The psychology of insults.

A friend texted me and said I was honoring Peter with an article of his own. Actually no. Look at the title again. What I am really curious about is why we continue to accept his insults? So lets look at this closer.

For an "insultor" to exist there must also be an "insultee". It takes two hands to clap ie we also need to believe deep down that there is basis to the insult.

So lets do a little speculation here. His title is an FM and his rating is 2282 from some years back. Lets say he was to fight in the real world today like what Mas is doing now and lets say his rating was to drop to around 2100 in today's chess.

Do you think you would now consider him qualified to comment on Mas's confidence and fighting strength? That he can say that we have messy minds and that we are lowly. An interesting question don't you think?

Now even if his real strength is 2200, does that make him qualified to judge a higher rated game?

Where is his bona fide on courage and confidence? He yells at parents at his tournaments, he attacks all and sundry including FIDE and MCF. He "bans" a National player because his father stood up to him. Is that how confidence is measured?

He avoids genuine competition but claims strong fighting chess. Is that how courage is measured?

So why do we feel we need to play the role of "insultee" to him?

Could it all be an illusion? Could that be why he cannot play in a real tournament that we can follow and monitor?