Re: Playing to an opponents weaknesses

On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:49:43 -0700 (PDT), gammon_gangsta@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On May 11, 5:30 pm, monty1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> In the last match, I decided to use all my techniques against you, and
>> it worked, as it usually does against the players I've encountered up
>> to now.  Your claim that I dropped clear takes is only relevant, IMO,
>> against those playing at a very high level (such as GNUBG).  Thus,
>> there is an impasse, as I what I think were appropriate plays (against
>> you) you think are "mistakes."  Again, only one way to clear this up.
>
>This is laughable. After posturing for several months, Monty swindles
>one poor buffoon into paying him to show up and play so that both can
>demonstrate how truly inept they are. At least Petch made no claims to
>near-world class status, but Monty demonstrates what an incredibly
>poor winner he is.
>
>The one salient fact is that Monty won five of seven long matches> I
>think this is pretty significant and I'd guess if they played again,
>Monty would prevail. At the end of the day, however, all this really
>proved is that one no-talent hack can beat another. The fact that
>Monty got paid to demonstrate that he's basically an intermediate must
>have him laughing all the way to the bank.

But it is worse than that. Petch is offering to pay him even more. I
realize that Usenet attracts very dysfunctional individuals but this
takes the cake. Petch even sent money to someone other than Monty
because Monty did not want to reveal his true identity. I think Monty
and Petch deserve each other. They sure make for great entertainment.
I will be sure to watch their next match. It will be a grudge match
for sure given all the smack talk.

Petch essentially gave Monty, for free, more money than he has likely
made in a year playing on line. 

Rich