves, I was able to capture that bishop. I tried to overwhelm you with multiple threats that you would not be able to counter them all. You had successfully prevented it for a time, as you had made counterattacks that would have resulted in an equal exchange of material if I did not defend my own pieces, but eventually I had your queen on d3, knight on e2, and bishop on h3 under attack. You had to move your queen, yet try to keep her defending your bishop and knight, but she was overworked at could not defend them all, and your bishop fell.
Now your rook was under attack. Though it would have hemmed your king into a largely immobile spot, it would have been better to defend vulnerable avenues of attack by moving your rook to g1. But unfortunately, you moved it to e1 where it was much less useful, and so I pressed the attack and moved my knight in closer, still hoping to secure a quicker mate, I had several pieces positioned to overwhelm your position, but it wasn’t enough. I had to call forth a rook to break through.
This was where you made your final mistakes. You advanced your queenside pawns, hoping your defenses were secure enough. You most certainly were not yet safe, as I had a substantial advantage near your king. You could not possibly hope to hold off all my pieces. I decided to threaten your rook by attacking with my knight on e3. I knew it was undefended and hoped you would actually capture it. You did. I was able to subsequently force a series of moves where I kept your queen neutralized behind my bishop with no good position to come to her majesty’s defense. I now had a rook, bishop, and queen against a very defenseless king, and while I could not dictate the exact sequences of moves, I saw several paths to unpreventable checkmate. Your best bet was:
- Ng3
But from there I would have played:
- … Rxg3
- axg3 Qh1+
- Kf2 Qg2 mate
You took the bait to capture my knight, and your queen was useless for the rest of the game.
That was my thinking. I think you still did well and played better than in past games. Remember to keep your king safer. You left him exposed from early on, and did not call forth enough material to his defense when the situation became more deadly. Even moving your rook to g1 at any point after I attacked it with my bishop would have delayed checkmate. And moving your queen away was the nail in the coffin. Don’t always grab an easy piece.
Thanks for playing me, Warbler. I hope we can play again sometime. 😃
Thankyou for the feedback, it is obvious you are much better than I am. I am going to spend some time going over this feedback. Thanks.
Bxa5
I think you meant “bxa5”, the way you put reads like you are capturing with your bishop, of which both of yours have already been captured.
There’s a coworker of mine that constantly insults this sweet old lady that also works with us behind her back for being slow. She knows everything about the job and is very knowledgeable and a great resource for advice and very sweet but she is physically slow being well into her 60s and having poor health, so this other worker constantly makes fun of her behind her back and always proclaims how glad she is when she’s off or when she has to call in sick because “she would have just been in the way”. (Which is quite honestly not true she’s still helpful to have around) this old lady doesn’t hear her making fun of her our saying hateful things like that, so is it still wrong? I know this is a very harsh and extreme (though sadly true) scenario that you would never do, but I’m just explaining why things like this bother me.
Sorry if I reminded you of your coworker. I understand.
Keep in mind the people or person in question will never know about my three stooges comparison.
Guys, I’m stupid. I found this question in a bunch a stupid riddles. I guess I just don’t get the joke
Question:
How many bricks does it take to complete a build made of brick?
Answer:
Only one - the “last” one
huh? I get it. Could someone please explain what I am missing?
No matter how many bricks you use, it isn’t complete until the last one.
*smacks self*
You’re right, they should absolutely be fired for handing someone the wrong envelope about a fucking movie. I don’t know how I couldn’t see that. I’m sure everyone involved was akin to one of the stooges for this mistake.
Surely it’s not against the rules to simply restate things you’ve said. I’m not even saying you are an asshole in general just that you’re being one about this. I’m taking a break from this place. Goodnight.
If I had known it was going to make you this angry, I wouldn’t have said anything. Again, I ask you to please calm down. This isn’t worth getting that upset off. My opinion doesn’t matter that much.
Just for the record. I didn’t complain to Silverwook. He saw what you wrote and responded before I even saw it. I wouldn’t have reported it at all.
As far as I know, it is not against the rules to simply restate something I’ve said. If you wish to believe I am being an a-hole about this, you are entitled to your opinion. I’ll think about what you’ve said.
Guys, I’m stupid. I found this question in a bunch a stupid riddles. I guess I just don’t get the joke
Question:
How many bricks does it take to complete a build made of brick?
Answer:
Only one - the “last” one
huh? I get it. Could someone please explain what I am missing?
I’m sure you’ve made plenty of mistakes that aren’t being endlessly scrutinized and made fun of on the internet, let it fucking go you’re being a real asshole and I don’t care if it’s violating the rules for me to say so.
calm down.
But if they don’t like Hillary, why would they vote for her? I don’t understand this logic. If they don’t like her, they probably wouldn’t have voted for her regardless of who else is on the ticket, and most likely did not think Trump was that bad. Furthermore, frankly it’s long overdue a third party had power in government. I do not see how not voting for your candidate is childish.
Trump supporters voting for Trump was not childish…although it’s already proving to be self-defeating in many cases!
Bernie supporters in swing states not voting for Hillary because of what the DNC did to Bernie was childish…unless they somehow truly still believe things would be no better under Hillary than things already are under Trump. And if you’re really a Bernie supporter, I don’t know how you can possibly believe that. And if they do, I think they’re deluding themselves.
Bernie supporters tended to hate Hillary long before what she and her cohorts did to him at the DNC. There was never going to be a rush of his people voting for her.
Well I hope his people enjoy Trump.
Even Fox News picked up the story of the Illinois restaurant manager.
Too back that town didn’t do more thinking before backing Trump.
A picture of the guys that were handing out the envelopes back stage:
Yeah, it’s not up to the level of firing someone. Safe to say there was no malice involved. Figure out what happened, and take steps to insure it doesn’t happen again.
It’s not like someone ran naked across the stage or anything…
Isn’t it fascinating to think that probably the only laugh that man ever got was by stripping off and showing his shortcomings?
I miss Carson.
Sorry, but I can’t stand extreme incompetence.
Hahahaha!
President Donald Trump, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News in the Oval Office, said that the Academy Awards failure on Sunday evening was due in large part to Hollywood’s obsessive focus on politics—attacking him, generally speaking.
Trump told Breitbart News in the exclusive interview that the Oscar fail may have been avoided had Hollywood’s finest focused less on attacking him and more on getting the event’s details right.
“I think they were focused so hard on politics that they didn’t get the act together at the end,” President Trump said. “It was a little sad. It took away from the glamour of the Oscars. It didn’t feel like a very glamorous evening. I’ve been to the Oscars. There was something very special missing, and then to end that way was sad.”
No word if Trump also blames his massive travel ban rollout fuck-up on his obsessive focus on attacking Muslims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=078BGtKNL1o&feature=youtu.be&t=5s
Why not just chop his hand off? That worked wonders in the Middle Ages.
Nah, I’ll settle for tar and feathering.
I think Price Waterhouse is in a lot of trouble for that Oscar screwup. Maybe the Academy could give the La La Land people a consolation prize? 😉
Whomever is responsible for the wrong card getting in Beatty’s hands, should be fired.
Yeah, they definitely deserve to lose their livelihood over handing somebody the wrong envelope about a movie. That’s a fireable offence if I ever heard one!
They caused the wrong movie to be announced as the winner. They embarrassed the Oscars and Price Waterhouse and caused difficult for the people involved in the making of the two movies. How you like to win a huge award, only to find out they announced you by mistake? How would you like to be the actual winner have your moment ruined due to something like this? Someone screwed up royally.
I think Price Waterhouse is in a lot of trouble
Because they covered up Beatty’s screw up, right?
I believe I admitted I was in error about that.
You did? Your post read to me as sarcasm but if so I’ll drop it now.
Sorry it wasn’t meant as sarcasm, just making a joke by kind of imitating the apology from Price Waterhouse.
I think Price Waterhouse is in a lot of trouble for that Oscar screwup. Maybe the Academy could give the La La Land people a consolation prize? 😉
Whomever is responsible for the wrong card getting in Beatty’s hands, should be fired.
I think Price Waterhouse is in a lot of trouble
Because they covered up Beatty’s screw up, right?
I believe I admitted I was in error about that.
oh.
I knew the peace and quiet in here was too good to last!
oh come on, its not that bad. This is a politics thread, there has to be some arguing allowed.
