Main Date: 01 Feb 2008 16:07:53 From: RookHouse Subject: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? Game # 9 of the 1992 Fischer-Spassky match was memorable in that Bobby pulled off a 21-move victory using his patented and rarely seen Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation. Read the whole article here: http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/?p=110   Date: 19 Feb 2008 08:32:59 From: Subject: Re: Help-bot busted again On Feb 19, 10:26=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:67289f9a-b5b2-441d-bf1e-e1d6a9b818e4@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > GREG'S ENVY OF BOBBY > > > =A0 =A0 For the kind of retentiveness that Bobby > > possessed, one can consult Taimanov's book of best > > games where he describes his draw with Bobby at Buenos > > Aires 1960. =A0Bobby and the others had all read the > > Averbakh analysis, and the others promptly forgot it. > > Bobby evidently retained it, and if one reads > > Taimanov's awe at the speed that Fischer played the > > ending, then one will understand that Taimanov did not > > regard such powerful retentiveness and understanding > > to be slogging. =A0He clearly saw it as genius. > > A fellow-Burlington-ite as our Taylor is, has another anecdote on the same= > theme, and since it is so apparently anodyne occuring against a 1900 playe= r, > the more fascinating it is: > > My informant had just played Boston's Ivanov and we were going over the > game, [and I found a move which stumped Ivanov], to cover the slightly > embarrassing pause in conversation we fell into talking about Fischer. > > This informant then said he used to organise college simuls - and so when > Fischer showed up he would escort him around his campus, etc. After their > individual game in the simul, and all the games ended, Fischer asked him i= f > he would like to go over a few moves which had occured to him from their > game? > > Well, sure! Right? > > But Fischer started setting up a really strange position, which was sort o= f > familiar, but definitely not the game just played. Had Fischer made a > mistake? No - it turned out that he wanted to play over a game against my > informant from a previous simul 6 months ago - he had remember the entire > game and also his analysis of various lines. Unknown how many simul games > Fischer had played in the interim, hundreds? Half a thousand? > > [Taylor, this was according to Alain] Then I am inclined to believe it. He's a solid guy, good player too.     Date: 19 Feb 2008 15:10:42 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Help-bot busted again <[email protected] > wrote in message news:1cecc78a-f294-4e0a-a6be-30fc98909b44@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... On Feb 19, 10:26 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > But Fischer started setting up a really strange position, which was sort > of > familiar, but definitely not the game just played. Had Fischer made a > mistake? No - it turned out that he wanted to play over a game against my > informant from a previous simul 6 months ago - he had remember the entire > game and also his analysis of various lines. Unknown how many simul games > Fischer had played in the interim, hundreds? Half a thousand? > > [Taylor, this was according to Alain] Then I am inclined to believe it. He's a solid guy, good player too. -- He offered one other anecdote, which is sort of chilling from an opponents point of view. In the evening they would play table tennis and he was 19 to 13 in one game up against Fischer, and... Fischer just stopped absolutely still, and tranced... stared off into nothing... when the game resumed in 10 or 15 seconds, Alain said, "I didn't win another point." :) Phil   Date: 18 Feb 2008 23:05:14 From: help bot Subject: Re: Swimming in de Nile On Feb 17, 9:39 am, [email protected] wrote: > > One fellow took -- he said -- all of thirty > > seconds to locate the text I related. It's > > not my fault if the ignoranti could not find > > or recall it, given days or even weeks of > > trying. > > Whatever the length of time involved in the research, the quote > supplied did nothing to support any bribery allegation. The quote consisted of the exact same text I most likely read elsewhere, in some other source. The fellow who claimed to locate it in about "thirty seconds" had no trouble seeing an obvious match. It was so obvious, in fact, that he took a nasty tone for "us" not having easily and quickly found it first. > Absolutely no quote of Tigran Petrosian claiming he was offered a > bribe has been produced. The delusion is help-bot's. Perhaps a scientific test of sorts could be devised, in which non-chessplaying passers by are shown the text in question, and asked -- without any "leading" by imbecile Taylor Kingston -- what *they* think it means. It's pretty obvious what the result would be, so long as Mr. Kingston's deceptive methods are excluded. Obviously, this means he would have to play no part in the test, since he cannot be trusted to /honestly/ brush his own teeth. > > Anyone of sound > > mind can easily figure out who wrote the > > claim; I am merely the messenger. > > There is no doubt that Tigran Petrosian wrote *_something_*, but > there is nothing but doubt that it involved anything about a bribe. I agree that a few desperadoes remain in denial on that issue. It is also apparent that these fellas are also afraid to research certain other issues, such as what Yasser Seirawan wrote about the Ruy Lopez game we have discussed; that's their problem, not mine. It just so happens that I have a reasonably good memory, and have read a lot about chess-- unlike these desperadoes, with their psychological issues of *denial*. > > TK recklessly disregarded > > the fact that AS's book had been sent to > > BF to help him prepare for the 1992 match, > > as we know from Yasser Seirawan's on > > site reporting. > > No, I regarded the claim that Fischer ?might? have used Soltis' book > on the Exchange Ruy with far less skepticism than the TP bribery > claim. No such claim was made here. The claim I made was that, to the best of my memory, it was Yasser Seirawan who reported the fact; it came as something of a surprise to me, yet I did not go into a state of denial; on the contrary, I blamed the Spassky team for not preparing properly! Even I knew that this was one of BF's favorite lines as White, so there could hardly be any excuse for waltzing into a lost position "in book", in a multi-million dollar chess match. > Fischer was a voracious reader of chess books, especially on > openings, so it's quite possible he would read such a book. Yes, especially if someone sent it to him and he noticed his name was right on the cover! BTW, the book's cover does not indicate that Mr. Soltis was a GM, nor even that he was an IM; instead, it places the name "Fischer" in larger type than the author's own name, calling the whole shebang "Fischer's Weapon". > > The poor fellow (TK) got > > stuck on the irrelevant fact that AS was > > not particularly strong as a player, when > > compared to BF; he tripped himself. > > I merely wanted some documentation of the claim that it was a Soltis > recommendation Fischer used to beat Spassky in 1992, and that Fischer > got the line from actually reading Soltis, and not from some other > book, analyst, or his own research. I don't believe any such > documentation has been supplied here. In order to retrieve this exact information, I would require a complete set of /Inside Chess/ from the year 1992! Certainly, I can dig up a copy of the book, No Regrets, by the same author, and it could be in there, or possibly in both. > When/if it is, I'll be quite willing to accept it. "Accepting" the facts is your problem. Your stated denial which is much worse than my relating some facts without page numbers, for it reveals that you have significant psychological issues, relating to the denial of reality. > > When the propagandists show up, they > > struggle with facts (much like TK and David > > Kane do here), trying to make square pegs > > fit into round holes. One example is the > > Larry Evans-Parr fiction of "all" the experts > > agreeing that BF "wouldda" beaten the > > hated Anatoly Karpov; > > Greg, do not lump me in with Fischer-worshippers. My attitude toward > him is anything but idolatrous. The very worst of these Fischer cultists are those who are in denial regarding their own worship of BF! Many will maintain that they despise Bobby Fischer, /the man/, but admire his chess; when caught off-guard in some offhand rek, it becomes apparent that /the man/ is unknown to such worshipers, that they really know only the myths surrounding him. > My skepticism Try looking up this word, skepticism; I believe you will find it does not match what imbeciles in this thread have done; on the contrary, what the ignoranti have practiced here can be found under the term /denial/. If there is any trouble in locating the terms, I will be glad to lend a hand, since it can easily be accomplished with a simple google search... . Oh well, at least the psychoanalysts are kept employed by such dregs. -- help bot   Date: 17 Feb 2008 17:46:25 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Help-bot busted again GREG'S ENVY OF BOBBY >Of course we don't like you. You are an ignorant, arrogant, insulting windbag. Your lone virtue is that occasionally you speak disparagingly of other posters' nonsense here. However, since you speak disparagingly of pretty much everyone, this seems to be merely a case of a stopped clock being right twice a day. > -- Taylor Kingston to Greg Kennedy Alas, Kingston is right. Nobody claimed Petrosian was never offered a bribe. Greg Kennedy himself undoubtedly understands this point. The distinction between questioning a claim and seeking a source, on the one hand, and denying said claim, on the other hand, is a difference that even Greg can grasp. There is likely not a single reader of this forum, including our Greg, who does not twig this point. Greg has fallen back on the notion that because Bobby Fischer studied chess hard, he is essentially just another superhack when all is said and done, who made it to the top for a bit of time. That, I think, is the animus informing Greg's comment about Bobby's monomania. Or, in short, "I Greg Kennedy coulda been a contendah, I coulda done it, too, with access to the right chess materials. But there I was stranded in Indiana ...." That kind of thinking. Greg does not like the praise heaped on Bobby by his greatest rivals such as Spassky, Tal and their like. For the kind of retentiveness that Bobby possessed, one can consult Taimanov's book of best games where he describes his draw with Bobby at Buenos Aires 1960. Bobby and the others had all read the Averbakh analysis, and the others promptly forgot it. Bobby evidently retained it, and if one reads Taimanov's awe at the speed that Fischer played the ending, then one will understand that Taimanov did not regard such powerful retentiveness and understanding to be slogging. He clearly saw it as genius. David Kane wrote: > "help bot" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:23f11c5f-8fc4-436a-bcae-1555687b877a@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > On Feb 17, 2:14 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> >> Actually, TK's assessment (and mine) has been > >> >> completely vindicated. > > > > That is a lie, kiddo. > > > > One fellow took -- he said -- all of thirty > > seconds to locate the text I related. It's > > not my fault if the ignoranti could not find > > or recall it, given days or even weeks of > > trying. > > > That quote did not support the bribery theory. > It *is* possible that the quote was the source of your > misunderstanding. In that sense, it is evidence > of your inability to understand written English. > > Alas, evidence of that is not hard to find. > > > > >> Look it up. I simply said that, since your > >> credibly is zero, that your claim can easily > >> be dismissed. Delusions are not evidence. > > > > The delusion here is yours, kid; it is you > > and team captain TK who delude yourselves, > > by /pretending/ that the claim is mine, and > > not Tigran Petrosians. Anyone of sound > > mind can easily figure out who wrote the > > claim; I am merely the messenger. > > Your claim is that TP claimed there was > a fix. There is no evidence to support > either claim. > > > > > Former world champ Petrosian wrote a > > lot of interesting comments about that > > cycle-- many of them seem to contradict > > the fictions of the BF myth. > > > Perhaps, but they definitely do not > support the myths help bot is putting forth. > > In the book > > by Bernard Cafferty, several different top > > contenders for the crown were asked to > > predict results; it is interesting to note > > just how wrong these experts could be, > > and then watch as modern pundits try > > to rely upon their guesswork as the basis > > for who "would have won" betwixt BF and > > various opponents. For instance, not one > > predicted a 6-0 thrashing of GM Larsen, > > and TP felt it necessary to try and explain > > this phenomenon in his book. > > > > When the propagandists show up, they > > struggle with facts (much like TK and David > > Kane do here), trying to make square pegs > > fit into round holes. One example is the > > Larry Evans-Parr fiction of "all" the experts > > agreeing that BF "wouldda" beaten the > > hated Anatoly Karpov; in reality, the experts' > > predictions were split, but their dismal record > > on such matters indicates that we should > > not particularly care, one way or the other. > > I rarely agree with LP on anything, and > find his lack of character revolting. That > we both happen to agree that you are a > moron brings me no pleasure. > > help bot nonsense deleted. > > Why would anyone care about the opinions > of somebody who can't get even the most > basic facts correct?     Date: 19 Feb 2008 10:26:00 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Help-bot busted again <[email protected] > wrote in message news:67289f9a-b5b2-441d-bf1e-e1d6a9b818e4@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > GREG'S ENVY OF BOBBY > > For the kind of retentiveness that Bobby > possessed, one can consult Taimanov's book of best > games where he describes his draw with Bobby at Buenos > Aires 1960. Bobby and the others had all read the > Averbakh analysis, and the others promptly forgot it. > Bobby evidently retained it, and if one reads > Taimanov's awe at the speed that Fischer played the > ending, then one will understand that Taimanov did not > regard such powerful retentiveness and understanding > to be slogging. He clearly saw it as genius. > A fellow-Burlington-ite as our Taylor is, has another anecdote on the same theme, and since it is so apparently anodyne occuring against a 1900 player, the more fascinating it is: My informant had just played Boston's Ivanov and we were going over the game, [and I found a move which stumped Ivanov], to cover the slightly embarrassing pause in conversation we fell into talking about Fischer. This informant then said he used to organise college simuls - and so when Fischer showed up he would escort him around his campus, etc. After their individual game in the simul, and all the games ended, Fischer asked him if he would like to go over a few moves which had occured to him from their game? Well, sure! Right? But Fischer started setting up a really strange position, which was sort of familiar, but definitely not the game just played. Had Fischer made a mistake? No - it turned out that he wanted to play over a game against my informant from a previous simul 6 months ago - he had remember the entire game and also his analysis of various lines. Unknown how many simul games Fischer had played in the interim, hundreds? Half a thousand? [Taylor, this was according to Alain] Phil Innes   Date: 17 Feb 2008 08:14:30 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Help Bot Busted Again GREG MISSED BY ONLY 20 YEARS <TK [Taylor Kingston]was wrong to deny what Yasser Seirawn wrote; YS was there, in Iceland during the match... > -- Greg Kennedy (help bot) FLASH!! Seirawan was NOT in Iceland at the Fischer-Spassky match in 1972. He was at Fischer-Spassky II in 1992 at Sveti Stefan, an erstwhile playground of the rich and famous, 100 feet off the coast of Montenegro and some 70 miles from a civil war raging in Bosnia. What's 20 years anyway? help bot wrote: > On Feb 16, 11:55 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You were wrong about Andy Soltis' RL > > > book containing the very line Bobby Fischer > > > essayed against Boris Spassky in 1992; > > > your hasty denial was most revealing. > > > > I have never commented on that. Strike one. > > > Okay, *you* have never commented, but your > loser team has. In fact, team captain Taylor > Kingston messed up repeatedly on this issue; > for instance, for reasons unknown he decided > that Andy Soltis' recounting of a game between > two other players amounted to AS himself > coming up with a "TN", which TK felt was > unlikely to have helped a player of BF's caliber. > > In reality, a book author never gets the credit > for a TN just from recounting other players' > moves. More to the point, TK was wrong to > deny what Yasser Seirawn wrote; YS was > there, in Iceland during the match, and had > no reason to make something like this up. > In fact, YS was strongly pro-Fischer; he just > wasn't wallowing in denial, as TK now is. > > > > > You were wrong in relying upon Taylor > > > Kingston's purported "knowledge" regarding > > > what Tigran Petrosian has or has not written. > > > Actually, TK's assessment (and mine) has been > > completely vindicated. Neither you, nor > > anyone, has supplied a single shred of evidence > > in support of your bribe theory. Strike 2. > > Look, kid: you and your team captain TK > have not merely taken a neutral position on > these issues, awaiting further "evidence"; to > the contrary, both swimmers in de Nile have > posted very strong denials, tossing out such > phrases which could only be interpreted as > *claims* that real events /never happened/. > > One such claim has already been disproved, > except for the detail as to precisely where YS > wrote his commentary; I can give you the > precise chapter and page numbers, since I > have this exact edition handy now. Let me > say that BF inverted the order of two moves > from that given as the main line by Andy > Soltis, transposing; otherwise, his game was > a rehash of already-published theory-- though > not exactly the German bis series. > > As for the other claim-- that Tigran Petrosian > never wrote about being offered a bribe, I can > only refer you to the 30-second-research by > another poster. As for my own efforts, they > are taking quite a bit longer. You swimmers > are zero for two-- though I will admit that I was > mistaken to believe you had specifically > "backed" TK on his Ruy Lopez blunder. In > reality, you have remained silent on that, for > reasons which I think are perfectly obvious. > If you wish to withdraw from TK's team, I will > understand. You can be a free agent, so to > speak. LOL > > > -- help bot   Date: 17 Feb 2008 06:39:33 From: Subject: Re: Swimming in de Nile On Feb 17, 6:27=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Feb 17, 2:14 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Actually, TK's assessment (and mine) has been > > >> completely vindicated. > > =A0 That is a lie, kiddo. > > =A0 One fellow took -- he said -- all of thirty > seconds to locate the text I related. =A0It's > not my fault if the ignoranti could not find > or recall it, given days or even weeks of > trying. Whatever the length of time involved in the research, the quote supplied did nothing to support any bribery allegation. > > Look it up. I simply said that, since your > > credibly is zero, that your claim can easily > > be dismissed. Delusions are not evidence. > > =A0 The delusion here is yours, kid; it is you > and team captain TK who delude yourselves, > by /pretending/ that the claim is mine, and > not Tigran Petrosians. =A0 Absolutely no quote of Tigran Petrosian claiming he was offered a bribe has been produced. The delusion is help-bot's. > Anyone of sound > mind can easily figure out who wrote the > claim; I am merely the messenger. There is no doubt that Tigran Petrosian wrote *_something_*, but there is nothing but doubt that it involved anything about a bribe. > =A0 TK recklessly disregarded > the fact that AS's book had been sent to > BF to help him prepare for the 1992 match, > as we know from Yasser Seirawan's on > site reporting. No, I regarded the claim that Fischer might have used Soltis' book on the Exchange Ruy with far less skepticism than the TP bribery claim. Fischer was a voracious reader of chess books, especially on openings, so it's quite possible he would read such a book. > =A0The poor fellow (TK) got > stuck on the irrelevant fact that AS was > not particularly strong as a player, when > compared to BF; he tripped himself. I merely wanted some documentation of the claim that it was a Soltis recommendation Fischer used to beat Spassky in 1992, and that Fischer got the line from actually reading Soltis, and not from some other book, analyst, or his own research. I don't believe any such documentation has been supplied here. When/if it is, I'll be quite willing to accept it. > =A0 When the propagandists show up, they > struggle with facts (much like TK and David > Kane do here), trying to make square pegs > fit into round holes. =A0One example is the > Larry Evans-Parr fiction of "all" the experts > agreeing that BF "wouldda" beaten the > hated Anatoly Karpov; Greg, do not lump me in with Fischer-worshippers. My attitude toward him is anything but idolatrous. My skepticism about your claims has nothing to do with Fischer-worship, and everything to do with the fact that you're an arrogant, uninformed, rhetorically inept ass with a memory about as reliable as a cheap used car. And bone-lazy to boot.   Date: 17 Feb 2008 03:27:29 From: help bot Subject: Re: Swimming in de Nile On Feb 17, 2:14 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> Actually, TK's assessment (and mine) has been > >> completely vindicated. That is a lie, kiddo. One fellow took -- he said -- all of thirty seconds to locate the text I related. It's not my fault if the ignoranti could not find or recall it, given days or even weeks of trying. > Look it up. I simply said that, since your > credibly is zero, that your claim can easily > be dismissed. Delusions are not evidence. The delusion here is yours, kid; it is you and team captain TK who delude yourselves, by /pretending/ that the claim is mine, and not Tigran Petrosians. Anyone of sound mind can easily figure out who wrote the claim; I am merely the messenger. > I find it an uninteresting topic, and > haven't followed it. It seems relevant, for one of the pathetic imbeciles in this thread has attempted to judge the merits of TK's opinions of facts; in that regard, his comments on the matter of the Andy Soltis book are most enlightening. TK recklessly disregarded the fact that AS's book had been sent to BF to help him prepare for the 1992 match, as we know from Yasser Seirawan's on site reporting. The poor fellow (TK) got stuck on the irrelevant fact that AS was not particularly strong as a player, when compared to BF; he tripped himself. Former world champ Petrosian wrote a lot of interesting comments about that cycle-- many of them seem to contradict the fictions of the BF myth. In the book by Bernard Cafferty, several different top contenders for the crown were asked to predict results; it is interesting to note just how wrong these experts could be, and then watch as modern pundits try to rely upon their guesswork as the basis for who "would have won" betwixt BF and various opponents. For instance, not one predicted a 6-0 thrashing of GM Larsen, and TP felt it necessary to try and explain this phenomenon in his book. When the propagandists show up, they struggle with facts (much like TK and David Kane do here), trying to make square pegs fit into round holes. One example is the Larry Evans-Parr fiction of "all" the experts agreeing that BF "wouldda" beaten the hated Anatoly Karpov; in reality, the experts' predictions were split, but their dismal record on such matters indicates that we should not particularly care, one way or the other. The reality is that AK is known to have defeated Boris Spassky in his training games, right before the 1972 match with Bobby Fischer! The widely-despised AK wrote that although he considered himself to be "an idler" (i.e. lazy), Boris Spassky put him to shame in that regard. Compare and contrast to the BF myth, in which our man "singlehandedly" defeated an army of communist worker-bees. Toss in some spice and stir. Grandmaster Petrosian also related that, in his opinion, our man Fischer studied chess more than the entirety of the Soviet Olympic chess team put together! I hope that's an exaggeration, but BF's monomania is a well-known fact. This keeps springing to mind when discussion turns to "talent" in other threads; what is meant by the term, if it only indicates study and hard work? I think it is more commonly used to mean a natural gift, not requiring hard work to blossom. And if that is our meaning, then why is it that BF studied so hard, worked so long before coming to fruition? Well, some could say that he rose higher than others, that this is the measure of his superior /talent/. Yet I am often disappointed to learn that players I thought were natural talents, have in fact worked at the game for many years; yes, they have talent, but they also study and work-- and there is a thin line between the two. -- help bot     Date: 17 Feb 2008 12:20:03 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Swimming in de Nile "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:23f11c5f-8fc4-436a-bcae-1555687b877a@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 17, 2:14 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Actually, TK's assessment (and mine) has been >> >> completely vindicated. > > That is a lie, kiddo. > > One fellow took -- he said -- all of thirty > seconds to locate the text I related. It's > not my fault if the ignoranti could not find > or recall it, given days or even weeks of > trying. That quote did not support the bribery theory. It *is* possible that the quote was the source of your misunderstanding. In that sense, it is evidence of your inability to understand written English. Alas, evidence of that is not hard to find. > >> Look it up. I simply said that, since your >> credibly is zero, that your claim can easily >> be dismissed. Delusions are not evidence. > > The delusion here is yours, kid; it is you > and team captain TK who delude yourselves, > by /pretending/ that the claim is mine, and > not Tigran Petrosians. Anyone of sound > mind can easily figure out who wrote the > claim; I am merely the messenger. Your claim is that TP claimed there was a fix. There is no evidence to support either claim. > > Former world champ Petrosian wrote a > lot of interesting comments about that > cycle-- many of them seem to contradict > the fictions of the BF myth. Perhaps, but they definitely do not support the myths help bot is putting forth. In the book > by Bernard Cafferty, several different top > contenders for the crown were asked to > predict results; it is interesting to note > just how wrong these experts could be, > and then watch as modern pundits try > to rely upon their guesswork as the basis > for who "would have won" betwixt BF and > various opponents. For instance, not one > predicted a 6-0 thrashing of GM Larsen, > and TP felt it necessary to try and explain > this phenomenon in his book. > > When the propagandists show up, they > struggle with facts (much like TK and David > Kane do here), trying to make square pegs > fit into round holes. One example is the > Larry Evans-Parr fiction of "all" the experts > agreeing that BF "wouldda" beaten the > hated Anatoly Karpov; in reality, the experts' > predictions were split, but their dismal record > on such matters indicates that we should > not particularly care, one way or the other. I rarely agree with LP on anything, and find his lack of character revolting. That we both happen to agree that you are a moron brings me no pleasure. help bot nonsense deleted. Why would anyone care about the opinions of somebody who can't get even the most basic facts correct?   Date: 16 Feb 2008 22:31:46 From: help bot Subject: Re: Swimming in de Nile On Feb 16, 11:55 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > > You were wrong about Andy Soltis' RL > > book containing the very line Bobby Fischer > > essayed against Boris Spassky in 1992; > > your hasty denial was most revealing. > > I have never commented on that. Strike one. Okay, *you* have never commented, but your loser team has. In fact, team captain Taylor Kingston messed up repeatedly on this issue; for instance, for reasons unknown he decided that Andy Soltis' recounting of a game between two other players amounted to AS himself coming up with a "TN", which TK felt was unlikely to have helped a player of BF's caliber. In reality, a book author never gets the credit for a TN just from recounting other players' moves. More to the point, TK was wrong to deny what Yasser Seirawn wrote; YS was there, in Iceland during the match, and had no reason to make something like this up. In fact, YS was strongly pro-Fischer; he just wasn't wallowing in denial, as TK now is. > > You were wrong in relying upon Taylor > > Kingston's purported "knowledge" regarding > > what Tigran Petrosian has or has not written. > Actually, TK's assessment (and mine) has been > completely vindicated. Neither you, nor > anyone, has supplied a single shred of evidence > in support of your bribe theory. Strike 2. Look, kid: you and your team captain TK have not merely taken a neutral position on these issues, awaiting further "evidence"; to the contrary, both swimmers in de Nile have posted very strong denials, tossing out such phrases which could only be interpreted as *claims* that real events /never happened/. One such claim has already been disproved, except for the detail as to precisely where YS wrote his commentary; I can give you the precise chapter and page numbers, since I have this exact edition handy now. Let me say that BF inverted the order of two moves from that given as the main line by Andy Soltis, transposing; otherwise, his game was a rehash of already-published theory-- though not exactly the German bis series. As for the other claim-- that Tigran Petrosian never wrote about being offered a bribe, I can only refer you to the 30-second-research by another poster. As for my own efforts, they are taking quite a bit longer. You swimmers are zero for two-- though I will admit that I was mistaken to believe you had specifically "backed" TK on his Ruy Lopez blunder. In reality, you have remained silent on that, for reasons which I think are perfectly obvious. If you wish to withdraw from TK's team, I will understand. You can be a free agent, so to speak. LOL -- help bot     Date: 16 Feb 2008 23:14:53 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Swimming in de Nile "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:cb1e6b56-3208-4527-a619-59c9d5353947@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 16, 11:55 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > You were wrong about Andy Soltis' RL >> > book containing the very line Bobby Fischer >> > essayed against Boris Spassky in 1992; >> > your hasty denial was most revealing. >> >> I have never commented on that. Strike one. > > > Okay, *you* have never commented, Strike one. >> > You were wrong in relying upon Taylor >> > Kingston's purported "knowledge" regarding >> > what Tigran Petrosian has or has not written. > >> Actually, TK's assessment (and mine) has been >> completely vindicated. Neither you, nor >> anyone, has supplied a single shred of evidence >> in support of your bribe theory. Strike 2. > > Look, kid: you and your team captain TK > have not merely taken a neutral position on > these issues, awaiting further "evidence"; to > the contrary, both swimmers in de Nile have > posted very strong denials, tossing out such > phrases which could only be interpreted as > *claims* that real events /never happened/. > Look it up. I simply said that, since your credibly is zero, that your claim can easily be dismissed. Delusions are not evidence. As there has still been not one shred of evidence supplied in favor of this theory, any rational person, such as myself, will continue to discount it. > As for the other claim-- that Tigran Petrosian > never wrote about being offered a bribe, I can > only refer you to the 30-second-research by > another poster. That did not support your bribery claim. Strike two. As for my own efforts, they > are taking quite a bit longer. Now isn't that a surprise? Delusions are not evidence. You swimmers > are zero for two-- though I will admit that I was > mistaken to believe you had specifically > "backed" TK on his Ruy Lopez blunder. In > reality, you have remained silent on that, for > reasons which I think are perfectly obvious. I find it an uninteresting topic, and haven't followed it. > If you wish to withdraw from TK's team, I will > understand. You can be a free agent, so to > speak. LOL I like rational, fact-driven discussions, whether I'm in agreement with TK or not. I suspect that neither TK nor I will be jumping to the Delusionals anytime soon. Hey, at least you've got Sanny.   Date: 16 Feb 2008 20:45:20 From: help bot Subject: Re: Swimming in de Nile On Feb 16, 11:13 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > Just what "facts" have I got wrong? My boy, from what I've seen, you have a decided tendency to get the majority of the facts wrong-- or else, to simply deny them. You were wrong about Andy Soltis' RL book containing the very line Bobby Fischer essayed against Boris Spassky in 1992; your hasty denial was most revealing. You were wrong in relying upon Taylor Kingston's purported "knowledge" regarding what Tigran Petrosian has or has not written. You were wrong in your guesses as to my alleged desire to school the imbeciles here as to the facts, when all I really desired was to be the one to saw the limb-- but only after as many fools as possible had crawled out upon it! (And you continued being wrong on this issue even after being schooled on it.) As far as I am aware, there is nothing in which the imbecile David Kane has been fortunate enough to get the facts right. If there were an award for consistency in being wrong, David Kane would deserve to win it. If Being Wrong were a political party, then David Kane would be its front runner candidate. If wrongness were an art form, David Kane would be on the same plane as Leonardo de Vinci. If wrongheadedness had no name, we might offer up something containing the words /David/ and /Kane/, so that its meaning could be grasped intuitively by those familiar with his work. If there is anything in which the fool David Kane has been right, I would be happy to know what it is. Somebody? Anybody?!! There must be something... . -- help bot     Date: 16 Feb 2008 20:55:55 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Swimming in de Nile "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Feb 16, 11:13 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Just what "facts" have I got wrong? > > > My boy, from what I've seen, you have a > decided tendency to get the majority of the > facts wrong-- or else, to simply deny them. > > You were wrong about Andy Soltis' RL > book containing the very line Bobby Fischer > essayed against Boris Spassky in 1992; > your hasty denial was most revealing. I have never commented on that. Strike one. > You were wrong in relying upon Taylor > Kingston's purported "knowledge" regarding > what Tigran Petrosian has or has not written. Actually, TK's assessment (and mine) has been completely vindicated. Neither you, nor anyone, has supplied a single shred of evidence in support of your bribe theory. Strike 2. Do continue. It's fun pitching a perfect game.   Date: 16 Feb 2008 19:09:36 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help Bot Won the Battle !!! On Feb 16, 2:26 pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > Discussions should be logic based not Envy Based. Oh, these poor fellows don't "envy" my chess knowledge; they are simply in a state of DENIAL regarding Bobby Fischer and all things related to him. Even though Tigran Petrosian took great pride in pointing out that he somehow knew that the threat BF posed was real, his commentaries regarding the freaky 6-0 scores, his own loss to BF and so forth, are too painful for those who worship the myth of BF to handle. As a famous actor put it, they "can't handle the truth!" These dregs continue to chant that BF won the championship "on his own", with no help from anyone, etc. They are in denial when it comes to names like Ed Edmondson-- a man who made it his mission to help Bobby Fischer win the title. They are in denial regarding any and all things which contradict the story which constitutes the BF myth. Tigran Petrosian has pointed out that in his opinion, without EE, there would be no BF victory. That in his opinion, BF studied chess more than the entire Soviet Olympic chess team combined! But these opinions must be denied, for you see, they don't "fit" the myth; the self- deception. The myth desires that BF was all natural-born genius, not study and work. It wants, no, needs, to focus only on the 6-0 victories and what happened afterward, except when crafting conspiracies which unjustly kept BF from being world champ from as early as about 1962. Perhaps worst of all, the dregs who are in the state of denial require that even the positions in BF's games be "interpreted" favorably-- to fit the myth! Indeed, for many, the infamous blunder Bxh2 was not really an error, not an oversight, but rather, an attempt to win in spite of a dull opponent who was killing chess with his dull opening play (trading Queens? Blasphemy!). I feel sorry for them, really I do; but I also cannot help bot despise their idiocy; their propensity for self-deception. No, these dregs do not envy my knowledge; they more likely fear it. It represents danger to their "comfortable" opinions and biases. -- help bot   Date: 16 Feb 2008 18:48:19 From: help bot Subject: Swimming in de Nile On Feb 16, 11:49 am, [email protected] wrote: > (1) That your claim, that a bribe was offered to Petrosian to throw > his 1971 Candidates Match to Fischer, was highly implausible. The de Nile wallowers seem to have lost their way-- once again. "Surprise." My original comment referred to *Tigran Petrosian's* claim; the fact that *he* wrote about being offered a bribe. In addition, *he* has written about the lights going out each time Bobby Fischer got into trouble on the board, etc. All these things are known facts; known because he wrote them, and because they have been translated into English and published. Face it: folks who have not read what TP has written on the subject would do better to put down their shovels; to stop digging. > (2) That therefore it should not be believed without adequate > evidence. This is where the discussion may turn to who are the ignoramuses, and who are in de Nile. In my opinion, imbeciles like David Kane simply cannot help bot get the facts wrong; it's /in their very nature/. But there is always a chance -- however small -- that others may climb out of their state of denial. All that is required is, perhaps, a replacement "hero"; let's say Gat Kamsky, for instance. Once the emotional void has been filled, the myth of BF can be re-examined, /rationally/. > (3) That therefore it was incumbent on you to produce such evidence, > if you wanted us to believe you. I think this statement gives a big fat clue as to the very heart of the problem with Mr. Kingston and his ilk; I have repeatedly stated that I have no desire whatever to convince the ignoranti of the known facts; that my only desire was to be the one to saw the limb they have crawled out onto. Obviously, I was deprived of that pleasure by someone who says he found the text in question in just 30 seconds (though I don't believe him). Now, what sort of fellow would go right on pretending that my goal was to convince the hoards of imbeciles of the known facts? A perfectly dishonest scumbag, that's what sort. The truth is, I don't believe that dishonest imbeciles are capable of fixing their mental issues; of escaping their denial. So maybe my attitude is unkind; bent toward ridicule and mockery of their pathetic state; what can I say? Should one cast pearls before swine, expecting appreciation? I see the pigs, and fear for my shiny pearls getting swallowed up! For you poor fellows, there is always dried corn. Sue-y! -- help bot     Date: 16 Feb 2008 20:13:06 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Swimming in de Nile "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:99ab343e-b937-43a2-a6a7-ca309f2889a6@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 16, 11:49 am, [email protected] wrote: > >> (1) That your claim, that a bribe was offered to Petrosian to throw >> his 1971 Candidates Match to Fischer, was highly implausible. > > The de Nile wallowers seem to have lost their > way-- once again. "Surprise." > > My original comment referred to *Tigran Petrosian's* > claim; the fact that *he* wrote about being offered a > bribe. Of course, he *hasn't* written about being offered a bribe. In addition, *he* has written about the lights > going out each time Bobby Fischer got into trouble > on the board, etc. All these things are known > facts; known because he wrote them, and because > they have been translated into English and published. > > Face it: folks who have not read what TP has > written on the subject would do better to put down > their shovels; to stop digging. > > >> (2) That therefore it should not be believed without adequate >> evidence. > > This is where the discussion may turn to who > are the ignoramuses, and who are in de Nile. > > In my opinion, imbeciles like David Kane > simply cannot help bot get the facts wrong; > it's /in their very nature/. But there is always > a chance -- however small -- that others may > climb out of their state of denial. All that is > required is, perhaps, a replacement "hero"; > let's say Gat Kamsky, for instance. Once > the emotional void has been filled, the myth > of BF can be re-examined, /rationally/. Just what "facts" have I got wrong? Your problem is that you mistake your delusions for facts. By the way, I have never, in any way, considered Fischer a hero.   Date: 16 Feb 2008 13:18:53 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy STRIKE FOUR And don't forget Greg Kennedy's asinine claim that when Fischer took the pawn on h2 against Spassky in their first 1972 match game, that the position was not a dead draw -- as both Fischer and Spassky later proclaimed. David Kane wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:8ff1003b-6def-45e0-b1d5-bd934386db3c@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > Strike three. > > And let's not forget that his earlier at bat was equally > noteworthy. In claiming that Fischer's rating was inflated > because of his performance in US championships, he demonstrated > a thorough ignorance of Fischer's playing career, and then > went down swinging by advertising his complete inability to > understand how ratings work.   Date: 16 Feb 2008 12:34:30 From: Subject: Help Bot Busted Ah, Sanny, Sanny. As David Warner said to one of his flunkies in the film Time Bandits, "Oh Benson, you are so blisfully free of the ravages of intelligence." On Feb 16, 2:26=A0pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote: > > =A0 Face it, kid: you fools were wrong about the > > Andy Soltis book, and you were wrong about > > the Tigram Petrosian comment. =A0The only > > thing which can be said in your favor is that > > you have been /consistent/. =A0LOL! > > > =A0 -- help bot > > At last Help Bot won the Battle and game ends here. > > Taylor Kingston is very behind Help Bot, Let him take the air. He is a > also a good chess player and we must accept the facts. > > He has beaten GetClub and has got the highest scores. Any one else [A > few Exceptions] is not able to match his scores. > > Help Bot writes 1000 things and if 3-4 things get wrong then that is > OK. Everyone get his toungue slip sometimes. and to err is Human and > to forgive is devine. > > r.g.c.m is no play ground or Contest of Knowledge it is just to > discuss chess. If you feel the other person is wrong just give your > view points. One should not go on personnal Attacks. > > Discussions should be logic based not Envy Based. > > Bye > Sanny > > Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html   Date: 16 Feb 2008 11:26:33 From: Sanny Subject: Help Bot Won the Battle !!! > =A0 Face it, kid: you fools were wrong about the > Andy Soltis book, and you were wrong about > the Tigram Petrosian comment. =A0The only > thing which can be said in your favor is that > you have been /consistent/. =A0LOL! > > =A0 -- help bot At last Help Bot won the Battle and game ends here. Taylor Kingston is very behind Help Bot, Let him take the air. He is a also a good chess player and we must accept the facts. He has beaten GetClub and has got the highest scores. Any one else [A few Exceptions] is not able to match his scores. Help Bot writes 1000 things and if 3-4 things get wrong then that is OK. Everyone get his toungue slip sometimes. and to err is Human and to forgive is devine. r.g.c.m is no play ground or Contest of Knowledge it is just to discuss chess. If you feel the other person is wrong just give your view points. One should not go on personnal Attacks. Discussions should be logic based not Envy Based. Bye Sanny Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html   Date: 16 Feb 2008 08:49:19 From: Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 16, 6:13=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Feb 15, 5:39 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We begin to see why help bot didn't offer > > up the citation himself. > > =A0 Changing the subject, eh? > > =A0 The claim was that TP wrote no such thing, > that it never happened on account of you nitwits > don't like me. No, Greg. The claims Mr. Kane and I made were as follows: (1) That your claim, that a bribe was offered to Petrosian to throw his 1971 Candidates Match to Fischer, was highly implausible. (2) That therefore it should not be believed without adequate evidence. (3) That therefore it was incumbent on you to produce such evidence, if you wanted us to believe you. Whereupon you huffed and puffed for a while, but produced no evidence. Then you claimed the evidence lay in the book "Petrosian's Legacy," but were unable to cite any actual quote. I acquired this book, examined it carefully, and found nothing about bribery. Strike one. Whereupon you speculated that the evidence lay in a book edited by Bernard Cafferty. I contacted Cafferty, who assured me he knew of no such thing. Strike two. Finally, another poster cited the Vasiliev book, which you had never heard of. However, the quote he gave was no evidence of bribery, nor even a claim by Petrosian that a bribe had been offered. It was merely someone of pro-Fischer and/or anti-Petrosian sentiments offering Petrosian an insult. Strike three. > =A0and you still > don't like me. Of course we don't like you. You are an ignorant, arrogant, insulting windbag. Your lone virtue is that occasionally you speak disparagingly of other posters' nonsense here. However, since you speak disparagingly of pretty much everyone, this seems to be merely a case of a stopped clock being right twice a day.     Date: 16 Feb 2008 10:53:22 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:8ff1003b-6def-45e0-b1d5-bd934386db3c@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > Strike three. And let's not forget that his earlier at bat was equally noteworthy. In claiming that Fischer's rating was inflated because of his performance in US championships, he demonstrated a thorough ignorance of Fischer's playing career, and then went down swinging by advertising his complete inability to understand how ratings work.   Date: 16 Feb 2008 03:13:55 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 15, 5:39 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > We begin to see why help bot didn't offer > up the citation himself. Changing the subject, eh? The claim was that TP wrote no such thing, that it never happened on account of you nitwits don't like me. Now it seems to be a case of "this guy was quicker than I was" (and you still don't like me). Face it, kid: you fools were wrong about the Andy Soltis book, and you were wrong about the Tigram Petrosian comment. The only thing which can be said in your favor is that you have been /consistent/. LOL! -- help bot   Date: 16 Feb 2008 03:07:46 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again On Feb 15, 12:54 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > The Vain Jackdaw > > JUPITER DETERMINED, it is said, to create a sovereign over the > birds, and made proclamation that on a certain day they should > all present themselves before him, when he would himself choose > the most beautiful among them to be king. The Jackdaw, knowing > his own ugliness, searched through the woods and fields, and > collected the feathers which had fallen from the wings of his > companions, and stuck them in all parts of his body, hoping > thereby to make himself the most beautiful of all. When the > appointed day arrived, and the birds had assembled before > Jupiter, the Jackdaw also made his appearance in his many > feathered finery. But when Jupiter proposed to make him king > because of the beauty of his plumage, the birds indignantly > protested, and each plucked from him his own feathers, leaving > the Jackdaw nothing but a Jackdaw. For these kooks, I like the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. How much of their "kookery" is vanity, and how much simply an indulgence in deception, which even a child can see through? -- help bot   Date: 16 Feb 2008 22:01:35 From: mudshark Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again [email protected] wrote: > And what I was depended on whether I brought > home a trophy and NFL sweepstakes points from a > given debating tournament. If there were hardware > placed on her desk the Monday morning following a > tournament (she only let you sleep with a trophy for > one night) then you were pronounced just bright enough > to merit her TLW or tender loving whipping. And how > one basked before one's peers if upon your cockroach-like > self, she deigned to cast a few rays from the celestial > effulgence that was she! Celestial shit more like it. She sounds like a right fuck-up & a root cause of your chronic over-eloquence. Bleeding twerps!..   Date: 16 Feb 2008 02:49:57 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 15, 12:25 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > I do not "harry" P Innes. I merely correct his mistakes, lies, and > spin. We cannot *afford* to pay you for a lifetime of hard work! Please stick to merely harrying nearly-IMnes, as per our original contract. If you wish to go beyond the agreement, there will be no extra pay-- sorry. As we discovered in the case of Ray Keene and his critic Edward Winter, no one can be expected to keep up with the volume of lies, mistakes, gaffes, and spin of certain, um, exceptional individuals. Scientists are still working on the design of robots which can one day -- it is hoped -- keep up with them. -- help bot   Date: 15 Feb 2008 23:17:09 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again YESTERYEAR <Would you care to explain your use of the term twigged? It didn't make it into my vocabulary. > -- Rev. John Walker Dear John, These are trying, if beautiful times in Tinytown. We are not always so viciously, indeed rabidly, ill-composed, though nearly always. Like old Lear sunk in madness, Greg Kennedy is still wandering around this stage with e-twigs in his hair, shaking his fist in resentment and evident envy at his intellectual betters, Neil Brennan and Taylor Kingston. Meanwhile, these two are trying to make sport of their better, Phil Innes, who replies righteously rather than sportively. Twigs in hair? You asked for a definition of "to twig." Think of following a trail beginning with a twig at the end of a branch. You move along the branch with the intention of eventually reaching the tree trunk or the heart of the matter. "To twig," then, is to understand or, more precisely, to figure out. The usage is chiefly British. I am stuck, do you twig, 'twixt you and Phil and shall not try to make peace again. You're bright and will eventually trace the intellectual topography here. A brief return to yesteryear. Who was your debate coach at Bothell? I seem to recollect you had a debate partner to whom you introduced me. Very, very vaguely, I recall an encounter at the SPC cafeteria in which I exhibited typical Bellevue arrogance, explaining to your partner with mock didacticism that green pants did not go with a blue blazer or, perhaps, that he ought to remove the string tie he was wearing and use it to hang his unworthy self -- so pitiful was his person and so minuscule were his chances to prevail against us mighty products of Elmon Ousley and Patricia Rabin. This latter had, as you may recollect, an ambition to become the top debate and forensics coach in the United States, which she eventually did for a couple of years. A Johns Hopkins MA in Latin, she never tired of explaining to me that I was not so much clay as mental mud before being shaped and then molded and finally honed by her perfect pedagogical pinkies or, if you will, tingling tutorial tentacles. "Parr," she used to say without any polite preambles, "I have made you what you are." And what I was depended on whether I brought home a trophy and NFL sweepstakes points from a given debating tournament. If there were hardware placed on her desk the Monday morning following a tournament (she only let you sleep with a trophy for one night) then you were pronounced just bright enough to merit her TLW or tender loving whipping. And how one basked before one's peers if upon your cockroach-like self, she deigned to cast a few rays from the celestial effulgence that was she! If you failed to finish among the top three winning a trophy, you were at best ignored. But if you dared to smile at the wrong moment as she bawled out some luckless failure, you heard, "Parr, wipe that sly smile off your kisser. Got that? You are nothing without me, kid. Remember that." Not only did I remember it. I believed it. Alas., she was right. Yours, Larry Parr J.D. Walker wrote: > Chess One wrote: > > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > >> Mr. P Innes, > >> > >> As I stated earlier, my use of the abbreviation P Innes is short for Poor > >> Innes, and it still is today. > > > > How absurd a statement! Making as if to be respectable the revernend graces > > his dick and asshole refererces, about other people. Is Walker a wanker? > > > >> You may wish to use your behemoth intellect to research the archives and > >> you will find my statement. > >> > >> Your fixations on sexual and excremental paraphernalia is your own > >> problem. > > > > There are Walker and Co's continuted references. Noticing them makes it my > > problem. Heuch! > > > >> I do not think Larry is blind to your manipulations. But, he will act as > >> his own counsel. > >> > >> Larry, I made my offer to desist in good faith and you see how Mr. P Innes > >> responds. Is this what you would call a great intellect in action? > > > > You are sir, a shite. Now if you actually desist real engagement of any > > issues as are offered you, fuck off to ICC. If you do not, then cease > > protesting here, since you are so evidently a liar, between what you protest > > and what you do! > > > > You fuck-over people - this is very clear. I don't care for reputations > > overmuch, and least of all my own, but you have played this game against > > people where there is some public significance, and that is politking, and > > all should care. > > > > What the hell do you mean by appending 'Reverend' to your name, and then > > saying you are no Christian? What sort of Reverend can that be except some > > fakist? > > > > A Mail-Order reverend, of what faith? How come so shy? While always signing > > yourself as reverend like that is a term used by non-Christians? > > > > What the hell are these vehement, cynical and nasty speculations ofpeople > > about [even after 6 months of them!] reverend? > > > > What a fucking crock you are, reverend, from clew to earring. > > > > Phil Innes > > > > > You are outdoing yourself, P Innes. It is sad to see. > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.     Date: 16 Feb 2008 10:13:54 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again <[email protected] > wrote in message news:09769f4d-623c-4dd7-9143-04055c5ffab4@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > YESTERYEAR > > <Would you care to explain your use of the term twigged? > It didn't make it into my vocabulary.> -- Rev. John Walker > > Dear John, > > These are trying, if beautiful times in Tinytown. > We are not always so viciously, indeed rabidly, > ill-composed, though nearly always. > > Like old Lear sunk in madness, Greg Kennedy is > still wandering around this stage with e-twigs in his > hair, shaking his fist in resentment and evident envy > at his intellectual betters, Neil Brennan and Taylor > Kingston. Meanwhile, these two are trying to make > sport of their better, Phil Innes, who replies > righteously rather than sportively. > > Twigs in hair? You asked for a definition of > "to twig." Think of following a trail beginning with > a twig at the end of a branch. You move along the > branch with the intention of eventually reaching the > tree trunk or the heart of the matter. "To twig," > then, is to understand or, more precisely, to figure > out. The usage is chiefly British. Since I must be right rather than amused, directly to the pedantry! :- TWIG is precisely British, rather than English, and a very old word in serveral languages. Halliwell recently gives it [1846] (1) to understand a person's motives or meaning, then offers the dialect form, "I twigged what he'd be arter." Somewhat earlier there is mention of TWIGGER; a wencher. See Dido p. 50, and Tusser applies it to sheep! [Tusser circa 1590]. Regressing 1,000 years the noun is A. Sax., as TWIG or TW�, and interestingly I see on my shelf The Royal Game, since the A. Sax origin is first Germanic, as ZWEIG. Now, the interesting thing is, the original sense of the word Larry Parr uses above is seemingly not this one of Germanic origin, though it is become conflated with a yet earlier word of very different provenace. There is TWIG; the transitive verb from Irish Gael [q-Celtic as TUIG]; to perceive, discern, take notice of ~ and in intransitive form meaning; to see, to apprehend or understand. -- A mere similarity is the C17th, 'to wig', which means to fool aroung with, to make a fool of - and whether this is an adaptation of the cuckold's horns, or more in the line of 'singing the beard of the King of Spain', I don't know. Phil Innes > I am stuck, do you twig, 'twixt you and Phil and > shall not try to make peace again. You're bright and > will eventually trace the intellectual topography here. > > A brief return to yesteryear.     Date: 15 Feb 2008 23:48:14 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again [email protected] wrote: > YESTERYEAR > > <Would you care to explain your use of the term twigged? > It didn't make it into my vocabulary.> -- Rev. John Walker > > Dear John, > > These are trying, if beautiful times in Tinytown. > We are not always so viciously, indeed rabidly, > ill-composed, though nearly always. > > Like old Lear sunk in madness, Greg Kennedy is > still wandering around this stage with e-twigs in his > hair, shaking his fist in resentment and evident envy > at his intellectual betters, Neil Brennan and Taylor > Kingston. Meanwhile, these two are trying to make > sport of their better, Phil Innes, who replies > righteously rather than sportively. I understand this to be the configuration of personalities as you see them. > Twigs in hair? You asked for a definition of > "to twig." Think of following a trail beginning with > a twig at the end of a branch. You move along the > branch with the intention of eventually reaching the > tree trunk or the heart of the matter. "To twig," > then, is to understand or, more precisely, to figure > out. The usage is chiefly British. Understood. > I am stuck, do you twig, 'twixt you and Phil and > shall not try to make peace again. You're bright and > will eventually trace the intellectual topography here. I appreciate your position. I will not force the issue. > A brief return to yesteryear. > > Who was your debate coach at Bothell? I seem > to recollect you had a debate partner to whom you > introduced me. Very, very vaguely, I recall an > encounter at the SPC cafeteria in which I exhibited > typical Bellevue arrogance, explaining to your partner > with mock didacticism that green pants did not go with > a blue blazer or, perhaps, that he ought to remove the > string tie he was wearing and use it to hang his > unworthy self -- so pitiful was his person and so > minuscule were his chances to prevail against us > mighty products of Elmon Ousley and Patricia Rabin. I do not remember the debate coach's name. My partner? That would be Tom Gaisford. Alas, the poor fellow has passed on. You may recall a team of two upperclassmen from my school who won some prizes. Ted Walgamott, and John Pannatoni. A very interesting pair. Ted during his senior year was student body president. I believe he was suspended near the end of the year for a little enterprise he had going during some campus festivities. It had something to do with buying tickets to play putt-putt golf with the eventual winner to be rewarded with a keg of beer. Our school was more on the lax side of things. :) > This latter had, as you may recollect, an > ambition to become the top debate and forensics coach > in the United States, which she eventually did for a > couple of years. A Johns Hopkins MA in Latin, she > never tired of explaining to me that I was not so much > clay as mental mud before being shaped and then molded > and finally honed by her perfect pedagogical pinkies > or, if you will, tingling tutorial tentacles. > > "Parr," she used to say without any polite > preambles, "I have made you what you are." Heh, it sounds like intellectual boot camp. > And what I was depended on whether I brought > home a trophy and NFL sweepstakes points from a > given debating tournament. If there were hardware > placed on her desk the Monday morning following a > tournament (she only let you sleep with a trophy for > one night) then you were pronounced just bright enough > to merit her TLW or tender loving whipping. And how > one basked before one's peers if upon your cockroach-like > self, she deigned to cast a few rays from the celestial > effulgence that was she! > > If you failed to finish among the top three winning a > trophy, you were at best ignored. But if you dared to > smile at the wrong moment as she bawled out some > luckless failure, you heard, "Parr, wipe that sly > smile off your kisser. Got that? You are nothing > without me, kid. Remember that." > > Not only did I remember it. I believed it. > Alas., she was right. Although I never reached the dizzying heights that you did, I enjoyed debate. I think I threw up before every match. It was more intense than tournament chess. :) -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 15 Feb 2008 13:50:13 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again REPLY TO REV. WALKER Dear John, You twigged. My comments on Phil Innes were indeed directed toward your attacks that I regard as unwarranted. After the name-calling, I think you are obliged to approach Phil, not the other way around. If you do so, you are going to find a formidably informed person who has a considerable mind. A trained intelligence. I mentioned Tommy Nelson of publishing fame because Phil is the one person on this forum whom I can drop into conversation in mid-sentence on such a subject and who can finish the sentence for me. I am asking you to explore this mind, not to fall into the bad habits of Neil Brennen or the dishonest ones of Taylor Kingston, who will not answer the same kind of questions about his employing false identities on this forum that Neil Brennen addressed to Paul Truong. Most of Neil Brennan's nasty and vicious questions are also, alas, fair ones. So, too, the questions that I addressed so often to Mr. Kingston. I don't recollect the precise turning point in my relationship with Phil. Possibly it was when he proved curious rather than resentful about an exchange I was having regarding the importance of Bogdanov and Gorky in developing a killer idea -- Bogostroitel'stvo or God-building -- that Stalin later translated into the concept of the New Soviet Man. This idea worked its way through Stalinist professors at the Sorbonne into the minds of such men as Pol Pot and Ieng Sary, who used it to justify killing any sick peasant who could not meet Khmer Rouge production quotas. The reasoning was that if men become AS gods after the revolution -- since x taught that the relations of the means of production were the only foundation, whereas human nature was superstructure -- then those who do not act like gods and become ill are also objective counter-revolutionaries fit for liquidation. Intellect and learning have a hierarchy. I differentiate between Brennen-Kingston and, say, Greg Kennedy, our Caliban from Indiana. I am simply saying that if you choose to explore the Innes mind, you will find it a few levels above that of B-K. If nothing else, do so to benefit yourself. Intellectual self-interest is no crime. Yours, Larry Parr     Date: 15 Feb 2008 14:13:35 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again Dear Mr. Parr, I am going to desist out of respect for you -- not P Innes. I simply do not like, or respect the man. You have acknowledged abuse from one direction but not the other. Just the same, this whole area of discourse is a playground for you, and not for me. Have fun with it. I am spending more and more time on ICC and enjoying it a great deal. :) Would you care to explain your use of the term twigged? It didn't make it into my vocabulary. :) -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. [email protected] wrote: > REPLY TO REV. WALKER > > Dear John, > > You twigged. My comments on Phil Innes were indeed > directed toward your attacks that I regard as unwarranted. > > After the name-calling, I think you are obliged > to approach Phil, not the other way around. If you do > so, you are going to find a formidably informed person > who has a considerable mind. A trained intelligence. > > I mentioned Tommy Nelson of publishing fame > because Phil is the one person on this forum whom I > can drop into conversation in mid-sentence on such a > subject and who can finish the sentence for me. I am > asking you to explore this mind, not to fall into the > bad habits of Neil Brennen or the dishonest ones of > Taylor Kingston, who will not answer the same kind of > questions about his employing false identities on this > forum that Neil Brennen addressed to Paul Truong. > > Most of Neil Brennan's nasty and vicious > questions are also, alas, fair ones. So, too, the > questions that I addressed so often to Mr. Kingston. > > I don't recollect the precise turning point in > my relationship with Phil. Possibly it was when he > proved curious rather than resentful about an exchange > I was having regarding the importance of Bogdanov and > Gorky in developing a killer idea -- Bogostroitel'stvo > or God-building -- that Stalin later translated into > the concept of the New Soviet Man. This idea worked > its way through Stalinist professors at the Sorbonne > into the minds of such men as Pol Pot and Ieng Sary, > who used it to justify killing any sick peasant who > could not meet Khmer Rouge production quotas. The > reasoning was that if men become AS gods after the > revolution -- since x taught that the relations of > the means of production were the only foundation, > whereas human nature was superstructure -- then > those who do not act like gods and become ill are > also objective counter-revolutionaries fit for liquidation. > > Intellect and learning have a hierarchy. I > differentiate between Brennen-Kingston and, say, Greg > Kennedy, our Caliban from Indiana. I am simply saying > that if you choose to explore the Innes mind, you will find > it a few levels above that of B-K. > > If nothing else, do so to benefit yourself. > Intellectual self-interest is no crime. > > Yours, Larry Parr > > >       Date: 16 Feb 2008 18:21:38 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Dear Mr. Parr, > > I am going to desist out of respect for you -- not P Innes. I simply do > not like, or respect the man. What I failed to appreciate about this Walker fellow, if we can dispense a moment with Yale badinage - where next, skull &... :)) Is any point to which he brings his pre-supposed and vaunted intellect. I am encouraged that Larry Parr engages him, with some affection it seems, since Larry Parr is pre-emininetly the best writer on these newsgroups, has been a dozen years since. And in this respect any recommendation via correspondance is pertinent. While the reverend, shall we admit his reverence to something or other [? but what ?] is happy making dick and asshole jokes about other blokes [let's not pretend otherwise, or indeed that Yale is such] I rather feel that he hides his lamp under a Brennan. Now - some group of people here have led a charge against Pual Truong, using such language and devices which would put the false Sloan almost to shame ~ but least said is that they themselves equate with the ordure of the 'perpetrator'. From such a stance they then demand their own terms for a prosecution - a kangaroo court in public. If this matter - this demonstrated pattern of behaviors - is simply a projection of what the group is unable to own in themselves, or, alternatively, a conscious villification of someone to which, even if true, they are the same [!] ... Are you still there reader? Its complicated init [?] when the likely perps do the prosecution! And thus it was in MacCarthy days, psychologically. Maybe this was also true of Yale days? But let us not be overly polite or Jesuitical in our response - since the plain fact and plain language is that there are those out to there intent to fuck someone, and they themselves may have some little part in the issue? That is why, at bottom, opening up the can of worms at USCF is such a terrifying thing for them to admit to and encourage. Fainter hearts have said braver - but so much is said here that it is necessary to redirect the reader to how people are. If the the weird-reverend doesn't like me, he should get of over it, no? I don't ask that he likes me - and waht are such personal things for him to do with me anyway? I do ask why he runs away from anything that comes to a point. Maybe that ain't old-school tie. But on the rugger fields of England it would be directly sorted. And maybe that's enough on mouthing off and being a champion of the universe, and such shit. It really doesn;t convince anyone of anything except a certain precociousness, right? If the Reverend has actually something to converse about, he might not cut the akward responses from others, as he does, and posture his great arse in public instead, since there are those who may think he just the usual big rentier-tosser, and has wasted his education. Phil Innes > You have acknowledged abuse from one direction but not the other. Just > the same, this whole area of discourse is a playground for you, and not > for me. Have fun with it. I am spending more and more time on ICC and > enjoying it a great deal. :) > > Would you care to explain your use of the term twigged? It didn't make it > into my vocabulary. :) > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > > > [email protected] wrote: >> REPLY TO REV. WALKER >> >> Dear John, >> >> You twigged. My comments on Phil Innes were indeed >> directed toward your attacks that I regard as unwarranted. >> >> After the name-calling, I think you are obliged >> to approach Phil, not the other way around. If you do >> so, you are going to find a formidably informed person >> who has a considerable mind. A trained intelligence. >> >> I mentioned Tommy Nelson of publishing fame >> because Phil is the one person on this forum whom I >> can drop into conversation in mid-sentence on such a >> subject and who can finish the sentence for me. I am >> asking you to explore this mind, not to fall into the >> bad habits of Neil Brennen or the dishonest ones of >> Taylor Kingston, who will not answer the same kind of >> questions about his employing false identities on this >> forum that Neil Brennen addressed to Paul Truong. >> >> Most of Neil Brennan's nasty and vicious >> questions are also, alas, fair ones. So, too, the >> questions that I addressed so often to Mr. Kingston. >> >> I don't recollect the precise turning point in >> my relationship with Phil. Possibly it was when he >> proved curious rather than resentful about an exchange >> I was having regarding the importance of Bogdanov and >> Gorky in developing a killer idea -- Bogostroitel'stvo >> or God-building -- that Stalin later translated into >> the concept of the New Soviet Man. This idea worked >> its way through Stalinist professors at the Sorbonne >> into the minds of such men as Pol Pot and Ieng Sary, >> who used it to justify killing any sick peasant who >> could not meet Khmer Rouge production quotas. The >> reasoning was that if men become AS gods after the >> revolution -- since x taught that the relations of >> the means of production were the only foundation, >> whereas human nature was superstructure -- then >> those who do not act like gods and become ill are >> also objective counter-revolutionaries fit for liquidation. >> >> Intellect and learning have a hierarchy. I >> differentiate between Brennen-Kingston and, say, Greg >> Kennedy, our Caliban from Indiana. I am simply saying >> that if you choose to explore the Innes mind, you will find >> it a few levels above that of B-K. >> >> If nothing else, do so to benefit yourself. >> Intellectual self-interest is no crime. >> >> Yours, Larry Parr >> >> >> >       Date: 15 Feb 2008 18:10:11 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Dear Mr. Parr, > > I am going to desist out of respect for you -- not P Innes. I simply do > not like, or respect the man. You see, Larry, these terms, directly vague, are synonyms for this sort-of person's animus. His only reason to exist in public is an agitprop function, with only a few asides as if actually interested in chess, and he is not very good at it! Basically he likes the asshole sort of references to others as if a Brennan or a Laugherty or a 'cudda bin a c player' - or is it just dick envy? They are allmuch excited on these references. I hope you understand to whom you are writing - not that there is anything necessarily wrong with such a trio - after all, closet homo's have had a tough time! And there are merely the normal distortional means when one cannot make direct statements, but instead some 30 each punning on other guy's dicks. Nothing personal here, it is altogether normal these days, normal and unmistakable! > You have acknowledged abuse from one direction but not the other. Just > the same, this whole area of discourse is a playground for you, and not > for me. The [non-Christian] reverend [whatever the hell that is???? ROFL] has made it his playground to accuse other people, and then talk about their dicks, and their arseholes with Brennan and Laugherty and other jerks; yet to read this, butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. This is to whom you correspond, Mr. Parr. > Have fun with it. I am spending more and more time on ICC and enjoying > it a great deal. :) You see - the first thing I suggested to Larry Parr [in 3 latin words] was that what is said is not how one is. How one behaves is a better guide to any spin on what one says one is. In short, in you prefer playing chess, fuck off and do it! And quit fuckiing off other people and talkinig about their arseholes and dicks and stuff, as if that was your interest. :))) When challenged independently on these general points of public affairs - i see that one is busy with ICC :) > Would you care to explain your use of the term twigged? It didn't make it > into my vocabulary. :) Don't be cute, reverend, you already failed the main chance. Don't you know which game you are about? I think most peole here sort of get whre you and your friends are at. You are sort of sucky people who have huge resentments, but those are your business not ours. Most of us have just small resentments which we can sort of acknowledge and deal with in interaction with each other. Have an ICC day. Phil Innes > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > > > [email protected] wrote: >> REPLY TO REV. WALKER >> >> Dear John, >> >> You twigged. My comments on Phil Innes were indeed >> directed toward your attacks that I regard as unwarranted. >> >> After the name-calling, I think you are obliged >> to approach Phil, not the other way around. If you do >> so, you are going to find a formidably informed person >> who has a considerable mind. A trained intelligence. >> >> I mentioned Tommy Nelson of publishing fame >> because Phil is the one person on this forum whom I >> can drop into conversation in mid-sentence on such a >> subject and who can finish the sentence for me. I am >> asking you to explore this mind, not to fall into the >> bad habits of Neil Brennen or the dishonest ones of >> Taylor Kingston, who will not answer the same kind of >> questions about his employing false identities on this >> forum that Neil Brennen addressed to Paul Truong. >> >> Most of Neil Brennan's nasty and vicious >> questions are also, alas, fair ones. So, too, the >> questions that I addressed so often to Mr. Kingston. >> >> I don't recollect the precise turning point in >> my relationship with Phil. Possibly it was when he >> proved curious rather than resentful about an exchange >> I was having regarding the importance of Bogdanov and >> Gorky in developing a killer idea -- Bogostroitel'stvo >> or God-building -- that Stalin later translated into >> the concept of the New Soviet Man. This idea worked >> its way through Stalinist professors at the Sorbonne >> into the minds of such men as Pol Pot and Ieng Sary, >> who used it to justify killing any sick peasant who >> could not meet Khmer Rouge production quotas. The >> reasoning was that if men become AS gods after the >> revolution -- since x taught that the relations of >> the means of production were the only foundation, >> whereas human nature was superstructure -- then >> those who do not act like gods and become ill are >> also objective counter-revolutionaries fit for liquidation. >> >> Intellect and learning have a hierarchy. I >> differentiate between Brennen-Kingston and, say, Greg >> Kennedy, our Caliban from Indiana. I am simply saying >> that if you choose to explore the Innes mind, you will find >> it a few levels above that of B-K. >> >> If nothing else, do so to benefit yourself. >> Intellectual self-interest is no crime. >> >> Yours, Larry Parr >> >> >> >         Date: 15 Feb 2008 15:23:24 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again Chess One wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> Dear Mr. Parr, >> >> I am going to desist out of respect for you -- not P Innes. I simply do >> not like, or respect the man. > > You see, Larry, these terms, directly vague, are synonyms for this sort-of > person's animus. His only reason to exist in public is an agitprop function, > with only a few asides as if actually interested in chess, and he is not > very good at it! Basically he likes the asshole sort of references to others > as if a Brennan or a Laugherty or a 'cudda bin a c player' - or is it just > dick envy? They are allmuch excited on these references. > > I hope you understand to whom you are writing - not that there is anything > necessarily wrong with such a trio - after all, closet homo's have had a > tough time! And there are merely the normal distortional means when one > cannot make direct statements, but instead some 30 each punning on other > guy's dicks. Nothing personal here, it is altogether normal these days, > normal and unmistakable! > >> You have acknowledged abuse from one direction but not the other. Just >> the same, this whole area of discourse is a playground for you, and not >> for me. > > The [non-Christian] reverend [whatever the hell that is???? ROFL] > > has made it his playground to accuse other people, and then talk about their > dicks, and their arseholes with Brennan and Laugherty and other jerks; yet > to read this, butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. > > This is to whom you correspond, Mr. Parr. > >> Have fun with it. I am spending more and more time on ICC and enjoying >> it a great deal. :) > > You see - the first thing I suggested to Larry Parr [in 3 latin words] was > that what is said is not how one is. > > How one behaves is a better guide to any spin on what one says one is. > > In short, in you prefer playing chess, fuck off and do it! And quit fuckiing > off other people and talkinig about their arseholes and dicks and stuff, as > if that was your interest. :))) > > When challenged independently on these general points of public affairs - i > see that one is busy with ICC :) > >> Would you care to explain your use of the term twigged? It didn't make it >> into my vocabulary. :) > > Don't be cute, reverend, you already failed the main chance. Don't you know > which game you are about? I think most peole here sort of get whre you and > your friends are at. > > You are sort of sucky people who have huge resentments, but those are your > business not ours. Most of us have just small resentments which we can sort > of acknowledge and deal with in interaction with each other. > > Have an ICC day. > > Phil Innes > > >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >> >> >> >> [email protected] wrote: >>> REPLY TO REV. WALKER >>> >>> Dear John, >>> >>> You twigged. My comments on Phil Innes were indeed >>> directed toward your attacks that I regard as unwarranted. >>> >>> After the name-calling, I think you are obliged >>> to approach Phil, not the other way around. If you do >>> so, you are going to find a formidably informed person >>> who has a considerable mind. A trained intelligence. >>> >>> I mentioned Tommy Nelson of publishing fame >>> because Phil is the one person on this forum whom I >>> can drop into conversation in mid-sentence on such a >>> subject and who can finish the sentence for me. I am >>> asking you to explore this mind, not to fall into the >>> bad habits of Neil Brennen or the dishonest ones of >>> Taylor Kingston, who will not answer the same kind of >>> questions about his employing false identities on this >>> forum that Neil Brennen addressed to Paul Truong. >>> >>> Most of Neil Brennan's nasty and vicious >>> questions are also, alas, fair ones. So, too, the >>> questions that I addressed so often to Mr. Kingston. >>> >>> I don't recollect the precise turning point in >>> my relationship with Phil. Possibly it was when he >>> proved curious rather than resentful about an exchange >>> I was having regarding the importance of Bogdanov and >>> Gorky in developing a killer idea -- Bogostroitel'stvo >>> or God-building -- that Stalin later translated into >>> the concept of the New Soviet Man. This idea worked >>> its way through Stalinist professors at the Sorbonne >>> into the minds of such men as Pol Pot and Ieng Sary, >>> who used it to justify killing any sick peasant who >>> could not meet Khmer Rouge production quotas. The >>> reasoning was that if men become AS gods after the >>> revolution -- since x taught that the relations of >>> the means of production were the only foundation, >>> whereas human nature was superstructure -- then >>> those who do not act like gods and become ill are >>> also objective counter-revolutionaries fit for liquidation. >>> >>> Intellect and learning have a hierarchy. I >>> differentiate between Brennen-Kingston and, say, Greg >>> Kennedy, our Caliban from Indiana. I am simply saying >>> that if you choose to explore the Innes mind, you will find >>> it a few levels above that of B-K. >>> >>> If nothing else, do so to benefit yourself. >>> Intellectual self-interest is no crime. >>> >>> Yours, Larry Parr >>> >>> >>> > > Mr. P Innes, As I stated earlier, my use of the abbreviation P Innes is short for Poor Innes, and it still is today. You may wish to use your behemoth intellect to research the archives and you will find my statement. Your fixations on sexual and excremental paraphernalia is your own problem. I do not think Larry is blind to your manipulations. But, he will act as his own counsel. Larry, I made my offer to desist in good faith and you see how Mr. P Innes responds. Is this what you would call a great intellect in action? -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.           Date: 15 Feb 2008 19:11:16 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Mr. P Innes, > > As I stated earlier, my use of the abbreviation P Innes is short for Poor > Innes, and it still is today. How absurd a statement! Making as if to be respectable the revernend graces his dick and asshole refererces, about other people. Is Walker a wanker? > You may wish to use your behemoth intellect to research the archives and > you will find my statement. > > Your fixations on sexual and excremental paraphernalia is your own > problem. There are Walker and Co's continuted references. Noticing them makes it my problem. Heuch! > I do not think Larry is blind to your manipulations. But, he will act as > his own counsel. > > Larry, I made my offer to desist in good faith and you see how Mr. P Innes > responds. Is this what you would call a great intellect in action? You are sir, a shite. Now if you actually desist real engagement of any issues as are offered you, fuck off to ICC. If you do not, then cease protesting here, since you are so evidently a liar, between what you protest and what you do! You fuck-over people - this is very clear. I don't care for reputations overmuch, and least of all my own, but you have played this game against people where there is some public significance, and that is politking, and all should care. What the hell do you mean by appending 'Reverend' to your name, and then saying you are no Christian? What sort of Reverend can that be except some fakist? A Mail-Order reverend, of what faith? How come so shy? While always signing yourself as reverend like that is a term used by non-Christians? What the hell are these vehement, cynical and nasty speculations ofpeople about [even after 6 months of them!] reverend? What a fucking crock you are, reverend, from clew to earring. Phil Innes > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.             Date: 15 Feb 2008 16:14:00 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again Chess One wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > >> Mr. P Innes, >> >> As I stated earlier, my use of the abbreviation P Innes is short for Poor >> Innes, and it still is today. > > How absurd a statement! Making as if to be respectable the revernend graces > his dick and asshole refererces, about other people. Is Walker a wanker? > >> You may wish to use your behemoth intellect to research the archives and >> you will find my statement. >> >> Your fixations on sexual and excremental paraphernalia is your own >> problem. > > There are Walker and Co's continuted references. Noticing them makes it my > problem. Heuch! > >> I do not think Larry is blind to your manipulations. But, he will act as >> his own counsel. >> >> Larry, I made my offer to desist in good faith and you see how Mr. P Innes >> responds. Is this what you would call a great intellect in action? > > You are sir, a shite. Now if you actually desist real engagement of any > issues as are offered you, fuck off to ICC. If you do not, then cease > protesting here, since you are so evidently a liar, between what you protest > and what you do! > > You fuck-over people - this is very clear. I don't care for reputations > overmuch, and least of all my own, but you have played this game against > people where there is some public significance, and that is politking, and > all should care. > > What the hell do you mean by appending 'Reverend' to your name, and then > saying you are no Christian? What sort of Reverend can that be except some > fakist? > > A Mail-Order reverend, of what faith? How come so shy? While always signing > yourself as reverend like that is a term used by non-Christians? > > What the hell are these vehement, cynical and nasty speculations ofpeople > about [even after 6 months of them!] reverend? > > What a fucking crock you are, reverend, from clew to earring. > > Phil Innes > You are outdoing yourself, P Innes. It is sad to see. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.               Date: 15 Feb 2008 16:23:52 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:14:00 -0800, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: >You are outdoing yourself, P Innes. It is sad to see. If all his posts were like this one, I'd have to retract my judgment of erudition exhibitionism.   Date: 15 Feb 2008 09:54:46 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again On Feb 15, 12:37 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > PHIL INNES AND HIS ATTACK DOGS > > > The rash of attacks on Phil Innes merit a response. > > > Unlike the attack dogs who have chewed on Larry Evans, including > > Edward Winter in an essay that actually had a higher incidence of > > error than that demonstrated by him against GM Evans, I have never > > accorded their work the same sort of unfair > > bashing. > > Though that is a slight conflation of things; dictis facta suppetant! Which > is to to criticise Mr. Parr here for allowing words too much their wicked > way ~ and to contrast that with a contextuality [pace, the Reverend fella] > to let deeds correspond with words. > > Which is to say that it is unfair, in my assessment of truth, for Mr. Parr > to be unfair; sola juvat virtus ;) > > It is merely generous of him to other people, a largesse not issuing from > weakness, no malesuada fames after Vergel, not a weakness leading to crime. > > > I have never denied, for example, the value of Winter as an > > antiquarian. He has his place, and it is not such a bad one at that. > > I have never written otherwise. (If you are of a mind, you can > > consult Herbert Butterfield's "Man on His Past" to learn > > the distinction between antiquarianism and work in history.) > > Ay - and matter and mutual dissension on newsgroups [chess ones being > nothing out of the ordinary] are the same. What is rested with 'authority' > seems often a mere substitution of belief for investigation and direct > knowledge of things - yet so much that is written, merely because it makes > claim upon experience or witness, does not accord with one's own intimations > or sense of perception - as if all too hypothetical psychologies were > recorded, which in ordinary language, simply does not ring true. > > Mr. Winter's principal fault seems of this nature - a lack of natural > temerity to speak of what is beyond his own wit or witness, so that he > denies even that realm of experience which others have and he lacks, but > which seem to be so often the very crux, the fons et origo, of people's > behavior. > > As an antiquarian this perhaps sufficient, especially if the subject is not > the Life, but the residue of it, as if to speak of dried-out mummies. > Historians will try to find something else altogether to make exdplanation, > and indeed, many 'historians' these days are de-facto anthropologists, > recording what goes /between/ people, and peoples. > > > Too, on a number of occasions, I have praised Taylor Kingston for his > > book reviews, which I said surpassed about 90 percent of the work in > > this field. > > I noted the same in my interview with him. 'Another level' introduced to > American chess book reviewing. > > > For all of his limitations, I still think that judgment about him in > > accurate. > > > As for Neil Brennen, he did a lot of work on a recent book for which, > > in my > > judgment, he got shortchanged by the author. Namely, anything good > > about the book appears to be the Historian's (of the Pennsylvania > > State Chess Federation, untenured) work; the many crude sentences, > > several dozen outright howlers, appear appear to be instances that he > > did not have an opportunity to correct before > > publication. > > His scrutiny needs better employment if it is not to be sour!, and indeed, I > agree again, even suggesting that the famous wharehouse of boxes; the > unindexed USCF Archive should receive his attention for pay. It was an > honest recommendation, and I would [have!] repeated it. > > > So then, when I say that Phil Innes knows more about literature and > > history than the above two gents combined and multiplied a few times, > > I don't think I am moved by personal animus against those attacking > > Mr. Innes. If you wish to have a deep conversation with Phil, then > > try to keep up with him. > > How grand! Its true, I do have some 50 or so regular correspondents in > chess, and only 3 write here. As to depth of things, sometimes it is simply > a matter of picking up the gems that others say, then discard in the dirt! > > What is generally of an impoverished nature here is not that people suspect > not enough of what it put before them in the shop-window of chess-culture, > and feel justified in their sense of something amiss. > > It is a poverty of understanding how to go about distinguishing what is > right from what seems suspect, without destroying the thing investigated > upon, by some reductio-ad-absurdam. A preference to waste rather than to > truly discriminate, which is almost always a social activity, rather than > lionized and proclamated cause. > > > Let's start, shall we, with Tommy Nelson's death on the Western Front > > in 1917. A Greg Kennedy might imagine the Western Front of that year > > to be newly settled territory, say, in Wyoming. But we are talking > > about France and the Great War. > > > Who was Tommy Nelson? What was important about his death? Why, in > > the name of heaven, was he there in the first place? How does his > > death resonate in history and politics? Is there a linkup with the > > lessons drawn by Vera Brittain in her Testament of Youth? Was John > > Buchan overly facile in how he treated Nelson's death? Given Buchan's > > Nelson's History of the War and defense of Haig, could he really draw > > the conclusions that Lord Lansdowne, for one, outlined in a famous > > letter to the Daily Telegraph, I think it was, as early as 1916? > > Too remote a topic for Americans? Instead they might like the Thomas > Desjardin 'The Honored Dead', as an investigative study of 'how we know what > we know', and which follows the veritable industry after Gettysburg ~ and > how history in now fashioned after our own beliefs and indeed weaknesses, > rather than something more impartial and dissinterested. > > > If you wish to have a serious discussion, you probably will get a > > popcult version of same from Brennen-Kingston; if you want something > > better, you can try to engage Phil Innes. > > What really enrages me about Phil is that his Latin is quite likely > > superior to mine, even though my mother translated the comedies of > > Publius Terentius Afer. > > What a Roman you make of me! That, Mr. Parr, was simple a necessary > accomodation and mask to speak in the language of the enemy, that is, of the > dominant. I think most Celts would prefer the following sort of appreciation > [from Livy, 33.33.5-7; tr. E. T. Sage.] > > There was one poeple in the world which would fight for > others' liberties at its own cost, to its peril, and with > its own toil... ready to cross the sea that there might be no > unjust empire anywhere and that everywhere justice, right, > and law might prevail > > And them folk were the Greeks, at least the Greeks 200-50 BC. http://www.greektexts.com/library/Aesop/Aesop's_Fables/eng/print/13.html The Vain Jackdaw JUPITER DETERMINED, it is said, to create a sovereign over the birds, and made proclamation that on a certain day they should all present themselves before him, when he would himself choose the most beautiful among them to be king. The Jackdaw, knowing his own ugliness, searched through the woods and fields, and collected the feathers which had fallen from the wings of his companions, and stuck them in all parts of his body, hoping thereby to make himself the most beautiful of all. When the appointed day arrived, and the birds had assembled before Jupiter, the Jackdaw also made his appearance in his many feathered finery. But when Jupiter proposed to make him king because of the beauty of his plumage, the birds indignantly protested, and each plucked from him his own feathers, leaving the Jackdaw nothing but a Jackdaw.   Date: 15 Feb 2008 06:29:22 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again PHIL INNES AND HIS ATTACK DOGS The rash of attacks on Phil Innes merit a response. Unlike the attack dogs who have chewed on Larry Evans, including Edward Winter in an essay that actually had a higher incidence of error than that demonstrated by him against GM Evans, I have never accorded their work the same sort of unfair bashing. I have never denied, for example, the value of Winter as an antiquarian. He has his place, and it is not such a bad one at that. I have never written otherwise. (If you are of a mind, you can consult Herbert Butterfield's "Man on His Past" to learn the distinction between antiquarianism and work in history.) Too, on a number of occasions, I have praised Taylor Kingston for his book reviews, which I said surpassed about 90 percent of the work in this field. For all of his limitations, I still think that judgment about him in accurate. As for Neil Brennen, he did a lot of work on a recent book for which, in my judgment, he got shortchanged by the author. Namely, anything good about the book appears to be the Historian's (of the Pennsylvania State Chess Federation, untenured) work; the many crude sentences, several dozen outright howlers, appear appear to be instances that he did not have an opportunity to correct before publication. So then, when I say that Phil Innes knows more about literature and history than the above two gents combined and multiplied a few times, I don't think I am moved by personal animus against those attacking Mr. Innes. If you wish to have a deep conversation with Phil, then try to keep up with him. Let's start, shall we, with Tommy Nelson's death on the Western Front in 1917. A Greg Kennedy might imagine the Western Front of that year to be newly settled territory, say, in Wyoming. But we are talking about France and the Great War. Who was Tommy Nelson? What was important about his death? Why, in the name of heaven, was he there in the first place? How does his death resonate in history and politics? Is there a linkup with the lessons drawn by Vera Brittain in her Testament of Youth? Was John Buchan overly facile in how he treated Nelson's death? Given Buchan's Nelson's History of the War and defense of Haig, could he really draw the conclusions that Lord Lansdowne, for one, outlined in a famous letter to the Daily Telegraph, I think it was, as early as 1916? If you wish to have a serious discussion, you probably will get a popcult version of same from Brennen-Kingston; if you want something better, you can try to engage Phil Innes. What really enrages me about Phil is that his Latin is quite likely superior to mine, even though my mother translated the comedies of Publius Terentius Afer. The Historian wrote: > On Feb 15, 2:40 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Oh, and as for that rek about PI being > > an important kookpot-- please disregard; > > I don't regard P Innes as merely a kookpot, although he's certainly > one. A better comparison is to Ellsworth Toohey in Rand's The > Fountainhead. "The man who is nothing, and knows it." > > if > > he really were an important one, we would be > > paying you a lot more... naturally; it goes > > without saying. > > > > -- help bot     Date: 15 Feb 2008 16:20:13 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:29:22 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: >PHIL INNES AND HIS ATTACK DOGS > So then, when I say that Phil Innes knows more about literature and >history than the above two gents [Brennen & Kingston] combined and >multiplied a few times, I believe my first exchange with Innes occurred a few years ago when he mentioned Henry Miller and I made a little joke, something like, "Didn't he write a medical text on the topic of cancer?". Despite whatever knowledge of literature he may have, he not only didn't get it, but made a number of erroneous claims which got him justly cuffed about by some other posters. >I don't think I am moved by personal animus against those attacking >Mr. Innes. If you wish to have a deep conversation with Phil, then >try to keep up with him. > If you wish to have a serious discussion, you probably will get a >popcult version of same from Brennen-Kingston; if you want something >better, you can try to engage Phil Innes. >What really enrages me about Phil is that his Latin is quite likely >superior to mine, even though my mother translated the comedies of >Publius Terentius Afer. It's one thing to have had a classical education. It's quite another to deploy its fruits with calm, reasoned judgment. What I too often detect from Phil is what an old professor of mine once called mere "erudition exhibitionism". I'm sure there are areas where his knowledge runs deep -- unfortunately, it's hard to tell when he's in one of these sweet spots or when he's bluffing. His use of tantrum and bombast for argument is legend, but would be tolerable, perhaps even amusing, if well done. However, Phil's posts often reflect a fundamental lack respect for the reader: disconnected sentence fragments, misspelled words, weird formatting, inappropriate use of colloquialisms and slang, sentences that fail to make sense even after serious attempts at parsing. Too many of his posts reflect not even a cursory review before he hits "Send". He rarely admits error (witness the infamous "Andean" exchanges, or his claim of 2450 strength). His "textual analysis" of the FSS posts was simply amazing for its shallowness. Eventually, one tires of attempting rational discussion with such a person, and decides ridicule is appropriate. Unfortunately, this sometimes does go over the top.       Date: 16 Feb 2008 09:44:36 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again Mike - you have taken to wholesale repetition of Brennan's lies. He knowingly puts them forward - and they are his twists on things not mine. This is, after all a chess newsgroup, and if you don't forward erudite material on chess, then is the result to wind up like Brennan? That is, to only trash people and not talk chess more than 1 in any 100 times? Fucking hell! What a nerve you have to complain about people who actually try to write about chess! The attack dogs just want to write about my dick or my arse. You make your own choice. And I don't mean what you say you will do, but if you can bother to write about chess at all, or just obsess full-time about others with all those people over there in the wanking gallery. Phil Innes "Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:29:22 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>PHIL INNES AND HIS ATTACK DOGS > >> So then, when I say that Phil Innes knows more about literature and >>history than the above two gents [Brennen & Kingston] combined and >>multiplied a few times, > > I believe my first exchange with Innes occurred a few years ago when > he mentioned Henry Miller and I made a little joke, something like, > "Didn't he write a medical text on the topic of cancer?". Despite > whatever knowledge of literature he may have, he not only didn't get > it, but made a number of erroneous claims which got him justly cuffed > about by some other posters. > >>I don't think I am moved by personal animus against those attacking >>Mr. Innes. If you wish to have a deep conversation with Phil, then >>try to keep up with him. > >> If you wish to have a serious discussion, you probably will get a >>popcult version of same from Brennen-Kingston; if you want something >>better, you can try to engage Phil Innes. > >>What really enrages me about Phil is that his Latin is quite likely >>superior to mine, even though my mother translated the comedies of >>Publius Terentius Afer. > > It's one thing to have had a classical education. It's quite another > to deploy its fruits with calm, reasoned judgment. What I too often > detect from Phil is what an old professor of mine once called mere > "erudition exhibitionism". I'm sure there are areas where his > knowledge runs deep -- unfortunately, it's hard to tell when he's in > one of these sweet spots or when he's bluffing. > > His use of tantrum and bombast for argument is legend, but would be > tolerable, perhaps even amusing, if well done. > > However, Phil's posts often reflect a fundamental lack respect for > the reader: disconnected sentence fragments, misspelled words, weird > formatting, inappropriate use of colloquialisms and slang, sentences > that fail to make sense even after serious attempts at parsing. Too > many of his posts reflect not even a cursory review before he hits > "Send". He rarely admits error (witness the infamous "Andean" > exchanges, or his claim of 2450 strength). His "textual analysis" of > the FSS posts was simply amazing for its shallowness. > > Eventually, one tires of attempting rational discussion with such a > person, and decides ridicule is appropriate. Unfortunately, this > sometimes does go over the top. > > > >         Date: 17 Feb 2008 11:21:54 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:44:36 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >The attack dogs just want to write about my dick or my arse. Adolescent razzing (which I admit initiating, mea maxima culpa) over the fact that a particular configuration of your name, pronounced quickly, becomes a homonym for the formal name of the male member, does not, eo ipso, indicate any reference to, or, indeed interest in, any particular member (as it were) of this class. In other words, Phil, nobody's writing about your dick. >You make your >own choice. And I don't mean what you say you will do, but if you can bother >to write about chess at all,... My posts which initially caused you to go ballistic, namely the satirical thread "The List of the Blind Monkey", were restricted to the rec.games.chess.politics group The List of the Blind Monkey addresses -- guess what? -- a very current and important issue in chess politics. A quick review of the posting history reveals *you* were the one who first cross-posted elements of this thread to the rec.games.chess.misc group. I don't necessarily mind this, but it wasn't where I put it. I was careful to restrict it to the chess.politics group. You met attempts, by me and by others, to engage you in rational discussion about the use of satire to debunk invalid argument with bombast and insult, epithets about Hanging Judges, Kangaroo Courts and Prosecutor Murray, etc. Well, OK, we can play that game. You got smacked. You got smacked hard. And you can't take it. You talk chess? We talk chess. You start fulminating and insulting? We (verbally) smack you. Seems a simple enough New Year's Resolution. I'll do my best to stick to it.     Date: 15 Feb 2008 12:37:13 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > PHIL INNES AND HIS ATTACK DOGS > > The rash of attacks on Phil Innes merit a response. > > Unlike the attack dogs who have chewed on Larry Evans, including > Edward Winter in an essay that actually had a higher incidence of > error than that demonstrated by him against GM Evans, I have never > accorded their work the same sort of unfair > bashing. Though that is a slight conflation of things; dictis facta suppetant! Which is to to criticise Mr. Parr here for allowing words too much their wicked way ~ and to contrast that with a contextuality [pace, the Reverend fella] to let deeds correspond with words. Which is to say that it is unfair, in my assessment of truth, for Mr. Parr to be unfair; sola juvat virtus ;) It is merely generous of him to other people, a largesse not issuing from weakness, no malesuada fames after Vergel, not a weakness leading to crime. > I have never denied, for example, the value of Winter as an > antiquarian. He has his place, and it is not such a bad one at that. > I have never written otherwise. (If you are of a mind, you can > consult Herbert Butterfield's "Man on His Past" to learn > the distinction between antiquarianism and work in history.) Ay - and matter and mutual dissension on newsgroups [chess ones being nothing out of the ordinary] are the same. What is rested with 'authority' seems often a mere substitution of belief for investigation and direct knowledge of things - yet so much that is written, merely because it makes claim upon experience or witness, does not accord with one's own intimations or sense of perception - as if all too hypothetical psychologies were recorded, which in ordinary language, simply does not ring true. Mr. Winter's principal fault seems of this nature - a lack of natural temerity to speak of what is beyond his own wit or witness, so that he denies even that realm of experience which others have and he lacks, but which seem to be so often the very crux, the fons et origo, of people's behavior. As an antiquarian this perhaps sufficient, especially if the subject is not the Life, but the residue of it, as if to speak of dried-out mummies. Historians will try to find something else altogether to make exdplanation, and indeed, many 'historians' these days are de-facto anthropologists, recording what goes /between/ people, and peoples. > Too, on a number of occasions, I have praised Taylor Kingston for his > book reviews, which I said surpassed about 90 percent of the work in > this field. I noted the same in my interview with him. 'Another level' introduced to American chess book reviewing. > For all of his limitations, I still think that judgment about him in > accurate. > > As for Neil Brennen, he did a lot of work on a recent book for which, > in my > judgment, he got shortchanged by the author. Namely, anything good > about the book appears to be the Historian's (of the Pennsylvania > State Chess Federation, untenured) work; the many crude sentences, > several dozen outright howlers, appear appear to be instances that he > did not have an opportunity to correct before > publication. His scrutiny needs better employment if it is not to be sour!, and indeed, I agree again, even suggesting that the famous wharehouse of boxes; the unindexed USCF Archive should receive his attention for pay. It was an honest recommendation, and I would [have!] repeated it. > So then, when I say that Phil Innes knows more about literature and > history than the above two gents combined and multiplied a few times, > I don't think I am moved by personal animus against those attacking > Mr. Innes. If you wish to have a deep conversation with Phil, then > try to keep up with him. How grand! Its true, I do have some 50 or so regular correspondents in chess, and only 3 write here. As to depth of things, sometimes it is simply a matter of picking up the gems that others say, then discard in the dirt! What is generally of an impoverished nature here is not that people suspect not enough of what it put before them in the shop-window of chess-culture, and feel justified in their sense of something amiss. It is a poverty of understanding how to go about distinguishing what is right from what seems suspect, without destroying the thing investigated upon, by some reductio-ad-absurdam. A preference to waste rather than to truly discriminate, which is almost always a social activity, rather than lionized and proclamated cause. > Let's start, shall we, with Tommy Nelson's death on the Western Front > in 1917. A Greg Kennedy might imagine the Western Front of that year > to be newly settled territory, say, in Wyoming. But we are talking > about France and the Great War. > > Who was Tommy Nelson? What was important about his death? Why, in > the name of heaven, was he there in the first place? How does his > death resonate in history and politics? Is there a linkup with the > lessons drawn by Vera Brittain in her Testament of Youth? Was John > Buchan overly facile in how he treated Nelson's death? Given Buchan's > Nelson's History of the War and defense of Haig, could he really draw > the conclusions that Lord Lansdowne, for one, outlined in a famous > letter to the Daily Telegraph, I think it was, as early as 1916? Too remote a topic for Americans? Instead they might like the Thomas Desjardin 'The Honored Dead', as an investigative study of 'how we know what we know', and which follows the veritable industry after Gettysburg ~ and how history in now fashioned after our own beliefs and indeed weaknesses, rather than something more impartial and dissinterested. > If you wish to have a serious discussion, you probably will get a > popcult version of same from Brennen-Kingston; if you want something > better, you can try to engage Phil Innes. > What really enrages me about Phil is that his Latin is quite likely > superior to mine, even though my mother translated the comedies of > Publius Terentius Afer. What a Roman you make of me! That, Mr. Parr, was simple a necessary accomodation and mask to speak in the language of the enemy, that is, of the dominant. I think most Celts would prefer the following sort of appreciation [from Livy, 33.33.5-7; tr. E. T. Sage.] There was one poeple in the world which would fight for others' liberties at its own cost, to its peril, and with its own toil... ready to cross the sea that there might be no unjust empire anywhere and that everywhere justice, right, and law might prevail And them folk were the Greeks, at least the Greeks 200-50 BC. > > The Historian wrote: >> On Feb 15, 2:40 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Oh, and as for that rek about PI being >> > an important kookpot-- please disregard; >> >> I don't regard P Innes as merely a kookpot, although he's certainly >> one. A better comparison is to Ellsworth Toohey in Rand's The >> Fountainhead. "The man who is nothing, and knows it." >> >> if >> > he really were an important one, we would be >> > paying you a lot more... naturally; it goes >> > without saying. >> > >> > -- help bot     Date: 15 Feb 2008 07:09:08 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again [email protected] wrote: > PHIL INNES AND HIS ATTACK DOGS > > The rash of attacks on Phil Innes merit a response. > > Unlike the attack dogs who have chewed on Larry Evans, including > Edward Winter in an essay that actually had a higher incidence of > error than that demonstrated by him against GM Evans, I have never > accorded their work the same sort of unfair > bashing. > > I have never denied, for example, the value of Winter as an > antiquarian. He has his place, and it is not such a bad one at that. > I have never written otherwise. (If you are of a mind, you can > consult Herbert Butterfield's "Man on His Past" to learn > the distinction between antiquarianism and work in history.) > > Too, on a number of occasions, I have praised Taylor Kingston for his > book reviews, which I said surpassed about 90 percent of the work in > this field. > For all of his limitations, I still think that judgment about him in > accurate. > > As for Neil Brennen, he did a lot of work on a recent book for which, > in my > judgment, he got shortchanged by the author. Namely, anything good > about the book appears to be the Historian's (of the Pennsylvania > State Chess Federation, untenured) work; the many crude sentences, > several dozen outright howlers, appear appear to be instances that he > did not have an opportunity to correct before > publication. > > So then, when I say that Phil Innes knows more about literature and > history than the above two gents combined and multiplied a few times, > I don't think I am moved by personal animus against those attacking > Mr. Innes. If you wish to have a deep conversation with Phil, then > try to keep up with him. > > Let's start, shall we, with Tommy Nelson's death on the Western Front > in 1917. A Greg Kennedy might imagine the Western Front of that year > to be newly settled territory, say, in Wyoming. But we are talking > about France and the Great War. > > Who was Tommy Nelson? What was important about his death? Why, in > the name of heaven, was he there in the first place? How does his > death resonate in history and politics? Is there a linkup with the > lessons drawn by Vera Brittain in her Testament of Youth? Was John > Buchan overly facile in how he treated Nelson's death? Given Buchan's > Nelson's History of the War and defense of Haig, could he really draw > the conclusions that Lord Lansdowne, for one, outlined in a famous > letter to the Daily Telegraph, I think it was, as early as 1916? > > If you wish to have a serious discussion, you probably will get a > popcult version of same from Brennen-Kingston; if you want something > better, you can try to engage Phil Innes. > > What really enrages me about Phil is that his Latin is quite likely > superior to mine, even though my mother translated the comedies of > Publius Terentius Afer. > Dear Mr. Parr, I submit that, in itself, a great education is a privilege, not a virtue. It is what one does with such an education that may result in virtue. On this basis, much of what /ChessOne/ or P Innes exhibits is a very poor example of education in action. We should expect more from him. If one also considers P Innes' cyclic /Jekyll-and-Hyde/ behavior of indulging in wild and bizarre attacks against everyone in sight, and then hibernating in a deep dark hole until he comes out to attack again, we see the basis for his membership in the rgcp "kookpot" group. In fact, the waste of his gifts of talent and education IMHO elevates him to the status of "top kook" in rgcp. I hope that he will one day win a virtual trophy for his antics. The fact that, as a journalist, he ignores and hides from his critics is one more strike against him and suggests intellectual dishonesty. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > > The Historian wrote: >> On Feb 15, 2:40 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Oh, and as for that rek about PI being >>> an important kookpot-- please disregard; >> I don't regard P Innes as merely a kookpot, although he's certainly >> one. A better comparison is to Ellsworth Toohey in Rand's The >> Fountainhead. "The man who is nothing, and knows it." >> >> if >>> he really were an important one, we would be >>> paying you a lot more... naturally; it goes >>> without saying. >>> >>> -- help bot   Date: 15 Feb 2008 05:36:00 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 15, 2:40 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > Oh, and as for that rek about PI being > an important kookpot-- please disregard; I don't regard P Innes as merely a kookpot, although he's certainly one. A better comparison is to Ellsworth Toohey in Rand's The Fountainhead. "The man who is nothing, and knows it." if > he really were an important one, we would be > paying you a lot more... naturally; it goes > without saying. > > -- help bot   Date: 14 Feb 2008 23:40:11 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 15, 12:23 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > > It is odd that he has this fixation with me, when so many other posters > > have been pointing to various defects of his "journalism" and he has > > completely ignored them. I guess I am special. :) > > P Innes likes to dig a hole and hide out until people forget about his > nonsense, and then serve it up again hoping for a different response. After years of hard work, I believe nearly- IMnes has /begun/ to accept that even if he had honestly believed he was once a 2450 strength IM, he is now a mere vestige of his (imaginary) former self. It's progress... . Unfortunately, he has taken to playing chess ONLY by remote, so the delusion may never die (having Rybka is sweet, no?). All the lies in the world regarding Taylor Kingston's 2300+ rek cannot hold a candle to the FACT that LP always offers up Sam Sloan -- not Phil IMness -- when push comes to shove, when a grudge match is on the table. I believe LP must rank Mr. Sloan second only to GM Evans himself, as far as their clan goes. Mr. Sloan is so darn good that he is relied upon in spite of glaring weaknesses-- such as his like of busted opening lines, for instance. Oh, and as for that rek about PI being an important kookpot-- please disregard; if he really were an important one, we would be paying you a lot more... naturally; it goes without saying. -- help bot   Date: 14 Feb 2008 23:24:00 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 15, 12:21 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > > In sum, you can't trust those guys! They > > are pretenders, or poseurs, as our employee > > Neil Brennen puts it. > > I can't agree with you, and I'd never use those words to describe > either Taylor Kingston or John Hillery. Just a day or two ago, these self-proclaimed journalist pretenders dragged in their "expert witness", a famed historian, to testify that no, Tigran Petrosian could not possibly have ever said that he was offered a bribe to throw his match to Bobby Fischer. Almost immediately, a third party jumped in from out of nowhere (hey, maybe he is me?) to correct them; he insists that everybody and his brother ought to know about the book he talks about, if they know anything at all. My friends, that is not "journalism"; it's utter incompetence. As I understand the term, it indicates an ability to uncover the facts, to do research, and most of all, to remain objective. In sum, the term represents the precise opposite of what poseurs like TK do here, in rgc. Regrettably, the master of leading witnesses to their own embarrassing demise succeeded velously in dragging his man down into the mire; those who refuse to learn from history (in this case, TK's history), are destined to repeat it. Look at the evidence: imbecile David Kane and poseur Taylor Kingston both denied the facts; rejected them outright. (Even now, TK is hard at work "reinterpreting" these facts such that he can remain in de Nile, with the crocs and hippos.) Facts, it may well be said, are getting in their way-- causing an annoyance; they must be punished, then discarded, in favor of opinions and biases. Call that what you like; I call it what it obviously is: quackery! LOL -- help bot     Date: 15 Feb 2008 14:39:39 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ) "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:6111d82b-55a3-4469-ab6e-131f754e7aaf@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > Look at the evidence: imbecile David Kane > and poseur Taylor Kingston both denied the > facts; rejected them outright. (Even now, TK > is hard at work "reinterpreting" these facts > such that he can remain in de Nile, with the > crocs and hippos.) Facts, it may well be > said, are getting in their way-- causing an > annoyance; they must be punished, then > discarded, in favor of opinions and biases. > > Call that what you like; I call it what it > obviously is: quackery! LOL > We begin to see why help bot didn't offer up the citation himself. It shows that his inability to comprehend written matter on USENET, on display on a daily basis, is matched by his inability to comprehend material he "reads" in books. But maybe he is not completely hopeless. Perhaps if you speak VERY slowly to him, something sinks in.   Date: 14 Feb 2008 21:25:54 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 7:50 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Feb 13, 1:52 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Ah, P Innes, the head kookpot. Whatever you say sir. > > Careful; if we recognize nearly-IMnes as > "head kookpot", Neil Brennen may demand > greater compensation for harrying him. I do not "harry" P Innes. I merely correct his mistakes, lies, and spin. It's > already cost me half my old chess trophies, > and my most outdated "Trends in the..." > series booklets. My question is: who will > pay if/when NB demands more? I do have > some Eric Schiller books from the 1980s, > but after that, it's going to take real money. > > -- The Crackpot Annoyer Society   Date: 14 Feb 2008 21:23:50 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 7:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > help bot wrote: > > On Feb 13, 1:52 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Ah, P Innes, the head kookpot. Whatever you say sir. > > > Careful; if we recognize nearly-IMnes as > > "head kookpot", Neil Brennen may demand > > greater compensation for harrying him. It's > > already cost me half my old chess trophies, > > and my most outdated "Trends in the..." > > series booklets. My question is: who will > > pay if/when NB demands more? I do have > > some Eric Schiller books from the 1980s, > > but after that, it's going to take real money. > > > -- The Crackpot Annoyer Society > > Thanks for the tip Mr. Bot. I haven't paid much attention to what > Kapitan Kookpot is saying. I'd toss him a bone, but that is not favored > by rabid dogs. > > It is odd that he has this fixation with me, when so many other posters > have been pointing to various defects of his "journalism" and he has > completely ignored them. I guess I am special. :) P Innes likes to dig a hole and hide out until people forget about his nonsense, and then serve it up again hoping for a different response. > Be kind to your furry friends, and have a great day! > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 14 Feb 2008 21:21:12 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 8:43 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Feb 13, 7:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for the tip Mr. Bot. I haven't paid much attention to what > > Kapitan Kookpot is saying. I'd toss him a bone, but that is not favored > > by rabid dogs. > > > It is odd that he has this fixation with me, when so many other posters > > have been pointing to various defects of his "journalism" and he has > > completely ignored them. I guess I am special. :) > > Rather than single out nearly-IMnes, I would > say that all these self-proclaimed "journalists" > have their own agendas, and should not be > taken seriously as "objective reporters". > > Look at IMnes' arch-enemy, Taylor Kingston, > for instance; he resides somewhere in a high > tower, bellows down to the peons his official > pronouncements, and all the while he cannot > seem to handle facts he doesn't happen to > have a hankering for. > > To me, the solution is obvious: recognize > that the term "journalist", as it is commonly > used here, indicates somebody with a strong > agenda who wants others to believe he is so > darned objective that his opinions are facts. > > In sum, you can't trust those guys! They > are pretenders, or poseurs, as our employee > Neil Brennen puts it. I can't agree with you, and I'd never use those words to describe either Taylor Kingston or John Hillery. Much like Arnold > Swarzennegger in his younger days, they > are great at posturing and posing, and this > may impress the opposite sex, but it's a bit > over the top here in rgc. > > -- help bot   Date: 14 Feb 2008 18:34:46 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 14, 9:15 am, [email protected] wrote: > Neither does it constitute any evidence of a bribe, or even a claim > that a bribe was offered. All this sounds like is someone who strongly > dislikes Petrosian, someone who would much rather see an exciting > Fischer-Spassky match than a third dull Petrosian-Spassky match, From a westerner's point of view, another contest of skill between two Russians might seem boring in that whoever wins, it will be a Russian. But in my opinion, it is misleading to characterize the matches between these two players as "boring", as TK has above. I liked these matches, in spite of what is generally thought regarding T. Petrosian's playing style-- especially his tendency to draw a lot. (But then, I /sort of/ liked the K/K athons, on account of the quality of play, the level of understanding of the two contestants.) > telling Petrosian how he feels. Unless the book goes on to say money > was in fact offered, the way I'd interpret "accept a nice round sum > and go home" is along the lines of "make a token effort, get it over > with quickly, and be happy with your share of the purse." What did I predict regarding denial? LOL > The mention of "a nice round sum" strikes me as simply an insult, > rather than an actual bribe attempt. As "Petrosian's Legacy" makes > clear, TP was not motivated priily by money. Tell that to the disreputable character-- maybe he hadn't read the book. > Even though Argentina > offered the biggest purse, he didn't want to play there, saying "For > me, the weather and playing conditions are the most important, rather > than money." Tigran had just been beaten by BF in a mini-match. As BF himself pointed out, the Russians had a record of disappointing results in the western hemisphere, so the commentary regarding money was a bit of a side-show; they both wanted to play where they each believed they had the best chances of /winning/. > Also, having read a good many chess books by Russian authors, I know > how bad the translations can be. One has to wonder if "accepting a > nice round sum" is at all close to what was actually said (if the > incident ever occurred at all). Denial, my boy; you're in it up to your neck! The truth is, the book Petrosian's Legacy contains myriad statements by TP which denizens of de Nile will not be able to stomach; some Pepto-Bismol is the answer-- not denial. > Considering all the effort the Soviets were putting into stopping > Fischer, both at the board and behind the scenes, it seems to me that > if a bribe actually had been offered, they would have trumpeted the > fact to the skies, making sure everyone knew how evil the capitalists > were to engage in this sordid cheating, and how noble and honorable > Petrosian had been to refuse it. In fact TP did not state that he refused it. This, along with his other comments about the last several games not being proper chess games, leaves me wondering why TP did not name the "disreputable fellow", and why the games were "not proper". I may yet carefully replay these games, searching for more clues. Years later, Gary Kasparov brought up the subject of throwing his match to DB, even going so far as to toss out a specific figure; curious, no? Combine such oddities with his Caro-Kann game-toss, and you get an idea of what's what "at the top", as they say. My guess is that GK did, but TP did not, throw a match. -- help bot   Date: 14 Feb 2008 18:06:37 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 14, 5:05 am, [email protected] wrote: > Anybody who who is not sufficiently well read to be familiar with the > book (which is not "rare," though used copies are fairly expensive > these days) has no business shooting his mouth off and pretending to > be knowledgeable about the subject. If the dunce cap fits, wear it. > > Your problem seems to be that you think access to a computer and modem > can replace a functioning brain. It can't. Look, dufus: you are being a dolt here; nobody expects the masses to own a copy of the book you mentioned, or to acquire one. However, I am not convinced that I read that particular book, and because of that I am still hoping to find the same text in one of the books which are commonly found at local tournaments or bookstores. One such book is titled Petrosian's Legacy, and because it was written by TP himself, it certainly makes sense to look there for his writings on the 1971 match. By the same token, I have a book by Bernard Cafferty -- too old to expect it to be widely owned -- on the candidates matches of 1971; again, this is a logical place to look, because as I pointed out before, he quotes from the players, including TP. It could turn out that I read "your" book, as I have read quite a few over the years, but odds are the same text appeared elsewhere /in addition/ to your source. Note that TK had to go and buy a copy of Petrosian's Legacy; it's obvious that not everyone has a thousand or more chess books at hand. And the fact that TK was unable -- or unwilling -- to locate the text in PL is hardly convincing evidence that it is not in there; the poor chump was highly motivated to *not* find the text in question, as was obvious to all but the ignoramus, David Kane. It would not surprise me if I go and find the comment in the very section which Taylor Kingston singled out as one he scrutinized carefully. -- help bot   Date: 14 Feb 2008 06:17:40 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again BOT BLOT STUFF <[Note the sudden silence of the ignoranti, who no doubt are drying themselves off in front of a warm fire... .] > -- Greg Kennedy Greg Kennedy has declared a "sudden silence" on the part of those asking him to offer a source for the allegation that someone attempted to bribe Petrosian before the 1971 candidates' final. I failed to notice said silence which usually requires -- even around here -- a day or two to be discerned. Not a word written about Greg's sublime, if slime, innocence of both historical fact and method, as demonstrated here on many occasions, need be unwritten. No one ever denied the possibility that Petrosian or a Soviet stand-in might have penned something resembling what appeared in the Vasiliev volume. Frankly, the so-called bribe offer is hard to nail down 100 percent in the text as quoted here. Indeed, the incident may not have been a bribe offer at all as related in the brief quotation. It could have been a nasty crack that Petrosian should take his prize money, play a few simuls in Buenos Aire, and go home because the chess world did not want to see Spassky-Petrosian III. Bobby's candidates' match opponents were all beautifully prepared for him. Taimanov and Petrosian proved that the formidable Soviet grandmasteriat could churn out notable opening ideas and TNs, but Bobby coped with them at a unique level of strength. Fischer-Petrosian (game seven) reached a position that Petrosian and his team judged as rock solid for Black. Bobby then proceeded to overturn this verdict with profound positional understanding, including exchanging a strong knight for a penned-in bishop -- an idea that was judged as weak by the GMs analyzing the game at the time. It later proved to be a profound inspiration. Bobby's play had Spassky privately predicting that he would beat them all. Tal called Bobby the greatest chess genius to have descended from the chessic sky. These were two of Bobby's greatest opponents offering their views. Greg hates Fischer's achievements because they were the product of an individual overcoming a vast state system. Too, Greg imagines that had he been raised in Brooklyn rather than germinating in Indiana, he coulda been a contendah. That's bot blot stuff. Yours, Larry Parr help bot wrote: > On Feb 13, 11:55 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > As everyone here seems to already know, > > > nobody could easily find this on the 'net. Tell > > > us, what was the "secret password" which > > > found the text so quickly? My own efforts > > > consistently netted a slew of false hits on > > > a different "Petrosian", who apparently was > > > a politician and therefore the term "bribe" was > > > unsurprisingly sprinkled around his name like > > > grains of salt around an ocean. Adding on > > > the term "chess" had no significant impact, > > > except to bring a few dead ends to the top > > > of the list. > > > > Normal human intelligence. I read the book around 1979 and remembered > > it. To get the exact quote, I walked across the room and picked up the > > book. Tough, huh? > > Um, yeah-- real tough, considering you > claimed to find the exact text in what-- > 30 seconds, was it? > > Normally, finding text somewhere in a > *book* takes a bit longer than that, while > say, a Google search might not. > > BTW, your comments also seemed to > strongly imply that *anybody* should > have been able to locate this information > quickly, so it is asinine to combine that > sort of comment with a relatively rare > book, which few are likely to possess. > > In any case, you spoiled everything by > sawing the limb before I could even get > to Wal-t and buy a limb-cutter; dang > you! > > [Note the sudden silence of the ignoranti, > who no doubt are drying themselves off in > front of a warm fire... .] > > > -- help bot   Date: 14 Feb 2008 06:15:41 From: Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 6:58=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > If you people are quite finished running around in circles and > shouting insults at each other: The "bribe" claim comes from an > article by Petrosian, "The candidates' matches as I saw them," which > appeared in Vasiliev's "Tigran Petrosian: His Life and Games." On page > 226, Petrosian wrote, "Just before the match began, something happened > that annoyed me very much. An extremely disreputable individual > approached me and said insolently, 'Mr. Petrosian,. we are all waiting > for the Spassky-Fischer match. So wouldn't it be better if you > accepted a nice round sum and went home?'" > > Of course, this doesn't prove that the story is true (commies lie a > lot), nor is there any indication that Fischer himself was involved > (highly unlikely), but it's not apocryphal. Neither does it constitute any evidence of a bribe, or even a claim that a bribe was offered. All this sounds like is someone who strongly dislikes Petrosian, someone who would much rather see an exciting Fischer-Spassky match than a third dull Petrosian-Spassky match, telling Petrosian how he feels. Unless the book goes on to say money was in fact offered, the way I'd interpret "accept a nice round sum and go home" is along the lines of "make a token effort, get it over with quickly, and be happy with your share of the purse." The mention of "a nice round sum" strikes me as simply an insult, rather than an actual bribe attempt. As "Petrosian's Legacy" makes clear, TP was not motivated priily by money. Even though Argentina offered the biggest purse, he didn't want to play there, saying "For me, the weather and playing conditions are the most important, rather than money." (page 114) Also, having read a good many chess books by Russian authors, I know how bad the translations can be. One has to wonder if "accepting a nice round sum" is at all close to what was actually said (if the incident ever occurred at all). Considering all the effort the Soviets were putting into stopping Fischer, both at the board and behind the scenes, it seems to me that if a bribe actually had been offered, they would have trumpeted the fact to the skies, making sure everyone knew how evil the capitalists were to engage in this sordid cheating, and how noble and honorable Petrosian had been to refuse it. The ruckus they made over the U-2 spy plane case or the Bay of Pigs would have been nothing by comparison.   Date: 14 Feb 2008 02:05:12 From: Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy help bot wrote: > On Feb 13, 11:55 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > As everyone here seems to already know, > > > nobody could easily find this on the 'net. Tell > > > us, what was the "secret password" which > > > found the text so quickly? My own efforts > > > consistently netted a slew of false hits on > > > a different "Petrosian", who apparently was > > > a politician and therefore the term "bribe" was > > > unsurprisingly sprinkled around his name like > > > grains of salt around an ocean. Adding on > > > the term "chess" had no significant impact, > > > except to bring a few dead ends to the top > > > of the list. > > > > Normal human intelligence. I read the book around 1979 and remembered > > it. To get the exact quote, I walked across the room and picked up the > > book. Tough, huh? > > Um, yeah-- real tough, considering you > claimed to find the exact text in what-- > 30 seconds, was it? > > Normally, finding text somewhere in a > *book* takes a bit longer than that, while > say, a Google search might not. Since the chapters are in chronological order, and the only chapter in which it would make any sense was the one about the 1972 Candidates matches, yeah, 30 seconds is about what it took. It probably took longer than that to retype. > BTW, your comments also seemed to > strongly imply that *anybody* should > have been able to locate this information > quickly, so it is asinine to combine that > sort of comment with a relatively rare > book, which few are likely to possess. Anybody who who is not sufficiently well read to be familiar with the book (which is not "rare," though used copies are fairly expensive these days) has no business shooting his mouth off and pretending to be knowledgeable about the subject. If the dunce cap fits, wear it. Your problem seems to be that you think access to a computer and modem can replace a functioning brain. It can't.   Date: 13 Feb 2008 21:06:02 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 11:55 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > As everyone here seems to already know, > > nobody could easily find this on the 'net. Tell > > us, what was the "secret password" which > > found the text so quickly? My own efforts > > consistently netted a slew of false hits on > > a different "Petrosian", who apparently was > > a politician and therefore the term "bribe" was > > unsurprisingly sprinkled around his name like > > grains of salt around an ocean. Adding on > > the term "chess" had no significant impact, > > except to bring a few dead ends to the top > > of the list. > > Normal human intelligence. I read the book around 1979 and remembered > it. To get the exact quote, I walked across the room and picked up the > book. Tough, huh? Um, yeah-- real tough, considering you claimed to find the exact text in what-- 30 seconds, was it? Normally, finding text somewhere in a *book* takes a bit longer than that, while say, a Google search might not. BTW, your comments also seemed to strongly imply that *anybody* should have been able to locate this information quickly, so it is asinine to combine that sort of comment with a relatively rare book, which few are likely to possess. In any case, you spoiled everything by sawing the limb before I could even get to Wal-t and buy a limb-cutter; dang you! [Note the sudden silence of the ignoranti, who no doubt are drying themselves off in front of a warm fire... .] -- help bot   Date: 13 Feb 2008 20:55:46 From: Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy help bot wrote: > > As everyone here seems to already know, > nobody could easily find this on the 'net. Tell > us, what was the "secret password" which > found the text so quickly? My own efforts > consistently netted a slew of false hits on > a different "Petrosian", who apparently was > a politician and therefore the term "bribe" was > unsurprisingly sprinkled around his name like > grains of salt around an ocean. Adding on > the term "chess" had no significant impact, > except to bring a few dead ends to the top > of the list. Normal human intelligence. I read the book around 1979 and remembered it. To get the exact quote, I walked across the room and picked up the book. Tough, huh?   Date: 13 Feb 2008 17:43:07 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 7:59 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > Thanks for the tip Mr. Bot. I haven't paid much attention to what > Kapitan Kookpot is saying. I'd toss him a bone, but that is not favored > by rabid dogs. > > It is odd that he has this fixation with me, when so many other posters > have been pointing to various defects of his "journalism" and he has > completely ignored them. I guess I am special. :) Rather than single out nearly-IMnes, I would say that all these self-proclaimed "journalists" have their own agendas, and should not be taken seriously as "objective reporters". Look at IMnes' arch-enemy, Taylor Kingston, for instance; he resides somewhere in a high tower, bellows down to the peons his official pronouncements, and all the while he cannot seem to handle facts he doesn't happen to have a hankering for. To me, the solution is obvious: recognize that the term "journalist", as it is commonly used here, indicates somebody with a strong agenda who wants others to believe he is so darned objective that his opinions are facts. In sum, you can't trust those guys! They are pretenders, or poseurs, as our employee Neil Brennen puts it. Much like Arnold Swarzennegger in his younger days, they are great at posturing and posing, and this may impress the opposite sex, but it's a bit over the top here in rgc. -- help bot   Date: 13 Feb 2008 17:26:27 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 6:58 pm, [email protected] wrote: > If you people are quite finished running around in circles and > shouting insults at each other: The "bribe" claim comes from an > article by Petrosian, "The candidates' matches as I saw them," which > appeared in Vasiliev's "Tigran Petrosian: His Life and Games." As far as I know, I have never read that particular book, so this may /also/ have appeared elsewhere. Then again, I may have read the text only from such a book, disregarding the games and analysis. > On page > 226, Petrosian wrote, "Just before the match began, something happened > that annoyed me very much. An extremely disreputable individual > approached me and said insolently, 'Mr. Petrosian,. we are all waiting > for the Spassky-Fischer match. So wouldn't it be better if you > accepted a nice round sum and went home?'" > > Of course, this doesn't prove that the story is true (commies lie a > lot) Well, it hardly suffices as an excuse for losing the match afterward, so of what use would it be to just invent such a story? Mr. Petrosian takes pride in his having told people /before/ BF won the title that BF was a very strong player; that the matches with BS were not going to be easy. > nor is there any indication that Fischer himself was involved > (highly unlikely) Until /after/ the match with BS, BF had no serious money with which to offer up bribes. Besides, he seemed convinced that he was the best player in the world from as early as 1962(??), so this would amount to throwing money down the toilet. > but it's not apocryphal. Wouldn't it have been > better to look this up first (it took me about 30 > seconds) instead of starting another spitting > match? As everyone here seems to already know, nobody could easily find this on the 'net. Tell us, what was the "secret password" which found the text so quickly? My own efforts consistently netted a slew of false hits on a different "Petrosian", who apparently was a politician and therefore the term "bribe" was unsurprisingly sprinkled around his name like grains of salt around an ocean. Adding on the term "chess" had no significant impact, except to bring a few dead ends to the top of the list. As far as re-reading the two books I have handy-- that takes time. Mr. Cafferty quotes extensively throughout his book, and the one by TP himself is disorganized, and lacks an index In any case, I wanted as many imbeciles as possible to crawl way, way out on their limb, before breaking out a saw. LOL -- help bot   Date: 13 Feb 2008 17:05:09 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 5:52 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > Ah, it is P Innes again. > > Don't add to much methane to the atmosphere with your frothing and > fuming sir. Try to relax. We could discuss the /real cause/ of global warming (the cows, of course) 'till doomsday. Giving up meat -- especially methane-emitting animals like cattle -- is the obvious answer. But this is a chess newsgroup, so we really should restrict our discussion to, say, the eating of plastic vs. wooden pieces, vinyl boards, and so forth. Getting one blow-hard to cease emission of gases is not going to have much impact on global warming, but it could improve the air quality here in rgc a bit. Try to understand: it is nearly-IMnes' job to follow LP around, responding to his postings with affectionate kisses and hugs; that's what he gets paid for. A "man" has to make a living, doesn't he? But why can't he just sue people, like Sam Sloan does? Or write crazy books about prostitutes and slave children? I guess it's a lack of creativity, or ambition. -- hep blot   Date: 13 Feb 2008 16:50:59 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 1:52 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > Ah, P Innes, the head kookpot. Whatever you say sir. Careful; if we recognize nearly-IMnes as "head kookpot", Neil Brennen may demand greater compensation for harrying him. It's already cost me half my old chess trophies, and my most outdated "Trends in the..." series booklets. My question is: who will pay if/when NB demands more? I do have some Eric Schiller books from the 1980s, but after that, it's going to take real money. -- The Crackpot Annoyer Society     Date: 13 Feb 2008 16:59:49 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy help bot wrote: > On Feb 13, 1:52 pm, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ah, P Innes, the head kookpot. Whatever you say sir. > > Careful; if we recognize nearly-IMnes as > "head kookpot", Neil Brennen may demand > greater compensation for harrying him. It's > already cost me half my old chess trophies, > and my most outdated "Trends in the..." > series booklets. My question is: who will > pay if/when NB demands more? I do have > some Eric Schiller books from the 1980s, > but after that, it's going to take real money. > > > -- The Crackpot Annoyer Society Thanks for the tip Mr. Bot. I haven't paid much attention to what Kapitan Kookpot is saying. I'd toss him a bone, but that is not favored by rabid dogs. It is odd that he has this fixation with me, when so many other posters have been pointing to various defects of his "journalism" and he has completely ignored them. I guess I am special. :) Be kind to your furry friends, and have a great day! -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 13 Feb 2008 16:44:37 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 12:35 pm, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > To be fair, I don't think the brain-fart that turned `1972' into > `1992' is any more significant than the one that turned `chief' into > `cheif'. Much of what `help bot' writes is utter bilge but that just > looks like a typo to me. Nonsense. We vast-superiors do not make such mistakes-- not even typos! I say it was Napolean, but the year may have been 1776, or maybe 1927-- the same year in which Cassablaca defeated General Sherman at Bull Run. -- hep blot   Date: 13 Feb 2008 16:41:03 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 11:21 am, [email protected] wrote: > Interesting. We, the ignorant (I cannot deny that TK is well-qualified to speak for his kind... .) > were under the impression that (1) > Fischer did not set foot in Iceland in 1992 Look, vast inferior: 1992 was obviously a typo for 1492-- the year Napolean discovered America. Um, wait-- something is not quite right. I know which match was which; the one in 1972 was the real deal, while the one in 1992 was the fake one in Yugo-Montenegro-land. The key difference is that in 1972, BF and BS were /really good/ chess players. -- help bot   Date: 13 Feb 2008 16:35:13 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 11:21 am, [email protected] wrote: > Bernard, have you ever heard or read of a claim by Petrosian, that > he was offered a bribe in connection with his 1971 Candidates Match > with Fischer? This is a very rational question. But what follows amounts to what? an obvious attempt to "lead the witness", as they say in the courtrooms (and reject strongly as tainting the answer). > I've checked Petrosian's Legacy, by TP himself, and find > no such claim there. The psychological need to interject this red herring is telling: > The only remotely similar thing I know of is > Matulovic lying down for Taimanov so MT could qualify for the > Candidates round. Perhaps I should make myself /perfectly clear/, as my old pal, Tricky Dick, used to say: that incident has nothing whatever to do with the issue at hand. There is zero chance that I could have confounded that incident with the idea of TP being offered a bribe to throw his match to BF in 1971. So you see, it is always inserted by TK for his own (devious?) purposes. > It all sounds ridiculous to me, but a guy I know is adamant that TP > said or wrote this. Ring any bell with you? This is known as "leading the witness". Now, my question is this: why would TK feel compelled to do that? Can we get an honest answer to that question, do you suppose? Anybody? -------------------------------------------------------------- At any rate, I feel elevated in knowing that even a famous historian such as BC seems to know less than I do on this issue; but then, if he is one of the multitude who are members in good standing of the worship Bobby Fischer religion, I don't deserve all that much credit. You see, even when such people read annoying claims like TP's, they automatically reject them; you've probably seen a TV commercial which says "set it, and forget it"; this is similar, except the operational phrase is "reject it, and forget it". LOL -- help bot   Date: 13 Feb 2008 16:21:29 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 9:18 am, [email protected] wrote: > If he can find something as specific as the Bannik game, why then > can't he find the quote about bribery, which he claimed was in > "Petrosian's Legacy"? Simple -- ain't no such quote in the book! It appears that TK is struggling to verbalize a manly denial of some sort; struggling with the English language, with his "need" to attack me, and with his not-so-manly wish to stay on dry ground, not crawl out on a limb which could break (or get sawed in two). Certainly, this is progress-- for him. But the fact remains that the real issue is not which particular source contained the info. stored in my memory; the real issue is one of denial; some ignorant fools are in denial regarding what Tigran Petrosian wrote-- whether it appears in this book or that one. When I get time, I will look through both books I have at hand, the one by TP and the one by BC. If I find the exact location, I will post it here-- not that this will do much in the way of treating the root cause of the dread disease; it might alleviate a few of the symptoms, perhaps. What I find amusing is that the other imbecile is willing -- no, EAGER -- to accept a cursory look by TK as some sort of "proof" that TP did not write about being offered a bribe. As we all know, in a book review of some fame, TK failed to uncover a "proof" of the author's lie regarding his having very carefully scrutinized every game in his book; naturally, such prior failures do not even register when emotion takes control; dictates one's thoughts. I see all this huffing and puffing as the undeniable side-effect of a Bobby Fischer idolization complex; it simply cannot be that any /reliable/ source has reported on being offered a bribe to throw a match to BF! No, no, no, no, no! That could taint the whole religion; the entire BF-as-chess- god is called into question by such things, by former world champ Tigran Petrosian's criticisms regarding the drawing of lots being somehow rigged, and so forth. Just curl up into a fetal position, and deny it all! Yes, then it will all go away, and you won't need to deal with it rationally... . -- help bot   Date: 13 Feb 2008 16:01:54 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 4:43 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > > Are you aware that Mr. Kingston "went through" > > a book containing a one-move Rook hang, only > > to miss it? Are you aware that Mr. Kingston > > has, shall I say, personal issues with me, on > > account of my pointing out a few of his gaffes > > in the past? > And let's review the score on this issue. > You offered one (vague) source which has > been proven false. My "source", my boy, is my memory. You can't prove that false, unless you show that say, I got Tigran Petrosian mixed up with some other candidate, like say, GM Larsen. > You've offered no other source. Once again, your ignorance is showing; I also mentioned a book by Bernard Cafferty, informing the ignoranti here that it contains many comments by the candidates in the 1972 world championship cycle-- including TP himself. This comment can be found right in this very thread-- if one is clever enough to actually /look/. LOL Kid, you have a lot to learn about the history of chess, and the best way to alleviate your ignorance would be to stop your whining, and start reading. -- help bot   Date: 13 Feb 2008 15:58:31 From: Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy If you people are quite finished running around in circles and shouting insults at each other: The "bribe" claim comes from an article by Petrosian, "The candidates' matches as I saw them," which appeared in Vasiliev's "Tigran Petrosian: His Life and Games." On page 226, Petrosian wrote, "Just before the match began, something happened that annoyed me very much. An extremely disreputable individual approached me and said insolently, 'Mr. Petrosian,. we are all waiting for the Spassky-Fischer match. So wouldn't it be better if you accepted a nice round sum and went home?'" Of course, this doesn't prove that the story is true (commies lie a lot), nor is there any indication that Fischer himself was involved (highly unlikely), but it's not apocryphal. Wouldn't it have been better to look this up first (it took me about 30 seconds) instead of starting another spitting match?   Date: 13 Feb 2008 10:55:06 From: Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 12:35=A0pm, David Richerby <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 12, 8:27=3DA0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Either way, your ignorance of chess history tells a very revealing > >> tale. =A0How could anyone /not know/ about this, after all the hoopla > >> surrounding that particular w.c. cycle, I gasp? =A0How can the > >> nutters "forget" that USCF cheif Ed Edmondson practically dragged > >> BF to Iceland in 1992? > > > Interesting. We, the ignorant, were under the impression that (1) > > Fischer did not set foot in Iceland in 1992, and (2) Edmondson died > > in 1982. Our Greg once again puts us to shame with his towering > > erudtion. > > To be fair, I don't think the brain-fart that turned `1972' into > `1992' is any more significant than the one that turned `chief' into > `cheif'. =A0Much of what `help bot' writes is utter bilge but that just > looks like a typo to me. Yes, I'm sure it was a typo, Dave, but it's still representative of help-bot's general sloppiness. Also, in view of the insulting arrogance he displays, it is always pleasurable to point out his mistakes.   Date: 13 Feb 2008 08:21:45 From: Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 12, 8:27=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > > =A0 I also have a book discussing this by B. Cafferty, > who quotes many top players of the period, > among them T. Petrosian. =A0I suppose if it turns > out that the quote was in there, you will remain > in the state of DeNile, crocs and all. Cafferty and I correspond frequently, so I was able to check this with him this morning. Here is the exchange, with only the e-mail addresses edited out: From: [email protected] To: Bernard Cafferty Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 Subject: Bribe offer to Petrosian? Bernard, have you ever heard or read of a claim by Petrosian, that he was offered a bribe in connection with his 1971 Candidates Match with Fischer? I've checked Petrosian's Legacy, by TP himself, and find no such claim there. The only remotely similar thing I know of is Matulovic lying down for Taimanov so MT could qualify for the Candidates round. It all sounds ridiculous to me, but a guy I know is adamant that TP said or wrote this. Ring any bell with you? Best regards, Taylor From:BERNARD CAFFERTY To:<[email protected] > Subject:Re: Bribe offer to Petrosian? Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2008 Taylor, No, have not heard of this anywhere and I followed the match carefully. Your informant should be challenged on a firm source, otherwise it is that vague thing "oral tradition" and rather implausible into the bargain. Bernard *** end e-mails *** For those not familiar with Cafferty's work, he is a highly respected chess historian, with special expertise on Soviet chess. If any Western historian were to know of any bribery attempt in the Fischer-Petrosian match, it would be he. > > =A0 Either way, your ignorance of chess history > tells a very revealing tale. =A0How could anyone > /not know/ about this, after all the hoopla > surrounding that particular w.c. cycle, I gasp? > How can the nutters "forget" that USCF cheif > Ed Edmondson practically dragged BF to > Iceland in 1992? Interesting. We, the ignorant, were under the impression that (1) Fischer did not set foot in Iceland in 1992, and (2) Edmondson died in 1982. Our Greg once again puts us to shame with his towering erudtion.     Date: 13 Feb 2008 17:35:45 From: David Richerby Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy <[email protected] > wrote: > On Feb 12, 8:27=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: >> Either way, your ignorance of chess history tells a very revealing >> tale. How could anyone /not know/ about this, after all the hoopla >> surrounding that particular w.c. cycle, I gasp? How can the >> nutters "forget" that USCF cheif Ed Edmondson practically dragged >> BF to Iceland in 1992? > > Interesting. We, the ignorant, were under the impression that (1) > Fischer did not set foot in Iceland in 1992, and (2) Edmondson died > in 1982. Our Greg once again puts us to shame with his towering > erudtion. To be fair, I don't think the brain-fart that turned `1972' into `1992' is any more significant than the one that turned `chief' into `cheif'. Much of what `help bot' writes is utter bilge but that just looks like a typo to me. Dave. -- David Richerby Beefy Bulb (TM): it's like a light www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ bulb that's made from a cow!     Date: 13 Feb 2008 09:22:32 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy [email protected] wrote: > On Feb 12, 8:27 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: >> I also have a book discussing this by B. Cafferty, >> who quotes many top players of the period, >> among them T. Petrosian. I suppose if it turns >> out that the quote was in there, you will remain >> in the state of DeNile, crocs and all. > > Cafferty and I correspond frequently, so I was able to check this > with him this morning. Here is the exchange, with only the e-mail > addresses edited out: > > From: [email protected] > To: Bernard Cafferty > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 > Subject: Bribe offer to Petrosian? > > Bernard, have you ever heard or read of a claim by Petrosian, that > he was offered a bribe in connection with his 1971 Candidates Match > with Fischer? I've checked Petrosian's Legacy, by TP himself, and find > no such claim there. The only remotely similar thing I know of is > Matulovic lying down for Taimanov so MT could qualify for the > Candidates round. > It all sounds ridiculous to me, but a guy I know is adamant that TP > said or wrote this. Ring any bell with you? > > Best regards, Taylor > > > From:BERNARD CAFFERTY > To:<[email protected]> > Subject:Re: Bribe offer to Petrosian? > Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2008 > > Taylor, > > No, have not heard of this anywhere and I followed the match > carefully. Your informant should be challenged on a firm source, > otherwise it is that vague thing "oral tradition" and rather > implausible into the bargain. Bernard > > *** end e-mails *** > > For those not familiar with Cafferty's work, he is a highly > respected chess historian, with special expertise on Soviet chess. If > any Western historian were to know of any bribery attempt in the > Fischer-Petrosian match, it would be he. > >> Either way, your ignorance of chess history >> tells a very revealing tale. How could anyone >> /not know/ about this, after all the hoopla >> surrounding that particular w.c. cycle, I gasp? >> How can the nutters "forget" that USCF cheif >> Ed Edmondson practically dragged BF to >> Iceland in 1992? > > Interesting. We, the ignorant, were under the impression that (1) > Fischer did not set foot in Iceland in 1992, and (2) Edmondson died in > 1982. Our Greg once again puts us to shame with his towering erudtion. I think Mr. Bot has what it takes to join the rgcp kook team headed by P Innes. I suggest a slight modification of his nom-de-plume to "Kook Bot." :) -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.       Date: 13 Feb 2008 13:11:26 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ) "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > [email protected] wrote: > > I think Mr. Bot has what it takes to join the rgcp kook team headed by P > Innes. I suggest a slight modification of his nom-de-plume to "Kook Bot." > :) > -- Thank you for your irreverend and off topical contribution to this topic - I note that they become increasingly like those of the FSS and of Brennan - [im]pure malice, seeking always to make differences among people, to reduce others* and never making any substantive contribution to chess. Now why don't you go away or find out what cordially means - or even chess? Otherwise you are in great danger of cementing your appearance as none other, by virtue of your behavior. Phil Innes *the psychological basis of these behaviors is //always// poor self-esteem - and the mechanism by which it operates is to reduce others to lower than one's own already low and distressing level, and thus to survive awhile longer, cowardly compensating for a life unexamined. > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.         Date: 13 Feb 2008 10:52:22 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Chess One wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> [email protected] wrote: > >> I think Mr. Bot has what it takes to join the rgcp kook team headed by P >> Innes. I suggest a slight modification of his nom-de-plume to "Kook Bot." >> :) >> -- > > Thank you for your irreverend and off topical contribution to this topic - I > note that they become increasingly like those of the FSS and of Brennan - > [im]pure malice, seeking always to make differences among people, to reduce > others* and never making any substantive contribution to chess. > > Now why don't you go away or find out what cordially means - or even chess? > Otherwise you are in great danger of cementing your appearance as none > other, by virtue of your behavior. > > Phil Innes > > *the psychological basis of these behaviors is //always// poor self-esteem - > and the mechanism by which it operates is to reduce others to lower than > one's own already low and distressing level, and thus to survive awhile > longer, cowardly compensating for a life unexamined. > >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > Ah, P Innes, the head kookpot. Whatever you say sir. Have a nice day! :) -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.           Date: 13 Feb 2008 17:41:40 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ) "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Chess One wrote: >> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> [email protected] wrote: >> >>> I think Mr. Bot has what it takes to join the rgcp kook team headed by P >>> Innes. I suggest a slight modification of his nom-de-plume to "Kook >>> Bot." :) >>> -- >> >> Thank you for your irreverend and off topical contribution to this >> topic - I note that they become increasingly like those of the FSS and of >> Brennan - [im]pure malice, seeking always to make differences among >> people, to reduce others* and never making any substantive contribution >> to chess. >> >> Now why don't you go away or find out what cordially means - or even >> chess? Otherwise you are in great danger of cementing your appearance as >> none other, by virtue of your behavior. >> >> Phil Innes >> >> *the psychological basis of these behaviors is //always// poor >> self-esteem - and the mechanism by which it operates is to reduce others >> to lower than one's own already low and distressing level, and thus to >> survive awhile longer, cowardly compensating for a life unexamined. >> >>> Cordially, >>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >> >> > Ah, P Innes, the head kookpot. Whatever you say sir. And I say how you are, to which you demonstrate nothing other than the most common receipt, reinforcing what you are. Now, stop your trivialising shit. Otherwise you condemn yourself. Did you not understand this? What, for Christ's sake are you reverend of? Hate? Consider that. And since your state is evident from what you write, for all to see, protest not that it is as you behave. After 10 years here on usenet, there are two principal kinds of wankers; a) those who return and state they regret that things have gone to hell - albeit, they make no contribution themselves, as if to confirm that all it takes is for good people to do nothing, and b) those like you, who are simply mocking cowards, who comment upon some scene as if they were not human beings at all, and want to create and stimulate as much hate and resentment as they can. You will recognise which sort of wanker is your own state. ;) Phil Innes > Have a nice day! :) > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.             Date: 13 Feb 2008 14:52:34 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Chess One wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> Chess One wrote: >>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> news:[email protected]... >>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>> I think Mr. Bot has what it takes to join the rgcp kook team headed by P >>>> Innes. I suggest a slight modification of his nom-de-plume to "Kook >>>> Bot." :) >>>> -- >>> Thank you for your irreverend and off topical contribution to this >>> topic - I note that they become increasingly like those of the FSS and of >>> Brennan - [im]pure malice, seeking always to make differences among >>> people, to reduce others* and never making any substantive contribution >>> to chess. >>> >>> Now why don't you go away or find out what cordially means - or even >>> chess? Otherwise you are in great danger of cementing your appearance as >>> none other, by virtue of your behavior. >>> >>> Phil Innes >>> >>> *the psychological basis of these behaviors is //always// poor >>> self-esteem - and the mechanism by which it operates is to reduce others >>> to lower than one's own already low and distressing level, and thus to >>> survive awhile longer, cowardly compensating for a life unexamined. >>> >>>> Cordially, >>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >>> >> Ah, P Innes, the head kookpot. Whatever you say sir. > > And I say how you are, to which you demonstrate nothing other than the most > common receipt, reinforcing what you are. > > Now, stop your trivialising shit. Otherwise you condemn yourself. Did you > not understand this? What, for Christ's sake are you reverend of? Hate? > > Consider that. And since your state is evident from what you write, for all > to see, protest not that it is as you behave. After 10 years here on usenet, > there are two principal kinds of wankers; > > a) those who return and state they regret that things have gone to hell - > albeit, they make no contribution themselves, as if to confirm that all it > takes is for good people to do nothing, and > > b) those like you, who are simply mocking cowards, who comment upon some > scene as if they were not human beings at all, and want to create and > stimulate as much hate and resentment as they can. > > You will recognise which sort of wanker is your own state. ;) > > Phil Innes > > >> Have a nice day! :) >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > Ah, it is P Innes again. Don't add to much methane to the atmosphere with your frothing and fuming sir. Try to relax. Have a nice day. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.               Date: 13 Feb 2008 18:58:55 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ) "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > Don't add to much methane to the atmosphere with your frothing and fuming > sir. Try to relax. > > Have a nice day. Lets review what you /do/ again, Reverend Wanker: the psychological basis of these behaviors is //always// poor self-esteem - and the mechanism by which it operates is to reduce others to lower than one's own already low and distressing level, and thus to survive awhile longer, cowardly compensating for a life unexamined. I think people get it ;) Except yourself. You are nothing new here, to a long term view. Please return on chess subjects or take your fascist shit elsewhere. If you want to be indistinguishable from a Brennan or an FSS, by all means continue to protest with your anal references. Ker-ist! These dorks don't just have dick envy, they gotta talk other people's bottoms too! PI > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.                 Date: 13 Feb 2008 16:42:54 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Chess One wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > >> Don't add to much methane to the atmosphere with your frothing and fuming >> sir. Try to relax. >> >> Have a nice day. > > Lets review what you /do/ again, Reverend Wanker: > > the psychological basis of these behaviors is //always// poor > self-esteem - and the mechanism by which it operates is to reduce others > to lower than one's own already low and distressing level, and thus to > survive awhile longer, cowardly compensating for a life unexamined. > > I think people get it ;) > Except yourself. You are nothing new here, to a long term view. Please > return on chess subjects or take your fascist shit elsewhere. If you want to > be indistinguishable from a Brennan or an FSS, by all means continue to > protest with your anal references. > > Ker-ist! These dorks don't just have dick envy, they gotta talk other > people's bottoms too! > > PI > >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > Ah, P Innes again. Are you having any fun? Try to relax and calm down. Have a nice day. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.   Date: 13 Feb 2008 07:22:22 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again PRIDE IN IGNORANCE <What astounds is your unabashed pride in your ignorance. > -- David Kane to Greg Kennedy First, a point of disagreement with David Kane. Greg Kennedy takes no pride in his ignorance. He has bared his ego wounds here on several occasions when confronted with yet another area of the human comedy of which he proved ignorant. Greg (help bot) bleeds pretty openly on these forums. The odd thing about Greg Kennedy's constant attacks on Bobby Fischer is that he goes well beyond what his Soviet opponents often had to say. For the record, there was an awe toward Fischer among the top Soviet GMs. In a secret memo, Tal even suggested taking seriously and studying Fischer's offhand, simul and five-minute games. In 1970 and 1971 -- in two matches -- Bobby Fischer dismantled Petrosian by a combined score of 9 1/2 -- 3 1/2. This was still the period of Petrosian's near invicibility. The second of the three matches with Bobby was, after all, the candidate's final. No one ever remotely handled Petrosian in his GM adulthood -- even near the end in his decline -- as Bobby handled Petrosian near the latter's peak. Spassky simply told private meetings that Bobby would beat them all. Greg hates this adulation of Bobby, especially among Bobby's OPPONENTS, many of whom had no love at all for the Brooklynite. I hold no brief for the likes of David Kane and Taylor Kingston, but I would not for a moment imagine, for example, that they would be unaware that Steinitz was an American citizen when he became world champion -- an ignorance that Greg just demonstrated here. I also imagine that both Kane and Kingston would have been aware that Poland was part of the Russian empire at the time of World War I. Alas, Greg is not proud of his ignorance. He is fairly openly humiliated by it. Yours, Larry Parr help bot wrote: > On Feb 12, 9:15 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Even Sam Sloan's wild fabrications often > > >> get *something* right. > > The names of his "enemies", I expect. But > I am ready for his Damiano's garbage: bring it > on! > > > > > Please send me everything ever written by TP, > > > along with $50K, and I will be glad to show you > > > /precisely where/ this information appeared. > > > If you want to convince me, supply the quote for free. > > That's not very good pay for this sort of > work. Tell me, are you on welfare and > food stamps? Why do you expect others > to work for you, gratis? > > At my local chess club, they talk about > a fellow who has the gall to charge $35 > per hour for chess lessons-- and he's not > very good, really. > > > > What astounds is your unabashed pride in your > > ignorance. > > LOL! Who is the real ignoramus here, > fella? It is *you* and fearless leader TK > who obviously know nothing about what > TP has written. I may not be able to > recall offhand the precise location where > I read his comments, but that is nothing > in comparison to your kind of ignorance. > > As for your imagined desire, perhaps > you can recall this recent exchange: > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I know Yasser; we've exchanged many e-mails and have met once. A > > very nice guy. I could e-mail him any time, but in this case I'm not > > trying to prove anything he said -- you are. > > Wrong. I have no desire to "prove" this to > be a fact, for I know it is whether the lunatic > fringers like it or not. That's probably why I > keep deferring the inevitable, hoping and > preying (spelling *is* correct) that Taylor > Kingston and his chums will somehow > manage to make a manly denial-- you know, > one where there is no handy escape-hatch > at their yellow backs. > > You see, it is not enough to merely educate > the ignorant; they need to be put in their lowly > places, and this can best be done by coaxing > the fools out on a fragile limb, and only THEN > breaking out the ax; it also helps if the water > is icy cold! > ------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Obviously, I have already set the record > straight on this matter of my imagined > desire to convince imbeciles of the known > facts. My only true "desire" is to be the > one to cut the limb. > > > -- help bot     Date: 13 Feb 2008 11:55:44 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again <[email protected] > wrote in message news:f22cec2a-faed-4d13-9c87-0f5d35fedfad@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > > PRIDE IN IGNORANCE > I hold no brief for the likes of David Kane and > Taylor Kingston, but I would not for a moment imagine, > for example, that they would be unaware that Steinitz > was an American citizen when he became world champion > -- an ignorance that Greg just demonstrated here. > I also imagine that both Kane and Kingston would have > been aware that Poland was part of the Russian empire > at the time of World War I. Politically yes, cultural... I think it was Milan Kundera who wrote an angry letter to the New York Times [though maybe the New Yorker] a few years ago which staed emphatically that poland had always been part of the Western cultural tradition, and why, he asked, is its culture so often thought to be Russian? > Alas, Greg is not proud of his ignorance. He is > fairly openly humiliated by it. Its not true ignorance, but possibly a tad arrogant admixed, though corrupting, a good bull-shit detector [maybe the best here]. Essentially, from a chess player's point of view, I don't like to see anyone ostracised or reduced, merely because they suffer an obvious distortion - as if, you know, they play the Dunst 'to win', and seek to prove it mathematically, or as we have seen here recently, by applying some unwonted measure, which distinguishes not chess from cheese. I have no particular reason to make any generous comment about Kennedy, but then again, no reason not to be quite objective about his core skill, and necessarily so, just like when playing chess - never underestimate opponent! -- While that is an admittedly generous gloss on an issue - what a pity that we all left Mr. Winter off the hook so easily for a similar crime! Because it is not written, said Winter, it should be expunged - whereas, in order to make his own point he merely needed to add two words relative to Kasparov's sentence; 'possible apochrphal', or even 'likely aprocryphal - rather than his absolutist 'expunged!' While that form of 'history' is actually inane - as truly stupid as those who wanted to exise Troy from the record, or make it merely 'a story' as if it too were apochryphal, until that German bloke dug it up! -- far more recent instances of what /is/ in print, and massively so, authoritatively so, is also utter bunkum! Probably the most hyped over and distorted piece of modern-era history is Gettysburg - as that interesting historian Thomas A. Desjardin informs us - which is well known to /real/ historians. But when Ted Turner made his film of Gettysburg in 1995 and broadcast it to 40 million people, all the claptrap bunkum was retained. BUNKUM HILL - not! What /we/ can all do in chess, I propose, is not to refight Gettysburg [though that would be fun!] but definitely not become absolute and singular with our own chess history - the distortion of which seem to occur for the same reasons as that after the civil war - to glamorise one aspect or party - and I use that word gamorise in a technical sense, which is to inflate a part out of proportion to other parts. We need proper researches, intelligent doubts, and never to think we have it all in the bag, which is nigh-on impossible. Instead, one excellent use of these newsgroups is to speak one's own perspective on things with others, but in the sense that there /can/ be several perspectives, that there /must/' be several, rather than just The Right One, which enforced upon each other, is merely another name for fascism. Phil Innes > Yours, Larry Parr   Date: 13 Feb 2008 06:44:15 From: Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 12, 8:27 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Feb 12, 9:12 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > I came across "Petrosian's Legacy" in a used-book store a few days > > ago, and bought it. I have examined it closely, in particular the last > > chapter, which deals with his 1971 Candidates Match against Fischer. > > Not even a hint of any bribery allegation, not even a vague reference, > > let alone any actual claim of an attempt to bribe Petrosian, is > > mentioned. Petrosian's only complaint is about the match venue -- he > > preferred that the match be held in Yugoslavia or Greece, instead of > > Buenos Aires. > > But nothing about bribery. Looks like our Greg's hyper-active > > imagination and defective memory have misled him again. > > On page 101 of Petrosian's Legacy, there > appears a diagrammed position from the > game TP vs. Bannik, Riga 1958, which is > then discussed in some depth. > > -- help bot Interesting. Some time ago Greg said the reason he could not locate the quote proving his bribery claim was that his books were in storage somewhere, and he could not get at them. Yet here he is able to tell us -- quite correctly! -- that page 101 of "Petrosian's Legacy" discusses a position from Petrosian-Bannik, Riga 1958. Looks like our Greg either is developing some rudimentary research skills, or (more likely) he was having us on all along. If he can find something as specific as the Bannik game, why then can't he find the quote about bribery, which he claimed was in "Petrosian's Legacy"? Simple -- ain't no such quote in the book!   Date: 13 Feb 2008 06:18:13 From: Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 12, 8:27=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Feb 12, 9:12 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > =A0 I came across "Petrosian's Legacy" in a used-book store a few days > > ago, and bought it. I have examined it closely, in particular the last > > chapter, which deals with his 1971 Candidates Match against Fischer. > > Not even a hint of any bribery allegation, not even a vague reference, > > let alone any actual claim of an attempt to bribe Petrosian, is > > mentioned. Petrosian's only complaint is about the match venue -- he > > preferred that the match be held in Yugoslavia or Greece, instead of > > Buenos Aires. > > =A0 But nothing about bribery. Looks like our Greg's hyper-active > > imagination and defective memory have misled him again. > > =A0 On page 101 of Petrosian's Legacy, there > appears a diagrammed position from the > game TP vs. Bannik, Riga 1958, which is > then discussed in some depth. =A0 > > =A0 -- help bot Interesting. Some time ago Greg said the reason he could not locate the quote proving his bribery claim was that his books were in storage somewhere, and he could not get at them. Yet here he is able to tell us -- quite correctly! -- that page 101 of "Petrosian's Legacy" discusses a position from Petrosian-Bannik, Riga 1958. Looks like our Greg either is developing some rudimentary research skills, or (or more likely) he was having us on all along. If he can find something as specific as the Bannik game, why then can't he find the quote about bribery, which he claimed was in "Petrosian's Legacy"? Simple -- ain't no such quote in the book!   Date: 13 Feb 2008 00:47:59 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 3:07 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > I respect Taylor Kingston for going to the > trouble of going through Petrosian's book > to verify that you are a liar. Are you aware that Mr. Kingston "went through" a book containing a one-move Rook hang, only to miss it? Are you aware that Mr. Kingston has, shall I say, personal issues with me, on account of my pointing out a few of his gaffes in the past? Look, kid, in order to "verify that I am a liar", Mr. Kingston would need to show that Tigran Petrosian never wrote anything about being offered the bribe, anywhere; even if it turns out that I was mistaken as to the exact source, he's still wrong. You do realize that the source issue is merely of interest to ad hominists, for one purpose only: to attack me in retaliation for my criticisms in the past? The issue is whether or not TP wrote that he was offered a bribe to throw his match to BF; this fact was denied, time and again, in a womanly sort of way. We also "discussed" other things TP wrote, but in keeping with his low-scheming ways, TK often changes the threads on a whim to destroy any easy reconstruction. It is a fact that you sissies have attempted to deny the fact that BF was sent books by his supporter -- who may have been Ken Smith -- before the 1992 match with Boris Spassky, and upon being shown precisely where these moves were published, you cut-and-run or else go mum. > Personally, I don't > think you have enough credibility to warrant > any effort whatsoever. I initially discounted > the story because of the source (you) and so far am > completely vindicated in my belief that your > uncorrobated "evidence" should be ignored. Well, ignorance thrives upon itself, ever multiplying. And when you get two ignorants together, well, there is no limit to what they can do! LOL > From reading him over the years, I do > suspect that TK is better versed in chess > history than I am (even though I am nowhere > near so ignorant as you), so it was reasonable > to request his opinion This is not a matter of opinion, kid; it is a question of facts, and ignorance of the facts. Opinion is what you settle for when there is no way to discern the facts; here, the way is simple and obvious: read books! It so happens that TP wrote very little that has been published in English, so it's quite simple, really. > However, I do not > agree with everything TK writes, a fact > you could verify if you were not lazy and > unintelligent. I will say that when it comes to > supplying facts to back of his assertions > in this newsgroup, no others come close. Try this experiment: go and read TK's famous articles on the alleged throwing of games to GM Botvinnik; you may notice that in his /very best/ attempt, TK does some significant research, starts off well by trying to be objective, and so forth. But in the end, he crashes and burns; he tosses logic and reason out in favor of adopting the accepted view, being politically correct, as it were. That, my boy, was TK at his /very best/. Never mind his normal quality of writing, such as his offhand stuff here, which consists largely in "demanding" sources so he can verify that his ignorance is real. TK's only real strength is in his preference for Edward Winter's stuff over the claptrap of the Evans ratpack (if I may include Ray Keene). The fact remains that if one day The Historian were to get hit by a bus, we would turn to TK as a suitable replacement; give him the Phil Innes contract; that about sums him up. -- help bot     Date: 13 Feb 2008 01:43:07 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ) "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:3d4ed3ba-7ab3-43bd-94de-cc2f06a8ca62@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 13, 3:07 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I respect Taylor Kingston for going to the >> trouble of going through Petrosian's book >> to verify that you are a liar. > > Are you aware that Mr. Kingston "went through" > a book containing a one-move Rook hang, only > to miss it? Are you aware that Mr. Kingston > has, shall I say, personal issues with me, on > account of my pointing out a few of his gaffes > in the past? > > Look, kid, in order to "verify that I am a liar", > Mr. Kingston would need to show that Tigran > Petrosian never wrote anything about being > offered the bribe, anywhere; even if it turns out > that I was mistaken as to the exact source, > he's still wrong. You do realize that the source > issue is merely of interest to ad hominists, for > one purpose only: to attack me in retaliation > for my criticisms in the past? The issue is > whether or not TP wrote that he was offered a > bribe to throw his match to BF; And let's review the score on this issue. You offered one (vague) source which has been proven false. You've offered no other source. Your attempt to make a virtue of "being mistaken as to the exact source" might fly if one year you actually provide a correct source, but, until then, it is just you celebrating your stupidity/dishonesty or whatever.   Date: 12 Feb 2008 23:07:42 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 13, 1:15 am, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > The point is that, on this point, you are wrong from start > to finish. Where is your proof? All I've seen is pictures of de Nile... crocks eating wildebeasts... empty claims that TP must not have written something because you don't happen to like it-- that sort of thing. Obviously, you have no proof because it doesn't exist-- nor could it. > Sloan's ramblings are almost always wrong > on the big points, but every now and then he gets > a detail correct. Well, he is correct that his horrible play is classified as the Damiano's Defense-- I'll give him that. > > That's not very good pay for this sort of > > work. Tell me, are you on welfare and > > food stamps? Why do you expect others > > to work for you, gratis? > > Not gratis. In return, I'll offer, a constructive > assessment of some of your mental defects, instruct > you in logic, etc. No, I want you to work for free, like I do. TK was generous enough to offer up some "serious dough" to anyone who was willing to take his "bet", but as usual, his effort got no takers. Look, kid: you're already a step above the mindless Evans ratpackers by teaming up with your new pal, TK; but you are way out of your league here. When it comes to logic and reason, even your fearless leader falls short of the k, time and again. Take his letters to Chess Lies magazine, for instance; the poor sap actually sent in an endorsement of Larry Evans' claptrap, only to later change his tune and swing the opposite way! This sort of thing is good if you're, say, dancing the Tango, but not when you are trying to think things through using logic and reason. Even after years of further research and mulling things over in his mind, TK's efforts fell short of the k; he basically knuckled under when it turned out that "most" of the pundits sided with Larry Evans and his rats. Even after his best efforts at objectivity and reason, TK's analysis fell into the mire of bias and opinion; it's a sad thing to watch. Maybe, one day you will learn a thing or two about what has been written on the subject of the BF-TP match; until then, you would do best to remain silent and merely *thought* a fool... . LOL -- help bot     Date: 13 Feb 2008 00:07:03 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ) "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:86b62cc1-261a-476e-b3ca-e308ddab958b@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 13, 1:15 am, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The point is that, on this point, you are wrong from start >> to finish. > > Where is your proof? All I've seen is pictures > of de Nile... crocks eating wildebeasts... empty > claims that TP must not have written something > because you don't happen to like it-- that sort > of thing. Obviously, you have no proof because > it doesn't exist-- nor could it. > > >> Sloan's ramblings are almost always wrong >> on the big points, but every now and then he gets >> a detail correct. > > Well, he is correct that his horrible play > is classified as the Damiano's Defense-- > I'll give him that. > > >> > That's not very good pay for this sort of >> > work. Tell me, are you on welfare and >> > food stamps? Why do you expect others >> > to work for you, gratis? >> >> Not gratis. In return, I'll offer, a constructive >> assessment of some of your mental defects, instruct >> you in logic, etc. > > No, I want you to work for free, like I do. > > TK was generous enough to offer up some > "serious dough" to anyone who was willing to > take his "bet", but as usual, his effort got no > takers. > > Look, kid: you're already a step above the > mindless Evans ratpackers by teaming up > with your new pal, TK; but you are way out > of your league here. When it comes to > logic and reason, even your fearless leader > falls short of the k, time and again. I respect Taylor Kingston for going to the trouble of going through Petrosian's book to verify that you are a liar. Personally, I don't think you have enough credibility to warrant any effort whatsoever. I initially discounted the story because of the source (you) and so far am completely vindicated in my belief that your uncorrobated "evidence" should be ignored. From reading him over the years, I do suspect that TK is better versed in chess history than I am (even though I am nowhere near so ignorant as you), so it was reasonable to request his opinion. However, I do not agree with everything TK writes, a fact you could verify if you were not lazy and unintelligent. I will say that when it comes to supplying facts to back of his assertions in this newsgroup, no others come close. Sorry, you're still busted.   Date: 12 Feb 2008 21:13:18 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 12, 9:15 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > >> Even Sam Sloan's wild fabrications often > >> get *something* right. The names of his "enemies", I expect. But I am ready for his Damiano's garbage: bring it on! > > Please send me everything ever written by TP, > > along with $50K, and I will be glad to show you > > /precisely where/ this information appeared. > If you want to convince me, supply the quote for free. That's not very good pay for this sort of work. Tell me, are you on welfare and food stamps? Why do you expect others to work for you, gratis? At my local chess club, they talk about a fellow who has the gall to charge $35 per hour for chess lessons-- and he's not very good, really. > What astounds is your unabashed pride in your > ignorance. LOL! Who is the real ignoramus here, fella? It is *you* and fearless leader TK who obviously know nothing about what TP has written. I may not be able to recall offhand the precise location where I read his comments, but that is nothing in comparison to your kind of ignorance. As for your imagined desire, perhaps you can recall this recent exchange: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > I know Yasser; we've exchanged many e-mails and have met once. A > very nice guy. I could e-mail him any time, but in this case I'm not > trying to prove anything he said -- you are. Wrong. I have no desire to "prove" this to be a fact, for I know it is whether the lunatic fringers like it or not. That's probably why I keep deferring the inevitable, hoping and preying (spelling *is* correct) that Taylor Kingston and his chums will somehow manage to make a manly denial-- you know, one where there is no handy escape-hatch at their yellow backs. You see, it is not enough to merely educate the ignorant; they need to be put in their lowly places, and this can best be done by coaxing the fools out on a fragile limb, and only THEN breaking out the ax; it also helps if the water is icy cold! ------------------------------------------------------------- Obviously, I have already set the record straight on this matter of my imagined desire to convince imbeciles of the known facts. My only true "desire" is to be the one to cut the limb. -- help bot     Date: 12 Feb 2008 22:15:40 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ) "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Feb 12, 9:15 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Even Sam Sloan's wild fabrications often >> >> get *something* right. > > The names of his "enemies", I expect. But > I am ready for his Damiano's garbage: bring it > on! > The point is that, on this point, you are wrong from start to finish. Sloan's ramblings are almost always wrong on the big points, but every now and then he gets a detail correct. > >> > Please send me everything ever written by TP, >> > along with $50K, and I will be glad to show you >> > /precisely where/ this information appeared. > >> If you want to convince me, supply the quote for free. > > That's not very good pay for this sort of > work. Tell me, are you on welfare and > food stamps? Why do you expect others > to work for you, gratis? Not gratis. In return, I'll offer, a constructive assessment of some of your mental defects, instruct you in logic, etc. > At my local chess club, they talk about > a fellow who has the gall to charge $35 > per hour for chess lessons-- and he's not > very good, really. > > >> What astounds is your unabashed pride in your >> ignorance. > > LOL! Who is the real ignoramus here, > fella? It is *you* and fearless leader TK > who obviously know nothing about what > TP has written. I may not be able to > recall offhand the precise location where > I read his comments, but that is nothing > in comparison to your kind of ignorance. No one constrained you to relying what you "recall offhand". But even then, demonstrating that your offhand recollections are grossly inaccurate is hardly something to brag about.   Date: 12 Feb 2008 17:31:14 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 12, 3:14 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected] > wrote: > One can only wonder what fantastic nonsense help bot will spew > forth this time. What's funny about this particular story of his is that > he is not only wrong on the generalities, he is equally flat out wrong > on each of the details. Even Sam Sloan's wild fabrications often > get *something* right. Please send me everything ever written by TP, along with $50K, and I will be glad to show you /precisely where/ this information appeared. Alternatively, you can swin in deNile-- with the crocs and the hippos. Feel secure in knowing that most people are every bit as ignorant as you two fools, so your idiocy will be known only to a select few; I bet that gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling, doesn't it? : >D -- help bot     Date: 12 Feb 2008 18:15:05 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ) "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Feb 12, 3:14 pm, "David Kane" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> One can only wonder what fantastic nonsense help bot will spew >> forth this time. What's funny about this particular story of his is that >> he is not only wrong on the generalities, he is equally flat out wrong >> on each of the details. Even Sam Sloan's wild fabrications often >> get *something* right. > > Please send me everything ever written by TP, > along with $50K, and I will be glad to show you > /precisely where/ this information appeared. > If you want to convince me, supply the quote for free. Given your inability to comprehend simple USENET threads, your confusion over some alleged printed matter is not surprising. What astounds is your unabashed pride in your ignorance.   Date: 12 Feb 2008 17:27:36 From: help bot Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy On Feb 12, 9:12 am, [email protected] wrote: > I came across "Petrosian's Legacy" in a used-book store a few days > ago, and bought it. I have examined it closely, in particular the last > chapter, which deals with his 1971 Candidates Match against Fischer. > Not even a hint of any bribery allegation, not even a vague reference, > let alone any actual claim of an attempt to bribe Petrosian, is > mentioned. Petrosian's only complaint is about the match venue -- he > preferred that the match be held in Yugoslavia or Greece, instead of > Buenos Aires. > But nothing about bribery. Looks like our Greg's hyper-active > imagination and defective memory have misled him again. Any luck "enlightening yourself" regarding your deep denial of Andy Soltis' Ruy Lopez book containing the moves played by BF against BS? I see that even though the precise chapter and moves were discussed here, the result has been a cut-and-run on that issue-- "surprise". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As for the other issue, I can re-read that book if you are unable to locate the text yourself, but it's not going to help out with your denial issues. I also have a book discussing this by B. Cafferty, who quotes many top players of the period, among them T. Petrosian. I suppose if it turns out that the quote was in there, you will remain in the state of DeNile, crocs and all. What I really want is a manly denial from the naysayers, not Blairian quote games; if ye be man enough to deny that TP ever said this, I be man enough to do the research in your stead; but if ye be not man enough, I feel nothing but pity for ye. Either way, your ignorance of chess history tells a very revealing tale. How could anyone /not know/ about this, after all the hoopla surrounding that particular w.c. cycle, I gasp? How can the nutters "forget" that USCF cheif Ed Edmondson practically dragged BF to Iceland in 1992? How can they insist that BF "singlehandedly" did this or did that, when it is well-known that he had tons of help? One such small help was the shipment of books we have been discussing (one of which was the one by Andy Soltis)-- which sent some folks running in denial. Another item on the list was a British financier who stepped in at the last moment and put up his own money to help drag BF to the chess board. ------------------------------------------------------------------ On page 101 of Petrosian's Legacy, there appears a diagrammed position from the game TP vs. Bannik, Riga 1958, which is then discussed in some depth. I was curious to see if this was hype or tripe, and punched it into a strong chess engine for a long think; sure enough, it agreed 100% with TP's choice of move! This same idea, more or less, reappeared in a famous game betwixt BF and TP years later, with BF emerging victorious after doubling his Rooks on the seventh rank. -- help bot   Date: 12 Feb 2008 06:12:51 From: Subject: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez On Feb 7, 1:32=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > > > > =A0 For a book that's so easy to find, you seem to have great difficul= ty > > > even telling us its title, let alone citing any validation of your > > > bribery claim. > > > =A0 My poor, ignorant friend: the claim is Tigran > > Petrosian's, not mine. > > =A0 Here it is again, in simple English this time: > > =A0 Petrosian^s Legacy I came across "Petrosian's Legacy" in a used-book store a few days ago, and bought it. I have examined it closely, in particular the last chapter, which deals with his 1971 Candidates Match against Fischer. Not even a hint of any bribery allegation, not even a vague reference, let alone any actual claim of an attempt to bribe Petrosian, is mentioned. Petrosian's only complaint is about the match venue -- he preferred that the match be held in Yugoslavia or Greece, instead of Buenos Aires. But nothing about bribery. Looks like our Greg's hyper-active imagination and defective memory have misled him again.     Date: 12 Feb 2008 12:14:03 From: David Kane Subject: Re: Help-bot Busted Again (was Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:879f5757-b6d8-44e0-bfa6-fa71b8f51fd8@l16g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > I came across "Petrosian's Legacy" in a used-book store a few days >ago, and bought it. I have examined it closely, in particular the last >chapter, which deals with his 1971 Candidates Match against Fischer. >Not even a hint of any bribery allegation, not even a vague reference, >let alone any actual claim of an attempt to bribe Petrosian, is >mentioned. Petrosian's only complaint is about the match venue -- he >preferred that the match be held in Yugoslavia or Greece, instead of >Buenos Aires. > But nothing about bribery. Looks like our Greg's hyper-active >imagination and defective memory have misled him again. Thanks for being such a reliable source of information. One can only wonder what fantastic nonsense help bot will spew forth this time. What's funny about this particular story of his is that he is not only wrong on the generalities, he is equally flat out wrong on each of the details. Even Sam Sloan's wild fabrications often get *something* right.   Date: 08 Feb 2008 17:03:38 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 8, 7:56 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote: > > > Don't deny the legacy of Tigran Petrosian, > > > just to protect delusions regarding Bobby > > > Fischer, the myth. The key is to separate > > > the two-- man from myth. > > Petrosian^s Legacy > > I had this book ages ago, but it's no longer in my library. I sold it > off when I decided I'd never make master. (That was before I > discovered you could establish a reputation as a strong player by > claiming on newsgroups to be rated 2450.) I don't recall any > discussion of a Fischer 'bribe' in the book, but I may be mistaken. And why would you be expected to recall that from memory? (The reason I recall it from my memory is that the subject of BF's allegedly perfect behavior at the board comes up here so often. It just so happens that I have noted several debunker incidents which don't fit the Fischer-myths, and this is one of them.) If you look at the results of AK vs. VK matches, they are always dismissed by the Cold War propagandists and their many victims as "that didn't count!", because of the funky goings-on before, during, or even afterward. Yet this same type of weirdness was present in the 1972 match, and the cycle leading into it. Nobody would expect a typical person to recall something like that from memory-- even if you insisted upon having read every word of the entire book. > Then again, this may be another fiasco like the mixup between Jacob > Elson and Julius Elson that a mindless troll debated me over a couple > of years ago. The troll thought a commercial database was a more > reliable source for a 19th century gamescore than contemporary > newspapers. No wonder he confused Jacob with his weaker brother > Julius. The problem with such databases is that you can't know the precise source of the game scores; they could have been from newspapers, chess books, or even other databases. All I know is that the local "newspaper", in other words, what used to be called the Hoosier Chess Journal but is now probably called simply the ISCA magazine, almost never gets the scores of my games right. Some games were annotated in a very deceptive manner, others truncated such as to mislead readers, and only one that I am aware of was correct, complete, and well- annotated! Now, I ask you: why should it be assumed that things were any different in the 19th century? Even in cases where one of the original score sheets was used, it remains a fact that sometimes, the score sheets of the two players don't match one another! All I can say is this: ignore the score sheet of my idiotic opponent, and go by mine!! -- help bot   Date: 08 Feb 2008 04:56:28 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 7, 1:32 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Feb 4, 2:31 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > For a book that's so easy to find, you seem to have great difficulty > > > even telling us its title, let alone citing any validation of your > > > bribery claim. > > > My poor, ignorant friend: the claim is Tigran > > Petrosian's, not mine. You would of course > > know that, if you knew anything much about > > chess. Still, you have excellent taste in > > music; the alligators might take some offense > > and of course it is not politically correct with > > the animal-rights people, aka "tree-huggers", > > but then, that's their problem. Back in my > > day, 'gators were so numerous one could > > cross the mighty Mississippi by leaping from > > one to the other. > > > Don't deny the legacy of Tigran Petrosian, > > just to protect delusions regarding Bobby > > Fischer, the myth. The key is to separate > > the two-- man from myth. > > It looks like most of the lunatic-fringers have > cut and run-- including fearless leader, TK. LOL! > > Here it is again, in simple English this time: > > Petrosian^s Legacy I had this book ages ago, but it's no longer in my library. I sold it off when I decided I'd never make master. (That was before I discovered you could establish a reputation as a strong player by claiming on newsgroups to be rated 2450.) I don't recall any discussion of a Fischer 'bribe' in the book, but I may be mistaken. Then again, this may be another fiasco like the mixup between Jacob Elson and Julius Elson that a mindless troll debated me over a couple of years ago. The troll thought a commercial database was a more reliable source for a 19th century gamescore than contemporary newspapers. No wonder he confused Jacob with his weaker brother Julius. > Remember: there are crocks in de-Nile, and > maybe even hippos. Yes, I think Humphrey > Bogart and Catharine (sic) Hepburn experienced > that firsthand. Those critters may be the > reason bull sharks are not more fond of the > river. Just avoid denial and you^ll be alright; > take it like a man-- or, as the movie trailer > said when they made yet another remake of > The Naked Gun: "just accept it". > > -- help bot   Date: 07 Feb 2008 16:05:07 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 7, 5:49 pm, [email protected] wrote: > I guess my $10 is safe. Ah, so then, it is the ten dollar bill which has a picture of Andy Soltis on it! (With their silly white whigs, those guys all look alike to me.) Good thing you only found one "sucker", what with all that at stake; wouldn't want you to risk your lunch money, kid. > > The book says what it says, > > It undoubtedly does, tautologies being what they are. But here we > are not told what it actually says, we get what Greg claims it says. > In the absence of authoritative citations, with actual quotes and page > numbers that others can check, skepticism is the natural response. I see. So the "demand" for the book's title was merely huffing and puffing; there was never any desire to check this out, to see if what I wrote was actually true. Obviously, if I quoted and gave page numbers, it would still be just little old me, saying that it said this or that, and the yellow-fellows could simply pretend I made it all up, being in denial as they clearly are. In any case, one of de Nile sailors has ceased his denials regarding Andy Soltis, apparently afraid someone else "out there" might have this book and knock him into the water (with the crocs, remember?). ----------------------------------------------------------- Here's something interesting regarding the moves from the game linked to in the top post of this thread: Where "theory" gave e5! and later Ne4! (which was exactly what BF played), my computer seems to prefer the move: 17. axb6 cxb6 ...and now, the programs do not agree on the best follow-up, nor even upon the size of White's advantage. What they do agree on is that White's threat of B-f8 trumps what BF did in the game (and Andy Soltis' analysis). What I found surprising, was that the graph produced when the entire game is looked over and drawn up (something I like to do with my own games, for perspective) has White slightly better all the way through, BUT just before the game-losing blunder by BS, BF apparently /tossed away/ most of his advantage-- according to the computer. The move 17. Ne4, with its ever-present exclamation k, may well have been an error which lets Black back into the game. In any case, the score simply LEAPS into dead-lost territory after Black's horrible reply (...Kc6, abandoning the a-pawn). Maybe others have better chess programs than I do, and they can graph this game and report their finding here; it sure looks like a one-move blunder on my screen. -- hep blot   Date: 07 Feb 2008 14:49:13 From: Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 7, 4:50=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > > =A0 It is clear that this book was sent to BF before > his 1992 match with BS, Thanks for the clarification. > =A0 I had no reason to hang onto my issues of > Inside Chess after reading them; for all I know, > I may have given them away. =A0 I guess my $10 is safe. > =A0 The book says what it says, It undoubtedly does, tautologies being what they are. But here we are not told what it actually says, we get what Greg claims it says. In the absence of authoritative citations, with actual quotes and page numbers that others can check, skepticism is the natural response.   Date: 07 Feb 2008 13:50:29 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 7, 9:49 am, [email protected] wrote: > > Chapter four covers virtually the entire game, > > with BF's 15. e5! and 17. Ne4! all noted as > > having been played before. Even the winning > > Knight sac' on c5 was mentioned, repeatedly. > This makes it sound like Fischer got his winning line from Soltis, > but now it sounds like you are saying Soltis mentions the 1992 Fischer- > Spassky game, in which Fischer could not have read the Soltis book > before the match. > Which came first? Could you clarify the chronology here? Typically, the naysayers are confused, if not completely submerged in de-Nile. It is clear that this book was sent to BF before his 1992 match with BS, and despite strained attempts at denial, nearly every move was given as already played before; I can cite specific games, if the naysayers can stomach the facts. Now, I don't want to sound too hard on BS for not having studied these games; after all, some of the players in question were relatively weak, and I would imagine that BS would have likely preferred to study the games of the world's top players instead. But it is clear BS was playing lines which had already been "busted", which does not impress. This is particularly crucial in assessing desperate attempts at denial of the man's then-current rating; obviously, even a former world champ is not going to have stellar results if he falls into known traps like this one. The real problem was perhaps a tendency to draw peacefully with other 2500 players-- I don't know the details of his fall from greatness; what I do know is that, quite unsurprisingly, the pundits went into total denial of GM Spassky's *actual* rating, making up a replacement they liked better by which to do their fake math. All this "fake math" stuff appeared in the pages of Chess Lies, or perhaps in Yasser Seirawan's own publication, Inside Chess (or both). > Checking the Soltis book has no bearing on the matter. To satisfy > the terms of the bet, you would have to cite "No Regrets" and/or > Inside Chess. I had no reason to hang onto my issues of Inside Chess after reading them; for all I know, I may have given them away. To me, the 1992 match was a joke; by then, Gary Kasparov was quite obviously superior to a washed-up BF. Still, it is not impossible that I could have them stashed away somewhere, or that this all appeared in YS's book, No Regrets. The fact remains that the naysayers keep getting themselves in a tizzy, every time I mention something they can't handle; instead of reading up for themselves, they attack me for not citing from memory exact quotations and page numbers-- which STILL would leave them deep in denial! I say the problem here is not that I fall short of Louis Blair in quoting; it is that others seem to not know jack about chess. > Merely to give a title does not establish what the book actually > says. De Nile: it ain't just a river in Africa! The book says what it says, and you're just going to have to grow up and face reality, my boy. It is hardly surprising that so many are ignorant of the facts regarding Bobby Fischer; after all, they have been pummeled by Cold War propaganda and little else, for decades; taken in, I would say. ------------------------------------------------------------ I ran the game covered in the top post of this thread overnight, for a good, deep look. Unfortunately, my anti-virus program asked to re-boot and I clicked OK-- whoosh! Gone in sixty seconds. All I know is that Black's 17th move scored as a blunder, and the program did not like BF's 17th move as well as a move I spotted easily. We'll run it again, but perhaps not so deep this time. -- help bot   Date: 07 Feb 2008 06:49:15 From: Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 7, 3:07=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > > =A0 Okay, here it is: I dredged through my closet > and found that I *do* have the correct edition > to verify Yasser Seirawan's claim that Andy > Soltis covered this whole line in the 1992 > edition of his book on the Exchange Ruy > Lopez, which it was claimed, was sent to > BF gratis, before the match. > > =A0 Now, I would like to point out that right on > the cover of this book, in big, bold letters are > these words: =A0"Fischer's Weapon". =A0Kind of > hard to overlook, when preparing for a multi- > million dollar match, huh? > > =A0 Chapter four covers virtually the entire game, > with BF's 15. e5! and 17. Ne4! all noted as > having been played before. =A0Even the winning > Knight sac' on c5 was mentioned, repeatedly. This sounds a bit different from your original claim, Greg. Back on February 2nd you wrote "The story was that someone (was it Ken Smith, perhaps?) had sent BF a bunch of chess books, among them being the one by GM Andy Soltis on the exchange Ruy Lopez; if I recall correctly, it was GM Yasser Seirawan who pointed out that this entire line was given by GM Soltis as winning for White in that very book." This makes it sound like Fischer got his winning line from Soltis, but now it sounds like you are saying Soltis mentions the 1992 Fischer- Spassky game, in which Fischer could not have read the Soltis book before the match. Which came first? Could you clarify the chronology here? > =A0 P.S.: the dufus may not want to pay off > his bets yet; somebody needs to rummage > through Inside Chess from 1992, to show > that it was indeed YS who related the story, > and not someone else. The first bet (for $10.00) was as follows: >> Here are my best guesses at where I most likely read about this: >> 1. No Regrets, by Yasser Seirawan >> 2. Inside Chess, in 1992 > I've got a Hamilton says that's as far as Greg goes in getting this verif= ied. Checking the Soltis book has no bearing on the matter. To satisfy the terms of the bet, you would have to cite "No Regrets" and/or Inside Chess. >> It looks like most of the lunatic-fringers have >> cut and run-- including fearless leader, TK. LOL! No, Greg, I've been here pretty much every day. I have a new ID because I opened a gmail address, but I'm still TK. >> Here it is again, in simple English this time: >> Petrosian^s Legacy Again, that does not satisfy the terms of the bet. To quote myself: "And an Andy (Jackson, not Soltis) that says he never finds that elusive Petrosian book that supposedly claims PT was offered a bribe to take a dive to RJF." Merely to give a title does not establish what the book actually says. You will have to cite the relevant passage(s) that validate your claim, giving page number(s).   Date: 07 Feb 2008 00:07:46 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 2, 8:25 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote: > >at my age, it is hard enough just > >remembering to zip up my pants. > > It's time to worry when you forget to zip 'em down. Hmm. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Okay, here it is: I dredged through my closet and found that I *do* have the correct edition to verify Yasser Seirawan's claim that Andy Soltis covered this whole line in the 1992 edition of his book on the Exchange Ruy Lopez, which it was claimed, was sent to BF gratis, before the match. Now, I would like to point out that right on the cover of this book, in big, bold letters are these words: "Fischer's Weapon". Kind of hard to overlook, when preparing for a multi- million dollar match, huh? Chapter four covers virtually the entire game, with BF's 15. e5! and 17. Ne4! all noted as having been played before. Even the winning Knight sac' on c5 was mentioned, repeatedly. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A very quick computer analysis pinpoints Black's move 17 as a serious error, but this may not hold up after a deeper look. The computer prefers White all the way, but the numbers are relatively small at first, as with many other lines. Also, after a brief look, the computer seems to like 8. Ne2 -- a move Andy Soltis strongly disliked. I will give this line a deeper look, and report my findings. -- help bot P.S.: the dufus may not want to pay off his bets yet; somebody needs to rummage through Inside Chess from 1992, to show that it was indeed YS who related the story, and not someone else. As far as I can remember, nobody else seemed to have any objectivity whatsoever regarding BF, so even if, say, Larry Parr had known, he'd likely have covered it up. The "final answer" is in regarding just how worried GK needed to be regarding his world championship title: as expected, not at all.   Date: 06 Feb 2008 22:32:46 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 4, 2:31 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > > For a book that's so easy to find, you seem to have great difficulty > > even telling us its title, let alone citing any validation of your > > bribery claim. > > My poor, ignorant friend: the claim is Tigran > Petrosian's, not mine. You would of course > know that, if you knew anything much about > chess. Still, you have excellent taste in > music; the alligators might take some offense > and of course it is not politically correct with > the animal-rights people, aka "tree-huggers", > but then, that's their problem. Back in my > day, 'gators were so numerous one could > cross the mighty Mississippi by leaping from > one to the other. > > Don't deny the legacy of Tigran Petrosian, > just to protect delusions regarding Bobby > Fischer, the myth. The key is to separate > the two-- man from myth. It looks like most of the lunatic-fringers have cut and run-- including fearless leader, TK. LOL! Here it is again, in simple English this time: Petrosian^s Legacy Remember: there are crocks in de-Nile, and maybe even hippos. Yes, I think Humphrey Bogart and Catharine Hepburn experienced that firsthand. Those critters may be the reason bull sharks are not more fond of the river. Just avoid denial and you^ll be alright; take it like a man-- or, as the movie trailer said when they made yet another remake of The Naked Gun: "just accept it". -- help bot   Date: 03 Feb 2008 23:31:16 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 2, 6:13 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > Okay: have you tried actually reading what > > Yasser Seirawan wrote on the match? > > Yep, read "No Regrets" about 3-4 years ago. Don't remember anything > about Soltis in it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Well, my memories on this subject date back quite a bit further than that, so perhaps it was in Inside Chess then (from 1992). Of course, there is another possibility-- and I don't mean that my memory is far superior to yours; what if you went into de-Nile when you read that BF had been handed the winning moves on a silver platter? What if you didn't /want/ to register that thought, and just blocked it out? > > That > > would be a good place to start looking since > > I do not talk to these famous GMs in person > > or over the phone, like nearly-IMnes. > > I know Yasser; we've exchanged many e-mails and have met once. A > very nice guy. I could e-mail him any time, but in this case I'm not > trying to prove anything he said -- you are. Wrong. I have no desire to "prove" this to be a fact, for I know it is whether the lunatic fringers like it or not. That's probably why I keep deferring the inevitable, hoping and preying (spelling *is* correct) that Taylor Kingston and his chums will somehow manage to make a manly denial-- you know, one where there is no handy escape-hatch at their yellow backs. You see, it is not enough to merely educate the ignorant; they need to be put in their lowly places, and this can best be done by coaxing the fools out on a fragile limb, and only THEN breaking out the ax; it also helps if the water is icy cold! > Does your mother still do your laundry and pick up your room for > you? My room? You mean to say that some bots have their very own rooms? That's not fair! > Incorrect: It's "And we caught the bloody British in the town of New > Orleans." Sorry about that; my 8-track tape player was broken and after thirty+ years, the memory fades (as Larry Evans famously put it). > For a book that's so easy to find, you seem to have great difficulty > even telling us its title, let alone citing any validation of your > bribery claim. My poor, ignorant friend: the claim is Tigran Petrosian's, not mine. You would of course know that, if you knew anything much about chess. Still, you have excellent taste in music; the alligators might take some offense and of course it is not politically correct with the animal-rights people, aka "tree-huggers", but then, that's their problem. Back in my day, 'gators were so numerous one could cross the mighty Mississippi by leaping from one to the other. Don't deny the legacy of Tigran Petrosian, just to protect delusions regarding Bobby Fischer, the myth. The key is to separate the two-- man from myth. -- help bot   Date: 03 Feb 2008 06:40:22 From: Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 2, 6:13=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Feb 2, 5:26 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > =A0 Okay: have you tried actually reading what > > Yasser Seirawan wrote on the match? > > =A0 Yep, read "No Regrets" about 3-4 years ago. Don't remember anything > about Soltis in it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. > > > =A0That > > would be a good place to start looking since > > I do not talk to these famous GMs in person > > or over the phone, like nearly-IMnes. > > =A0 I know Yasser; we've exchanged many e-mails and have met once. A > very nice guy. I could e-mail him any time, but in this case I'm not > trying to prove anything he said -- you are. > > > =A0 If you expect me to quote from memory a > > book* I read fifteen or so years back, you may > > be overestimating me just a tad. =A0Better to > > just look at the book; check the facts for > > yourself. > > > =A0(* or the magazine Inside Chess) > > =A0 Does your mother still do your laundry and pick up your room for > you? Maybe you can get her to look it up for you. Don't ask me. > > > =A0 Jackson... Jackson-- he was in a song: > > > =A0 =A0 =A0In 1814 we took a little trip, > > =A0 along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip. > > =A0 =A0 We took a little bacon and we took a little beans, > > =A0 and met the bloody British in a town by New Orleans. > > =A0 Incorrect: It's "And we caught the bloody British in the town of New > Orleans." > > > =A0 [refrain] > > =A0 Well, we fired our guns and the British kep' a comin' > =A0 Wasn't nigh as many as they was a while ago > =A0 Fired once more and they begin to runnin' > =A0 Down the Mississippi to the the Gulf of Mexico > > =A0 Good ol' Johnny Horton. My favorite verse has always been this one: > > =A0 Well we fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down > =A0 So we grabbed an alligator and we fired another round > =A0 We stuffed his head with cannonballs and powdered his behind > =A0 And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind. > > > =A0 The funny part is that TP's book is so easy > > to find, because he wrote so *few* (in English, > > anyway). > > =A0 For a book that's so easy to find, you seem to have great difficulty > even telling us its title, let alone citing any validation of your > bribery claim. Amazing what you can find on YouTube. Here's Johnny Horton and "The Battle of New Orleans" from 1958: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DzyXrxfjEOhs   Date: 02 Feb 2008 15:13:35 From: Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 2, 5:26 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > > Okay: have you tried actually reading what > Yasser Seirawan wrote on the match? Yep, read "No Regrets" about 3-4 years ago. Don't remember anything about Soltis in it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. > That > would be a good place to start looking since > I do not talk to these famous GMs in person > or over the phone, like nearly-IMnes. I know Yasser; we've exchanged many e-mails and have met once. A very nice guy. I could e-mail him any time, but in this case I'm not trying to prove anything he said -- you are. > If you expect me to quote from memory a > book* I read fifteen or so years back, you may > be overestimating me just a tad. Better to > just look at the book; check the facts for > yourself. > > (* or the magazine Inside Chess) Does your mother still do your laundry and pick up your room for you? Maybe you can get her to look it up for you. Don't ask me. > Jackson... Jackson-- he was in a song: > > In 1814 we took a little trip, > along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip. > We took a little bacon and we took a little beans, > and met the bloody British in a town by New Orleans. Incorrect: It's "And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans." > [refrain] Well, we fired our guns and the British kep' a comin' Wasn't nigh as many as they was a while ago Fired once more and they begin to runnin' Down the Mississippi to the the Gulf of Mexico Good ol' Johnny Horton. My favorite verse has always been this one: Well we fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down So we grabbed an alligator and we fired another round We stuffed his head with cannonballs and powdered his behind And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind. > The funny part is that TP's book is so easy > to find, because he wrote so *few* (in English, > anyway). For a book that's so easy to find, you seem to have great difficulty even telling us its title, let alone citing any validation of your bribery claim.   Date: 02 Feb 2008 14:26:19 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 2, 4:10 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > A bit less plausible, though, is the idea that Fischer would find > > > advice from someone like Soltis useful. > > > You make the mistake of assuming that for any > > given author/hack, all his work is of the same > > quality. > > I made no such mistake. As I wrote here:http://www.chesscafe.com/text/sovietchess.txt, > I'm quite familiar with Soltis' uneven output: "American grandmaster > Andrew Soltis is a prolific but somewhat > uneven writer. His works on openings have ranged from forgettable > small pamphlets to respectable full-length treatises." I haven't read his book on the Ruy Lopez, but I have read some review which pointed to it as an example of one of AS's better quality works. I believed that account because it seemed to be objective. My own experience has been that AS is a very lazy and shallow author, who routinely "ducks" the best lines for the opponent, and who fills pages with "white space" as if hell- bent on killing trees in vain. > > In reality, even lazy writers like AS can, at times, > > produce good stuff. And if it turns out that this > > entire line was in AS's book from 1992, as the > > Yaz recounted, you'll have to eat your words. > > No words to eat. I don't discount the possibility that Fischer did > use a Soltis recommendation. It's certainly far more plausible than, > say, the bribe offer to Petrosian. I'd just like to see some > verification of it. Okay: have you tried actually reading what Yasser Seirawan wrote on the match? That would be a good place to start looking since I do not talk to these famous GMs in person or over the phone, like nearly-IMnes. If you expect me to quote from memory a book* I read fifteen or so years back, you may be overestimating me just a tad. Better to just look at the book; check the facts for yourself. (* or the magazine Inside Chess) > > I think it is obvious that BF's success with this > > line is a BIG reason why an American writer > > like AS would decide to write a book about it. > > No one is dispuiting that Soltis wrote a book about the Exchange > Ruy; the question is: did Fischer actually read it and employ one of > its recommendations against Spassky? Yasser Seirawan believed he did, and was objective enough to point this out in response to the loonies who were crediting BF in their game annotations, for finding it all OTB. He seemed to know what he was talking about, although corrupted in the end by silly notions that Gary Kasparov should be worried-- very worried-- about retaining his title. LOL! I cannot easily differentiate between what I read in Inside Chess versus No Regrets; at my age, it is hard enough just remembering to zip up my pants. > > I never said I had my chess > > books on shelves; in fact, I no doubt have > > mentioned somewhere that the vast majority > > of them are stored away, in boxes or more > > recently, in plastic totes. > > Ah, I see -- you haven't paid your storage bill, and they've been > auctioned off! Was it a Jewish conspiracy? Well, let me see... if they were to somehow manage to get top-dollar for my aging books, it still would not merit the attention of the World-Wide Jewish Conspiracy League of Evil Villains, IMO. They tend to go for the good stuff-- like Bobby Fischer's private collection. > I've got a Hamilton Oh, gawd-- is this one of those tricky tests to see if I can remember which coin has a picture of Mr. Hamilton on it? Er... not the penny-- that's Mr. Lincoln. (I hope this guy is not being grossly unfair, and picking a large-denomination bill I've never even seen... .) > says that's as far as Greg goes in getting this > verified. Any takers? And an Andy (Jackson Jackson... Jackson-- he was in a song: In 1814 we took a little trip, along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip. We took a little bacon and we took a little beans, and met the bloody British in a town by New Orleans. [refrain] Believe it or not, I do know and have occasionally seen the bill on which Andrew Jackson (not Andy Soltis) appears. It's the same one that used to buy two decent chess books in my day, but now won't get you anything more than a Eric Schiller data-dump and maybe a score-pad. > not Soltis) that says he > never finds that elusive Petrosian book that supposedly claims PT was > offered a bribe to take a dive to RJF. Make lots of money, while you can! At the rate he's going, "fearless-leader" Taylor Kingston will have to come out of retirement soon, and back to work to make ends meet. The funny part is that TP's book is so easy to find, because he wrote so *few* (in English, anyway). But even if the side-shifting nay- sayers had the book, they would likely go into DEEP-denial mode, accusing the man of paranoia, anti-Americanism, or my favorite, anti-semitism; I like that one best because BF vehemently denied being a Jew, but his accomplishment landed him in the books as one nonetheless; even his well- known involvement with the WWCG seemed to made no difference. Wanna bet on the deep-denial knee-jerk response? Wanna bet on who jumps into the river in Egypt when things start to heat up a bit? LOL! -- help bot     Date: 02 Feb 2008 17:25:39 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 14:26:19 -0800 (PST), help bot <[email protected] > wrote: >at my age, it is hard enough just >remembering to zip up my pants. It's time to worry when you forget to zip 'em down.   Date: 02 Feb 2008 13:10:18 From: Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 2, 3:05 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Feb 2, 9:38 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > That's quite conceivable; in 1992 Chess Digest (which Ken Smith ran) > > published "Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation" by Andrew > > Soltis. A second edition came out in 1995, with the title "Fischer's > > Weapon: Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation." > > A bit less plausible, though, is the idea that Fischer would find > > advice from someone like Soltis useful. > > You make the mistake of assuming that for any > given author/hack, all his work is of the same > quality. I made no such mistake. As I wrote here: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/sovietchess.txt, I'm quite familiar with Soltis' uneven output: "American grandmaster Andrew Soltis is a prolific but somewhat uneven writer. His works on openings have ranged from forgettable small pamphlets to respectable full-length treatises." > In reality, even lazy writers like AS can, at times, > produce good stuff. And if it turns out that this > entire line was in AS's book from 1992, as the > Yaz recounted, you'll have to eat your words. No words to eat. I don't discount the possibility that Fischer did use a Soltis recommendation. It's certainly far more plausible than, say, the bribe offer to Petrosian. I'd just like to see some verification of it. > I think it is obvious that BF's success with this > line is a BIG reason why an American writer > like AS would decide to write a book about it. No one is dispuiting that Soltis wrote a book about the Exchange Ruy; the question is: did Fischer actually read it and employ one of its recommendations against Spassky? > > That would be a first -- Greg *_actually having_* a book he's > > talking about. While you're scanning your shelves, Greg, see if that > > elusive Petrosian book shows up! > > Look Shirley, As Leslie Nielsen pointed out to Julie Hagerty in "Airplane!", my name ain't Shirley. > I never said I had my chess > books on shelves; in fact, I no doubt have > mentioned somewhere that the vast majority > of them are stored away, in boxes or more > recently, in plastic totes. Ah, I see -- you haven't paid your storage bill, and they've been auctioned off! Was it a Jewish conspiracy? > > > if so, I may try to verify that > > > My Gawd, another first -- Greg actually trying to verify something! > > One notes that *you*, Shirley, aren't doing > the job. Um, Greg, it's not my job to verify your claims -- it's your job. > Here are my best guesses at where > I most likely read about this: > > 1. No Regrets, by Yasser Seirawan > > 2. Inside Chess, in 1992 I've got a Hamilton says that's as far as Greg goes in getting this verified. Any takers? And an Andy (Jackson, not Soltis) that says he never finds that elusive Petrosian book that supposedly claims PT was offered a bribe to take a dive to RJF.   Date: 02 Feb 2008 12:05:01 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 2, 9:38 am, [email protected] wrote: > That's quite conceivable; in 1992 Chess Digest (which Ken Smith ran) > published "Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation" by Andrew > Soltis. A second edition came out in 1995, with the title "Fischer's > Weapon: Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation." > A bit less plausible, though, is the idea that Fischer would find > advice from someone like Soltis useful. You make the mistake of assuming that for any given author/hack, all his work is of the same quality. In reality, even lazy writers like AS can, at times, produce good stuff. And if it turns out that this entire line was in AS's book from 1992, as the Yaz recounted, you'll have to eat your words. But odds are I may not have the right edition to confirm this, one way or the other; I may have the 1995 edition you mentioned. : >( > RJF had been playing the > Exchange Ruy as far back as 1966, and was undefeated with it, scoring > something like +7 -0 =1 in serious games. However, it's not impossible > for Soltis to have found a TN Fischer liked. I think it is obvious that BF's success with this line is a BIG reason why an American writer like AS would decide to write a book about it. > > if I recall correctly, it was GM Yasser Seirawan who pointed > > out that this entire line was given by GM Soltis as winning > > for White in that very book. > > What I find surprising is that anyone -- not just Boris > > Spassky, in 1992 -- would play this line as Black, for it > > wreaks. > > "Wreaks" what? "Wreak" is a transitive verb, bot -- it requires a > direct object, e.g "We will wreak havoc." It's your English that > reeks. You cannot use a dash or hyphen to connect two sentences, as above. You need to pick either a period (how droll) or else the semicolon, as I do to impress the ignorant masses. Nearly- IMnes prefers trying to impress them with name- dropping and invented phone calls; it's a matter of personal preference, I suppose. Yes, yes... that is what I must have meant: that the line "wreaks havoc" with Black's score; that he scores poorly in this line-- against BF. ; >D > > In particular, the placement of Black's KB on > > d6, as though it were a deformed pawn, is as ugly as > > sin. > > Well, it can't be all that bad. Checking the position after 11...Bd6 > on CB MegaDatabase 2005 yields 100 games in this line from 1971 to > 2004, and overall Black actually has a slight plus, +26 -25 =49. Were all of those games against Bobby Fischer? My view is that Boris Spassky *knew in advance* he who he would be playing against in the 1992 match, so you ought to take that into account here; this is no putz vs. putz affair. > > When I'm done looking at the Danish, I may run > > this through Fritz to see if there is any really obvious > > improvement for Black. It is also quite possible that I > > have the Andy Soltis book; > > That would be a first -- Greg *_actually having_* a book he's > talking about. While you're scanning your shelves, Greg, see if that > elusive Petrosian book shows up! Look Shirley, I never said I had my chess books on shelves; in fact, I no doubt have mentioned somewhere that the vast majority of them are stored away, in boxes or more recently, in plastic totes. I'm still working on getting rid of the ones I don't like, and the process could take years. > > if so, I may try to verify that > > My Gawd, another first -- Greg actually trying to verify something! One notes that *you*, Shirley, aren't doing the job. Here are my best guesses at where I most likely read about this: 1. No Regrets, by Yasser Seirawan 2. Inside Chess, in 1992 You can safely eliminate Chess Lies, for they may not have reported on the match until around 1993 A.D., and even then, their ace reporters would likely have credited BF for "inventing" the Ruy Lopez... . -- help bot   Date: 02 Feb 2008 08:02:00 From: RookHouse Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 2, 9:38=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > =A0 That's quite conceivable; in 1992 Chess Digest (which Ken Smith ran) > published "Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation" by Andrew > Soltis. A second edition came out in 1995, with the title "Fischer's > Weapon: Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation." > =A0 A bit less plausible, though, is the idea =A0that Fischer would find > advice from someone like Soltis useful. RJF had been playing the > Exchange Ruy as far back as 1966, and was undefeated with it, scoring > something like +7 -0 =3D1 in serious games. However, it's not impossible > for Soltis to have found a TN Fischer liked. > The most recent occassion that Fischer had played this was actually against Spassky in 1972. Spassky managed a draw in that particular game, so you would think he would have played the variation a little better than he did in 1992. [Event "Reykjavik-Wch"] [Site "Reykjavik-Wch"] [Date "1972.??.??"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "16"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Robert James Fischer"] [Black "Boris Spassky"] [ECO "C69"] [PlyCount "120"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O f6 6. d4 Bg4 7. dxe5 Qxd1 8. Rxd1 fxe5 9. Rd3 Bd6 10. Nbd2 Nf6 11. Nc4 Nxe4 12. Ncxe5 Bxf3 13. Nxf3 O-O 14. Be3 b5 15. c4 Rab8 16. Rc1 bxc4 17. Rd4 Rfe8 18. Nd2 Nxd2 19. Rxd2 Re4 20. g3 Be5 21. Rcc2 Kf7 22. Kg2 Rxb2 23. Kf3 c3 24. Kxe4 cxd2 25. Rxd2 Rb5 26. Rc2 Bd6 27. Rxc6 Ra5 28. Bf4 Ra4+ 29. Kf3 Ra3+ 30. Ke4 Rxa2 31. Bxd6 cxd6 32. Rxd6 Rxf2 33. Rxa6 Rxh2 34. Kf3 Rd2 35. Ra7+ Kf6 36. Ra6+ Ke7 37. Ra7+ Rd7 38. Ra2 Ke6 39. Kg2 Re7 40. Kh3 Kf6 41. Ra6+ Re6 42. Ra5 h6 43. Ra2 Kf5 44. Rf2+ Kg5 45. Rf7 g6 46. Rf4 h5 47. Rf3 Rf6 48. Ra3 Re6 49. Rf3 Re4 50. Ra3 Kh6 51. Ra6 Re5 52. Kh4 Re4+ 53. Kh3 Re7 54. Kh4 Re5 55. Rb6 Kg7 56. Rb4 Kh6 57. Rb6 Re1 58. Kh3 Rh1+ 59. Kg2 Ra1 60. Kh3 Ra4 1/2-1/2   Date: 02 Feb 2008 06:38:18 From: Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 2, 1:10 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Feb 1, 7:07 pm, RookHouse <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Game # 9 of the 1992 Fischer-Spassky match was memorable in that Bobby > > pulled off a 21-move victory using his patented and rarely seen Ruy > > Lopez Exchange Variation. > > The story was that someone (was it Ken Smith, perhaps?) > had sent BF a bunch of chess books, among them being > the one by GM Andy Soltis on the exchange Ruy Lopez; That's quite conceivable; in 1992 Chess Digest (which Ken Smith ran) published "Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation" by Andrew Soltis. A second edition came out in 1995, with the title "Fischer's Weapon: Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation." A bit less plausible, though, is the idea that Fischer would find advice from someone like Soltis useful. RJF had been playing the Exchange Ruy as far back as 1966, and was undefeated with it, scoring something like +7 -0 =1 in serious games. However, it's not impossible for Soltis to have found a TN Fischer liked. > if I recall correctly, it was GM Yasser Seirawan who pointed > out that this entire line was given by GM Soltis as winning > for White in that very book. > What I find surprising is that anyone -- not just Boris > Spassky, in 1992 -- would play this line as Black, for it > wreaks. "Wreaks" what? "Wreak" is a transitive verb, bot -- it requires a direct object, e.g "We will wreak havoc." It's your English that reeks. > In particular, the placement of Black's KB on > d6, as though it were a deformed pawn, is as ugly as > sin. Well, it can't be all that bad. Checking the position after 11...Bd6 on CB MegaDatabase 2005 yields 100 games in this line from 1971 to 2004, and overall Black actually has a slight plus, +26 -25 =49. > When I'm done looking at the Danish, I may run > this through Fritz to see if there is any really obvious > improvement for Black. It is also quite possible that I > have the Andy Soltis book; That would be a first -- Greg *_actually having_* a book he's talking about. While you're scanning your shelves, Greg, see if that elusive Petrosian book shows up! > if so, I may try to verify that My Gawd, another first -- Greg actually trying to verify something! > this whole line was well-known-- well, to everyone but > BS, that is. > > -- help bot   Date: 01 Feb 2008 22:10:02 From: help bot Subject: Re: Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ?? On Feb 1, 7:07 pm, RookHouse <[email protected] > wrote: > Game # 9 of the 1992 Fischer-Spassky match was memorable in that Bobby > pulled off a 21-move victory using his patented and rarely seen Ruy > Lopez Exchange Variation. The story was that someone (was it Ken Smith, perhaps?) had sent BF a bunch of chess books, among them being the one by GM Andy Soltis on the exchange Ruy Lopez; if I recall correctly, it was GM Yasser Seirawan who pointed out that this entire line was given by GM Soltis as winning for White in that very book. What I find surprising is that anyone -- not just Boris Spassky, in 1992 -- would play this line as Black, for it wreaks. In particular, the placement of Black's KB on d6, as though it were a deformed pawn, is as ugly as sin. When I'm done looking at the Danish, I may run this through Fritz to see if there is any really obvious improvement for Black. It is also quite possible that I have the Andy Soltis book; if so, I may try to verify that this whole line was well-known-- well, to everyone but BS, that is. -- help bot