text:
How about embedding this live blitz feed to the site?
According to a recent announcement by Chessbase, it is as easy as
<iframe src="http://liveblitz.chessbase.com" width="360" height ="360"></iframe>

So perhaps it is a good idea to embed this on the Chess SE site?

Any moving things on the browser window are distracting, and I don't feel like advertising Playchess or any other site here for free, so I'd say no.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Can the opening questions on this site be connected to an opening tree search?
How about connecting every chess position question to a chess (move based) tree?
Also, to introduce a tree based search to navigate the questions?
The chess opening (and chess games as a whole) has a tree structure and is best navigated as a tree. To get 10 or more questions per day, they have to concern concrete chess positions. To improve the navigation and overview of such questions and answers, such a tree navigation would be great to have. Over time, it would be cool to try to cover as much "chess space" as possible here on this site.

Ultimately then, we could have a search interface where users just play out moves on a board, and see a list of relevant questions get populated as they do. That would be really sweet; this is a cool idea.

+1 I love this idea.  I fear it may be difficult to implement though.  How will we go about capturing all of the chess positions listed?  I think the most effective method would be to write a script of some sort that scrapes the question (and each answer) as it is submitted to capture all of the different positions that occur.  Alternatively, you could have the user key in the position they feel best represents their question, but this would neglect all of the other positions in the game which may be of interest to others.

Another search idea I had, which might be useful in itself and nicely complement the OP's suggestion, would have users be able to search such questions about concrete positions by employing (some kind of user-friendly wrapper of some subset of) the Chess Query Language, e.g. to search across the FEN and PGN contained in site questions for endings with certain material configurations, or any other queries that the CQL allows one to express. Between these two additional searching options, users would have great searching power across all phases of the game.

+1 I love you idea for a board as the search interface.  There are so many possibilities with this idea.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Board in mobile app
Can we render the chess board in the Android SE app? It would be valuable and useful. Today, it is hard to answer and view questions that concern concrete positions.

I think this is a very important feature. Let's up-vote it more and perhaps it will be implemented!

It's 2020 now and this is still an unsolved problem. I don't have the time for yet another project, but where could potential developers get hands on the code? Maybe think about GSC mentoring...

As a workaround, you can open the post in the browser (it's an option in the More link in the Android app and the Share link in the iOS app),

and (if necessary) scroll down to the bottom to switch from the mobile theme to the new responsive design, by clicking the 'full site' link in the footer.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Does someone mind explaining to me the formatting to generate boards?
How do users use a board to make moves? I can't seem to figure out how.(On this program)

Check this Meta Post.


text:
How to hide chessboard in a spoiler tag
I'd like to respond to How to visualize a position by showing a series of moves in algebraic notation, then the board at the point in the game, but hidden in a spoiler tag. This is with the aim of showing a training exercise where the OP can test their visualisation skills compared to the board.
It seems not possible at the moment, so maybe it can be realized as a new feature?

You can upload an image of the board and hide it in a spoiler tag:
>! ![](https://i.stack.imgur.com/SLd01.png)
produces

I don't think it is possible to hide the PGN player in a spoiler tag.
EDIT: I see now that you have used this solution yourself already.


text:
What do we do with questions that I don't think there is an answer to?
Peter has asked a good set of questions asking for complete games that end in interesting positions, namely

Complete game Ojanen - Ridala , Helsinki 1959
Complete game Szabo-Groszpeter, Kecskemet 1984
Complete game troitzky - vogt?

Myself and other users researched these questions with no success using the following means:

Searching databases
Using Google
Searching chess books
Emailing the author of websites that @Peter links to

My own conclusion is that these complete games are no longer accessible.
This raises the question, what do we do with questions where there are no known answers? Do we:

Post an answer detailing the research undertaken, and say there are no results?
Post in comments detailing the research undertaken, and say there are no results?

I think it depends on how much work you have done. If you've just done a quick search of Chessbase and one or two other databases then a comment is suitable.
If you have done extensive research then the greater space and formatting possibilities (links, quotes, lists etc.) of an answer would be better. An answer also allows comments from other users specific to your answer to be more clearly attached to your response.


text:
Is it special to Chess Stack Exchange that we can show static pictures of a board?
I saw this question:
Can a piece pinned to my king put the opponent's king in check?
which has a chess board inserted with the [fen] tag. Is this special to Chess Stack Exchange?

There was a question about the PGN viewer on Meta SE and it was closed because it was specific to Chess SE.

@Christophe that does not help me, there was never an answer.

Did you read the close reason for that question? It says, "This question pertains only to a specific site in the Stack Exchange Network. (...)". Doesn't that implicitly answer your question?

@ChristopheStrobbe why would that answer my question?

It implies that the PGN viewer was only implemented on Chess SE. Even
Board & Card Games SE doesn't have one. See How should I concisely represent a chess position in a question? and Please implement the Chess replayer on Board and Card Games.

It looks like Chess SE is the only Stack Exchange site where the PGN/FEN renderer was implemented:

In January 2016, someone asked a question about the PGN viewer on Meta SE, which was closed as off-topic. The argument for closing it was, "This question pertains only to a specific site in the Stack Exchange Network. Questions on Meta Stack Exchange should pertain to our network or software that drives it as a whole, (...)."
Outside Chess SE, Board & Card Games SE would be the site where this renderer would be most relevant. The meta site has several questions about it:

Can we integrate software to show Go and Chess positions? is a question from April 2011 (apparently during the beta phase) that asks for this feature, and none of the answers state that it got implemented.
How should I concisely represent a chess position in a question? is a question from June 2011 where the first answer says that the site is unlikely to get an FEN renderer.
Please implement the Chess replayer on Board and Card Games is another request for this feature, this time from January 2013. Again, nothing in the comments or answers suggests that it got implemented.
I asked in the Board & Card Games chat whether it got implemented, and the response (from one of the site's moderators) was not positive.


text:
Is it possible to get a negative reputation?
Is it possible to get a negative total reputation? I can't find any examples where this has happened.

No, this is not possible. From the Help Center article What is reputation? How do I earn (and lose) it?:

All users start with one reputation point, and reputation can never drop below 1.

It is impossible to obtain a negative reputation, as proved by this question from the Stack Exchange Meta site.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Tag Synonyms autocorrect
For extremely similar tags, like [gambit] and [gambits] or [opening] and [openings], can we make it so that one tag immediately autocorrects into the original one?

This would need to be done on system level, it's not something we can change at Chess.SE. I think it has some merit (searching for 'gambit' will automatically include posts where the word 'gambits' is used) but I doubt it can be easily implemented.

So I should be asking about this on Meta Stack Exchange?

Yes, the entire network would benefit from this. But there might be situations where this is not desirable and I haven't thought about the impact (what if there is a situation where we need two tags where one is the plural version of the other?). Also, one-sentence feature requests posted there by new users might not be well-received.

This actually already happens for many tags.  You can see the complete list here:
https://chess.stackexchange.com/tags/synonyms
I created a synonym for gambit to gambits (although there wasn't actually anything tagged with gambit).


text:
Discussion - chess analysis thread
Can we allow posts for analysis of games by people? These can be labeled by the tag game-analysis. By analysis, I mean that a person posts a chess game in a thread, and then someone else provides comments.

We already have an analysis tag which is used for both specific positions and (recent example) complete games. The latter, while not strictly off-topic, are usually not too well received, since most of the times they are mainly useful to one person, the author of the question. Also, they tend not to be well-researched; for some examples, see the lowest scoring questions in that tag.
Stack Exchange works best with well-researched questions and answers which are valuable to many people (including future visitors), so I do not think we should create a new tag which will mainly be used in poor and mediocre questions.


text:
Improve the use of advanced search options
I have looked at certain combinations of search keywords, and I've found that using the keywords is difficult. Could it be possible to implement something similar to Google advanced search so that it would be easier?
*The keywords I am referring to are, e.g.,created:..2020-07-31,intags:mine.

Those keywords/options should work (but do use spaces between them).
Yes, Stack Exchange search is far from perfect, but I'm not sure if the company wants to put much energy in duplicating Google. They've already revamped the search bar (with the tooltip showing some special search terms), they're focusing on other topics right now.
What you can do is using Google to better search Chess Stack Exchange. Google (and other search engines) have a special search operator to limit your search to a single site:
site:chess.stackexchange.com


text:
Reduce waiting period for username change
Well, I've just changed my username, and just as I was about to change it back, I received an alert saying that I can only do so thirty days afterwards. Could it be made so that the period is shortened?

No. Changing usernames may confuse other users, especially when done multiple times, that's why there is a waiting period. See Can we restrict the ability of users to keep changing their names? on Meta Stack Exchange.
I guess Stack Exchange could reduce the period from 30 to, say, 20 days. I'm not sure if that really solves your problem. Anyway, that should be a network-wide change, it's not something we can decide on Chess Stack Exchange alone.
Personally, I'd rather get rid of the ability to change your username entirely and make it possible in extraordinary circumstances only.


text:
Playing chess games on Chess Stack Exchange
On chess.com correspondence games are organised in forums. Could it be made possible so that people can play each other in threads which are labeled with a certain tag?

Technically, yes. But that's not what Chess Stack Exchange aims to be:

Chess Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for serious players and enthusiasts of chess. It's built and run by you as part of the Stack Exchange network of Q&A sites. With your help, we're working together to build a library of detailed answers to every question about chess.

Indeed, a separate tag for those 'questions' would be a good way to separate them from regular questions, and make it possible for users who are not interested in them to hide them. Note that by default they are visible, and non-registered users don't have that option, so if there are a lot of active games, they won't see regular questions. Most of our traffic is actually non-registered users, so that's my main concern against this plan.
Also, you would need to sort answers by posting date, not by votes (which is the default). I'd imagine good moves get upvoted more often, so reputation would be a mix of Stack Exchange reputation and ELO rating. (Though these posts could be Community Wiki, but that feels weird too.) That means for instance that good chess players who know absolutely nothing about Stack Exchange would get to vote to close questions.
All in all, it's an interesting thought experiment but it's not the niche Stack Exchange wants to be in. One of the advantages of the Internet is that there can be several websites about the same topic, but each having their own role or specializations.


text:
Are questions involving opinions allowed?
I have got a question about asking questions about opinions: Why are they not allowed? As far as I know, I don't find anything wrong with them.
And, if this question is closed, that would be a philosophical contradiction.

Questions about opinions are allowed under some circumstances, highlighted in the Help Center article What types of questions should I avoid asking?. First, what kind of questions are not allowed:

If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here.

To prevent your question from being flagged and possibly removed, avoid asking subjective questions where ...

every answer is equally valid: “What’s your favorite ______?”
your answer is provided along with the question, and you expect more answers: “I use ______ for ______, what do you use?”
there is no actual problem to be solved: “I’m curious if other people feel like I do.”
you are asking an open-ended, hypothetical question: “What if ______ happened?”
your question is just a rant in disguise: “______ sucks, am I right?”

Second, what kind of opinion-based questions are allowed?

Some subjective questions are allowed, but “subjective” does not mean “anything goes”. All subjective questions are expected to be constructive. What does that mean? Constructive subjective questions:

inspire answers that explain “why” and “how”
tend to have long, not short, answers
have a constructive, fair, and impartial tone
invite sharing experiences over opinions
insist that opinion be backed up with facts and references
are more than just mindless social fun

For more detail, read about our guidelines for great subjective questions and blog post about how real questions have answers.

Of course, there is a gray area; for those cases, we have the review queues where the community can decide whether a question is appropriate for Chess Stack Exchange or not.

So, in short, "why do top players refuse to play the King's Gambit?" is a valid question despite multiple opinions being possible, while "Do you like the King's Gambit?" is not

Although I can see the purpose of the opinion-ban, I think this is frequently misused. Someone wants to close a question, and reaches for an excuse that is suitably vague. There is no explanation given at the time of why the closure has to happen. The questioner is left baffled and powerless. Two of the question templates that you list as objectionable I find completely ok.

your answer is provided along with the question, and you expect more answers: “I use ______ for ______, what do you use?”
you are asking an open-ended, hypothetical question: “What if ______ happened?”

What is meant by the point "Constructive subjective questions: .. • invite sharing experiences over opinions" in the chess.SE context?

As far as I know, I don't find anything wrong with them.

In that case, go away and set up your own "ReinstateMonicaExchange" site where such questions are allowed. This site is not all about you. It's about all of us.
Joking aside, the first thing you need to do is go away and read the relevant topics in the Help Center. Read all of it, but pay particular attention to what it says about What types of questions should I avoid asking?.
The key point is that suitable questions should have definitive answers. If my opinion on a subject is different from yours and both are arguable then the question is not suitable. The site is not supposed to be about arguments and discussions. It's supposed to be about facts.
Another relevant answer to this question is this one from Glorfindel.
Coming back to:

And, if this question is closed, that would be a philosophical
contradiction.

Depends on why it would be closed. For instance if it were closed for being a duplicate of this question. It isn't, so it hasn't been.

Who's Monica anyway and why should we reinstate her?

That doesn't strike me as an example of "joking". It seems completely humourless, saying "well that's the way we do things round here: too bad - just leave if you don't like it." It's not about the small group of folks who happen to be in meta and chess right now, it's about making something for tens of thousands of people who are not here, because they are not made sufficiently welcome. You can pick on the rare newcomers one at a time and say they are in the minority so they'd better leave. That will guarantee that this community stays tiny even in the post-"Queen's Gambit" age.


text:
Merging tag synonyms with main tag
I've been looking through the tag wiki recently, and found in pages 8-12, there are many tags which have no definitions. Most of them are tag synonyms, but can they instead be merged with the main tags, and simply listed as tag synonyms in the main tag's labels?

This makes sense, and somebody proposed it almost ten years ago: Display tag synonyms differently in the tag browser. It's something which needs to be changed on a network-wide level.


text:
Typo in tag --- [sicilian-tajmanov]
I've been looking through the tag wiki, and found a typo in a tag.
[sicilian-tajmanov] --- should be [sicilian-taimanov].

That's not a typo, but an alternative, anglicized, spelling.

I have edited the questions with a new, correct tag and moved the description as well. So it is now fixed, and the wrong tag shall auto-delete in a day.


text:
Is there a page formatting change at 2000 reputation?
I have just reached 2000 reputation, and since I have used this website for a while, I noticed that my homepage had changed format. I don't know how this happened. Is this a specific system feature or something else?

The Meta homepage has not changed, for some reason

It seems you've accidentally tripped the mobile version of the site. That setting is stored per-site in a cookie, so that's why you still see the full version of the Meta site.
To go back to the full version, scroll down to the bottom and click the 'Full site' link:

oops. And I gave away 50 of my rep just to 'get back to the original site'.


text:
Board and Card games chess questions
In the 'Board and Card Games' exchange, I have noticed that there are numerous chess questions. Mostly, they're about variants, or a mate-in-n[longest I've seen is 2]. Should these be migrated over to this site, or should they be left there?

There are also some on Puzzling, so I guess chess is REAL popular everywhere!

In addition to what @HerbWolfe says, questions older than 60 days cannot be migrated, as this footnote to the FAQ on migration says:

1 After 60 days, migrations can only be performed by Stack Exchange employees. These are performed only in very, very rare procedural cases and are usually not done on request.

Leave them there. They are on-topic there, so there is no need to migrate them. They also have poker questions, and those don't get migrated to poker.se. There are several subjects that are equally on-topic on multiple Stacks.


text:
Dealing with insulting behavior by a moderator
In a comment on this answer,
https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/34553/1954
I wrote:

Your methodology doesn't seem convincing to me. Personal, subjective retrospection with a sample size of one doesn't tell us much. Frequency counts at different times don't tell us whether it's the standards that are changing or the strength of the players. And in any case, 10 years is a very short time.

The author of the answer replied in a comment with a personal insult:

@BenCrowell I guess your reading skills aren't that good else you would have seen that I say the same in my answer

This is a classic example of bad behavior on an SE site: a comment criticizes an answer, and the author of the answer replies with a personal attack.
The interesting issue is that in this case the author is a moderator. I've flagged the comment, but how does this play out when the person whose comment has been flagged is a moderator? Does the moderation get assigned to some other moderator to look at?

Look in the mirror. Your initial comment was abusive and attention seeking. Both comments now deleted.


text:
Is there a system to detect if someone is voting on their own account for cheating?
I'm just curious, but I've seem some questions with lots of votes. But how can these moderators know that the votes on the questions are real? There has to be some detections that goes with it. So, my question is that is there a system to detect if a user has created multiple accounts just for vote their own questions and earn fake reputations and harm other users?

I've seem some questions with lots of votes

There is normally a strong correlation between number of views and number of votes. Questions and answers with 10,000 views are going to have lots more votes than ones with 50 views.

But how can these moderators know that the votes on the questions are real?

We, the amateur unpaid moderators, have tools. The SE employees above us have much better tools (and more time, it is after all what they are paid for). Sometimes we spot someone operating multiple accounts. Sometimes we are alerted by an alert user flagging something suspicious.
Sometimes (probably the majority of times) SE employees detect and delete such accounts, often across several platforms, and the first we low level mods know is that we get a message like "you lost 20 points because we just deleted an account which also upvoted 2 of your questions/answers".
If the multiple user accounts are low-reputation (<2000) we can take action up to and including deleting accounts. For higher reputation accounts we simply report up to the paid employee level where they have powers to investigate for likely cross platform multiple accounts. After all, if you were successfully operating multiple accounts why would you limit it to Chess SE?


text:
Does this site also work like codegolf/puzzling and support posing chess problems to other members?
Is that a valid usage of this stack?
If not yet, has it been considered?

If you want to ask such a problem (IIRC it has been done in the past), it's probably good to link to that answer - it seems to have reasonable support from the community (+7/-1) - there's not much activity here on Meta.


text:
Moderator deletion of critical comments: Abuse of Power?
This week, while browsing through the site, I happened to come across two of moderator Brian Towers' answers (1, 2). I disagreed with large parts (though not all) of the points raised within, and thought that they were grossly misleading, especially considering the large number of upvotes they had garnered, which seems to be an indication of the number of people who thought they were good answers. I felt so strongly, in fact, that I left critical comments beneath both answers that explained clearly why I felt that the answers were incorrect and misleading.
I did so with two reasons. First, I expected that any reasonable user (let alone a moderator of this site) seeing critical comments below their answer would respond to the criticisms, either explaining why they thought I was wrong, or agreeing with my criticisms and therefore improving the answer. In both cases, somebody learns something, and positive benefit is to be had. Secondly, I believed that, if left uncorrected, these answers risk to mislead readers and damage, in  a nontrivial way, the quality of answers on this site and therefore its reputation as a place to seek high-quality answers to questions about chess.
It did not take long before my comments beneath both of the answers were deleted. When I asked about the reason behind the deletion, Brian Towers responded: "You're right. I should have flagged as rude or abusive first". They have since deleted this comment, which is why it is now unviewable, prompting the question of why the moderator felt the need to do so if they truly believed in this justification.

I view this as a critical abuse of power by the moderator in deleting comments which are not in favour of his answers. I am asking this question on Meta to ask for the moderator to hold accountability for his actions and to be transparent in justifying his actions instead of sweeping it under the rug.

I would also ask whether the community at large accepts this sort of behaviour, because if it does, perhaps it is not one that I want to be a part of any longer.
It is true that the comments were rather strongly worded. I do not have the exact wording of the full comments, since I cannot refer to them anymore, given the moderator's actions, but wording such as that the answer was "odd and misleading", as well as the perspective in the answer being "naive" were used. However, the comments never personally attacked or abused the moderator themselves, and the criticism was directed only squarely at the (in my view) completely misguided answers with the potential to mislead. Yes, I agree that this phrasing could be interpreted as unfriendly. However, I staunchly believe that strong language, within the realm of civility, is necessary and productive for discourse to gain a deeper appreciation of any issue. The actions of the moderator appear to violate the principles of free speech.

It seems that similar behaviour has occurred before with the same moderator. Since this is clearly an established pattern of behaviour, and if the wider community agrees that this is an issue, I wonder if anything can be done to hold the moderator to account.

Edit: It seems to have happened again, ironically beneath this very post! A comment pointed out Brian Towers' past abusive language in his answer to this question, as well as how he deleted valuable comments that pointed out objective flaws with his reasoning (and carried additional insightful remarks) on that occasion. To silence even this criticism, Brian Towers appears to have deleted the comment beneath this meta post. This shameless behaviour must be stopped!

Thanks for bringing this up here instead of continuing the discussion via comments.
First, all of the moderators are volunteers, and we all do the best that we can.  We do make mistakes from time to time.
In this case, I think that most of your comments came across as unfriendly or haughty.  In fairness, one of your comments was probably collateral damage in the deletion, but one reasonable comment is not really enough when the overall tone is negative.
In general, the moderators do try to avoid deleting comments or otherwise moderating threads where we participate, but that's not always possible since there are only three of us, and especially Brian is active on so many posts.
Going forward, anything you can do to avoid being unfriendly will help avoid comment deletion.  For example, adding words like "clearly", "indeed", or "surely" takes the tone from helpful to hurtful.
Finally, comments are designed to be transitory, and many times they are deleted after edits to the parent post.  If you disagree with an answer and want to share a different viewpoint, adding a more comprehensive answer is the most efficient way to do so.

Thank you for the response. Indeed, I understand and (generally) appreciate the work that the moderators are doing for the betterment of the site. I also understand mistakes happen and empathise with that. Nevertheless, I strongly believe there is significant value in ensuring that free discourse is available, even when strong language is used in the discussion, because such language has value in conveying the strength of one's conviction in the point being made.

To be specific, in these cases, I do not just disagree with the viewpoints shared in the answers made by Brian Towers in the sense that "reasonable minds may differ", I strongly believe that they are plainly incorrect and misleading. It is appropriate according to the way SE comments are meant to work to point this out in the comments, because this prevents the answer from misleading others. Perhaps they can be interpreted as unfriendly, but how can words like "indeed" be interpreted to be rube or abusive? Once again, these comments were not personal in nature and only address the chess.

Incidentally, I did in fact add my own answer in both cases, as you suggested in the final paragraph, though I think this is only tangential to the issue at hand.

I think that it's possible to express an opinion and point out factual errors without making someone feel inferior.  Strong (PG) language is okay, language that belittles someone is not.  The adverbs that I mentioned are words that do not clarify the statement one is trying to make, but instead only try to demonstrate a superiority to another person.  If you cannot make your point in a constructive, non-confrontational manner, then it's probably not worth making.

I would agree with what you're saying in the abstract. However, I do not agree that the language used in my comments "only try to demonstrate superiority" or that they are not constructive. Given the non-personal nature of the remarks, I would expect that any reasonable person would look at the criticisms objectively and respond accordingly, not take it to mean some personal offence. If I wrote a wrong answer and somebody responded with such language proving me wrong, I would engage them in the matter to figure out the truth and not refuse to engage by claiming that they were being rude.

In particular, descriptions saying that a certain point is "clearly" true does have clarifying value in saying that the point being made is obvious or self-evident (as opposed to, say, requiring 15 minutes of detailed calculations in a position to see that they are true). Therefore, it is not true that they "do not clarify the statement one is trying to make".

From the help:

You should submit a comment if you want to:
Request clarification from the author;
Leave constructive criticism that guides the author in improving the post;
Add relevant but minor or transient information to a post (e.g. a link to a related question, or an alert to the author that the question has been updated).

I feel that, as the post author, he is free to reject your constructive criticism of his post. The comment is therefore no longer serving its purpose and may be deleted.
Comments simply aren't designed to be a place for a permanent rebuttal of the post. The site really doesn't have any place for that, which may be a flaw but that's what we're given.

If this is really the intention behind how the site is supposed to work, that the post author may simply delete comments which no longer serve their purpose (those which contain critical opinions), then isn't it unfair that only the site moderators get to use this function? Why isn't it available to everyone else? I conclude that this is not, in fact, the intended way for this policy to be read, and that critical comments serve an important and desired (or at least desirable) function to prevent later readers from being misled, even if this may not be explicitly stated.

Perhaps you're right that this justification for the deletion of the comments would make some sense as a matter of principle. However, these sorts of obsolete comments are not deleted regularly by the moderators as a matter of fact, and it would seem curiously inconsistent to only do this on critical comments beneath the moderator's own answers. Besides, it is not the justification given by Brian Towers, and it would take some Herculean mental gymnastics to say that this is the true reason why he did what he did, and that therefore he should not be held accountable for any wrongdoing.

Making calm, rational counter arguments is one thing. Making rude and/or abusive comments is another. You have a history of the latter. In particular when your answer is not well received it is inappropriate for you to post such comments on another better-received answer. It comes across as spiteful rather than constructive.

I would challenge you to justify your claims that my comments have been rude or abusive. As I explained in the OP, I agree that they were strongly worded, but within the realms of civility --- never did I attack you personally, only your answers. Besides, your suggestion that I have left these comments out of spite because my answers have not been well-received seems strange: in both cases, I commented either before I wrote my answer, or immediately after, so there is no chance to judge "well-received" or not (and I have positive net upvotes on both anyway).

In fact, if there were an answer of mine that could be said to be poorly received, it would be this one: https://chess.stackexchange.com/a/40834/20688 since the first vote was a downvote, though there have been upvotes since. Yet I did not downvote your answer nor leave critical comments on this occasion, and indeed considered upvoting, because your answer was reasonable and correct.

Perhaps you should restore the comments, or otherwise reproduce them here, for the community to judge if they were reasonable. If the consensus opinion is that both were rude and abusive, I would disagree, but that's fair enough, and I should stop arguing further and simply leave the site. If the consensus is the opposite, perhaps it is your turn to reflect on your actions.