| |
Main
Date: 19 Aug 2008 01:19:26
From: [email protected]
Subject: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
Someone in Texas acquired the following books that apparently came
from the sale of items in Bobby Fischer's storage when the rent wasn't
paid by his California agent.
Chess Catechism by Larry Evans: =93To Bobby Fischer =96 The next World
Champion. May you win your games at life. Larry Evans Nov. 1970 PALMA=94
How to Open a Chess Game by Larry Evans, et al: =93February, 1975, To
Boby Fischer With best wishes, Sidney Fried=94 <Publisher >
My Seven Chess Prodigies by John W. Collins: =93For =96 Bobby Prodigy of
Prodigies I hope you enjoy reading this =96 of which you are a major
part. Every good wish for future successes. =96 Jack=94
Capablanca by Dr. Max Euwe (in German): =93February 26, 1975 To Bobby
Fischer With my best Wishes Lina" <Lina Grummette >
Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur by Max Euwe and Walter Meiden: <printed
in Bobby=92s hand, =93Robert Fischer=94 >
The Benko Gambit by Pal Benko: =93January 23, 1974 To Bobby, With
fondest best wishes =96 Burt Hochberg=94 <Editor-in-Chief of Chess Life >
How to Beat Bobby Fischer by Edmar Mednis: =93To Robert, I hope you take
the title in good humor =96 With respect and friendship Edmar=94
|
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2008 17:48:36
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
[email protected] wrote:
.
> Hmmmm -- "those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as
> research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis
> testing." -- does this remind us of anyone here? ;-)
Sanny?..
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2008 21:01:21
From: none
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 21, 8:18=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 21, 10:05=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Aug 20, 4:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:[email protected]=
m...
> > >> On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>> Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
> > >>> him based solely on his handwriting.
> > >> =A0 Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If s=
o,
> > >> her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
>
> > >> **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none!=
except
> > >> that she was aware that =A0[her own words] "he was a genius in the f=
ield of
> > >> chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
> > >> understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
> > >> self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based=
solely
> > >> on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
>
> > >> **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surm=
ise of
> > >> how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, fol=
lowed by
> > >> Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then c=
iting a
> > >> singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much =
money on
> > >> graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding i=
t is
> > >> 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to si=
gn
> > >> things!
>
> > > =A0 Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like t=
o
> > > know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made. This
> > > would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
> > > analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
> > > people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
> > > They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
> > > which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases. If
> > > their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
> > > subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
> > > graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
> > > tautology.
>
> > >> **They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysis,=
a
> > >> second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with t=
hat
> > >> second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowled=
ge
> > >> entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently made=
himself
> > >> clear.
>
> > >> **One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958 thro=
ugh
> > >> 2005.
>
> > >> **The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James" =
from
> > >> 1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in fi=
nding
> > >> the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other fac=
tors to
> > >> specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as two =
"f's".
> > >> Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's comment =
that it
> > >> was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the parti=
cularity
> > >> of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
> > >> signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge. Lar=
ry Evans
> > >> seems to know when and where he used it.
>
> > >> **The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive purchase=
s you
> > >> might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions or =
real
> > >> sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few hudnred=
bucks,
> > >> better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
>
> > >> **One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site:
>
> > >>www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
>
> > >> where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64 ag=
ainst
> > >> Anthony Killan.
>
> > >> **Phil Innes
>
> > >> =A0In
> > >> most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
> > >> restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
> > >> already knows.
> > >> =A0 A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where=
, we
> > >> are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
> > >> that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
> > >> "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
> > >> conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
> > >> was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
> > >> that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks.=
"
> > >> =A0 Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
> > >> woods.
>
> > As a neutral observer trying to follow this conversation, I found mysel=
f
> > confused by the terminology. =A0I found this statement about graphology
> > online: "Graphology is the study of handwriting, especially when
> > employed as a means of analyzing character. Real handwriting experts ar=
e
> > known as forensic document examiners, not as graphologists."
>
> >http://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html
>
> > I understand the skepticism that one might have for graphology based on
> > other activities of similar repute such as phrenology or reading tea
> > leaves etc, etc. =A0Even so, when one sees a report of graphological
> > activity having taken place, it seems wise to distinguish between the
> > messenger(s) and the actors in the event. =A0i.e. "Don't shoot the mess=
enger!"
>
> > Now, I will bow out and leave this thread to the more informed. =A0:)
> > --
>
> > "Do that which is right..."
>
> > Rev. J.D. Walker
>
> =A0 I just had to show another quote from the link Rev. Walker supplied:
>
> =A0 "Graphology is another pipe dream of those who want a quick and
> dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the
> crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the
> good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc.
> Graphology is another in a long list of quack substitutes for hard
> work. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome
> matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and
> hypothesis testing."
>
> =A0 =A0Hmmmm -- "those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as
> research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis
> testing." -- does this remind us of anyone here? ;-)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmmm -- "those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as
research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis
testing." -- does this remind us of anyone here? ;-) --TKingston
Just about everyone here except you and me and I ain't too sure about
you.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2008 18:12:55
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
Chess One wrote:
> Writes in and follows a text I didn't write - though what I did write were
> extracts verbatim and paraphrastic
Please tell us more about these paraphrastics--
what rules do you use when paraphrasticizing,
and how do you know if the paraphrasticized
text is a fair equivalent of its precursor?
This certainly unveils a creative, new approach
which blasts the old guard methods of quoting to
smithereens. It is akin to Mr. Einstein's theory
of Relativity, or Mr. Newton's theory that gravity
is what attracts heavenly bodies (not lust or
money).
In particular, I am wondering how you feel on
the issue of the rampant paraphrasticizing of
Bobby Fischer's book, My Sixty Unforgettable
Games, by Dr. Nunnsuch, et al.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2008 08:50:38
From:
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 22, 11:02=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > =A0 I just had to show another quote from the link Rev. Walker supplied=
:
>
> > =A0 "Graphology is another pipe dream of those who want a quick and
> > dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the
> > crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the
> > good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc.
> > Graphology is another in a long list of quack substitutes for hard
> > work. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome
> > matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and
> > hypothesis testing."
>
> > =A0 =A0Hmmmm -- "those who are impatient with such troublesome matters =
as
> > research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis
> > testing." -- does this remind us of anyone here? ;-)
>
> > **Vaguer Kingston? Vaguer should check if the buffoons in the FBI use i=
t -
> > one place he might start is at the oldest medical school in the state h=
e
> > lives in, where kids from all over the country come to try for FBI fore=
nsics
> > work [esp. forensic pathology]. But Vaguer has no need of that, since h=
e has
> > already expressed his opinion. There is not the slightest doubt that al=
l
> > sorts of forensic evidence is graphology based - the only areas of doub=
t are
> > RELATIVE ones - that is to say, the /degree/ of confidence admitted of
> > /evaluation/ of character any sample illustrates.
>
> > **This itself bifurcates into an 'objective' realm where evaluation is
> > admitted, and also of the individual skill of the analyst.
>
> > **Of course anything can be 'questioned' to its veracity, but tell me, =
do we
> > actually think that economics or foreign policy are conducted as scienc=
e?
> > Don't people pick over the bones in Wall Street? Many of them are not v=
ery
> > good analysts or predictors of what will happen, whereas others are. Ci=
ting
> > only negative views of inept practitioners establishes nothing at all a=
bout
> > the Discipline in question, nor skill necessary to practice it properly=
.
>
> > **Taylor Kingston is not questioning anything. He is not a skeptic, any=
one
> > who questions - he is a denier. Once more his need to make absolute
> > pronouncements while presenting nothing himself denies the relative nat=
ure
> > of things, including hierarchies of understanding and practice of any
> > subject.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> It can be difficult to discuss a topic when the participants are not
> using the same semantics for the terminology. =A0It appears that
> graphology is a term that can have various meaning applied to it.
Quite so. Innes actively pursues semantic confusion as a rhetorical
tactic. One of his typical ploys is to conflate different things, and
claim his antagonist is referring to one when he's actually referring
to the other. Here, he's lumping graphology with forensic analysis,
trying to validate the former by making it equivalent to the latter,
which it is not. That the FBI would use forensic analysis in a forgery
case lends no vailidity to graphology as a predictor of character.
Phil does this kind of thing quite often. I suppose if I expressed,
say, a negative opinion of alchemy, he might well argue that I'm
denying the validity of chemistry as a science. It's just his typical
rhetorical ineptitude and/or dishonesty.
> Turning to the layman's crutch: :)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphology
>
> I see a number of variants discussed:
>
> > =A0 =A0 * 9.1 Employment profiling
> > =A0 =A0 * 9.2 Business compatibility
> > =A0 =A0 * 9.3 Psychological analysis
> > =A0 =A0 * 9.4 Marital compatibility
> > =A0 =A0 * 9.5 Medical diagnosis
> > =A0 =A0 * 9.6 Jury screening
> > =A0 =A0 * 9.7 Graphotherapy
>
> I would guess that a branch like medical graphology might have
> interesting and valid applications. =A0A person's handwriting might well
> have recognizable signs of stroke, Alzheimer's and other conditions.
>
> It might be wise to agree on terminology before getting too deep into
> argument...
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 24 Aug 2008 09:26:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It can be difficult to discuss a topic when the participants are not
> using the same semantics for the terminology. It appears that
> graphology is a term that can have various meaning applied to it.
Quite so. Innes actively pursues semantic confusion as a rhetorical
tactic. One of his typical ploys is to conflate different things, and
claim his antagonist is referring to one when he's actually referring
to the other. Here, he's lumping graphology with forensic analysis,
trying to validate the former by making it equivalent to the latter,
which it is not. That the FBI would use forensic analysis in a forgery
case lends no vailidity to graphology as a predictor of character.
*^* My gosh Taylor! Do have the decency to stop guessing about other people
by projecting yourself, your doubts and uncertainties.
**If you wish to argue a point, be good enough to quote what you are
reacting or responding to, or at least your own understanding of things.
Otherwise its just so vague!
**If you have to /invent/ what others say, such as your "predictor" above,
[I take it you do not actually say I mentioned prediction?]
then how is it possible to not take offense at that? Both at your
disinclination to respond to what others actually wrote, and your need to
discuss your skepticusm /as if/ they had said what you are skeptical of.
Phil does this kind of thing quite often. I suppose if I expressed,
say, a negative opinion of alchemy, he might well argue that I'm
denying the validity of chemistry as a science.
**Why do you /have to/ compulsively suppose anything? Its a crude means of
gratuitously insulting people! If you want to just fuck people over, you can
do that, and I note here the sort of 'conversations' that attracts@! You
seem ever puzzled why people who used to be friends are no longer so...
**If you actually wanted to have a conversation with other people then you
can act like a human being and ask a civil question. You can't have it both
ways!
It's just his typical
rhetorical ineptitude and/or dishonesty.
**Of course you describe me, Evans and Parr [all ex friends] that way, as
lying about you. But actually, I can say whatever I want to either of those
two, not fearing that they will like it or not, and without fear of
judgement. That is one variety of 'friendship'. Your process is that to
assert yourself you /must/ put others down.
**Do whatever you like! Its a choice of orientation. But by all means
experiment a bit, since then it becomes an informed choice.
Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2008 09:58:09
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:50:38 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
wrote:
> Quite so. Innes actively pursues semantic confusion as a rhetorical
>tactic. One of his typical ploys is to conflate different things, and
>claim his antagonist is referring to one when he's actually referring
>to the other. Here, he's lumping graphology with forensic analysis,
>trying to validate the former by making it equivalent to the latter,
>which it is not. That the FBI would use forensic analysis in a forgery
>case lends no vailidity to graphology as a predictor of character.
> Phil does this kind of thing quite often. I suppose if I expressed,
>say, a negative opinion of alchemy, he might well argue that I'm
>denying the validity of chemistry as a science. It's just his typical
>rhetorical ineptitude and/or dishonesty.
And I've often wondered, "what's the point?". Does it work? Has it
ever worked *here*? Is he playing to the faithful choir, the unknown
horde of lurkers?
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2008 06:47:30
From:
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 22, 5:19=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> CULTURE OF DISPARAGEMENT
>
> I am really struggling with the question of why should I waste time on
> this thread as on the surface it seems very unimportant. =A0However, it
> may be a useful platform to talk about rgcp and one of its problems.
>
> I want to be honest. =A0For any that don't know, I regard Mr. Parr as a
> good friend. =A0It is the kind of friendship that can accommodate
> disagreement. =A0Just as he has shown his friendship with Grandmaster
> Evans to be when it comes to their differing views on Iraq. =A0That said,
> I would like to point your attention to an old exchange I had with
> Taylor Kingston:
>
> On Nov 20, 5:32 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> =A0> I can admire you for being an excellent writer and
> =A0> interviewer as evidenced by the articles you have pointed me to, and=
for
> =A0> the sense of fairness I have felt in conversing with you -- even tho=
ugh
> =A0> I think you focus too much on the disparagement of others in the
> present context.
>
> =A0 =A0I thank you for your complimentary words, Rev. Walker. As for
> "focusing too much on disparagement," your comment is at least partly
> fair. The rgc atmosphere is in general quite adversarial, and one
> cannot help but be affected to some extent. After a while a
> caustically sardonic mode of expression can become habitual, and I may
> slip into it too easily on occasion.
> =A0 =A0By way of explanation, I will say that I never have set out to spe=
ak
> disparagingly of someone who did not first unfairly and falsely
> disparage me or a friend of mine. My main goal in chess was just to
> make some small mark as a writer about its history. I used to hold GM
> Evans in very high respect. I used to know nothing of Larry Parr or
> Sam Sloan. I even used to be friends with Phil Innes. For various
> reasons, they each chose to make false accusations against friends and
> associates of mine, or against myself.
> --
>
> Since that time, my conversations with Taylor have had their ups and
> downs. =A0I'd like to think that we are "ok" with each other now.
Quite. I don't bear long-term grudges. Even Parr and I have our
periods of mutual civility.
> In the last quoted paragraph of his message, Mr. Kingston perceptively
> describes the mechanism that seems to keep the bad feelings and
> disparagement flowing in this group. =A0I would add that there appear to
> be others that thrive on creating and adding to a very negative
> atmosphere -- The FSS being a good case in point. =A0It is like the
> Hatfields vs. the McCoys with some more feuding families thrown in and
> outsiders throwing smoke bombs and incendiary devices to froth up the
> negativity even more.
>
> I hope that there are those who tire of this sort of thing and that a
> third force of civil discourse might arise to displace much of the
> feuding. =A0A vain hope? =A0I do not know.
>
> In any case, to stop the feud, I see no alternative but for each on an
> individual basis to lay down their arms and turn their backs on the
> infighting. =A0Will this EVER happen? =A0I do not know.
>
> That said I want to offer a bit of defense for Mr. Parr without him
> soliciting it, and without attacking anybody.
>
> Please note the title of the book from which the controversial chapter
> has been taken: "THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS." =A0I find it quite
> appropriate that someone might discuss graphology in that context. I do
> find it "CRAZY" that "personality" graphology is used in the chess
> world. =A0So going this far, I say, "Right On Mr. Evans!.
A clever and amusing argument. One I might even make myself, were I
to review Evans' book.
Regarding graphology per se, my only points here were (1) to point
out that when it involves a world-famous subject whose identity is
already known to the graphologist, this does nothing to establish
graphology's validity, and (2) to ask if any scientific studies of
graphology's validity have been done. You supplied a relevant link.
> I am at a disadvantage here, as I do not own any of the books in
> question. =A0Thus I can not judge the context as thoroughly as I might
> want. =A0I only own one chess book. =A0
Oh dear, that is a tragedy. I cannot imagine being without my chess
books; their loss would pain me like losing a limb.
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2008 05:54:22
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
FISCHING FOR FORGERIES
<Please note the title of the book from which the controversial
chapter
has been taken: "THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS." I find it quite
appropriate that someone might discuss graphology in that context. >
-- Rev.Walker
In the original newspaper article Evans On Chess reviewing FISCHING
FOR FORGERIES by Lawrence Totaro (which appeared online at WCN) Larry
Evans wrote:
"Prices for Fischer memorabilia have soared on eBay -- but buyers
beware! Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed an interesting
chapter by diagnosing him based solely on samples of his handwriting.
Many people consider the interpretation of squiggles and slants hocus
pocus, but thousands of companies worldwide now use graphology as a
factor in weeding out unsuitable job applicants."
J.D. Walker wrote:
> CULTURE OF DISPARAGEMENT
>
> I am really struggling with the question of why should I waste time on
> this thread as on the surface it seems very unimportant. However, it
> may be a useful platform to talk about rgcp and one of its problems.
>
> I want to be honest. For any that don't know, I regard Mr. Parr as a
> good friend. It is the kind of friendship that can accommodate
> disagreement. Just as he has shown his friendship with Grandmaster
> Evans to be when it comes to their differing views on Iraq. That said,
> I would like to point your attention to an old exchange I had with
> Taylor Kingston:
>
> On Nov 20, 5:32 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I can admire you for being an excellent writer and
> > interviewer as evidenced by the articles you have pointed me to, and for
> > the sense of fairness I have felt in conversing with you -- even though
> > I think you focus too much on the disparagement of others in the
> present context.
>
> I thank you for your complimentary words, Rev. Walker. As for
> "focusing too much on disparagement," your comment is at least partly
> fair. The rgc atmosphere is in general quite adversarial, and one
> cannot help but be affected to some extent. After a while a
> caustically sardonic mode of expression can become habitual, and I may
> slip into it too easily on occasion.
> By way of explanation, I will say that I never have set out to speak
> disparagingly of someone who did not first unfairly and falsely
> disparage me or a friend of mine. My main goal in chess was just to
> make some small mark as a writer about its history. I used to hold GM
> Evans in very high respect. I used to know nothing of Larry Parr or
> Sam Sloan. I even used to be friends with Phil Innes. For various
> reasons, they each chose to make false accusations against friends and
> associates of mine, or against myself.
> --
>
> Since that time, my conversations with Taylor have had their ups and
> downs. I'd like to think that we are "ok" with each other now.
>
> In the last quoted paragraph of his message, Mr. Kingston perceptively
> describes the mechanism that seems to keep the bad feelings and
> disparagement flowing in this group. I would add that there appear to
> be others that thrive on creating and adding to a very negative
> atmosphere -- The FSS being a good case in point. It is like the
> Hatfields vs. the McCoys with some more feuding families thrown in and
> outsiders throwing smoke bombs and incendiary devices to froth up the
> negativity even more.
>
> I hope that there are those who tire of this sort of thing and that a
> third force of civil discourse might arise to displace much of the
> feuding. A vain hope? I do not know.
>
> In any case, to stop the feud, I see no alternative but for each on an
> individual basis to lay down their arms and turn their backs on the
> infighting. Will this EVER happen? I do not know.
>
> That said I want to offer a bit of defense for Mr. Parr without him
> soliciting it, and without attacking anybody.
>
> Please note the title of the book from which the controversial chapter
> has been taken: "THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS." I find it quite
> appropriate that someone might discuss graphology in that context. I do
> find it "CRAZY" that "personality" graphology is used in the chess
> world. So going this far, I say, "Right On Mr. Evans!.
>
> I am at a disadvantage here, as I do not own any of the books in
> question. Thus I can not judge the context as thoroughly as I might
> want. I only own one chess book. I gave away many more books long ago.
>
> Mr. Parr has not disclosed how he personally feels about graphology. He
> has quoted a passage and leaves it to the reader to draw conclusions.
> He has also stated that Ms. Lowe is a noted graphologist. From my look
> at her website, this may well be true, although the notoriety may be
> limited. I count this as an instance of accurate journalism on his
> part. Am I missing something here?
>
> Even if Mr. Parr's personal convictions go towards amazement at the
> coincidence of the graphological interpretation of Fisher's handwriting,
> or even more towards embracing graphology as a godsend, I do not know
> this, and even then, it would still fall within the bounds of acceptable
> disagreement between us.
>
> Leaving the unsolicited defense... Back to Mr. Evan's book.
>
> The inclusion of this chapter in the book seems appropriate given the
> theme of craziness in chess. What I find interesting in this instance
> is the pairing of dubious credentials with authoritative ones.
> Apparently Ms. Lowe has testified as a handwriting expert in California
> courts. Compare this configuration to some other possible examples: A
> successful chicken farmer that also sacrifices chickens to read the
> future in their entrails. With Fischer's time in the far east there may
> even be an undiscovered story along these lines. :) Or, how about an
> accountant that also advertises himself as an expert numerologist.
> Finally, how about a psychiatrist that also sells himself as a
> phrenologist. It is a free market, and as we know, "There is a sucker
> born every minute."
>
> More investigation may turn up more details that alter the story, but at
> some point one has to ask, "Why bother?" Is this the time?
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > If you want, I can show you phrenological studies of Paulsen and
> > Morphy that are equally perceptive, and are supposed to be based only
> > on the head bumps. In my opinion, phrenology makes at least as much
> > intuitive sense as graphology. It seems hard to believe that we are
> > discussing these conclusions from handwriting seriously; is it
> > supposed to be throwing new light on Fischer in some way?
> >
> > Jerry Spinrad
> >
> > On Aug 21, 9:36 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 23)
> >>
> >> Some of Sheila Lowe?s conclusions about Bobby Fischer based solely on
> >> graphology.
> >>
> >> ? His handwriting suggests someone who has the ability to strip away
> >> any non-essential data and is able to see through to the bottom line
> >> of an issue. He is not the sort who will sit and listen to a lengthy
> >> explanation of whys and wherefores of something that doesn?t interest
> >> him. He just wants to know what is.
> >>
> >> ? At some point in his young life probably as early as the first two
> >> years he decided that emotions were too painful to deal with and as a
> >> result began to cut off his emotions. Close relationships are a major
> >> challenge for Bobby. It?s really difficult for him to trust anyone
> >> enough to allow intimacy to develop properly. The closer someone gets,
> >> the more vulnerable he feels. He is constantly on the alert for anyone
> >> who would try to manipulate him using flattery. Thus, he probably has
> >> a small circle of
> >> carefully selected friends who have stood by him over a long period of
> >> time.
> >>
> >> ? Mostly, though, he fights through his fears with great courage,
> >> pushing himself forward even when he feels as if he?s walking through
> >> a desert filled with land mines. It is this internal fortitude that
> >> allows him to keep coming back, seemingly against the odds.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> J.D. Walker wrote:
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 21, 10:05 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>>>> On Aug 20, 4:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>> news:5d6a7db4-1cc5-43c2-9102-96aa52f57ec0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>> On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
> >>>>>>>> him based solely on his handwriting.
> >>>>>>> Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
> >>>>>>> her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
> >>>>>>> **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none! except
> >>>>>>> that she was aware that [her own words] "he was a genius in the field of
> >>>>>>> chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
> >>>>>>> understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
> >>>>>>> self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based solely
> >>>>>>> on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
> >>>>>>> **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surmise of
> >>>>>>> how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, followed by
> >>>>>>> Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then citing a
> >>>>>>> singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much money on
> >>>>>>> graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding it is
> >>>>>>> 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to sign
> >>>>>>> things!
> >>>>>> Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like to
> >>>>>> know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made. This
> >>>>>> would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
> >>>>>> analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
> >>>>>> people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
> >>>>>> They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
> >>>>>> which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases. If
> >>>>>> their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
> >>>>>> subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
> >>>>>> graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
> >>>>>> tautology.
> >>>>>>> **They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysis, a
> >>>>>>> second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with that
> >>>>>>> second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowledge
> >>>>>>> entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently made himself
> >>>>>>> clear.
> >>>>>>> **One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958 through
> >>>>>>> 2005.
> >>>>>>> **The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James" from
> >>>>>>> 1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in finding
> >>>>>>> the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other factors to
> >>>>>>> specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as two "f's".
> >>>>>>> Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's comment that it
> >>>>>>> was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the particularity
> >>>>>>> of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
> >>>>>>> signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge. Larry Evans
> >>>>>>> seems to know when and where he used it.
> >>>>>>> **The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive purchases you
> >>>>>>> might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions or real
> >>>>>>> sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few hudnred bucks,
> >>>>>>> better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
> >>>>>>> **One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site:
> >>>>>>> www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
> >>>>>>> where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64 against
> >>>>>>> Anthony Killan.
> >>>>>>> **Phil Innes
> >>>>>>> In
> >>>>>>> most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
> >>>>>>> restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
> >>>>>>> already knows.
> >>>>>>> A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, we
> >>>>>>> are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
> >>>>>>> that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
> >>>>>>> "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
> >>>>>>> conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
> >>>>>>> was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
> >>>>>>> that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks."
> >>>>>>> Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
> >>>>>>> woods.
> >>>>> As a neutral observer trying to follow this conversation, I found myself
> >>>>> confused by the terminology. I found this statement about graphology
> >>>>> online: "Graphology is the study of handwriting, especially when
> >>>>> employed as a means of analyzing character. Real handwriting experts are
> >>>>> known as forensic document examiners, not as graphologists."
> >>>>> http://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html
> >>>>> I understand the skepticism that one might have for graphology based on
> >>>>> other activities of similar repute such as phrenology or reading tea
> >>>>> leaves etc, etc. Even so, when one sees a report of graphological
> >>>>> activity having taken place, it seems wise to distinguish between the
> >>>>> messenger(s) and the actors in the event. i.e. "Don't shoot the messenger!"
> >>>>> Now, I will bow out and leave this thread to the more informed. :)
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> "Do that which is right..."
> >>>>> Rev. J.D. Walker
> >>>> I just had to show another quote from the link Rev. Walker supplied:
> >>>> "Graphology is another pipe dream of those who want a quick and
> >>>> dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the
> >>>> crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the
> >>>> good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc.
> >>>> Graphology is another in a long list of quack substitutes for hard
> >>>> work. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome
> >>>> matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and
> >>>> hypothesis testing."
> >>>> Hmmmm -- "those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as
> >>>> research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis
> >>>> testing." -- does this remind us of anyone here? ;-)
> >>> I got curious and looked for Sheila Lowe on the Internet.
> >>> http://sheilalowe.com/
> >>> It appears to me that she is qualified in both "personality" graphology
> >>> and "forensic" graphology. This complicates the issue. I suppose to
> >>> clear the matter up one would have to actually examine what she wrote in
> >>> that chapter... I don't have the book, so someone else will have to do
> >>> it. :)
> >>> --
> >>> "Do that which is right..."
> >>> Rev. J.D. Walker- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2008 06:59:46
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
[email protected] wrote:
> FISCHING FOR FORGERIES
>
> <Please note the title of the book from which the controversial
> chapter
> has been taken: "THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS." I find it quite
> appropriate that someone might discuss graphology in that context.>
> -- Rev.Walker
>
> In the original newspaper article Evans On Chess reviewing FISCHING
> FOR FORGERIES by Lawrence Totaro (which appeared online at WCN) Larry
> Evans wrote:
>
> "Prices for Fischer memorabilia have soared on eBay -- but buyers
> beware! Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed an interesting
> chapter by diagnosing him based solely on samples of his handwriting.
> Many people consider the interpretation of squiggles and slants hocus
> pocus, ...
but thousands of companies worldwide now use graphology as a
> factor in weeding out unsuitable job applicants."
I was curious about this statement and decided to do a bit of web
browsing to see what I could find. I was amazed at how many people and
institutions are involved in graphology. Try the search words
"graphology employment screening" in your favorite search engine.
I found one link that offered a somewhat different point of view. Let
me quote:
"Why must letters answering a job ad in France always be manuscrit--
handwritten?
Why, because most large French companies use handwriting analysis to
choose employees."
The article also states:
"A few years ago Science et Vie, the science magazine, did a dossier on
graphology. They submitted the signatures of a number of people to
various well-known graphologists, who concluded that the homeless guy
living under the bridge was very intelligent and employable, while the
famous scientist of the Acad�mie de France was not to be recommended.
The value of graphology is simply asserted and believed, but not proven
in any way; and indeed independent inquiries have shown that it is not a
science and has no scientific validity. France seems to be the only
country in the world that takes it so seriously."
This appears to have been written in 2006.
http://www.ruerude.com/2006/06/anomalies_of_fr_2.html
Thus, Evans comment that "... thousands of companies worldwide now use
graphology as a factor in weeding out unsuitable job applicants."
certainly appears plausible.
>
> J.D. Walker wrote:
>> CULTURE OF DISPARAGEMENT
>>
>> I am really struggling with the question of why should I waste time on
>> this thread as on the surface it seems very unimportant. However, it
>> may be a useful platform to talk about rgcp and one of its problems.
>>
>> I want to be honest. For any that don't know, I regard Mr. Parr as a
>> good friend. It is the kind of friendship that can accommodate
>> disagreement. Just as he has shown his friendship with Grandmaster
>> Evans to be when it comes to their differing views on Iraq. That said,
>> I would like to point your attention to an old exchange I had with
>> Taylor Kingston:
>>
>> On Nov 20, 5:32 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > I can admire you for being an excellent writer and
>> > interviewer as evidenced by the articles you have pointed me to, and for
>> > the sense of fairness I have felt in conversing with you -- even though
>> > I think you focus too much on the disparagement of others in the
>> present context.
>>
>> I thank you for your complimentary words, Rev. Walker. As for
>> "focusing too much on disparagement," your comment is at least partly
>> fair. The rgc atmosphere is in general quite adversarial, and one
>> cannot help but be affected to some extent. After a while a
>> caustically sardonic mode of expression can become habitual, and I may
>> slip into it too easily on occasion.
>> By way of explanation, I will say that I never have set out to speak
>> disparagingly of someone who did not first unfairly and falsely
>> disparage me or a friend of mine. My main goal in chess was just to
>> make some small mark as a writer about its history. I used to hold GM
>> Evans in very high respect. I used to know nothing of Larry Parr or
>> Sam Sloan. I even used to be friends with Phil Innes. For various
>> reasons, they each chose to make false accusations against friends and
>> associates of mine, or against myself.
>> --
>>
>> Since that time, my conversations with Taylor have had their ups and
>> downs. I'd like to think that we are "ok" with each other now.
>>
>> In the last quoted paragraph of his message, Mr. Kingston perceptively
>> describes the mechanism that seems to keep the bad feelings and
>> disparagement flowing in this group. I would add that there appear to
>> be others that thrive on creating and adding to a very negative
>> atmosphere -- The FSS being a good case in point. It is like the
>> Hatfields vs. the McCoys with some more feuding families thrown in and
>> outsiders throwing smoke bombs and incendiary devices to froth up the
>> negativity even more.
>>
>> I hope that there are those who tire of this sort of thing and that a
>> third force of civil discourse might arise to displace much of the
>> feuding. A vain hope? I do not know.
>>
>> In any case, to stop the feud, I see no alternative but for each on an
>> individual basis to lay down their arms and turn their backs on the
>> infighting. Will this EVER happen? I do not know.
>>
>> That said I want to offer a bit of defense for Mr. Parr without him
>> soliciting it, and without attacking anybody.
>>
>> Please note the title of the book from which the controversial chapter
>> has been taken: "THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS." I find it quite
>> appropriate that someone might discuss graphology in that context. I do
>> find it "CRAZY" that "personality" graphology is used in the chess
>> world. So going this far, I say, "Right On Mr. Evans!.
>>
>> I am at a disadvantage here, as I do not own any of the books in
>> question. Thus I can not judge the context as thoroughly as I might
>> want. I only own one chess book. I gave away many more books long ago.
>>
>> Mr. Parr has not disclosed how he personally feels about graphology. He
>> has quoted a passage and leaves it to the reader to draw conclusions.
>> He has also stated that Ms. Lowe is a noted graphologist. From my look
>> at her website, this may well be true, although the notoriety may be
>> limited. I count this as an instance of accurate journalism on his
>> part. Am I missing something here?
>>
>> Even if Mr. Parr's personal convictions go towards amazement at the
>> coincidence of the graphological interpretation of Fisher's handwriting,
>> or even more towards embracing graphology as a godsend, I do not know
>> this, and even then, it would still fall within the bounds of acceptable
>> disagreement between us.
>>
>> Leaving the unsolicited defense... Back to Mr. Evan's book.
>>
>> The inclusion of this chapter in the book seems appropriate given the
>> theme of craziness in chess. What I find interesting in this instance
>> is the pairing of dubious credentials with authoritative ones.
>> Apparently Ms. Lowe has testified as a handwriting expert in California
>> courts. Compare this configuration to some other possible examples: A
>> successful chicken farmer that also sacrifices chickens to read the
>> future in their entrails. With Fischer's time in the far east there may
>> even be an undiscovered story along these lines. :) Or, how about an
>> accountant that also advertises himself as an expert numerologist.
>> Finally, how about a psychiatrist that also sells himself as a
>> phrenologist. It is a free market, and as we know, "There is a sucker
>> born every minute."
>>
>> More investigation may turn up more details that alter the story, but at
>> some point one has to ask, "Why bother?" Is this the time?
>> --
>>
>> "Do that which is right..."
>>
>> Rev. J.D. Walker
>>
>>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> If you want, I can show you phrenological studies of Paulsen and
>>> Morphy that are equally perceptive, and are supposed to be based only
>>> on the head bumps. In my opinion, phrenology makes at least as much
>>> intuitive sense as graphology. It seems hard to believe that we are
>>> discussing these conclusions from handwriting seriously; is it
>>> supposed to be throwing new light on Fischer in some way?
>>>
>>> Jerry Spinrad
>>>
>>> On Aug 21, 9:36 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 23)
>>>>
>>>> Some of Sheila Lowe?s conclusions about Bobby Fischer based solely on
>>>> graphology.
>>>>
>>>> ? His handwriting suggests someone who has the ability to strip away
>>>> any non-essential data and is able to see through to the bottom line
>>>> of an issue. He is not the sort who will sit and listen to a lengthy
>>>> explanation of whys and wherefores of something that doesn?t interest
>>>> him. He just wants to know what is.
>>>>
>>>> ? At some point in his young life probably as early as the first two
>>>> years he decided that emotions were too painful to deal with and as a
>>>> result began to cut off his emotions. Close relationships are a major
>>>> challenge for Bobby. It?s really difficult for him to trust anyone
>>>> enough to allow intimacy to develop properly. The closer someone gets,
>>>> the more vulnerable he feels. He is constantly on the alert for anyone
>>>> who would try to manipulate him using flattery. Thus, he probably has
>>>> a small circle of
>>>> carefully selected friends who have stood by him over a long period of
>>>> time.
>>>>
>>>> ? Mostly, though, he fights through his fears with great courage,
>>>> pushing himself forward even when he feels as if he?s walking through
>>>> a desert filled with land mines. It is this internal fortitude that
>>>> allows him to keep coming back, seemingly against the odds.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> J.D. Walker wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 21, 10:05 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 4:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:5d6a7db4-1cc5-43c2-9102-96aa52f57ec0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
>>>>>>>>>> him based solely on his handwriting.
>>>>>>>>> Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
>>>>>>>>> her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
>>>>>>>>> **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none! except
>>>>>>>>> that she was aware that [her own words] "he was a genius in the field of
>>>>>>>>> chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
>>>>>>>>> understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
>>>>>>>>> self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based solely
>>>>>>>>> on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
>>>>>>>>> **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surmise of
>>>>>>>>> how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, followed by
>>>>>>>>> Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then citing a
>>>>>>>>> singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much money on
>>>>>>>>> graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding it is
>>>>>>>>> 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to sign
>>>>>>>>> things!
>>>>>>>> Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like to
>>>>>>>> know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made. This
>>>>>>>> would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
>>>>>>>> analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
>>>>>>>> people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
>>>>>>>> They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
>>>>>>>> which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases. If
>>>>>>>> their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
>>>>>>>> subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
>>>>>>>> graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
>>>>>>>> tautology.
>>>>>>>>> **They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysis, a
>>>>>>>>> second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with that
>>>>>>>>> second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowledge
>>>>>>>>> entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently made himself
>>>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>>>> **One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958 through
>>>>>>>>> 2005.
>>>>>>>>> **The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James" from
>>>>>>>>> 1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in finding
>>>>>>>>> the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other factors to
>>>>>>>>> specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as two "f's".
>>>>>>>>> Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's comment that it
>>>>>>>>> was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the particularity
>>>>>>>>> of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
>>>>>>>>> signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge. Larry Evans
>>>>>>>>> seems to know when and where he used it.
>>>>>>>>> **The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive purchases you
>>>>>>>>> might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions or real
>>>>>>>>> sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few hudnred bucks,
>>>>>>>>> better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
>>>>>>>>> **One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site:
>>>>>>>>> www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
>>>>>>>>> where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64 against
>>>>>>>>> Anthony Killan.
>>>>>>>>> **Phil Innes
>>>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>>>> most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
>>>>>>>>> restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
>>>>>>>>> already knows.
>>>>>>>>> A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, we
>>>>>>>>> are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
>>>>>>>>> that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
>>>>>>>>> "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
>>>>>>>>> conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
>>>>>>>>> was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
>>>>>>>>> that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks."
>>>>>>>>> Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
>>>>>>>>> woods.
>>>>>>> As a neutral observer trying to follow this conversation, I found myself
>>>>>>> confused by the terminology. I found this statement about graphology
>>>>>>> online: "Graphology is the study of handwriting, especially when
>>>>>>> employed as a means of analyzing character. Real handwriting experts are
>>>>>>> known as forensic document examiners, not as graphologists."
>>>>>>> http://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html
>>>>>>> I understand the skepticism that one might have for graphology based on
>>>>>>> other activities of similar repute such as phrenology or reading tea
>>>>>>> leaves etc, etc. Even so, when one sees a report of graphological
>>>>>>> activity having taken place, it seems wise to distinguish between the
>>>>>>> messenger(s) and the actors in the event. i.e. "Don't shoot the messenger!"
>>>>>>> Now, I will bow out and leave this thread to the more informed. :)
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> "Do that which is right..."
>>>>>>> Rev. J.D. Walker
>>>>>> I just had to show another quote from the link Rev. Walker supplied:
>>>>>> "Graphology is another pipe dream of those who want a quick and
>>>>>> dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the
>>>>>> crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the
>>>>>> good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc.
>>>>>> Graphology is another in a long list of quack substitutes for hard
>>>>>> work. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome
>>>>>> matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and
>>>>>> hypothesis testing."
>>>>>> Hmmmm -- "those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as
>>>>>> research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis
>>>>>> testing." -- does this remind us of anyone here? ;-)
>>>>> I got curious and looked for Sheila Lowe on the Internet.
>>>>> http://sheilalowe.com/
>>>>> It appears to me that she is qualified in both "personality" graphology
>>>>> and "forensic" graphology. This complicates the issue. I suppose to
>>>>> clear the matter up one would have to actually examine what she wrote in
>>>>> that chapter... I don't have the book, so someone else will have to do
>>>>> it. :)
|
| |
Date: 22 Aug 2008 04:18:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
J.D. Walker wrote:
> CULTURE OF DISPARAGEMENT
Indeed, excellent examples of this "culture"
can be found in the reactions of all the Evans
ratpackers to constructive criticism, such as
for instance that of The Great Pedant Edward
Winter.
Typically, the constructive criticism is
rejected or ignored, while *the messenger*
himself is ruthlessly attacked /en masse/, as
by savage dogs.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I think the criticism which prompted the
latest response from Rev. Walker was right
in a sense. Look at the title of this thread:
it is, quite predictably, about Bobby Fischer
(now deceased). What does that tell us?
Perhaps the single most obvious thing we
can glean from observation is that the
poster -- here, Larry Parr -- is obsessed
with Bobby Fischer, and has lost touch
with much that has happened in the world
of chess since that era-- the early 1970s
and earlier.
In contrast, nearly-an-IM Innes will often
post about some current event, although
he still performs his routine duties in lip
service of his old guard masters.
No, the gist was to disparage Mr. Evans
and Mr. Parr by pointing out how pseudo-
science neatly fits in with their overall
approach-- and yet it makes no logical
sense here to blame the messenger, for
it in fact *does*. Where the messenger
goofed was in the correct spelling of
"threw", as The Great Pedant would have
shown had I not beaten him to the punch;
such very old pedants can become slow,
their reflexes and tactical alertness
dulled, like a rusty can-opener. (This of
course explains how even I was able to
beat him.)
At any rate, anyone who is not a fresh
fish here will recall the sort of events
which even Taylor Kingston managed to
recall-- the innumerable "crimes" which
have ultimately led to certain posters in
rgc being regarded as nincompoops, at
best. As I explained a good while back,
respect is something which is earned (or
not!); the very low regard in which these
folks are held is ultimately their own
doing.
I see them as animals who are trapped
(intellectually) in a sort of quicksand; it
is impossible to save them, because
they see every thrown rope as their
sworn enemy. Amusingly, I stumbled
across one delusion of Bobby Fischer's
which his friends were -- with consider-
able effort -- able to expel; yet the same
idea remains fixed in the hearts and
souls of the Evans ratpackers to this
very day!
It seems to boil down to the old saw,
that you can't teach an old dog new
tricks. Learning requires effort and a
desire to learn, and that desire never
springs forth in the minds of those who
have convinced themselves that they
already know everything.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2008 20:11:15
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
If you want, I can show you phrenological studies of Paulsen and
Morphy that are equally perceptive, and are supposed to be based only
on the head bumps. In my opinion, phrenology makes at least as much
intuitive sense as graphology. It seems hard to believe that we are
discussing these conclusions from handwriting seriously; is it
supposed to be throwing new light on Fischer in some way?
Jerry Spinrad
On Aug 21, 9:36=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 23)
>
> Some of Sheila Lowe=92s conclusions about Bobby Fischer based solely on
> graphology.
>
> =95 His handwriting suggests someone who has the ability to strip away
> any non-essential data and is able to see through to the bottom line
> of an issue. He is not the sort who will sit and listen to a lengthy
> explanation of whys and wherefores of something that doesn=92t interest
> him. He just wants to know what is.
>
> =95 At some point in his young life probably as early as the first two
> years he decided that emotions were too painful to deal with and as a
> result began to cut off his emotions. Close relationships are a major
> challenge for Bobby. It=92s really difficult for him to trust anyone
> enough to allow intimacy to develop properly. The closer someone gets,
> the more vulnerable he feels. He is constantly on the alert for anyone
> who would try to manipulate him using flattery. Thus, he probably has
> a small circle of
> carefully selected friends who have stood by him over a long period of
> time.
>
> =95 Mostly, though, he fights through his fears with great courage,
> pushing himself forward even when he feels as if he=92s walking through
> a desert filled with land mines. It is this internal fortitude that
> allows him to keep coming back, seemingly against the odds.
>
>
>
> J.D. Walker wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > On Aug 21, 10:05 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> [email protected] wrote:
> > >>> On Aug 20, 4:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >>>>news:[email protected].=
com...
> > >>>> On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote=
:
> > >>>>> Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosi=
ng
> > >>>>> him based solely on his handwriting.
> > >>>> =A0 Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If=
so,
> > >>>> her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
> > >>>> **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, non=
e! except
> > >>>> that she was aware that =A0[her own words] "he was a genius in the=
field of
> > >>>> chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I canno=
t
> > >>>> understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
> > >>>> self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "bas=
ed solely
> > >>>> on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
> > >>>> **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a su=
rmise of
> > >>>> how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, f=
ollowed by
> > >>>> Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then=
citing a
> > >>>> singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too muc=
h money on
> > >>>> graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding=
it is
> > >>>> 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to =
sign
> > >>>> things!
> > >>> =A0 Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like=
to
> > >>> know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made. Th=
is
> > >>> would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
> > >>> analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
> > >>> people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologist=
s.
> > >>> They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
> > >>> which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases. =
If
> > >>> their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
> > >>> subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
> > >>> graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
> > >>> tautology.
> > >>>> **They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysi=
s, a
> > >>>> second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with=
that
> > >>>> second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowl=
edge
> > >>>> entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently ma=
de himself
> > >>>> clear.
> > >>>> **One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958 th=
rough
> > >>>> 2005.
> > >>>> **The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James=
" from
> > >>>> 1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in =
finding
> > >>>> the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other f=
actors to
> > >>>> specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as tw=
o "f's".
> > >>>> Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's commen=
t that it
> > >>>> was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the par=
ticularity
> > >>>> of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
> > >>>> signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge. L=
arry Evans
> > >>>> seems to know when and where he used it.
> > >>>> **The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive purcha=
ses you
> > >>>> might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions o=
r real
> > >>>> sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few hudnr=
ed bucks,
> > >>>> better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
> > >>>> **One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site=
:
> > >>>>www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
> > >>>> where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64 =
against
> > >>>> Anthony Killan.
> > >>>> **Phil Innes
> > >>>> =A0In
> > >>>> most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
> > >>>> restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
> > >>>> already knows.
> > >>>> =A0 A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," whe=
re, we
> > >>>> are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent=
,"
> > >>>> that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
> > >>>> "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
> > >>>> conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that h=
e
> > >>>> was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," an=
d
> > >>>> that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attack=
s."
> > >>>> =A0 Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
> > >>>> woods.
> > >> As a neutral observer trying to follow this conversation, I found my=
self
> > >> confused by the terminology. =A0I found this statement about graphol=
ogy
> > >> online: "Graphology is the study of handwriting, especially when
> > >> employed as a means of analyzing character. Real handwriting experts=
are
> > >> known as forensic document examiners, not as graphologists."
>
> > >>http://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html
>
> > >> I understand the skepticism that one might have for graphology based=
on
> > >> other activities of similar repute such as phrenology or reading tea
> > >> leaves etc, etc. =A0Even so, when one sees a report of graphological
> > >> activity having taken place, it seems wise to distinguish between th=
e
> > >> messenger(s) and the actors in the event. =A0i.e. "Don't shoot the m=
essenger!"
>
> > >> Now, I will bow out and leave this thread to the more informed. =A0:=
)
> > >> --
>
> > >> "Do that which is right..."
>
> > >> Rev. J.D. Walker
>
> > > =A0 I just had to show another quote from the link Rev. Walker suppli=
ed:
>
> > > =A0 "Graphology is another pipe dream of those who want a quick and
> > > dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the
> > > crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the
> > > good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc.
> > > Graphology is another in a long list of quack substitutes for hard
> > > work. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesom=
e
> > > matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and
> > > hypothesis testing."
>
> > > =A0 =A0Hmmmm -- "those who are impatient with such troublesome matter=
s as
> > > research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis
> > > testing." -- does this remind us of anyone here? ;-)
>
> > I got curious and looked for Sheila Lowe on the Internet.
>
> >http://sheilalowe.com/
>
> > It appears to me that she is qualified in both "personality" graphology
> > and "forensic" graphology. =A0This complicates the issue. =A0I suppose =
to
> > clear the matter up one would have to actually examine what she wrote i=
n
> > that chapter... =A0I don't have the book, so someone else will have to =
do
> > it. =A0:)
> > --
>
> > "Do that which is right..."
>
> > Rev. J.D. Walker- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2008 02:19:02
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
CULTURE OF DISPARAGEMENT
I am really struggling with the question of why should I waste time on
this thread as on the surface it seems very unimportant. However, it
may be a useful platform to talk about rgcp and one of its problems.
I want to be honest. For any that don't know, I regard Mr. Parr as a
good friend. It is the kind of friendship that can accommodate
disagreement. Just as he has shown his friendship with Grandmaster
Evans to be when it comes to their differing views on Iraq. That said,
I would like to point your attention to an old exchange I had with
Taylor Kingston:
On Nov 20, 5:32 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I can admire you for being an excellent writer and
> interviewer as evidenced by the articles you have pointed me to, and for
> the sense of fairness I have felt in conversing with you -- even though
> I think you focus too much on the disparagement of others in the
present context.
I thank you for your complimentary words, Rev. Walker. As for
"focusing too much on disparagement," your comment is at least partly
fair. The rgc atmosphere is in general quite adversarial, and one
cannot help but be affected to some extent. After a while a
caustically sardonic mode of expression can become habitual, and I may
slip into it too easily on occasion.
By way of explanation, I will say that I never have set out to speak
disparagingly of someone who did not first unfairly and falsely
disparage me or a friend of mine. My main goal in chess was just to
make some small mark as a writer about its history. I used to hold GM
Evans in very high respect. I used to know nothing of Larry Parr or
Sam Sloan. I even used to be friends with Phil Innes. For various
reasons, they each chose to make false accusations against friends and
associates of mine, or against myself.
--
Since that time, my conversations with Taylor have had their ups and
downs. I'd like to think that we are "ok" with each other now.
In the last quoted paragraph of his message, Mr. Kingston perceptively
describes the mechanism that seems to keep the bad feelings and
disparagement flowing in this group. I would add that there appear to
be others that thrive on creating and adding to a very negative
atmosphere -- The FSS being a good case in point. It is like the
Hatfields vs. the McCoys with some more feuding families thrown in and
outsiders throwing smoke bombs and incendiary devices to froth up the
negativity even more.
I hope that there are those who tire of this sort of thing and that a
third force of civil discourse might arise to displace much of the
feuding. A vain hope? I do not know.
In any case, to stop the feud, I see no alternative but for each on an
individual basis to lay down their arms and turn their backs on the
infighting. Will this EVER happen? I do not know.
That said I want to offer a bit of defense for Mr. Parr without him
soliciting it, and without attacking anybody.
Please note the title of the book from which the controversial chapter
has been taken: "THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS." I find it quite
appropriate that someone might discuss graphology in that context. I do
find it "CRAZY" that "personality" graphology is used in the chess
world. So going this far, I say, "Right On Mr. Evans!.
I am at a disadvantage here, as I do not own any of the books in
question. Thus I can not judge the context as thoroughly as I might
want. I only own one chess book. I gave away many more books long ago.
Mr. Parr has not disclosed how he personally feels about graphology. He
has quoted a passage and leaves it to the reader to draw conclusions.
He has also stated that Ms. Lowe is a noted graphologist. From my look
at her website, this may well be true, although the notoriety may be
limited. I count this as an instance of accurate journalism on his
part. Am I missing something here?
Even if Mr. Parr's personal convictions go towards amazement at the
coincidence of the graphological interpretation of Fisher's handwriting,
or even more towards embracing graphology as a godsend, I do not know
this, and even then, it would still fall within the bounds of acceptable
disagreement between us.
Leaving the unsolicited defense... Back to Mr. Evan's book.
The inclusion of this chapter in the book seems appropriate given the
theme of craziness in chess. What I find interesting in this instance
is the pairing of dubious credentials with authoritative ones.
Apparently Ms. Lowe has testified as a handwriting expert in California
courts. Compare this configuration to some other possible examples: A
successful chicken farmer that also sacrifices chickens to read the
future in their entrails. With Fischer's time in the far east there may
even be an undiscovered story along these lines. :) Or, how about an
accountant that also advertises himself as an expert numerologist.
Finally, how about a psychiatrist that also sells himself as a
phrenologist. It is a free market, and as we know, "There is a sucker
born every minute."
More investigation may turn up more details that alter the story, but at
some point one has to ask, "Why bother?" Is this the time?
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
[email protected] wrote:
> If you want, I can show you phrenological studies of Paulsen and
> Morphy that are equally perceptive, and are supposed to be based only
> on the head bumps. In my opinion, phrenology makes at least as much
> intuitive sense as graphology. It seems hard to believe that we are
> discussing these conclusions from handwriting seriously; is it
> supposed to be throwing new light on Fischer in some way?
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
> On Aug 21, 9:36 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 23)
>>
>> Some of Sheila Lowe�s conclusions about Bobby Fischer based solely on
>> graphology.
>>
>> � His handwriting suggests someone who has the ability to strip away
>> any non-essential data and is able to see through to the bottom line
>> of an issue. He is not the sort who will sit and listen to a lengthy
>> explanation of whys and wherefores of something that doesn�t interest
>> him. He just wants to know what is.
>>
>> � At some point in his young life probably as early as the first two
>> years he decided that emotions were too painful to deal with and as a
>> result began to cut off his emotions. Close relationships are a major
>> challenge for Bobby. It�s really difficult for him to trust anyone
>> enough to allow intimacy to develop properly. The closer someone gets,
>> the more vulnerable he feels. He is constantly on the alert for anyone
>> who would try to manipulate him using flattery. Thus, he probably has
>> a small circle of
>> carefully selected friends who have stood by him over a long period of
>> time.
>>
>> � Mostly, though, he fights through his fears with great courage,
>> pushing himself forward even when he feels as if he�s walking through
>> a desert filled with land mines. It is this internal fortitude that
>> allows him to keep coming back, seemingly against the odds.
>>
>>
>>
>> J.D. Walker wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Aug 21, 10:05 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 20, 4:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:5d6a7db4-1cc5-43c2-9102-96aa52f57ec0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
>>>>>>>> him based solely on his handwriting.
>>>>>>> Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
>>>>>>> her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
>>>>>>> **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none! except
>>>>>>> that she was aware that [her own words] "he was a genius in the field of
>>>>>>> chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
>>>>>>> understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
>>>>>>> self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based solely
>>>>>>> on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
>>>>>>> **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surmise of
>>>>>>> how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, followed by
>>>>>>> Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then citing a
>>>>>>> singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much money on
>>>>>>> graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding it is
>>>>>>> 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to sign
>>>>>>> things!
>>>>>> Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like to
>>>>>> know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made. This
>>>>>> would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
>>>>>> analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
>>>>>> people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
>>>>>> They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
>>>>>> which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases. If
>>>>>> their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
>>>>>> subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
>>>>>> graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
>>>>>> tautology.
>>>>>>> **They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysis, a
>>>>>>> second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with that
>>>>>>> second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowledge
>>>>>>> entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently made himself
>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>> **One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958 through
>>>>>>> 2005.
>>>>>>> **The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James" from
>>>>>>> 1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in finding
>>>>>>> the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other factors to
>>>>>>> specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as two "f's".
>>>>>>> Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's comment that it
>>>>>>> was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the particularity
>>>>>>> of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
>>>>>>> signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge. Larry Evans
>>>>>>> seems to know when and where he used it.
>>>>>>> **The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive purchases you
>>>>>>> might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions or real
>>>>>>> sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few hudnred bucks,
>>>>>>> better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
>>>>>>> **One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site:
>>>>>>> www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
>>>>>>> where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64 against
>>>>>>> Anthony Killan.
>>>>>>> **Phil Innes
>>>>>>> In
>>>>>>> most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
>>>>>>> restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
>>>>>>> already knows.
>>>>>>> A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, we
>>>>>>> are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
>>>>>>> that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
>>>>>>> "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
>>>>>>> conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
>>>>>>> was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
>>>>>>> that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks."
>>>>>>> Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
>>>>>>> woods.
>>>>> As a neutral observer trying to follow this conversation, I found myself
>>>>> confused by the terminology. I found this statement about graphology
>>>>> online: "Graphology is the study of handwriting, especially when
>>>>> employed as a means of analyzing character. Real handwriting experts are
>>>>> known as forensic document examiners, not as graphologists."
>>>>> http://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html
>>>>> I understand the skepticism that one might have for graphology based on
>>>>> other activities of similar repute such as phrenology or reading tea
>>>>> leaves etc, etc. Even so, when one sees a report of graphological
>>>>> activity having taken place, it seems wise to distinguish between the
>>>>> messenger(s) and the actors in the event. i.e. "Don't shoot the messenger!"
>>>>> Now, I will bow out and leave this thread to the more informed. :)
>>>>> --
>>>>> "Do that which is right..."
>>>>> Rev. J.D. Walker
>>>> I just had to show another quote from the link Rev. Walker supplied:
>>>> "Graphology is another pipe dream of those who want a quick and
>>>> dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the
>>>> crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the
>>>> good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc.
>>>> Graphology is another in a long list of quack substitutes for hard
>>>> work. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome
>>>> matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and
>>>> hypothesis testing."
>>>> Hmmmm -- "those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as
>>>> research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis
>>>> testing." -- does this remind us of anyone here? ;-)
>>> I got curious and looked for Sheila Lowe on the Internet.
>>> http://sheilalowe.com/
>>> It appears to me that she is qualified in both "personality" graphology
>>> and "forensic" graphology. This complicates the issue. I suppose to
>>> clear the matter up one would have to actually examine what she wrote in
>>> that chapter... I don't have the book, so someone else will have to do
>>> it. :)
>>> --
>>> "Do that which is right..."
>>> Rev. J.D. Walker- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2008 08:56:16
From: =?Windows-1252?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: AW: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
[email protected] wrote:
> If you want, I can show you phrenological studies of Paulsen and
> Morphy that are equally perceptive, and are supposed to be based only
> on the head bumps. In my opinion, phrenology makes at least as much
> intuitive sense as graphology. It seems hard to believe that we are
> discussing these conclusions from handwriting seriously; is it
> supposed to be throwing new light on Fischer in some way?
>
> Jerry Spinrad
>
Of course it is. But mainly it throughs old light on Parrevans.
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2008 19:36:53
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 23)
Some of Sheila Lowe=92s conclusions about Bobby Fischer based solely on
graphology.
=95 His handwriting suggests someone who has the ability to strip away
any non-essential data and is able to see through to the bottom line
of an issue. He is not the sort who will sit and listen to a lengthy
explanation of whys and wherefores of something that doesn=92t interest
him. He just wants to know what is.
=95 At some point in his young life probably as early as the first two
years he decided that emotions were too painful to deal with and as a
result began to cut off his emotions. Close relationships are a major
challenge for Bobby. It=92s really difficult for him to trust anyone
enough to allow intimacy to develop properly. The closer someone gets,
the more vulnerable he feels. He is constantly on the alert for anyone
who would try to manipulate him using flattery. Thus, he probably has
a small circle of
carefully selected friends who have stood by him over a long period of
time.
=95 Mostly, though, he fights through his fears with great courage,
pushing himself forward even when he feels as if he=92s walking through
a desert filled with land mines. It is this internal fortitude that
allows him to keep coming back, seemingly against the odds.
J.D. Walker wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 10:05 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> On Aug 20, 4:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>> news:[email protected]=
om...
> >>>> On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
> >>>>> him based solely on his handwriting.
> >>>> Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
> >>>> her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
> >>>> **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none!=
except
> >>>> that she was aware that [her own words] "he was a genius in the fie=
ld of
> >>>> chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
> >>>> understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
> >>>> self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based=
solely
> >>>> on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
> >>>> **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surm=
ise of
> >>>> how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, fol=
lowed by
> >>>> Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then c=
iting a
> >>>> singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much =
money on
> >>>> graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding i=
t is
> >>>> 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to si=
gn
> >>>> things!
> >>> Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like to
> >>> know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made. This
> >>> would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
> >>> analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
> >>> people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
> >>> They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
> >>> which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases. If
> >>> their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
> >>> subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
> >>> graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
> >>> tautology.
> >>>> **They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysis,=
a
> >>>> second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with t=
hat
> >>>> second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowled=
ge
> >>>> entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently made=
himself
> >>>> clear.
> >>>> **One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958 thro=
ugh
> >>>> 2005.
> >>>> **The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James" =
from
> >>>> 1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in fi=
nding
> >>>> the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other fac=
tors to
> >>>> specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as two =
"f's".
> >>>> Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's comment =
that it
> >>>> was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the parti=
cularity
> >>>> of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
> >>>> signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge. Lar=
ry Evans
> >>>> seems to know when and where he used it.
> >>>> **The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive purchase=
s you
> >>>> might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions or =
real
> >>>> sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few hudnred=
bucks,
> >>>> better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
> >>>> **One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site:
> >>>> www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
> >>>> where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64 ag=
ainst
> >>>> Anthony Killan.
> >>>> **Phil Innes
> >>>> In
> >>>> most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
> >>>> restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
> >>>> already knows.
> >>>> A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, =
we
> >>>> are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
> >>>> that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
> >>>> "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
> >>>> conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
> >>>> was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
> >>>> that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks.=
"
> >>>> Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
> >>>> woods.
> >> As a neutral observer trying to follow this conversation, I found myse=
lf
> >> confused by the terminology. I found this statement about graphology
> >> online: "Graphology is the study of handwriting, especially when
> >> employed as a means of analyzing character. Real handwriting experts a=
re
> >> known as forensic document examiners, not as graphologists."
> >>
> >> http://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html
> >>
> >> I understand the skepticism that one might have for graphology based o=
n
> >> other activities of similar repute such as phrenology or reading tea
> >> leaves etc, etc. Even so, when one sees a report of graphological
> >> activity having taken place, it seems wise to distinguish between the
> >> messenger(s) and the actors in the event. i.e. "Don't shoot the messe=
nger!"
> >>
> >> Now, I will bow out and leave this thread to the more informed. :)
> >> --
> >>
> >> "Do that which is right..."
> >>
> >> Rev. J.D. Walker
> >
> > I just had to show another quote from the link Rev. Walker supplied:
> >
> > "Graphology is another pipe dream of those who want a quick and
> > dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the
> > crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the
> > good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc.
> > Graphology is another in a long list of quack substitutes for hard
> > work. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome
> > matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and
> > hypothesis testing."
> >
> > Hmmmm -- "those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as
> > research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis
> > testing." -- does this remind us of anyone here? ;-)
>
> I got curious and looked for Sheila Lowe on the Internet.
>
> http://sheilalowe.com/
>
> It appears to me that she is qualified in both "personality" graphology
> and "forensic" graphology. This complicates the issue. I suppose to
> clear the matter up one would have to actually examine what she wrote in
> that chapter... I don't have the book, so someone else will have to do
> it. :)
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2008 17:18:48
From:
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 21, 10:05=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 4:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:5d6a7db4-1cc5-43c2-9102-96aa52f57ec0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com.=
..
> >> On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
> >>> him based solely on his handwriting.
> >> =A0 Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
> >> her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
>
> >> **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none! e=
xcept
> >> that she was aware that =A0[her own words] "he was a genius in the fie=
ld of
> >> chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
> >> understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
> >> self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based s=
olely
> >> on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
>
> >> **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surmis=
e of
> >> how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, follo=
wed by
> >> Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then cit=
ing a
> >> singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much mo=
ney on
> >> graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding it =
is
> >> 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to sign
> >> things!
>
> > =A0 Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like to
> > know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made. This
> > would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
> > analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
> > people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
> > They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
> > which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases. If
> > their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
> > subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
> > graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
> > tautology.
>
> >> **They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysis, a
> >> second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with tha=
t
> >> second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowledge
> >> entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently made h=
imself
> >> clear.
>
> >> **One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958 throug=
h
> >> 2005.
>
> >> **The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James" fr=
om
> >> 1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in find=
ing
> >> the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other facto=
rs to
> >> specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as two "f=
's".
> >> Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's comment th=
at it
> >> was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the particu=
larity
> >> of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
> >> signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge. Larry=
Evans
> >> seems to know when and where he used it.
>
> >> **The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive purchases =
you
> >> might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions or re=
al
> >> sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few hudnred b=
ucks,
> >> better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
>
> >> **One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site:
>
> >>www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
>
> >> where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64 agai=
nst
> >> Anthony Killan.
>
> >> **Phil Innes
>
> >> =A0In
> >> most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
> >> restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
> >> already knows.
> >> =A0 A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, =
we
> >> are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
> >> that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
> >> "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
> >> conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
> >> was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
> >> that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks."
> >> =A0 Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
> >> woods.
>
> As a neutral observer trying to follow this conversation, I found myself
> confused by the terminology. =A0I found this statement about graphology
> online: "Graphology is the study of handwriting, especially when
> employed as a means of analyzing character. Real handwriting experts are
> known as forensic document examiners, not as graphologists."
>
> http://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html
>
> I understand the skepticism that one might have for graphology based on
> other activities of similar repute such as phrenology or reading tea
> leaves etc, etc. =A0Even so, when one sees a report of graphological
> activity having taken place, it seems wise to distinguish between the
> messenger(s) and the actors in the event. =A0i.e. "Don't shoot the messen=
ger!"
>
> Now, I will bow out and leave this thread to the more informed. =A0:)
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker
I just had to show another quote from the link Rev. Walker supplied:
"Graphology is another pipe dream of those who want a quick and
dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the
crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the
good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc.
Graphology is another in a long list of quack substitutes for hard
work. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome
matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and
hypothesis testing."
Hmmmm -- "those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as
research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis
testing." -- does this remind us of anyone here? ;-)
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2008 10:24:56
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I just had to show another quote from the link Rev. Walker supplied:
"Graphology is another pipe dream of those who want a quick and
dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the
crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the
good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc.
Graphology is another in a long list of quack substitutes for hard
work. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome
matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and
hypothesis testing."
Hmmmm -- "those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as
research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis
testing." -- does this remind us of anyone here? ;-)
**Vaguer Kingston? Vaguer should check if the buffoons in the FBI use it -
one place he might start is at the oldest medical school in the state he
lives in, where kids from all over the country come to try for FBI forensics
work [esp. forensic pathology]. But Vaguer has no need of that, since he has
already expressed his opinion. There is not the slightest doubt that all
sorts of forensic evidence is graphology based - the only areas of doubt are
RELATIVE ones - that is to say, the /degree/ of confidence admitted of
/evaluation/ of character any sample illustrates.
**This itself bifurcates into an 'objective' realm where evaluation is
admitted, and also of the individual skill of the analyst.
**Of course anything can be 'questioned' to its veracity, but tell me, do we
actually think that economics or foreign policy are conducted as science?
Don't people pick over the bones in Wall Street? Many of them are not very
good analysts or predictors of what will happen, whereas others are. Citing
only negative views of inept practitioners establishes nothing at all about
the Discipline in question, nor skill necessary to practice it properly.
**Taylor Kingston is not questioning anything. He is not a skeptic, anyone
who questions - he is a denier. Once more his need to make absolute
pronouncements while presenting nothing himself denies the relative nature
of things, including hierarchies of understanding and practice of any
subject.
Phil Innes
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2008 08:02:17
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
Chess One wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I just had to show another quote from the link Rev. Walker supplied:
>
> "Graphology is another pipe dream of those who want a quick and
> dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the
> crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the
> good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc.
> Graphology is another in a long list of quack substitutes for hard
> work. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome
> matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and
> hypothesis testing."
>
> Hmmmm -- "those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as
> research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis
> testing." -- does this remind us of anyone here? ;-)
>
> **Vaguer Kingston? Vaguer should check if the buffoons in the FBI use it -
> one place he might start is at the oldest medical school in the state he
> lives in, where kids from all over the country come to try for FBI forensics
> work [esp. forensic pathology]. But Vaguer has no need of that, since he has
> already expressed his opinion. There is not the slightest doubt that all
> sorts of forensic evidence is graphology based - the only areas of doubt are
> RELATIVE ones - that is to say, the /degree/ of confidence admitted of
> /evaluation/ of character any sample illustrates.
>
> **This itself bifurcates into an 'objective' realm where evaluation is
> admitted, and also of the individual skill of the analyst.
>
> **Of course anything can be 'questioned' to its veracity, but tell me, do we
> actually think that economics or foreign policy are conducted as science?
> Don't people pick over the bones in Wall Street? Many of them are not very
> good analysts or predictors of what will happen, whereas others are. Citing
> only negative views of inept practitioners establishes nothing at all about
> the Discipline in question, nor skill necessary to practice it properly.
>
> **Taylor Kingston is not questioning anything. He is not a skeptic, anyone
> who questions - he is a denier. Once more his need to make absolute
> pronouncements while presenting nothing himself denies the relative nature
> of things, including hierarchies of understanding and practice of any
> subject.
>
> Phil Innes
It can be difficult to discuss a topic when the participants are not
using the same semantics for the terminology. It appears that
graphology is a term that can have various meaning applied to it.
Turning to the layman's crutch: :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphology
I see a number of variants discussed:
> * 9.1 Employment profiling
> * 9.2 Business compatibility
> * 9.3 Psychological analysis
> * 9.4 Marital compatibility
> * 9.5 Medical diagnosis
> * 9.6 Jury screening
> * 9.7 Graphotherapy
I would guess that a branch like medical graphology might have
interesting and valid applications. A person's handwriting might well
have recognizable signs of stroke, Alzheimer's and other conditions.
It might be wise to agree on terminology before getting too deep into
argument...
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Aug 2008 09:11:39
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It can be difficult to discuss a topic when the participants are not using
> the same semantics for the terminology. It appears that graphology is a
> term that can have various meaning applied to it.
>
> Turning to the layman's crutch: :)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphology
>
> I see a number of variants discussed:
>
>> * 9.1 Employment profiling
>> * 9.2 Business compatibility
>> * 9.3 Psychological analysis
>> * 9.4 Marital compatibility
>> * 9.5 Medical diagnosis
>> * 9.6 Jury screening
>> * 9.7 Graphotherapy
>
> I would guess that a branch like medical graphology might have interesting
> and valid applications. A person's handwriting might well have
> recognizable signs of stroke, Alzheimer's and other conditions.
>
> It might be wise to agree on terminology before getting too deep into
> argument...
I agree, and indeed did mention analysis and interpretation as distinct
aspects of a topic. It was then alrmed to learn that I had suggested
prediction!
Any argument issuing from that is not about what I wrote about - and in fact
its no argument or discussion at all. For myself, I am disinclined to like
the sort of projection of other people's ideas onto subjects, when, at some
expense of detail, I have written quite otherwise.
There are indeed 2 types of usenet interactions - those who are willing and
able to speak from their own experience about their own experience, perhaps
comparing it with others in an ensuing conversation - and there are
arguments and proclamations. I would say that the former of these two
interactions is a useful form of public dialog, and the latter a sort of
brutalising agitprop exercised by people somewhat obsessed by authority, and
who skip any personal process at all.
Indeed, to admit to your own process in public is to allow other people to
/assess/ your conclusions [if you record any], and hiding your process away
is to Tell People! stuff but to be shy of sharing any process, and allowing
them a fair chance to assess if you are off your rocker :) [Is "...rocker"
American? For English people, "Out of Your Pram"]
What is often distressing here is an amount of absolutism, whereas we live
in a relative universe. All things have shades and nothing is inert in the
sense of existing in isolation or without change. No individual fact exists
outside the context of the time and place it occurs, and while we may chose
to agree or not on the degree or influence context has over singularity, to
actually discuss anything at all is to admit that that is what we are doing.
Otherwise it is a misnomer to even say 'conversation'. At least, I propose
these "definitions" to your attention :)
>
> "Do that which is right..."
Do that which you love!
Phil Innes
> Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2008 18:29:51
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 21, 10:05 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Aug 20, 4:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:5d6a7db4-1cc5-43c2-9102-96aa52f57ec0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
>>>>> him based solely on his handwriting.
>>>> Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
>>>> her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
>>>> **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none! except
>>>> that she was aware that [her own words] "he was a genius in the field of
>>>> chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
>>>> understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
>>>> self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based solely
>>>> on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
>>>> **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surmise of
>>>> how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, followed by
>>>> Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then citing a
>>>> singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much money on
>>>> graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding it is
>>>> 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to sign
>>>> things!
>>> Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like to
>>> know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made. This
>>> would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
>>> analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
>>> people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
>>> They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
>>> which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases. If
>>> their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
>>> subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
>>> graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
>>> tautology.
>>>> **They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysis, a
>>>> second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with that
>>>> second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowledge
>>>> entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently made himself
>>>> clear.
>>>> **One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958 through
>>>> 2005.
>>>> **The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James" from
>>>> 1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in finding
>>>> the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other factors to
>>>> specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as two "f's".
>>>> Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's comment that it
>>>> was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the particularity
>>>> of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
>>>> signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge. Larry Evans
>>>> seems to know when and where he used it.
>>>> **The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive purchases you
>>>> might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions or real
>>>> sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few hudnred bucks,
>>>> better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
>>>> **One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site:
>>>> www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
>>>> where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64 against
>>>> Anthony Killan.
>>>> **Phil Innes
>>>> In
>>>> most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
>>>> restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
>>>> already knows.
>>>> A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, we
>>>> are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
>>>> that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
>>>> "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
>>>> conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
>>>> was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
>>>> that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks."
>>>> Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
>>>> woods.
>> As a neutral observer trying to follow this conversation, I found myself
>> confused by the terminology. I found this statement about graphology
>> online: "Graphology is the study of handwriting, especially when
>> employed as a means of analyzing character. Real handwriting experts are
>> known as forensic document examiners, not as graphologists."
>>
>> http://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html
>>
>> I understand the skepticism that one might have for graphology based on
>> other activities of similar repute such as phrenology or reading tea
>> leaves etc, etc. Even so, when one sees a report of graphological
>> activity having taken place, it seems wise to distinguish between the
>> messenger(s) and the actors in the event. i.e. "Don't shoot the messenger!"
>>
>> Now, I will bow out and leave this thread to the more informed. :)
>> --
>>
>> "Do that which is right..."
>>
>> Rev. J.D. Walker
>
> I just had to show another quote from the link Rev. Walker supplied:
>
> "Graphology is another pipe dream of those who want a quick and
> dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the
> crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the
> good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc.
> Graphology is another in a long list of quack substitutes for hard
> work. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome
> matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and
> hypothesis testing."
>
> Hmmmm -- "those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as
> research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis
> testing." -- does this remind us of anyone here? ;-)
I got curious and looked for Sheila Lowe on the Internet.
http://sheilalowe.com/
It appears to me that she is qualified in both "personality" graphology
and "forensic" graphology. This complicates the issue. I suppose to
clear the matter up one would have to actually examine what she wrote in
that chapter... I don't have the book, so someone else will have to do
it. :)
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2008 18:36:21
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
J.D. Walker wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> On Aug 21, 10:05 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Aug 20, 4:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:5d6a7db4-1cc5-43c2-9102-96aa52f57ec0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
>>>>>> him based solely on his handwriting.
>>>>> Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
>>>>> her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
>>>>> **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer,
>>>>> none! except
>>>>> that she was aware that [her own words] "he was a genius in the
>>>>> field of
>>>>> chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
>>>>> understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
>>>>> self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be
>>>>> "based solely
>>>>> on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
>>>>> **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a
>>>>> surmise of
>>>>> how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer,
>>>>> followed by
>>>>> Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then
>>>>> citing a
>>>>> singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much
>>>>> money on
>>>>> graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding
>>>>> it is
>>>>> 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to sign
>>>>> things!
>>>> Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like to
>>>> know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made. This
>>>> would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
>>>> analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
>>>> people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
>>>> They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
>>>> which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases. If
>>>> their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
>>>> subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
>>>> graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
>>>> tautology.
>>>>> **They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysis, a
>>>>> second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with
>>>>> that
>>>>> second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowledge
>>>>> entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently
>>>>> made himself
>>>>> clear.
>>>>> **One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958
>>>>> through
>>>>> 2005.
>>>>> **The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James"
>>>>> from
>>>>> 1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in
>>>>> finding
>>>>> the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other
>>>>> factors to
>>>>> specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as two
>>>>> "f's".
>>>>> Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's comment
>>>>> that it
>>>>> was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the
>>>>> particularity
>>>>> of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
>>>>> signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge.
>>>>> Larry Evans
>>>>> seems to know when and where he used it.
>>>>> **The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive
>>>>> purchases you
>>>>> might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions or
>>>>> real
>>>>> sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few
>>>>> hudnred bucks,
>>>>> better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
>>>>> **One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site:
>>>>> www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
>>>>> where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64
>>>>> against
>>>>> Anthony Killan.
>>>>> **Phil Innes
>>>>> In
>>>>> most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
>>>>> restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
>>>>> already knows.
>>>>> A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, we
>>>>> are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
>>>>> that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
>>>>> "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
>>>>> conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
>>>>> was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
>>>>> that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks."
>>>>> Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
>>>>> woods.
>>> As a neutral observer trying to follow this conversation, I found myself
>>> confused by the terminology. I found this statement about graphology
>>> online: "Graphology is the study of handwriting, especially when
>>> employed as a means of analyzing character. Real handwriting experts are
>>> known as forensic document examiners, not as graphologists."
>>>
>>> http://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html
>>>
>>> I understand the skepticism that one might have for graphology based on
>>> other activities of similar repute such as phrenology or reading tea
>>> leaves etc, etc. Even so, when one sees a report of graphological
>>> activity having taken place, it seems wise to distinguish between the
>>> messenger(s) and the actors in the event. i.e. "Don't shoot the
>>> messenger!"
>>>
>>> Now, I will bow out and leave this thread to the more informed. :)
>>> --
>>>
>>> "Do that which is right..."
>>>
>>> Rev. J.D. Walker
>>
>> I just had to show another quote from the link Rev. Walker supplied:
>>
>> "Graphology is another pipe dream of those who want a quick and
>> dirty decision making process to tell them who to marry, who did the
>> crime, who they should hire, what career they should seek, where the
>> good hunting is, where the water, oil, or buried treasure is, etc.
>> Graphology is another in a long list of quack substitutes for hard
>> work. It is appealing to those who are impatient with such troublesome
>> matters as research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and
>> hypothesis testing."
>>
>> Hmmmm -- "those who are impatient with such troublesome matters as
>> research, evidence analysis, reasoning, logic, and hypothesis
>> testing." -- does this remind us of anyone here? ;-)
>
> I got curious and looked for Sheila Lowe on the Internet.
>
> http://sheilalowe.com/
>
> It appears to me that she is qualified in both "personality" graphology
> and "forensic" graphology. This complicates the issue. I suppose to
> clear the matter up one would have to actually examine what she wrote in
> that chapter... I don't have the book, so someone else will have to do
> it. :)
And then there is this:
http://www.fischingforforgeries.com/home.html
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2008 14:43:29
From:
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 21, 10:05=A0am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > On Aug 20, 4:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:5d6a7db4-1cc5-43c2-9102-96aa52f57ec0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com.=
..
> >> On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
> >>> him based solely on his handwriting.
> >> =A0 Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
> >> her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
>
> >> **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none! e=
xcept
> >> that she was aware that =A0[her own words] "he was a genius in the fie=
ld of
> >> chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
> >> understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
> >> self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based s=
olely
> >> on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
>
> >> **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surmis=
e of
> >> how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, follo=
wed by
> >> Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then cit=
ing a
> >> singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much mo=
ney on
> >> graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding it =
is
> >> 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to sign
> >> things!
>
> > =A0 Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like to
> > know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made. This
> > would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
> > analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
> > people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
> > They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
> > which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases. If
> > their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
> > subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
> > graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
> > tautology.
>
> >> **They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysis, a
> >> second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with tha=
t
> >> second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowledge
> >> entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently made h=
imself
> >> clear.
>
> >> **One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958 throug=
h
> >> 2005.
>
> >> **The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James" fr=
om
> >> 1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in find=
ing
> >> the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other facto=
rs to
> >> specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as two "f=
's".
> >> Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's comment th=
at it
> >> was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the particu=
larity
> >> of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
> >> signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge. Larry=
Evans
> >> seems to know when and where he used it.
>
> >> **The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive purchases =
you
> >> might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions or re=
al
> >> sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few hudnred b=
ucks,
> >> better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
>
> >> **One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site:
>
> >>www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
>
> >> where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64 agai=
nst
> >> Anthony Killan.
>
> >> **Phil Innes
>
> >> =A0In
> >> most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
> >> restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
> >> already knows.
> >> =A0 A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, =
we
> >> are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
> >> that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
> >> "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
> >> conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
> >> was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
> >> that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks."
> >> =A0 Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
> >> woods.
>
> As a neutral observer trying to follow this conversation, I found myself
> confused by the terminology. =A0I found this statement about graphology
> online: "Graphology is the study of handwriting, especially when
> employed as a means of analyzing character. Real handwriting experts are
> known as forensic document examiners, not as graphologists."
>
> http://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html
>
> I understand the skepticism that one might have for graphology based on
> other activities of similar repute such as phrenology or reading tea
> leaves etc, etc. =A0Even so, when one sees a report of graphological
> activity having taken place, it seems wise to distinguish between the
> messenger(s) and the actors in the event. =A0i.e. "Don't shoot the messen=
ger!"
>
> Now, I will bow out and leave this thread to the more informed. =A0:)
> --
>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker
That too was a very relevant link. Thank you. A sample quote:
"in properly controlled, blind studies, where the handwriting samples
contain no content that could provide non-graphological information
upon which to base a prediction (e.g., a piece copied from a
magazine), graphologists **_do no better than **chance** at
predicting... personality traits_**...." -- "The Use of Graphology as
a Tool for Employee Hiring and Evaluation," from the British Columbia
Civil Liberties Association (emphasis added)
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2008 13:53:45
From:
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 21, 9:43=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 20, 4:30=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:5d6a7db4-1cc5-43c2-9102-96aa52f57ec0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
> > > him based solely on his handwriting.
>
> > =A0 Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
> > her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
>
> > **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none! ex=
cept
> > that she was aware that =A0[her own words] "he was a genius in the fiel=
d of
> > chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
> > understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
> > self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based so=
lely
> > on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
>
> > **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surmise=
of
> > how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, follow=
ed by
> > Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then citi=
ng a
> > singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much mon=
ey on
> > graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding it i=
s
> > 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to sign
> > things!
>
> =A0 Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like to
> know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made. This
> would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
> analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
> people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
> They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
> which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases. If
> their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
> subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
> graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
> tautology.
As I suspected:
"Graphology has been a controversial field for more than a century.
Although supporters point to the anecdotal evidence of thousands of
positive testimonials as a reason to use it for personality
evaluation, most empirical studies fail to show the validity claimed
by its supporters."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphology#Validity
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2008 16:54:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
Taylor responds to his own message. He addressed not any single fact I wrote
and talks of 'controversial, by which I must suppose he means there is more
than one point of view. He continues to insist on things I do not write by
choosing to cite cryptic commentaries by Wikipedia.
Our Taylor does not understand anything much here, and is forced to invent
opinions so that his admitted ignorance of a subject [graphology, Soviet
culture] is no inhibition to his public remarks on them.
I stated //very clearly// that analysis is different from interpretation,
and also depends on the quality of the analyst or interpreter, and Taylor
Kingston then talks about PREDICTION. Our Taylor introduced prediction
himself but he acts as if I did, or Lawrence Totaro did in admitting the
graphology material to his book. Neither of us did.
Our Taylor does not say we did, but acts as if we did. Then he prosecutes
the issue /as if/ we did. But we didn't. He has these past few years
departed from any need to quote anyone, so certain is he of what they
'meant', though, any such understanding is clearly 'bent'.
The trouble with Our Taylor is that he is so certain - even of what other
people think - despite what they write, he needs not actually respond to
what they do write and can merrily invent on it, to the limit of his wit or
decency. This week 2 lies about what I wrote this week!
Moreover, he says below he 'suspected' something! Well, if Taylor Kingston
wonders why he pisses off people who he thought were his friends, then
perhaps he might consider that their 'obfusticatory nonsense' admits that
all cannot be as clear as he wishes them to be, and that context and detail
are large parts of what serious people are willing to 'obfusticate' about.
What he himself suspects, as says the Bible, he will surely find.
Or he could not call those he doesn't like for these sorts of opinions
"insane", or "like Hitler or Mussolini" and so on. He could instead attempt
to qualify his /own/ certainties by expressing his own understanding of
things.
It is difficult to keep up with his vagaries, they extend everywhere, and
why, after all, should one be obliged to explain sober consideration with
its necessary due diligence and equivocations, to someone who has never
expressed the slightest reservation of direct instant opinion, no matter at
whose expense?
In terms of Fischer's signature, Taylor Kingston might attempt to read the
actual book he addresses, if he has a sincere interest in the topic, and
take the author to task! I would make them an introduction if he wished, but
I would need to think it a sincere inquiry rather than net-blagh. In other
words, content is necessary, not ego assertion.
Phil Innes
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Aug 21, 9:43 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 20, 4:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:5d6a7db4-1cc5-43c2-9102-96aa52f57ec0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
> > > him based solely on his handwriting.
>
> > Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
> > her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
>
> > **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none!
> > except
> > that she was aware that [her own words] "he was a genius in the field of
> > chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
> > understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
> > self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based
> > solely
> > on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
>
> > **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surmise
> > of
> > how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer,
> > followed by
> > Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then
> > citing a
> > singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much
> > money on
> > graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding it is
> > 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to sign
> > things!
>
> Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like to
> know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made. This
> would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
> analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
> people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
> They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
> which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases. If
> their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
> subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
> graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
> tautology.
As I suspected:
"Graphology has been a controversial field for more than a century.
Although supporters point to the anecdotal evidence of thousands of
positive testimonials as a reason to use it for personality
evaluation, most empirical studies fail to show the validity claimed
by its supporters."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphology#Validity
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2008 13:42:05
From:
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 21, 3:57=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Aug 20, 4:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:5d6a7db4-1cc5-43c2-9102-96aa52f57ec0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com..=
.
> > On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
> > > him based solely on his handwriting.
>
> > Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
> > her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
>
> > **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none!
> > except
> > that she was aware that [her own words] "he was a genius in the field o=
f
> > chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
> > understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
> > self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based
> > solely
> > on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
>
> > **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surmise=
of
> > how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, follow=
ed
> > by
> > Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then citi=
ng
> > a
> > singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much mon=
ey
> > on
> > graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding it i=
s
> > 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to sign
> > things!
>
> =A0 Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like to
> know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made.
>
> **Too late, as usual, for Taylor Kingston's as his request for informatio=
n
> comes AFTER he has spoken his opinion on it.
>
> =A0This
> would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
> analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
> people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
>
> **You have a library near you? If not, try the net. For example, a simple
> Google search returns:
> =A0Results 1 - 10 of about 421,000 for graphology. Didn't you say you wer=
e a
> computer professional? Just hardware, is it?
>
> They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
> which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases.
>
> **'Clearly' says 'quite specific' Kingston, unclearly. He who admits know=
ing
> nothing of graphology, and does not have the book he 'questions', is stil=
l
> 'clear' <wonk!>
>
> =A0If
> their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
> subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
> graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
> tautology.
>
> **Taylor Kingston writes like a child! Now that he has already offered hi=
s
> opinion, as a researcher of note and important editor of the great Jerry
> Spinrad and who describes himself as 'quite specific', he asks for others=
to
> reseach the subject for him - indeed to conduct to perhaps undertake
> original research, with double blinds, and all.
>
> **He is not quite specific to WHY he wants to know at all, or why he can'=
t
> do what he asks others to do himself. Below his stature, is it? But didn'=
t
> he already offer us his /certain/ opinions? Not only that, he has ALREADY
> started to diss other people for their contrary views, which he proposes
> 'obfusticate' a subject which he does not understand himself. =A0:((
>
> **You would almost think this had something to do with the forward by <dr=
ead
> words> Larry Evans, no? How such a clown can describe direct citation fro=
m
> the book itself as 'obfuscatory nonsense' is not 'quite specifically'
> explained.
>
> **Etc. The usual rag-bag of vague nonsense with doodly in support of his
> opinion, and at others expense. In this instance it is my direct knowledg=
e
> of the book and reporting what's in it.Mr. Kingston should stick with his
> bear shit in the woods level commentary, and perhaps shift himself to eit=
her
> a bears or arboreum newsgroup?
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > **They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysis, a
> > second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with that
> > second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowledge
> > entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently made
> > himself
> > clear.
>
> > **One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958 through
> > 2005.
>
> > **The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James" fro=
m
> > 1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in findi=
ng
> > the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other factor=
s
> > to
> > specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as two "f'=
s".
> > Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's comment tha=
t
> > it
> > was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the
> > particularity
> > of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
> > signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge. Larry
> > Evans
> > seems to know when and where he used it.
>
> > **The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive purchases y=
ou
> > might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions or rea=
l
> > sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few hudnred
> > bucks,
> > better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
>
> > **One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site:
>
> >www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
>
> > where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64 again=
st
> > Anthony Killan.
>
> > **Phil Innes
>
> > In
> > most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
> > restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
> > already knows.
> > A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, we
> > are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
> > that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
> > "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
> > conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
> > was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
> > that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks."
> > Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
> > woods.
Another of our Phil's amazing talents is for arguing against things
one has never said. Any resemblance between what one has said, and his
restatement of what one has said, is purely coincidental.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Aug 2008 08:37:13
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message news:957e638f-5f0a-41af-b5a9-
Another of our Phil's amazing talents is for arguing against things
one has never said. Any resemblance between what one has said, and his
restatement of what one has said, is purely coincidental.
---
Taylor Kingston who excuses his criticism of others by the remarkable
statment:-
"That's why I tend to be quite specific."
Writes in and follows a text I didn't write - though what I did write were
extracts verbatim and paraphrastic, of the book that Taylor Kingston doesn't
have. What exactly Taylor Kingston is doing writing here, apart from being
obscure is unknown. He can't even say what things [ROFL] 'one' thinks one is
accused of!
This is the poster who described my comments on how to tell a Fischer from a
fake as [Disregarding Phil's] "usual obfuscatory nonsense".
Once again Vaguer Kingston cannot name his nouns, and writes in to complain
about those who can, who are writing on topic, which from the above seem to
him like 'amazing talents'.
The topic only devolves to Taylor Kinsgston himself because he insists on
butting in to call people names; insane sons of Mussolini! and such bananas.
Taylor Kingston is so vague he doesn't even name what he is complaining
about, just who he is complaining about. Now... if Taylor Kingston wants to
write here about Fischer material, perhaps he will be content to say what he
knows, instead of rubbishing other people who know things?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2008 06:43:33
From:
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 20, 4:30=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5d6a7db4-1cc5-43c2-9102-96aa52f57ec0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
> > him based solely on his handwriting.
>
> =A0 Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
> her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
>
> **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none! exce=
pt
> that she was aware that =A0[her own words] "he was a genius in the field =
of
> chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
> understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
> self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based sole=
ly
> on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
>
> **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surmise o=
f
> how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, followed=
by
> Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then citing=
a
> singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much money=
on
> graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding it is
> 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to sign
> things!
Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like to
know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made. This
would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases. If
their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
tautology.
> **They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysis, a
> second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with that
> second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowledge
> entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently made hims=
elf
> clear.
>
> **One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958 through
> 2005.
>
> **The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James" from
> 1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in finding
> the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other factors =
to
> specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as two "f's"=
.
> Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's comment that =
it
> was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the particular=
ity
> of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
> signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge. Larry Ev=
ans
> seems to know when and where he used it.
>
> **The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive purchases you
> might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions or real
> sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few hudnred buck=
s,
> better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
>
> **One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site:
>
> www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
>
> where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64 against
> Anthony Killan.
>
> **Phil Innes
>
> =A0In
> most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
> restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
> already knows.
> =A0 A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, we
> are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
> that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
> "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
> conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
> was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
> that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks."
> =A0 Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
> woods.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2008 15:57:40
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Aug 20, 4:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5d6a7db4-1cc5-43c2-9102-96aa52f57ec0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
> > him based solely on his handwriting.
>
> Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
> her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
>
> **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none!
> except
> that she was aware that [her own words] "he was a genius in the field of
> chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
> understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
> self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based
> solely
> on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
>
> **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surmise of
> how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, followed
> by
> Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then citing
> a
> singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much money
> on
> graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding it is
> 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to sign
> things!
Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like to
know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made.
**Too late, as usual, for Taylor Kingston's as his request for information
comes AFTER he has spoken his opinion on it.
This
would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
**You have a library near you? If not, try the net. For example, a simple
Google search returns:
Results 1 - 10 of about 421,000 for graphology. Didn't you say you were a
computer professional? Just hardware, is it?
They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases.
**'Clearly' says 'quite specific' Kingston, unclearly. He who admits knowing
nothing of graphology, and does not have the book he 'questions', is still
'clear' <wonk! >
If
their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
tautology.
**Taylor Kingston writes like a child! Now that he has already offered his
opinion, as a researcher of note and important editor of the great Jerry
Spinrad and who describes himself as 'quite specific', he asks for others to
reseach the subject for him - indeed to conduct to perhaps undertake
original research, with double blinds, and all.
**He is not quite specific to WHY he wants to know at all, or why he can't
do what he asks others to do himself. Below his stature, is it? But didn't
he already offer us his /certain/ opinions? Not only that, he has ALREADY
started to diss other people for their contrary views, which he proposes
'obfusticate' a subject which he does not understand himself. :((
**You would almost think this had something to do with the forward by <dread
words > Larry Evans, no? How such a clown can describe direct citation from
the book itself as 'obfuscatory nonsense' is not 'quite specifically'
explained.
**Etc. The usual rag-bag of vague nonsense with doodly in support of his
opinion, and at others expense. In this instance it is my direct knowledge
of the book and reporting what's in it.Mr. Kingston should stick with his
bear shit in the woods level commentary, and perhaps shift himself to either
a bears or arboreum newsgroup?
Phil Innes
> **They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysis, a
> second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with that
> second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowledge
> entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently made
> himself
> clear.
>
> **One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958 through
> 2005.
>
> **The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James" from
> 1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in finding
> the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other factors
> to
> specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as two "f's".
> Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's comment that
> it
> was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the
> particularity
> of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
> signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge. Larry
> Evans
> seems to know when and where he used it.
>
> **The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive purchases you
> might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions or real
> sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few hudnred
> bucks,
> better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
>
> **One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site:
>
> www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
>
> where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64 against
> Anthony Killan.
>
> **Phil Innes
>
> In
> most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
> restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
> already knows.
> A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, we
> are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
> that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
> "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
> conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
> was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
> that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks."
> Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
> woods.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Aug 2008 07:05:25
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 20, 4:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5d6a7db4-1cc5-43c2-9102-96aa52f57ec0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
>>> him based solely on his handwriting.
>> Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
>> her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
>>
>> **In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none! except
>> that she was aware that [her own words] "he was a genius in the field of
>> chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
>> understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
>> self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based solely
>> on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug>
>>
>> **Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surmise of
>> how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, followed by
>> Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then citing a
>> singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much money on
>> graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding it is
>> 'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to sign
>> things!
>
> Disregarding Phil's usual obfuscatory nonsense, I'd simply like to
> know if any proper scientific study of graphology has been made. This
> would involve, say, a large number of graphologists independently
> analyzing a large set of writing samples from a large number of
> people, whose identities are completely unknown to the graphologists.
> They would have to analyze them _without_ any previous knowledge,
> which clearly is _not_ the case in the Fischer and Steinitz cases. If
> their analyses then largely correspond to the facts about their
> subjects, then we'd have some objective evidence in favor of
> graphology. Otherwise, the only -ology being demonstrated is
> tautology.
>
>> **They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysis, a
>> second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with that
>> second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowledge
>> entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently made himself
>> clear.
>>
>> **One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958 through
>> 2005.
>>
>> **The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James" from
>> 1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in finding
>> the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other factors to
>> specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as two "f's".
>> Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's comment that it
>> was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the particularity
>> of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
>> signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge. Larry Evans
>> seems to know when and where he used it.
>>
>> **The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive purchases you
>> might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions or real
>> sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few hudnred bucks,
>> better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
>>
>> **One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site:
>>
>> www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
>>
>> where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64 against
>> Anthony Killan.
>>
>> **Phil Innes
>>
>> In
>> most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
>> restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
>> already knows.
>> A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, we
>> are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
>> that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
>> "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
>> conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
>> was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
>> that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks."
>> Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
>> woods.
As a neutral observer trying to follow this conversation, I found myself
confused by the terminology. I found this statement about graphology
online: "Graphology is the study of handwriting, especially when
employed as a means of analyzing character. Real handwriting experts are
known as forensic document examiners, not as graphologists."
http://www.skepdic.com/graphol.html
I understand the skepticism that one might have for graphology based on
other activities of similar repute such as phrenology or reading tea
leaves etc, etc. Even so, when one sees a report of graphological
activity having taken place, it seems wise to distinguish between the
messenger(s) and the actors in the event. i.e. "Don't shoot the messenger!"
Now, I will bow out and leave this thread to the more informed. :)
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2008 12:46:58
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 20, 12:56 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
> > him based solely on his handwriting.
>
> Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
> her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting." In
> most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
> restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
> already knows.
> A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, we
> are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
> that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
> "excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
> conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
> was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
> that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks."
> Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
> woods.
I looked this up - this idea of graphology, especially given Parr's
penchant for believing in nonsense like polygraphic testing. It
appears graphology is something of a pseudoscience as you mention but
"forensic document evidence" is not. I saw that this Lowe had a
website and also was the author of fictional books on graphologic
analysis - but didn't go much further. But am not sure to what extent
the terms are interchangeable, and given Parr and Evans apparent need
to dumb down material to their audience, it may well be her analysis
is respected. But more likely it is just more crap fobbed off on the
chess public.
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2008 10:56:21
From:
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 20, 10:35=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
> him based solely on his handwriting.
Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting." In
most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
already knows.
A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, we
are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
"excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks."
Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
woods.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Aug 2008 06:30:10
From:
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 22, 12:58=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:50:38 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
> wrote:
>
> > =A0Quite so. Innes actively pursues semantic confusion as a rhetorical
> >tactic. One of his typical ploys is to conflate different things, and
> >claim his antagonist is referring to one when he's actually referring
> >to the other. Here, he's lumping graphology with forensic analysis,
> >trying to validate the former by making it equivalent to the latter,
> >which it is not. That the FBI would use forensic analysis in a forgery
> >case lends no vailidity to graphology as a predictor of character.
> > =A0Phil does this kind of thing quite often. I suppose if I expressed,
> >say, a negative opinion of alchemy, he might well argue that I'm
> >denying the validity of chemistry as a science. It's just his typical
> >rhetorical ineptitude and/or dishonesty.
>
> And I've often wondered, "what's the point?". =A0Does it work? =A0Has it
> ever worked *here*? =A0Is he playing to the faithful choir, the unknown
> horde of lurkers?
Or the voices in his head?
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Aug 2008 13:04:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:9ca23368-3706-4924-933f-f73180408cb2@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 22, 12:58 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:50:38 -0700 (PDT), [email protected]
> wrote:
>
> > Quite so. Innes actively pursues semantic confusion as a rhetorical
> >tactic. One of his typical ploys is to conflate different things,
"things" says Vaguer, and though he means confuse says conflate, which is to
be able to mention as many as 2, uh... "things"
>> and
> >claim his antagonist is referring to one when he's actually referring
> >to the other.
Presumably the other "thing". Gosh - how confusing when you don't name your
nouns. Naturally, it is my fault
>> Here, he's lumping graphology with forensic analysis,
> >trying to validate the former by making it equivalent to the latter,
A plain lie. Typically Taylor Kingston bravely proceed with his opinions
while not ever bothering to quote anyone. In fact I differentiated analysis
of writing from interpretation of that analysis.
I wonder if I find my own statement in this very thread if Taylor Kingston
would explode? This is the second time this week he has described what I do
as the exact opposite of what I wrote. <sigh >
> >which it is not. That the FBI would use forensic analysis in a forgery
> >case lends no vailidity to graphology as a predictor of character.
ROFL - "Predictor" now? Where did that come from? EVEN if interpretation is
admitted to be sometimes valid - who has talked about PREDICTION?
So Taylor is reduced to plain making it up so that he can write on what he
doesn't know, then make general remarks about all the 'things' people say.
Recently Taylor said he was once friends with Larry evans Larry Parr and
myself - but we all started lying about him...
No lies in what I write here!
Phil Innes
> > Phil does this kind of thing quite often. I suppose if I expressed,
> >say, a negative opinion of alchemy, he might well argue that I'm
> >denying the validity of chemistry as a science. It's just his typical
> >rhetorical ineptitude and/or dishonesty.
>
> And I've often wondered, "what's the point?". Does it work? Has it
> ever worked *here*? Is he playing to the faithful choir, the unknown
> horde of lurkers?
Or the voices in his head?
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2008 16:30:56
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:5d6a7db4-1cc5-43c2-9102-96aa52f57ec0@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 20, 10:35 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
> him based solely on his handwriting.
Did she know beforehand it was Bobby Fischer's handwriting? If so,
her analysis could hardly be "based solely on his handwriting."
**In the sense that she knew of biographic details of Fischer, none! except
that she was aware that [her own words] "he was a genius in the field of
chess", she had no other source than his writing. As usual I cannot
understand Taylor Kingston's immediate proclamation, since it is
self-contradictory. If she only had his writing it /would/ be "based solely
on his handwriting", rather than "it could hardly be." <shrug >
**Of course, here we go again with an improbable premise, and a surmise of
how much the average graphologist knows about reclusive Fischer, followed by
Taylor Kingston's knowledge of 'most' graphological analysis, then citing a
singular instance concerning Steinitz. Maybe the FBI waste too much money on
graphology, and courts pay too much attention to it, even deciding it is
'proof'. Banks and legal documents ridiculously require people to sign
things!
**They are clearly two aspects to graphology: the first is analysis, a
second is interpretation. I assume Our Taylor is taking issue with that
second part rather than the first and suggesting ex cathedra knowledge
entered in, but must assume since Our Taylor has insufficiently made himself
clear.
**One aspect of her analysis is to trace an evolution from 1958 through
2005.
**The book, for examples cites the instigation of "Robert D. James" from
1999, plus the 'pedestal signature'. If readers are interested in finding
the true Fischer from the Fakes, they might also correlate other factors to
specific times. The two differing "r's" for example, as well as two "f's".
Then there is the looped B, the double b [with the author's comment that it
was written approx age 9-16], the specific of the "i" dot, the particularity
of the period, the rare "James" appearances, and the ... the stamp
signature! Probably the rarest of all, and the easiest to forge. Larry Evans
seems to know when and where he used it.
**The immediate use of graphology is to check any expensive purchases you
might be considering. You must also beware of facsimile editions or real
sigs. I think if you were going to be tempted to spend a few hudnred bucks,
better spend 15 first to educate yourself.
**One fascinating on-line version is provided at Bill Price's site:
www.geocities.com/bprice1949/fischer2.html
where you can see a genuine Fischer sig on what looks like 5/3/64 against
Anthony Killan.
**Phil Innes
In
most "graphological analysis" I've seen, the graphologist simply
restates commonly known facts about the subject, whose identity he
already knows.
A prime example is pages 245-246 of "The Steinitz Papers," where, we
are told, graphology reveals that Steinitz was "highly intelligent,"
that he had "great intensity, tenacity and perseverance," and
"excellent capabilities for combinations, abstractions and logical
conclusions," that he was "not a man of happy disposition," that he
was "ambitious and wanted acknowledgement of his achievements," and
that "it was not easy for him to accept failure or personal attacks."
Further analysis would no doubt reveal that bears crap in the
woods.
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2008 07:35:11
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 23)
>One caveat for people buying any Fischer-inscribed material is the book:
Fisching for Forgeries, by Lawrence Totaro, and which has an
introduction by
Larry Evans. ISBN: 1-888710-32-2, Jan 2007. It reads like a graphic
novel, illustrating as much as telling about real
Fischer signatures and writing, as well as illustrating lots of
fraudulent material..
HANDWRITING ANALYSIS
"At the Leipzig Chess Olympiad in 1960 Miguel Najdorf asked for Bobby
Fischer=92s autograph. Bobby agreed, but for one dollar," wrote Yugoslav
journalist Dmitrije Bjelica.
This tale may be apocryphal, but it made me wonder how much Fischer=92s
signature is worth today. Recently the bulletin cover of Bled 1961
signed by him and most of the other players sold at an eBay auction
for $2,025, according to Lawrence Totaro in the 57-page booklet
Fisching for Forgeries, which undertakes the task of separating fact
from fiction.
Prices for Fischer memorabilia have soared on eBay=97but buyers beware.
Sheila Lowe, a noted graphologist, contributed a chapter diagnosing
him based solely on his handwriting. Here are some of her comments....
Chess One wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:f2dea911-352e-4059-acbd-ad6bedbe2079@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Aug 19, 8:26 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >> > How to Open a Chess Game by Larry Evans, et al: February, 1975, To
> >> > Boby Fischer With best wishes, Sidney Fried <Publisher>
> >>
> >> This is one of those books by Larry Evans
> >> which was highly regarded.
> >
> > His early work was phenomenal. Probably his best book was his first on
> > Bronstein.
>
> One caveat for people buying any Fischer-inscribed material is the book:
> Fisching for Forgeries, by Lawrence Totaro, and which has an introduction=
by
> Larry Evans. ISBN: 1-888710-32-2, Jan 2007.
>
> It reads like a graphic novel, illustrating as much as telling about real
> Fischer signatures and writing, as well as illustrating lots of fraudulen=
t
> material.
>
> On page 48 there is a handy chart which shows variations of his signature=
,
> also over time - including the rare "Robert D. James" variant.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
> >> Many years ago, I was in a bookstore
> >> and there was a stack of hard-bound
> >> chess books with a title I had never seen
> >> before; glancing through it, I discovered
> >> some very impressive writing and bought
> >> a small stack of them for a song. It
> >> sometimes turns out that the best books
> >> are not hyped in the mainstream media,
> >> that perhaps the best may not even be
> >> generally known.
> >
> >
> > The best way to buy chess books is in used bookstores. About a third
> > of the original price, usually....
> >
> > I feel bad for the authors, though, of all these books that apparently
> > never sold well enough to "make it"...
> >
> > And yes, it is amazing how many good chess books are out there amongst
> > all the trash. Unfortunately "good" and "popular" seem to be at odds.
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2008 07:25:29
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 20, 8:36 am, johnny_t <[email protected] > wrote:
> SBD wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 10:58 am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> I feel bad for the authors, though, of all these books that apparently
> >>> never sold well enough to "make it"...
> >> But we're talking remainders here, rather than used, aren't we?
>
> > How much of a royalty does the author make on a remaindered copy?
>
> Typically zero.
I know, that was the point. At least brisk used sales might help an
author get to a second edition, remaindered, it is dead.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2008 10:31:16
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:25:29 -0700 (PDT), SBD <[email protected] >
wrote:
>On Aug 20, 8:36 am, johnny_t <[email protected]> wrote:
>> SBD wrote:
>> > On Aug 19, 10:58 am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >>> I feel bad for the authors, though, of all these books that apparently
>> >>> never sold well enough to "make it"...
>> >> But we're talking remainders here, rather than used, aren't we?
>>
>> > How much of a royalty does the author make on a remaindered copy?
>>
>> Typically zero.
>
>
>I know, that was the point. At least brisk used sales might help an
>author get to a second edition, remaindered, it is dead.
Good point -- I hadn't considered that.
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2008 05:14:43
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 19, 10:58 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> >I feel bad for the authors, though, of all these books that apparently
> >never sold well enough to "make it"...
>
> But we're talking remainders here, rather than used, aren't we?
How much of a royalty does the author make on a remaindered copy?
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2008 06:36:06
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
SBD wrote:
> On Aug 19, 10:58 am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I feel bad for the authors, though, of all these books that apparently
>>> never sold well enough to "make it"...
>> But we're talking remainders here, rather than used, aren't we?
>
> How much of a royalty does the author make on a remaindered copy?
Typically zero.
|
| |
Date: 19 Aug 2008 21:59:47
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
Mike Murray wrote:
> But we're talking remainders here, rather than used, aren't we?
That is correct. The books I bought were
remaindered: brand new, but with a marker
slash on one end. I had never seen the book
advertised (as in Chess Life, for instance),
though it was better than much of the fluff
they sold.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Aug 2008 08:21:08
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 19, 8:26 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > How to Open a Chess Game by Larry Evans, et al: February, 1975, To
> > Boby Fischer With best wishes, Sidney Fried <Publisher>
>
> This is one of those books by Larry Evans
> which was highly regarded.
His early work was phenomenal. Probably his best book was his first on
Bronstein.
> Many years ago, I was in a bookstore
> and there was a stack of hard-bound
> chess books with a title I had never seen
> before; glancing through it, I discovered
> some very impressive writing and bought
> a small stack of them for a song. It
> sometimes turns out that the best books
> are not hyped in the mainstream media,
> that perhaps the best may not even be
> generally known.
The best way to buy chess books is in used bookstores. About a third
of the original price, usually....
I feel bad for the authors, though, of all these books that apparently
never sold well enough to "make it"...
And yes, it is amazing how many good chess books are out there amongst
all the trash. Unfortunately "good" and "popular" seem to be at odds.
|
| | |
Date: 20 Aug 2008 09:07:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:f2dea911-352e-4059-acbd-ad6bedbe2079@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 19, 8:26 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > How to Open a Chess Game by Larry Evans, et al: February, 1975, To
>> > Boby Fischer With best wishes, Sidney Fried <Publisher>
>>
>> This is one of those books by Larry Evans
>> which was highly regarded.
>
> His early work was phenomenal. Probably his best book was his first on
> Bronstein.
One caveat for people buying any Fischer-inscribed material is the book:
Fisching for Forgeries, by Lawrence Totaro, and which has an introduction by
Larry Evans. ISBN: 1-888710-32-2, Jan 2007.
It reads like a graphic novel, illustrating as much as telling about real
Fischer signatures and writing, as well as illustrating lots of fraudulent
material.
On page 48 there is a handy chart which shows variations of his signature,
also over time - including the rare "Robert D. James" variant.
Phil Innes
>> Many years ago, I was in a bookstore
>> and there was a stack of hard-bound
>> chess books with a title I had never seen
>> before; glancing through it, I discovered
>> some very impressive writing and bought
>> a small stack of them for a song. It
>> sometimes turns out that the best books
>> are not hyped in the mainstream media,
>> that perhaps the best may not even be
>> generally known.
>
>
> The best way to buy chess books is in used bookstores. About a third
> of the original price, usually....
>
> I feel bad for the authors, though, of all these books that apparently
> never sold well enough to "make it"...
>
> And yes, it is amazing how many good chess books are out there amongst
> all the trash. Unfortunately "good" and "popular" seem to be at odds.
|
| | |
Date: 19 Aug 2008 08:58:28
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:21:08 -0700 (PDT), SBD <[email protected] >
wrote:
>The best way to buy chess books is in used bookstores. About a third
>of the original price, usually....
With Amazon serving to consolidate the inventories of a huge number of
used book dealers online, it's as convenient to find a used book as a
new one. And I think the consolidation drives down the price.
>I feel bad for the authors, though, of all these books that apparently
>never sold well enough to "make it"...
But we're talking remainders here, rather than used, aren't we?
|
| |
Date: 19 Aug 2008 06:26:18
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
[email protected] wrote:
> How to Open a Chess Game by Larry Evans, et al: =EF=BF=BDFebruary, 1975, =
To
> Boby Fischer With best wishes, Sidney Fried=EF=BF=BD <Publisher>
This is one of those books by Larry Evans
which was highly regarded.
In another thread someone mentioned a
gambit, and I immediately recalled the old
days, when Mr. Evans' old Chess Life
column answered questions concerning
how best to deal with, say, the Danish
gambit. This was way back in the days
before LE switched from writing non-fiction.
Many years ago, I was in a bookstore
and there was a stack of hard-bound
chess books with a title I had never seen
before; glancing through it, I discovered
some very impressive writing and bought
a small stack of them for a song. It
sometimes turns out that the best books
are not hyped in the mainstream media,
that perhaps the best may not even be
generally known.
Well, it is ironic that some of these
books inscribed to Bobby Fischer were
written for rank beginners. I expect the
book by GMs Smyslov and Levenfish on
Rook endings would have been more his
speed. Or maybe a collection of GM
Tal's best games... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Aug 2008 05:53:06
From:
Subject: Re: Books inscribed to Fischer
|
On Aug 19, 4:19=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Someone in Texas acquired the following books that apparently came
> from the sale of items in Bobby Fischer's storage when the rent wasn't
> paid by his California agent.
>
> Chess Catechism by Larry Evans: =93To Bobby Fischer =96 The next World
> Champion. May you win your games at life. Larry Evans Nov. 1970 PALMA=94
The 1970 Palma Interzonal? Where Fischer scored +15 -1 =3D7 to finish
3=BD points ahead of the field? *_Now_* we know how he did it!
|
|
