The Tonya Harding Option
Sort:
Apr 12, 2008
0
#2
In chess, the Tonya Harding option is when you give up chess and take up figure skating or wrestling. Hope you can do a triple axel. The Tonya Harding option is when you are losing, but then you hire thugs to beat up your opponent, then claim a win on time. The Tonya Harding option is to stop your clock and complain to the referee that the felt on you chess pieces have come loose. The Tonya Harding option is when you are losing at chess, but then call in a bomb threat. The Tonya Harding option is when you demand to replay your chess game because your shoelace was broken. The Tonya Harding option is to withdraw from Internet chess, but enter the nude internet celebrity contest. The Tonya Harding option is to play chess drunker than Alekhine.
The Tonya Harding option involves cracking your oponet in the knee with the chess board as your opening move.
Yes, I think thats what the papers are telling Hillory Clinton to do as well...
catfishcore wrote: The Tonya Harding option involves cracking your oponet in the knee with the chess board as your opening move.
Yes, it is ok to do anything to win, or a least thats what Tonya thought, promote any idea if you get what you want (NOT).
Blades of Glory, dang, no wonder Alekhine and myself never did so well with our Lutz's, Dick Button's commenting aside :( I know this is a cloak and dagger reference to a certain cause celebe here, but do we know where bluster and chest beating outways reality? Bill Clinton would regard this as an issue of what is the meaning of "Is." Much ado about nothing or the death knell; the debate shall continue ad infinitum!!
billwall wrote: In chess, the Tonya Harding option is when you give up chess and take up figure skating or wrestling. Hope you can do a triple axel. The Tonya Harding option is when you are losing, but then you hire thugs to beat up your opponent, then claim a win on time. The Tonya Harding option is to stop your clock and complain to the referee that the felt on you chess pieces have come loose. The Tonya Harding option is when you are losing at chess, but then call in a bomb threat. The Tonya Harding option is when you demand to replay your chess game because your shoelace was broken. The Tonya Harding option is to withdraw from Internet chess, but enter the nude internet celebrity contest. The Tonya Harding option is to play chess drunker than Alekhine.
And the most important one you missed was the Tonya Harding Option was and still is wrong!
Apr 12, 2008
0
#8
hmm.. this is a strange posting.
It's a thinly veiled attack on Chess.com specifically and sites-for-profit in general, using as the argument that the impending "cheater_1" "vote" game indirectly extols cheating by giving a so-called avowed cheater attention rather than aversion.
While I'm not enamored with the character named Cheater_1 and find his postings just shy of ridiculous and his cheating claims way past that line, by the same virtue, I find him basically a harmless diversion - a cartoon villain (of course, I'm a cartoon heroine) . The vote chess game has nothing to do with cheating and that's where the argument falls flat. The game is about Cheater_1's claims to have a super-duper computer (with a broken fan) running a super-duper chess application that rides roughshod over GMs and is pretty much invincible. The vote chess game was gradually conceived through the members, not the admin. but finally escalated to where it is now. There is no cheating involved - no cheating even possible - since computers are allowed. So, the game is pretty much a computer stand-off and cheating has nothing to do with it.
I think this should be called the Don Quixote Option.
You're tilting at windmills.
catfishcore wrote: The Tonya Harding option involves cracking your oponet in the knee with the chess board as your opening move.
ahhaaaahaa...brilliant
You can dance around the subject and give the subject hidden meanings all you want however; the issue is this site has elevated a self proclaimed cheater to center stage. Some might think it is a harmless diversion or entertainment but it definitely does not do chess any justice.
Cheating for entertainment or diversion is an interesting way to approach internet chess however, bring up the subject of cheating with chess organizers and I think you get a much different response. Better yet, if we check out the forum and online chess sites cheating is viewed in a very hash manner, even the people who write articles about cheating feel that cheating is a serious matter or at least they did at one time.
Apr 12, 2008
0
#11
batgirl wrote:
While I'm not enamored with the character named Cheater_1 and find his postings just shy of ridiculous and his cheating claims way past that line, by the same virtue, I find him basically a harmless diversion - a cartoon villain (of course, I'm a cartoon heroine) . The vote chess game has nothing to do with cheating and that's where the argument falls flat.
Very well, put, Bgirl! I always enjoy a scalpel-like mind deflating thoughtmuddles. There really isn't an issue here.
Apr 12, 2008
0
#12
Of course cheating is a serious matter. That goes without saying.
But that's not the issue. The issue seems to be whether giving Cheater_1 the limelight somehow diminshes chess. I dont see it. I'm a chess player and it hasn't affected me one way or an other. . . shrug.
Cheating for entertainment or diversion is an interesting way to approach internet chess
Once again, from the top, there is no cheating involved in this particular diversion. So, what's the point?
Jasn wrote: batgirl wrote:
While I'm not enamored with the character named Cheater_1 and find his postings just shy of ridiculous and his cheating claims way past that line, by the same virtue, I find him basically a harmless diversion - a cartoon villain (of course, I'm a cartoon heroine) . The vote chess game has nothing to do with cheating and that's where the argument falls flat.
Very well, put, Bgirl! I always enjoy a scalpel-like mind deflating thoughtmuddles. There really isn't an issue here.
Surgery requires precise and accurate timing, one slip or a forgotten sponge and its all down hill 
batgirl wrote:
Of course cheating is a serious matter. That goes without saying.
But that's not the issue. The issue seems to be whether giving Cheater_1 the limelight somehow diminshes chess. I dont see it. I'm a chess player and it hasn't affected me one way or an other. . . shrug.
Cheating for entertainment or diversion is an interesting way to approach internet chess
Once again, from the top, there is no cheating involved in this particular diversion. So, what's the point?
Just because you do see something doesn't mean its not there...
Apr 12, 2008
0
#15
Just because you do see something doesn't mean its not there...
Just because you jump at shadows doesn't mean there's some imminent danger.
How the hell do you cheat in a correspondence chess game? It's impossible...this is all so retarded that people are complaining about a cheater who we all know cannot cheat by virtue of the medium's (correspondence chess) format.
There are no dice rolls in chess; since nothing is randomized cheating can't happen there. In correspondence chess, you know and can track each move made, so someone can't just hack into the server and switch pieces around because you'd know.
That leaves the only Tanya harding option as this: Using someone else's brain to make your moves (as in, a chess engine). In correspondence chess, even that is not considered cheating, just bad form, and in this case, it is the premise for the game being played (as stated by others).
So what the hell are you crying about?
Apr 12, 2008
0
#17
"In correspondence chess, even that is not considered cheating, just bad form, "
If, by correspondence chess, you mean this site (and I assume you are since true CC isn't even being discussed), then you are pure and simple, flat-out wrong. Using a computer without knowledge and consent of your opponent is definitely cheating . . . and bad form.
batgirl wrote:
Just because you do see something doesn't mean its not there...
Just because you jump at shadows doesn't mean there's some imminent danger.
We seem to be moving away from the original topic, so I invite you to take my original comments (my first post in this thread), slice and dice it (as one user suggested) all you want, tell me what statement I have made that is not correct, what statements do you not understand and what opinions you disagree with, if I find I have made an error in fact I will correct it, if I can clarify a statement for you I with do so, as for my opinions, well I will have to agree to disagree with you on that subject matter.
I am not going to do it tonight but I (or we) can go over every word line by line, sentence by sentence and you can ask me to correct or explain what I was thinking when I wrote it...
tunatin wrote:
Batgirl, I agree that of course it's all a farce and there is no cheating in this case - but anyone4chess has got a point in that it all apparently about cheating, and the 'baddie' has been given centre stage (center if we're going to end up in the uk-us spelling thingy again), and this has been condoned and encouraged by the admins.
It's the look of the thing rather than the thing itself. It does feel a little like professional wrestling, Cheater_1 (bless 'im) in the ring, with microphone, shouting "Bring it on!!!", and the 'good guy's' (chess.com, the righteous) manager at the top of the stairs (also with microphone) shouting "You got it!!!"
[Edit: I do not watch professional wrestling... : )]
Wow, someone that reads a post and understands what is being said or a least part of what was being said (but you got the most important part).. Way to go, and it didnt take 5000 words to say it either...
The Tonya Harding Option
An event dedicated to cheating; there is a website that is allowing someone who admits he cheats to play his members in a community type of chess game (Vote Chess).
Obviously, this type of character can be good for business when you are trying to stir the pot; everyone likes to hate someone however, in my opinion this is a typically a rooky webmaster mistake when it comes to cheating, even the so called cheater is shocked that this being allowed.
In every walk of life this type or person or this type of situation, is shunned, avoided and or given the respect it deserves (none). To allow this situation to take center stage, to promote their concepts clearly show this site is a business and is using this so called tactic to promote its website for financial gain.
No person who understands chess and the seriousness on how cheating is viewed in chess circles would ever take this stance, this webmaster states its all about the community, what community allows cheaters to take center stage and allows a self proclaimed cheater to promote his ideas or beliefs.
This very argument is in the papers today, they call this the Tonya Harding option.
Since this opinion will be censored, I want to go record stating this is wrong and helping to promote someone that cheats is fundamentally wrong.