Don't Criticize the chess.com Columnists... or else.

In response to Jeremy Silman's article "Who Can You Trust?"

http://www.chess.com/article/view/who-can-be-trusted

I wrote (as best I can recall since the original was deleted):

Mr Silman doesn't seem to take criticism of himself or his work lightly. His response to Mybadid was overdone and overly vehement when a simple explanation of how Mybadid was wrong would have sufficed.

"...he blustered, he bragged, he pounded his chest..."

I guess I must have missed where this happened, and isn't misrepresenting the words of one's critics a rhetorical device just as objectionable as the ones Mr. Silman rails against in the article?

I returned an hour or so later to see if anyone had responded and found my post deleted.

I can understand deleting profanity or rambling idiocy etc., but, seriously, it IS censorship when the deletion is  motivated by merely not liking what the poster has to say.

What solution do you propose?

Let it roll off your back, even if others can't.  Others may not take things lightly, but realize that the only thing under your control is how you respond.

He deleted your post? How dare he!? I say we flay him ... flay him alive!! Or, you could write a letter to him and ask him what's up with his happy trigger (delete) finger.

Without weighing in on the merits (or lack thereof) of censorship, I will disagree with the general principle you articulate.  If we all went along with the rules laid out in front of us, turned the other cheek without ever taking a stand and saying "enough", then we as a society would never have risen to the point at which 1) slavery is abolished; 2) women can vote; and 3) we no longer have to fear retribution from the church the way Galileo and Giordano Bruno did.

awesome that you're comparing the deletion of a post on a chess website to this trinity of social change.

So, Silman, did you delete his post?

I must say, I agreed with a lot of what Silman wrote - that some books are over my head, simply put.  But I hope we don't delete what we don't agree with, especially respectful discussion.

Flayed blob fish?  ...  I'll pass

Hi Gambit King.

Thanks for the link.

BTW, I haven't had a chance to respond to your message yet. I basically had no responses to this thread last night when I left it, and now I have like a dozen.

Well Mr. Silman, since you suggest, you can consider this an open letter asking why you (assuming it was you) deleted my post. I know I didn't.

While you're at it, you might respond to the content of my original post as well.

You quoted Mybabid as saying:

 I think that these IM books have a lot of mistakes. We can only trust GM books (only some of them). I have even found many mistakes in some classics like How to Reassess Your Chess, Euwe middlegame books, Pachman books, Lasker strategy book.  By mistake I do not mean some typo but wrong move mistake. I have stopped believing in small authors (silman) after reading TRUE LIES IN CHESS. To silman – if u think this is criticism, accept it because truth cannot be mended.

And then you said he:

"... blustered, he bragged, he pounded his chest..."

Bluster means -  to to talk or act with noisy swaggering threats or to utter with noisy self-assertiveness.

The assessment is subjective, but I think the case that he blustered is weak. He is certainly expressing an opinion, but I have a hard time calling his language blustering - e.g. is his language full of exclamations?

brag means - a pompous or boastful statement or arrogant talk or manner.

What did he brag about? He claimed to have found mistakes in the books mentioned, but he just said so matter-of-factly.

The only way that can be construed as bragging is if any claim to finding errors in those books constitute bragging, but, with modern computers, I imagine it's not too hard to do.

chest pounding - essentially the same as bluster.

Mybadid's last sentence was an idiotic pronouncement of supposed, undeniable truth, and you called that one right. But, overall, you came across about as shrill as he did. 

I don't agree with him, but I think a reasonable person might conclude you misrepresented him.

But censoring posts by deleting them though? Are you kidding me? You feel justified in arbitrarily deleting other's writing when you want to rail against rhetorical tactics used to obfuscate truth? And then you come hear and act like a silly, joking oaf about it? You lost seriously in my estimation of your having any intellectual honesty or credibility. 

p.s. this time I'll save the post in case it gets suddenly deleted - or will it be a ban from chess.com this time?

I think I've responded to things much better than Mr. Silman. Look at the sarcastic dropping he left immediately below your post.

To have my post reinstated, even if Mr. Silman doesn't respond to it, would satisfy me.

As far as any ultimate solution, that would rest with the proprietors of this website.

I have to say I consider your response somewhat ridiculous. Why have the ability to comment at all on Silman's articles if the only allowed response is to cheer and applaud and praise him for what great stuff he's gracing the world with?

I never said I agreed with Mybadid, but Silman's response to him, IMO, bordered on the same sort of fallacy mongering he accuses Mybadid and other critics of. Then, when I tried to politely point this out, my comment was unceremoniously deleted. Then Silman himself comes to this thread I created and and drops what can only be considered a sarcastic taunt with his comment here.

Can you understand where I'm comming from?

Then why did you bother posting something about it here in the first place?

Believe me. I've seen real idiots post the most trivial and inane garbage on forum sites and then whine about "censorship" when their posts are deleted. Given that kind of background, I felt some embarrassment in putting up the same sort of complaint. But I don't think this is one of those cases. As far as I can tell, Silman was being arbitrary and just deleting something because he didn't like what it said. And that isn't right.

I'm not Vance of course, but how about the idea that the difference between say, freedom of  religion, and freedom of chess posts is a matter of degree and not kind? Maybe the acceptance of the intellectual liberty of others and their freedom to post reasonably well considered and relevant remarks on a chess website is related to the same acceptence and being open minded enough to not burn people who disagree with your cosmology.

I'll be the first to admit these things are, in a since, here a ridiculous comparison. Hell, chess.com could ban me for life and I'd lose almost nothing. But I do think the seemingly ridiculous "chess website posting freedom" and freedom of religion are not unrelated.

I'll be the first to admit these things are, in a since, here a ridiculous comparison. Hell, chess.com could ban me for life and I'd lose almost nothing. But I do think the seemingly ridiculous "chess website posting freedom" and freedom of religion are not unrelated.

*yes I posted the same thing I wrote in the last post, but I predicted your, not your but someone's, response.*

ReasonableDoubt, what if it was your posts that were getting deleted?  

Okay, I guess no room for disagreement from you then.  Is the word "excellent" subjective in this case?  I agree that I generally like Silman's articles, but what if someone censored something you wrote just because they didn't like it, although your discussion was tasteful?  I guess you never post anything contrary to those who write "excellent articles", though...

Nevertheless, please don't delete this post!   jk

I would say that is subject to opinion, and I respect your opinion on it.  I personally don't think he was out of line, but it is okay to disagree on this one.  I guess my question is where does the line come to - is the OP (in this case, Silman's comment to Mybad - which, honestly, I took in a humorous sense) tasteful?  I thought so, but for the sake of discussion?  I think it would have been better, instead of deleting a post like this, to say, "Hey, it was all in good sport".  Either way, I totally respect your opinion.  Sometimes speech over the Internet looks way more serious than it really is, I have learned 

Maybe he was "just throwing out controversial and inane topics", but really he seems to just be saying it's right to fight back and not acquiesce.

BTW let me correct something I wrote: "I'll be the first to admit these things are, in a sense..." not since.

I hate when I do stuff like that.