| |
Main
Date: 20 Aug 2007 16:11:12
From:
Subject: MI5 Persecution: No Justice 20/11/96 (9094)
|
(sent 20/11/96)
Subject: No Justice for those with mental illness
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Sumy:
Keywords:
Well, the "legal option" has just foundered on the rock of lawyers refusing to
deal with me on the grounds that my perception of harassment must be due to the
disease.
So we're back to square one again, the same place we were two years ago.
Now perhaps one of our uk.legal participants can clarify this point. To me it
seems illogical that lawyers should have the final say on whether you are
allowed to proceed with a civil case or not. Is there a default mechanism or
agency for cases such as mine where it is difficult to find a solicitor to
represent you? What exactly is the "official Solicitor"? What is it possible to
do if you can't find a lawyer to represent you?
A chance to get a useful response out of the uk newsgroups! perhaps they can be
good for something else besides spamming.
..........................................................................
Represent yourself....like the defendants in the McLibel trial.
you will need to read some law..but you CAN legally represent yourself I
believe.
Mike W.
..........................................................................
From: [email protected] (Paul Burridge)
Yes, a lot of people do this nowadays. Saves on legal fees too. Lots
of reading up required first, though.
-- Paul
..........................................................................
(posted 30/11/96 from bu765)
Subject: Re: No Justice for those with mental illness
Newsgroups: uk.misc,uk.legal
Followup-To: uk.misc,uk.legal
References: <[email protected] > <[email protected]> <3311@os$
Organization: Toronto Free-Net
Distribution:
[email protected] (Paul Burridge) wrote:
>>Represent yourself....like the defendants in the McLibel trial.
>>you will need to read some law..but you CAN legally represent yourself I
>>believe.
>>Mike W.
>
>Yes, a lot of people do this nowadays. Saves on legal fees too. Lots
>of reading up required first, though.
What can I do to get competent legal help though? If the case is on the face of
it so bizarre that no solicitor would represent me or talk to me, then surely
there must be a default mechanism? What is the "official Solicitor" that's been
mentioned?
..........................................................................
All you need do is go to a good library & read up about it - that's what
the McLibel 2 did.
--
Ban Everything or Ban Nothing !
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/ ISO 1386-C compliant .sig
All words written in the above posting are my opinions
..........................................................................
9094
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------- >>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 13:41:33
From: Daniel C. Bastos
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release of ChessDB
|
Richard <[email protected] > writes:
> On Aug 20, 7:57 am, David Richerby <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> Richard <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Personally, playing in the U1600 sections of tournaments, I'd like
>> > to see statistics on what the most common responses by players rated
>> > 1400-1600 are to certain moves in the openings I play. That will
>> > tell me what I really need to prepare for, regardless of how strong
>> > it is.
>>
>> My guess is that U1600 players play much more randomly than grand-
>> masters. For example, you can be almost certain that a GM would play
>> 2.d4 after 1.e4 e6. A much weaker player, on the other hand, would be
>> much more likely to try something like 2.Nc3, 2.Nf3 or 2.e5.
>>
>> Dave.
>>
> While lower rated players are less likely to stick to "book" moves, we
> do still play at least somewhat logically. Maybe not so much for
> players rated under 1000, but I usually play 1200-1600 players while I
> try to get my 1380 rating up to 1600 and beyond. So certain inferior
> "non-book" responses are going to be much more common than others.
>
> That's part of the reason why it's hard for intermediate players to
> study openings - you memorize a book line and your opponent doesn't
> play into it. But most opening books don't bother covering the common
> mistakes that no master would make. There's a definite ket for that
> type of book if some master decided to write it. I know Dan Heisman
> has written a little bit of that in his Novice Nook column at
> chesscafe.com, but he only covered a few of the most common openings.
I agree. For example: while a bad move would let a strong player go for
a checkmate, a weak player would not be able to carry the mate on, so it
might not be a wise decision for the weak player --- assume he cares to
win that one no matter what.
Weak players need to see how a bad move can be exploited; and they need
to see it in multiple ways, so that they train their brains to see the
patterns. It'd be nice to see books on this.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 13:57:17
From: Dave (from the UK)
Subject: Re: Opening traps - was Statistical significance of score differences
|
Daniel C. Bastos wrote:
> Weak players need to see how a bad move can be exploited; and they need
> to see it in multiple ways, so that they train their brains to see the
> patterns. It'd be nice to see books on this.
There are books on it - see for example:
http://www.chesshouse.com/Chess_Opening_Traps_p/2142.htm
There are a few examples at this site:
http://www.chesstutor.net/openings/
of this sort of thing. I've seen the odd 1500 player make one of those
bluders, which leads to the lost of a pawn.
There are a few more examples of the Smith-Morra gambit on ICC's
'trainingbot'. The thing about them in the SM gambit is that they can
lead to a quick defeat by the loss of a queen, or minor piece. There are
lots of them too.
You can probably find these by going over your games with a chess
engine. They should find any blunders quite easily.
The problem I have seen with many of these bad moves is that one side
sets a trap for their opponent to play a bad move. This usually (but not
always) means playing a slightty sub-optimal move. If your opponent
falls for the traps, you have a good chance of winnning the game
quickly. If they don't you will have an inferior position.
--
Dave (from the UK)
Please note my email address changes periodically to avoid spam.
It is always of the form: [email protected]
Hitting reply will work for a few months only - later set it manually.
http://chessdb.sourceforge.net/ - a Free open-source Chess Database
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 14:16:00
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Opening traps - was Statistical significance of score differences
|
Dave (from the UK) <[email protected] > wrote:
> The problem I have seen with many of these bad moves is that one
> side sets a trap for their opponent to play a bad move. This usually
> (but not always) means playing a slightty sub-optimal move. If your
> opponent falls for the traps, you have a good chance of winnning the
> game quickly. If they don't you will have an inferior position.
Quite. Heisman calls this `hope chess' and repeatedly advises against
it. Really, this whole approach is just a slightly more grown-up
version of 1.e4 2.Bc4 3.Qf3/h5.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Natural Pickled Drink (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a refreshing juice beverage but it's
preserved in vinegar and completely
natural!
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 11:34:25
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release of ChessDB
|
Daniel C. Bastos <[email protected] > wrote:
> I agree. For example: while a bad move would let a strong player go
> for a checkmate, a weak player would not be able to carry the mate
> on, so it might not be a wise decision for the weak player ---
> assume he cares to win that one no matter what.
Unless you make a really shockingly bad move in the opening, you're
not going to get checkmated by force, even if you're playing a
consultation team of Anad, Topalov and Hydra.
Strong players get a good position out of the opening against weak
players because they understand the principles of the opening --
mainly, the centre and development. It's not usually because of one
crushingly bad move but because of a series of poor moves. After a
few poor moves, your stronger opponent has a development advantage and
the initiative and then you run out of good moves.
> Weak players need to see how a bad move can be exploited; and they
> need to see it in multiple ways, so that they train their brains to
> see the patterns. It'd be nice to see books on this.
You're trying to treat the symptoms, rather than the illness, I think.
Try going through some of Morphy's games against weak opposition and
work out what he did well in the opening and what his opponents did
badly. Try not to be distracted by the flashy checkmates. ;-)
Have a look at Chernev's _Logical Chess Move by Move_. Nimzowitsch's
_My System_ has a good chapter on the importance of the centre, though
the rest is probably a little heavy for now -- perhaps borrow it from
a library.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Poisonous Drink (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ refreshing juice beverage but it'll
kill you in seconds!
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 11:37:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Statistical significance of score differences - new release of ChessDB
|
Richard <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> My guess is that U1600 players play much more randomly than grand-
>> masters. For example, you can be almost certain that a GM would
>> play 2.d4 after 1.e4 e6. A much weaker player, on the other hand,
>> would be much more likely to try something like 2.Nc3, 2.Nf3 or
>> 2.e5.
>
> While lower rated players are less likely to stick to "book" moves,
> we do still play at least somewhat logically.
Yes, though the logic is often somewhat flawed. ;-) (Speaking as a
lower-rated player myself.)
> That's part of the reason why it's hard for intermediate players to
> study openings - you memorize a book line and your opponent doesn't
> play into it. But most opening books don't bother covering the
> common mistakes that no master would make. There's a definite ket
> for that type of book if some master decided to write it. I know Dan
> Heisman has written a little bit of that in his Novice Nook column
> at chesscafe.com, but he only covered a few of the most common
> openings.
The masters have already answered this question time and time again.
Yes, Heisman has gone through some common opening mistakes but the
point wasn't to teach you what to do in those specific circumstances
but to serve as examples to a general argument.
The answer is not memorizing responses to bad moves that your opponent
might play but understanding opening principles. If you understand
why the book move is good, you're well on the way to understanding why
the other moves are not so good and what to do about them. If, for
example, the purpose of the book move is to hinder the development of
some piece or to take control of some square, your response to an
alternative move is almost certainly going to be to develop the piece
that your opponent neglected to hinder or to occupy or take control of
the square that your opponent neglected. (So, for example, after
1.d4, the purpose of the usual moves 1... d5 and 1... Nf6 is to take
control of e4 and stop you putting a pawn there. So, if Black plays
something other than those two moves, you should seriously consider
2.e4.)
Trying to deal with your opponent's low opening knowledge by
memorizing responses to sub-optimal moves is just an even worse
version of the opening-memorization game. Because now, you have to
memorize three or four times as many branches, everywhere in the
tree. It's just not possible.
> For instance, I started playing a new gambit recently, and the first
> two times I tried it, both of my opponents declined the gambit with
> the same "non-book" response. [...] My point, though, is that I
> wasn't prepared for what's obviously a common response to the
> opening that I chose, because the sources that originally showed me
> the opening (in this case, a friend at a tournament, followed by
> reading an article on the internet about it) didn't think that move
> was worth bothering to mention.
My point is that you brought this trouble on yourself by playing moves
that you'd memorized without understanding. People often decline
gambits (especially unfamiliar ones) because they think, ``Wow! He's
prepared to give me a whole pawn for something I can't see. It must
be a really powerful attack so I don't want to go there.'' Going into
a serious game with a new gambit and no idea what you'll do if it's
declined sounds a bit foolish to me (or, at least, prejudicial to your
chances of winning). But you worked it through and won both games --
now you have a better understanding of your opening and you're a
better player for it. At least, I hope you have a better
understanding, rather than just a memory of the moves that won last
time, which will be scuppered if your next opponent declines the
gambit but then plays something different.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Perforated Radioactive Pants (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a well-tailored pair of
trousers but it'll make you glow in
the dark and it's full of holes!
|
|
