| |
Main
Date: 25 Jun 2008 17:56:09
From: samsloan
Subject: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life online
|
In BINFO 200803043 Date 2008-06-20 the following exchange took place:
"Risking the brand -- by offering a non-magazine option -- is not an
effective substitute.
"Eric C. Johnson"
"We disagree regarding whether there is risk in offering a bulletin/
online option. However, I would be interested in hearing your ideas
regarding how USCF's marketing efforts can be more successful.
"Bill Goichberg"
The above statement is truly astounding. Virtually every commentator
outside of the board has expressed the opinion that the Goichberg "New
Plan", under which, among other things, members will be offered a no-
magazine option for $13 less, is tremendously risky. Many have said
that they will drop their membership if this happens. Some have called
it "suicidal" or "insane". Hanon Russell has written that he will
consider this to be a breach of contract and has implied that he may
stop paying $150,000 per year to the USCF and may even file a lawsuit
against the USCF, if this plan goes into effect.
Yet, in the face of all this, Goichberg says that there is "no risk"
to his plan.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Jul 2008 21:46:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Are you a IM?
|
On Jul 5, 3:07 pm, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:
> If I did not memorize (in this case, a pattern, not a position) "like
> a robot," I would then have to calculate "like a robot." (Hopefully a
> trifle faster than GetClub.)
The good chess programs associate rote
moves with positions, while the bad ones
go with a specific sequence of moves, like
many humans.
I don't want to sound mean, but when I read
that someone lost because they mixed up
their rote moves and thereby hung a piece,
the obvious conclusion is robotic memorization
of moves which are not truly understood;
understanding implies knowledge of not
only the moves, but /why/ each is played
exactly when it is.
> Thinking is of course paramount, and it's more fun for the carbon-
> based player. Anthony Cozzie (whom I met very briefly a couple years
> ago) knows much more about chess than his creation, 2006 World
> Champion Zappa, ever will.
>
> http://uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200606178231-13148800
>
> But that's due to the limitations of the carbon-based programmer, who
> hasn't yet figured out how to tell the machine everything he knows.
One thing which pops up again and again
in my games at GetClub is the idea "in this
kind of position, the program ought to have
done such-and-such". But it seems the
program begins its calculations without
first defining the type of position it is in--
unlike most humans. I might say that it
ought to have activated its King because
at that point in the game, it was "safe" to
do so; but how do you instruct a chess
program of such a general idea? Errors
would quickly result in self-destruction
OTB, just as too much King-safety has.
> Parenthetically: I'm aware of the Dasein objection. In one of his
> online lectures, Hubert Dreyfus tells of his battles with AI people
> when he was at MIT back in the 1960s--how do you "teach" Robot Tank
> Gunner when to shoot & when to hold fire? Ultimately, you can't do so
> perfectly, because it's impossible to program every possible context.
They should have thought about that before
spending $234 million on the project. ; >D
> By contrast, humans have coping skills that computers don't. Granting
> all this, I suspect that certainly one can program computers to cope
> *relatively* better in *certain* contexts: learning to recognize
> potential blockade defenses, for example. Chess AI is still very
> primitive, I suspect, largely because brute force in chess has proven
> to be so productive, and because the marginal ELO gain from more
> sophisticated approaches is probably nominal. The "human" programming
> that folks were trying to do thirty years ago has largely been
> abandoned--I'm probably overstating the case, and welcome corrections
> from folks who know more. Anyway, in my next incarnation, I will take
> up Go.
That game may be solved by then. In the
distant future, people might play simulation
games in which the far-reaching consequences
of various actions are calculated out a hundred
years forward. For instance, what might have
happened if Mr. Alekhine had given Mr.
Capablanca a rematch and Mr. Stalin had
simultaneously invaded Cuba?
> "Undoubtedly there is a right way of reading, so it be sternly
> subordinated. Man Thinking must not be subdued by his instruments.
> Books are for the scholar's idle times. When he can read God directly,
> the hour is too precious to be wasted in other men's transcripts of
> their readings. But when the intervals of darkness come, as come they
> must, =97 when the sun is hid, and the stars withdraw their shining, =97
> we repair to the lamps which were kindled by their ray, to guide our
> steps to the East again, where the dawn is. We hear, that we may
> speak. The Arabian proverb says, 'A fig tree, looking on a fig tree,
> becometh fruitful.'"
"A fig tree, having not eyes, becometh fruitful
when the wasp doth lie within its flowers."
-- wise, ancient bot
|
| |
Date: 05 Jul 2008 12:07:02
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: Are you a IM?
|
On Jul 5, 12:57=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 3, 3:17 pm, billbrock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'm just finishing Gleick's _Genius_; perhaps the best scientific bio
> > I've read. =A0Feynman was always contemptuous of rote learning. =A0In t=
he
> > 60s, he refused to read Physics Today and tried for years to cancel
> > his complimentary subscription; he thought journal articles were a
> > waste of time. =A0But in the 40s and 50s, he had Fermi, Bethe, Dyson,
> > and Gell-Mann to bounce ideas off of, and Schwinger as his
> > competitor. =A0One cannot always to so lucky as to have such a high
> > caliber of peers and rivals.
>
> > In the 60s, he lost touch with the cutting edge of physics because of
> > his insistence upon originality.
>
> > Emory Tate is phenomenally strong: imagine how much stronger he'd be
> > if his (amazingly creative) openings weren't (sometimes) utter crap.
>
> =A0 Or would he perhaps be /less successful/,
> since he would less frequently take his
> opponents down paths with which they are
> unfamiliar?
>
> > If geniuses like Feynman & Tate (the greater of these is Emory
>
> =A0 Just ask him! =A0I have little doubt that he
> charges about the same rate for chess
> lessons as any "other super-GM". =A0;>D
>
> > per the ICC cult) could benefit from a little book learning, creatively
> > applied, how much more true is this for patzers like me? =A0All I neede=
d
> > to know was that Nxf7 was playable because of e5/Ne4 ideas & the
> > weakness of the h5-e8 diagonal & the dark squares.
>
> =A0 But that would still amount to memorizing
> your move in "position x", like a robot. =A0My
> idea is this: you come to a position x, and
> you do not know, nor indeed, have any need
> to know, the correct move by rote.
>
> =A0 Example: I have played "average" players
> in blitz games who will just toss out moves
> on a whim when they are run out of book, so
> to speak. =A0We might play: 1. e4 =A0e5, =A02. Nf3
> (I think: I am threatening the e-pawn) ... Nc6
> (they think: this is the book move), =A0 3. Bb5
> (I think: I am /almost/ threatening the e-pawn
> again) ... a6 (they think: this is a book move),
> and so on until they just hang their e-pawn,
> which leads me to wonder how I managed to
> overwhelm their, um, resistance. =A0Of course,
> they had no clue that each of their responses
> was just barely holding that pawn, and upon
> reaching the "dead end" last page of their
> memorized-by-rote book, they simply hang it.
>
> =A0 Now, I do not deny that knowing all the ins
> and outs of one's pet openings can result in
> more wins and fewer losses. =A0But the thing
> is, every time you get into an /unfamiliar/
> position and you are used to relying upon
> this crutch, you are going to feel helpless,
> clueless or at least not up to snuff. =A0 A
> heartless computer may massacre you in
> such a situation, much like Colonel Custer.
> Some players will "hit you" with inferior slop
> (think Sam Sloan) just to get you out of
> your book knowledge so they can, hopefully,
> crush you with their superior tactical skill.
>
> =A0 But imagine if that were reversed-- what if
> instead of knocking you off your feet, they
> in fact played right into your hands? =A0What
> if *you* were the superior tactician? =A0Now
> you know how I feel every time the GetClub
> program plays one of its wacky moves; I
> am the far superior tactician, and because
> of this I can even play "waiting moves",
> knowing that I am less likely to blunder
> than my distinguished opponent; as the old
> song goes, time is on my side.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
If I did not memorize (in this case, a pattern, not a position) "like
a robot," I would then have to calculate "like a robot." (Hopefully a
trifle faster than GetClub.)
Thinking is of course paramount, and it's more fun for the carbon-
based player. Anthony Cozzie (whom I met very briefly a couple years
ago) knows much more about chess than his creation, 2006 World
Champion Zappa, ever will.
http://uschess.org/msa/XtblMain.php?200606178231-13148800
But that's due to the limitations of the carbon-based programmer, who
hasn't yet figured out how to tell the machine everything he knows.
Parenthetically: I'm aware of the Dasein objection. In one of his
online lectures, Hubert Dreyfus tells of his battles with AI people
when he was at MIT back in the 1960s--how do you "teach" Robot Tank
Gunner when to shoot & when to hold fire? Ultimately, you can't do so
perfectly, because it's impossible to program every possible context.
By contrast, humans have coping skills that computers don't. Granting
all this, I suspect that certainly one can program computers to cope
*relatively* better in *certain* contexts: learning to recognize
potential blockade defenses, for example. Chess AI is still very
primitive, I suspect, largely because brute force in chess has proven
to be so productive, and because the marginal ELO gain from more
sophisticated approaches is probably nominal. The "human" programming
that folks were trying to do thirty years ago has largely been
abandoned--I'm probably overstating the case, and welcome corrections
from folks who know more. Anyway, in my next incarnation, I will take
up Go.
NM Alexander Stamnov wiped me off the board twice last weekend. In at
least one of these games (arguably both), he clubbed me with his
"crutch."
help bot's position is not too far away from Emerson's in "The
American Scholar." But Emerson does believe that "book" has its
place:
"Undoubtedly there is a right way of reading, so it be sternly
subordinated. Man Thinking must not be subdued by his instruments.
Books are for the scholar's idle times. When he can read God directly,
the hour is too precious to be wasted in other men's transcripts of
their readings. But when the intervals of darkness come, as come they
must, =97 when the sun is hid, and the stars withdraw their shining, =97
we repair to the lamps which were kindled by their ray, to guide our
steps to the East again, where the dawn is. We hear, that we may
speak. The Arabian proverb says, 'A fig tree, looking on a fig tree,
becometh fruitful.'"
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2008 22:57:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Are you a IM?
|
On Jul 3, 3:17 pm, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:
> I'm just finishing Gleick's _Genius_; perhaps the best scientific bio
> I've read. Feynman was always contemptuous of rote learning. In the
> 60s, he refused to read Physics Today and tried for years to cancel
> his complimentary subscription; he thought journal articles were a
> waste of time. But in the 40s and 50s, he had Fermi, Bethe, Dyson,
> and Gell-Mann to bounce ideas off of, and Schwinger as his
> competitor. One cannot always to so lucky as to have such a high
> caliber of peers and rivals.
>
> In the 60s, he lost touch with the cutting edge of physics because of
> his insistence upon originality.
>
> Emory Tate is phenomenally strong: imagine how much stronger he'd be
> if his (amazingly creative) openings weren't (sometimes) utter crap.
Or would he perhaps be /less successful/,
since he would less frequently take his
opponents down paths with which they are
unfamiliar?
> If geniuses like Feynman & Tate (the greater of these is Emory
Just ask him! I have little doubt that he
charges about the same rate for chess
lessons as any "other super-GM". ; >D
> per the ICC cult) could benefit from a little book learning, creatively
> applied, how much more true is this for patzers like me? All I needed
> to know was that Nxf7 was playable because of e5/Ne4 ideas & the
> weakness of the h5-e8 diagonal & the dark squares.
But that would still amount to memorizing
your move in "position x", like a robot. My
idea is this: you come to a position x, and
you do not know, nor indeed, have any need
to know, the correct move by rote.
Example: I have played "average" players
in blitz games who will just toss out moves
on a whim when they are run out of book, so
to speak. We might play: 1. e4 e5, 2. Nf3
(I think: I am threatening the e-pawn) ... Nc6
(they think: this is the book move), 3. Bb5
(I think: I am /almost/ threatening the e-pawn
again) ... a6 (they think: this is a book move),
and so on until they just hang their e-pawn,
which leads me to wonder how I managed to
overwhelm their, um, resistance. Of course,
they had no clue that each of their responses
was just barely holding that pawn, and upon
reaching the "dead end" last page of their
memorized-by-rote book, they simply hang it.
Now, I do not deny that knowing all the ins
and outs of one's pet openings can result in
more wins and fewer losses. But the thing
is, every time you get into an /unfamiliar/
position and you are used to relying upon
this crutch, you are going to feel helpless,
clueless or at least not up to snuff. A
heartless computer may massacre you in
such a situation, much like Colonel Custer.
Some players will "hit you" with inferior slop
(think Sam Sloan) just to get you out of
your book knowledge so they can, hopefully,
crush you with their superior tactical skill.
But imagine if that were reversed-- what if
instead of knocking you off your feet, they
in fact played right into your hands? What
if *you* were the superior tactician? Now
you know how I feel every time the GetClub
program plays one of its wacky moves; I
am the far superior tactician, and because
of this I can even play "waiting moves",
knowing that I am less likely to blunder
than my distinguished opponent; as the old
song goes, time is on my side.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 04 Jul 2008 13:22:28
From: William Hyde
Subject: Re: Are you a IM?
|
On Jul 3, 3:17 pm, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:
Feynman was always contemptuous of rote learning. In the
> 60s, he refused to read Physics Today and tried for years to cancel
> his complimentary subscription; he thought journal articles were a
> waste of time.
Many physicists do not read "Physics Today".
It isn't a research journal, rather it is a semi-popular
one (the one lying on my desk has an article of "The Physics of
Sailing".
Not reading, or at least browsing, actual journal
articles is a different thing, and rather dangerous.
One day Dirac walked up to a colleague and said
something like:
"Look at these wonderful results I've obtained"
To which the colleague said:
"Yes, those are called the Binachi Identities".
But in the 40s and 50s, he had Fermi, Bethe, Dyson,
> and Gell-Mann to bounce ideas off of, and Schwinger as his
> competitor. One cannot always to so lucky as to have such a high
> caliber of peers and rivals.
Landau had a similar method. He simply assigned
all relevant papers to people in his group to be presented as
seminars. Thus he didn't have to read
them himself.
William Hyde
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 14:38:36
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
On Jul 3, 3:17 pm, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:37 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 1:02 pm, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > There is one Advance Level 2200+ that only one player plays as it
> > > takes an hour to make a move. But Master Level will tell us whether
> > > you are 2000+ or not.
>
> > There is a difference between competing at
> > the master level and playing well against the
> > GetClub program. In competitive play, one
> > faces a different kind of opponent -- one who
> > is trying his best to derail your plans -- and
> > of course there is the added element of
> > time controls. Also note that in human vs.
> > human play, there is a titanic struggle in
> > the openings, whereas at GetClub there is
> > no openings book-monkey contest at all.
>
> > As we saw in this very thread, in a game
> > between Mr.Brockand an international
> > master, a mix-up of memorized-by-rote
> > moves can sometimes lead to harrowing
> > experiences. In my experience at GetClub,
> > there are no such memorization contests,
> > no such bungling of by-rote-move orders;
> > it's a different sort of chess in many ways,
> > where the object is to outplay a machine,
> > not another hominid.
>
> > -- help bot
>
> I'm just finishing Gleick's _Genius_; perhaps the best scientific bio
> I've read. Feynman was always contemptuous of rote learning. In the
> 60s, he refused to read Physics Today and tried for years to cancel
> his complimentary subscription; he thought journal articles were a
> waste of time. But in the 40s and 50s, he had Fermi, Bethe, Dyson,
> and Gell-Mann to bounce ideas off of, and Schwinger as his
> competitor. One cannot always to so lucky as to have such a high
> caliber of peers and rivals.
>
> In the 60s, he lost touch with the cutting edge of physics because of
> his insistence upon originality.
>
> Emory Tate is phenomenally strong: imagine how much stronger he'd be
> if his (amazingly creative) openings weren't (sometimes) utter crap.
>
> If geniuses like Feynman & Tate (the greater of these is Emory, per
> the ICC cult) could benefit from a little book learning, creatively
> applied, how much more true is this for patzers like me? All I needed
> to know was that Nxf7 was playable because of e5/Ne4 ideas & the
> weakness of the h5-e8 diagonal & the dark squares.
Could you possibly put this back on the original topic?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 12:17:29
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: Are you a IM?
|
On Jul 1, 7:37=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 1:02 pm, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > There is one Advance Level 2200+ that only one player plays as it
> > takes an hour to make a move. But Master Level will tell us whether
> > you are 2000+ or not.
>
> =A0 There is a difference between competing at
> the master level and playing well against the
> GetClub program. =A0In competitive play, one
> faces a different kind of opponent -- one who
> is trying his best to derail your plans -- and
> of course there is the added element of
> time controls. =A0Also note that in human vs.
> human play, there is a titanic struggle in
> the openings, whereas at GetClub there is
> no openings book-monkey contest at all.
>
> =A0 As we saw in this very thread, in a game
> between Mr.Brockand an international
> master, a mix-up of memorized-by-rote
> moves can sometimes lead to harrowing
> experiences. =A0In my experience at GetClub,
> there are no such memorization contests,
> no such bungling of by-rote-move orders;
> it's a different sort of chess in many ways,
> where the object is to outplay a machine,
> not another hominid.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
I'm just finishing Gleick's _Genius_; perhaps the best scientific bio
I've read. Feynman was always contemptuous of rote learning. In the
60s, he refused to read Physics Today and tried for years to cancel
his complimentary subscription; he thought journal articles were a
waste of time. But in the 40s and 50s, he had Fermi, Bethe, Dyson,
and Gell-Mann to bounce ideas off of, and Schwinger as his
competitor. One cannot always to so lucky as to have such a high
caliber of peers and rivals.
In the 60s, he lost touch with the cutting edge of physics because of
his insistence upon originality.
Emory Tate is phenomenally strong: imagine how much stronger he'd be
if his (amazingly creative) openings weren't (sometimes) utter crap.
If geniuses like Feynman & Tate (the greater of these is Emory, per
the ICC cult) could benefit from a little book learning, creatively
applied, how much more true is this for patzers like me? All I needed
to know was that Nxf7 was playable because of e5/Ne4 ideas & the
weakness of the h5-e8 diagonal & the dark squares.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Jul 2008 08:34:49
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Are you a IM?
|
"billbrock" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jul 1, 7:37 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 1:02 pm, Sanny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > There is one Advance Level 2200+ that only one player plays as it
> > takes an hour to make a move. But Master Level will tell us whether
> > you are 2000+ or not.
>
> There is a difference between competing at
> the master level and playing well against the
> GetClub program. In competitive play, one
> faces a different kind of opponent -- one who
> is trying his best to derail your plans -- and
> of course there is the added element of
> time controls. Also note that in human vs.
> human play, there is a titanic struggle in
> the openings, whereas at GetClub there is
> no openings book-monkey contest at all.
>
> As we saw in this very thread, in a game
> between Mr.Brockand an international
> master, a mix-up of memorized-by-rote
> moves can sometimes lead to harrowing
> experiences. In my experience at GetClub,
> there are no such memorization contests,
> no such bungling of by-rote-move orders;
> it's a different sort of chess in many ways,
> where the object is to outplay a machine,
> not another hominid.
>
> -- help bot
I'm just finishing Gleick's _Genius_; perhaps the best scientific bio
I've read. Feynman was always contemptuous of rote learning. In the
60s, he refused to read Physics Today and tried for years to cancel
his complimentary subscription; he thought journal articles were a
waste of time. But in the 40s and 50s, he had Fermi, Bethe, Dyson,
and Gell-Mann to bounce ideas off of, and Schwinger as his
competitor. One cannot always to so lucky as to have such a high
caliber of peers and rivals.
**How many 'unsolved' problems did Feynman resolve? Wasn't it an
extraordinary number, a 100?
In the 60s, he lost touch with the cutting edge of physics because of
his insistence upon originality.
Emory Tate is phenomenally strong: imagine how much stronger he'd be
if his (amazingly creative) openings weren't (sometimes) utter crap.
**In terms of chess then the argument is that rote learning can achieve
results to a certain level, but after that is very limited - the
impossibility of rote-learning middle games being the most pert issue. And
to rise above, say 1700 rating, it necessary to do your own work at the
board! You have to resolve what to do /in situ/ not by rote, and with the
clock ticking. This is very different from the situation where there is no
time pressure, no opponent, and where you are told the [right or less right]
answer to the problem.
If geniuses like Feynman & Tate (the greater of these is Emory, per
the ICC cult) could benefit from a little book learning, creatively
applied, how much more true is this for patzers like me? All I needed
to know was that Nxf7 was playable because of e5/Ne4 ideas & the
weakness of the h5-e8 diagonal & the dark squares.
**Again, is any specific benefit [excluding openings] of rote learning
better than exercises in pattern perception? Some studies have indicated
that rather than cramming for examinations if would benefit students to
listen to some heavily patterned music - Bach is often cited and perhaps for
its 'mathematical' nature - The issue with any rote learning is to what
degree it can be //retrieved// - indeed in terms of chess, if any of it is
useful in terms of middle-game creativity?
**Those would be interesting experiments to determine the relative worth of
one kind of preparation over another, and certainly Feynman demonstrated
that much rote-learning was not only wrong, but it corrupted the person by
not-allowing them their own insights.
**To depersonalise the issue beyond any speculations on the genius of
Feynman/Tate, is to look at their process and decide if it is at all
repeatable - and hence, no matter of genius as much as a process from which
the noise of rote-learning has been removed - and what is left is one's
native genius [or unencumbered right-brain intelligence].
**Gleik is a fine writer on these subjects, but another is the
neuroscientist Robt. Ornstein. In /The Right Mind/ which addresses
hemispheric issues of the brain Ornstein reminds social scientists not to
get too far from the tree, or to decouple it from the electrophysiology of
the brain, since he no longer recognises their resolutions as having a
common base with his own studies.
**I think there is room for both cognitive- and behaviorist- type
psychologists to experiment further, so as to place this interesting range
of speculations within actually observed frames of reference. Chess seems a
viable field of study.
Cordially, Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 17:37:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Are you a IM?
|
On Jul 1, 1:02 pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> There is one Advance Level 2200+ that only one player plays as it
> takes an hour to make a move. But Master Level will tell us whether
> you are 2000+ or not.
There is a difference between competing at
the master level and playing well against the
GetClub program. In competitive play, one
faces a different kind of opponent -- one who
is trying his best to derail your plans -- and
of course there is the added element of
time controls. Also note that in human vs.
human play, there is a titanic struggle in
the openings, whereas at GetClub there is
no openings book-monkey contest at all.
As we saw in this very thread, in a game
between Mr. Brock and an international
master, a mix-up of memorized-by-rote
moves can sometimes lead to harrowing
experiences. In my experience at GetClub,
there are no such memorization contests,
no such bungling of by-rote-move orders;
it's a different sort of chess in many ways,
where the object is to outplay a machine,
not another hominid.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 10:02:29
From: Sanny
Subject: Are you a IM?
|
> Does my move 11 TN make me "nearly an IM"?
One correct move does not proove much.
At GetClub only a few players are able to win the Master Level.
If you can win the Master Level in 3/3 then there is high chances that
you are 2200+ Rated player.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
Remember Master playes a move in 5-10 min. So a lot of patience is
needed to play against Master Level.
You may also try lower levels first like Normal & Easy levels they
play in 1 min / move.
If you want a quick game then Beginner Level is a good start.
Since your Rating is 2000+ I think you will play as strong as Notmal
Level.
Beginner: 1800+ (5-10 sec/ move)
Easy: 1900+ (20-40 sec/ move)
Normal: 2000+ (1-2 min/ move)
Master: 2100+ (5-10 min/ move)
So start a game: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
There is one Advance Level 2200+ that only one player plays as it
takes an hour to make a move. But Master Level will tell us whether
you are 2000+ or not.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 08:33:27
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly)
|
On Jul 1, 5:44=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 5:37 am, billbrock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Whence the title of this thread. =A0Outside of the apparent double
> > blunder in the opening (we both missed 8.Nb5 Qd8 9.Qc3!), I thought I
> > outplayed him for the first 25 moves. =A0But the space advantage is
> > worth much more than I thought, and the congestion & balanced pawn
> > structure don't favor the bishops. =A0I was never worse in the queenles=
s
> > middlegame, but I was never better, either. =A0So Amanov really deserve=
s
> > credit for playing Bd3!
>
> > I thought I could always sacrifice the R for Nd6 and pawn. =A0Heh.
>
> =A0 In one of my most recent games at GetClub,
> I found myself in a position where it was not
> clear how I could open lines... so I sac'ed the
> exchange for a pawn, figuring that with all my
> minor pieces I would most likely win the
> exchange back eventually anyway-- which I
> did. =A0The difference is that I knew I was
> playing an complete idiot (chess program).
>
> =A0 Many times, the Bishop pair does not
> show any significant advantage right away;
> it's much later, after pawns are exchanged
> and lines opened up that their inherent
> advantage becomes apparent. =A0In any case,
> my program liked ...BxN (on e4), so it
> could have been just Bishop versus Knight
> with one Rook apiece and lots of pawns on
> both sides of the board.
>
> =A0 Emory Tate's suggestion would not hold
> the pawn for more than a heartbeat: he
> attacks the a-pawn, forcing it to advance
> (...a5), then captures the Bishop with his
> Knight (...Nxc5, bxc5), and then moves
> his King backwards-- still stopping the
> passed pawn, while avoiding the cheap
> trick (...c4+ and ...Rxa5). =A0It's just a trick
> cheap shot, which would never work...
> even if it worked against me and I lost to
> him (E. Tate). =A0He was just lucky... . =A0;>D
>
> =A0 -- help bot
Tate & Amanov looked at this briefly while I spectated. Of course the
pawn will fall: Tate's point was that Black can generate practical
counterplay in the Rook ending by activating the Rd5, whatever the
cost.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 08:28:55
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly)
|
On Jul 1, 5:00=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 10:02 pm, billbrock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30, 8:30 pm, billbrock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > And, as a weakie who takes consolation where he can find it, I am
> > > pleased with myself for finding 26.Rg4 and 31.Rf1, which I consider
> > > the best practical chances in this objectively doomed attack.
>
> > Make that 29.Rf1 :-)
>
> Mr. Brock,
>
> Since you insist on posting to my Wikipedia biography in spite of
> having been warned by Wikipedia administrators not to do that and in
> spite of having been sued over this, I am wondering what is the
> purpose of your latest edit:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DSam_Sloan&oldid=3D221980610
>
> Did you intentionally remove a link to a speech I made at the
> Libertarian National Convention in Denver and replace it with an older
> link that no longer works?
>
> You see, athttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DSam_Sloan&oldid=3D=
221980610
>
> footnote 17, you deletedhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=3D0nhaZUN1RGs
>
> and replaced it with a non-functioning link.
>
> Was that vandalism, or just a mistake on your part?
>
> Sam Sloan
Your post is on topic. It is "better" to accuse others baselessly
(this has been your life) than to conduct oneself as if grounded in
reality. Such is the value of the initiative.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 03:44:40
From: help bot
Subject: Re: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly)
|
On Jul 1, 5:37 am, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:
> Whence the title of this thread. Outside of the apparent double
> blunder in the opening (we both missed 8.Nb5 Qd8 9.Qc3!), I thought I
> outplayed him for the first 25 moves. But the space advantage is
> worth much more than I thought, and the congestion & balanced pawn
> structure don't favor the bishops. I was never worse in the queenless
> middlegame, but I was never better, either. So Amanov really deserves
> credit for playing Bd3!
>
> I thought I could always sacrifice the R for Nd6 and pawn. Heh.
In one of my most recent games at GetClub,
I found myself in a position where it was not
clear how I could open lines... so I sac'ed the
exchange for a pawn, figuring that with all my
minor pieces I would most likely win the
exchange back eventually anyway-- which I
did. The difference is that I knew I was
playing an complete idiot (chess program).
Many times, the Bishop pair does not
show any significant advantage right away;
it's much later, after pawns are exchanged
and lines opened up that their inherent
advantage becomes apparent. In any case,
my program liked ...BxN (on e4), so it
could have been just Bishop versus Knight
with one Rook apiece and lots of pawns on
both sides of the board.
Emory Tate's suggestion would not hold
the pawn for more than a heartbeat: he
attacks the a-pawn, forcing it to advance
(...a5), then captures the Bishop with his
Knight (...Nxc5, bxc5), and then moves
his King backwards-- still stopping the
passed pawn, while avoiding the cheap
trick (...c4+ and ...Rxa5). It's just a trick
cheap shot, which would never work...
even if it worked against me and I lost to
him (E. Tate). He was just lucky... . ; >D
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 03:00:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly)
|
On Jun 30, 10:02 pm, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 8:30 pm, billbrock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And, as a weakie who takes consolation where he can find it, I am
> > pleased with myself for finding 26.Rg4 and 31.Rf1, which I consider
> > the best practical chances in this objectively doomed attack.
>
> Make that 29.Rf1 :-)
Mr. Brock,
Since you insist on posting to my Wikipedia biography in spite of
having been warned by Wikipedia administrators not to do that and in
spite of having been sued over this, I am wondering what is the
purpose of your latest edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Sloan&oldid=221980610
Did you intentionally remove a link to a speech I made at the
Libertarian National Convention in Denver and replace it with an older
link that no longer works?
You see, at
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Sloan&oldid=221980610
footnote 17, you deleted
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0nhaZUN1RGs
and replaced it with a non-functioning link.
Was that vandalism, or just a mistake on your part?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 02:37:54
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly)
|
On Jul 1, 3:16=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2:51 pm, billbrock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Full disclosure: revenge was swift. =A0(A few meaningless moves were
> > played after 36. h5! in the time scramble.)
>
> > [Event "US Game/30"]
> > [Site "Chicago"]
> > [Date "2008.06.29"]
> > [Round "1"]
> > [White "Amanov, Mesgen"]
> > [Black "Brock, Bill"]
> > [Result "1-0"]
> > [ECO "A46"]
> > [Annotator "Brock,Bill"]
> > [PlyCount "71"]
>
> > 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 h6
> > 4. Bxf6 Qxf6 5. e4 d6 6. Nc3 Nd7 7. Qd2 g6 $2 (7... a6 {is book.}) 8.
> > O-O-O (8.
> > Nb5 $1 Qd8 9. Qc3 $1 (9. Qa5 $2 c6 $1 10. Nc7+ Ke7 $13) 9... c6 10. d5
> > $16)
> > 8... Bg7 9. e5 dxe5 10. dxe5 Qe7 11. Qe3 a6 12. h4 Qc5 13. Qxc5 Nxc5
> > $11 14.
> > Bd3 $1 Nxd3+ 15. Rxd3 Bd7 16. Re1 O-O-O 17. g3 Bc6 18. Nd4 Bg2 19. f4
> > c5 20.
> > Nb3 Rxd3 21. cxd3 b6 22. Ne4 Rd8 23. Nd6+ Kc7 (23... Rxd6 24. exd6
> > Kd7) 24. d4
> > cxd4 25. Nxf7 Rd5 (25... Rd7 $5 26. Nd6 Rxd6 27. exd6+ Kxd6 $11) 26.
> > Kd2 Bf8
> > 27. Kd3 Bh3 28. Nd6 Bf5+ $6 ({I should have played} 28... Bxd6 29.
> > exd6+ Kxd6
> > 30. Nxd4 Bf5+ $11) 29. Nxf5 gxf5 30. Rc1+ Kd7 31. Rc4 Bc5 32. Nxc5+
> > Rxc5 ({
> > Emory Tate suggested} 32... bxc5 33. Ra4 a5 $1) 33. Rxd4+ Kc7 34. Rd6
> > Rc6 35.
> > Rxc6+ Kxc6 36. h5 $1 {And Black has no defense against Ke3-Kf3-g4. =A0I=
f
> > I had
> > had more time, I would've resigned here....} (36. Kc4 $4 h5 37. a4 Kb7
> > 38. b4
> > Kc8 39. a5 b5+ 40. Kd4 Kb7 41. Kc5 Kc7 $11) 1-0
>
> =A0 I cut-and-pasted this game into a text file, then
> "dropped" that (with extension changed to "pgn")
> into Arena to have a look. =A0I didn't happen to
> notice who was White or Black, and it's funny,
> but I thought the IM must have been Black; it
> was obvious, really-- or so it seemed. =A0Then I
> got to the very end, and what do you know?
> The IM was the "duffer" who played White! =A0The
> one who gave up the Bishop pair; the one who
> readily exchanged Queens. =A0Shows what I
> know.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
Whence the title of this thread. Outside of the apparent double
blunder in the opening (we both missed 8.Nb5 Qd8 9.Qc3!), I thought I
outplayed him for the first 25 moves. But the space advantage is
worth much more than I thought, and the congestion & balanced pawn
structure don't favor the bishops. I was never worse in the queenless
middlegame, but I was never better, either. So Amanov really deserves
credit for playing Bd3!
I thought I could always sacrifice the R for Nd6 and pawn. Heh.
Mesgen is friendly, pleasant, & well-spoken: not at all your typical
chess player! We'd be delighted if he's able to hang around Chicago
for awhile.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 02:25:34
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly)
|
> =A0 How about just 17. Nf6+ =A0Nxf6, =A018. exf6,
> where the Knight on c7 is hanging? =A0You'll
> regain a piece, and the attack continues
> with Black's Rooks both in the corners.
18...Rh7 appears to defend, but 19.Be5 is very strong--White may well
be winning this (at least Fritz seems to think the obvious candidate
moves don't work). So you're right again.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 01:16:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly)
|
On Jun 30, 2:51 pm, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:
> Full disclosure: revenge was swift. (A few meaningless moves were
> played after 36. h5! in the time scramble.)
>
> [Event "US Game/30"]
> [Site "Chicago"]
> [Date "2008.06.29"]
> [Round "1"]
> [White "Amanov, Mesgen"]
> [Black "Brock, Bill"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "A46"]
> [Annotator "Brock,Bill"]
> [PlyCount "71"]
>
> 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 h6
> 4. Bxf6 Qxf6 5. e4 d6 6. Nc3 Nd7 7. Qd2 g6 $2 (7... a6 {is book.}) 8.
> O-O-O (8.
> Nb5 $1 Qd8 9. Qc3 $1 (9. Qa5 $2 c6 $1 10. Nc7+ Ke7 $13) 9... c6 10. d5
> $16)
> 8... Bg7 9. e5 dxe5 10. dxe5 Qe7 11. Qe3 a6 12. h4 Qc5 13. Qxc5 Nxc5
> $11 14.
> Bd3 $1 Nxd3+ 15. Rxd3 Bd7 16. Re1 O-O-O 17. g3 Bc6 18. Nd4 Bg2 19. f4
> c5 20.
> Nb3 Rxd3 21. cxd3 b6 22. Ne4 Rd8 23. Nd6+ Kc7 (23... Rxd6 24. exd6
> Kd7) 24. d4
> cxd4 25. Nxf7 Rd5 (25... Rd7 $5 26. Nd6 Rxd6 27. exd6+ Kxd6 $11) 26.
> Kd2 Bf8
> 27. Kd3 Bh3 28. Nd6 Bf5+ $6 ({I should have played} 28... Bxd6 29.
> exd6+ Kxd6
> 30. Nxd4 Bf5+ $11) 29. Nxf5 gxf5 30. Rc1+ Kd7 31. Rc4 Bc5 32. Nxc5+
> Rxc5 ({
> Emory Tate suggested} 32... bxc5 33. Ra4 a5 $1) 33. Rxd4+ Kc7 34. Rd6
> Rc6 35.
> Rxc6+ Kxc6 36. h5 $1 {And Black has no defense against Ke3-Kf3-g4. If
> I had
> had more time, I would've resigned here....} (36. Kc4 $4 h5 37. a4 Kb7
> 38. b4
> Kc8 39. a5 b5+ 40. Kd4 Kb7 41. Kc5 Kc7 $11) 1-0
I cut-and-pasted this game into a text file, then
"dropped" that (with extension changed to "pgn")
into Arena to have a look. I didn't happen to
notice who was White or Black, and it's funny,
but I thought the IM must have been Black; it
was obvious, really-- or so it seemed. Then I
got to the very end, and what do you know?
The IM was the "duffer" who played White! The
one who gave up the Bishop pair; the one who
readily exchanged Queens. Shows what I
know.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 00:16:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly)
|
On Jul 1, 2:33 am, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > And 14.Qg4 sure made 18...Nf6 more painful.
> > > Although 15....Bb4 is indeed unorthodox, the idea is not a bad
> > > one: ...Qf8 w/idea ...Qf5 is strong.
> > It was strong against what you played, but
> > that was hardly the optimal attack; your
> > funky Nd6 is what brought the misguided
> > Bishop back into the action; but what if you
> > had held out for some other square, like g5
> > or f6? And what of the loss of time these
> > maneuvers require?
> Hmm, you're right. During the game, my line of thought was "17.f4 Qf5
> and then what"? But I missed 18.Qe2, and the BQ does indeed look
> stupid. So maybe Black sacs the piece back with 18...c5 19.Nd6 Qd3
> 20.Qxd3 cd 21.Nxb7 c4 and I would guess that Black is better?
How about just 17. Nf6+ Nxf6, 18. exf6,
where the Knight on c7 is hanging? You'll
regain a piece, and the attack continues
with Black's Rooks both in the corners.
Black's 32. ... Qg7 was the losing move;
all he had to do was accept a draw, pack
up the pieces, go home and lock the door.
(Then he could shave his head, or whatever.)
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 23:45:23
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly)
|
On Jul 1, 1:33=A0am, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 10:31=A0pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > billbrock wrote:
>
> > > And 14.Qg4 sure made 18...Nf6 more painful.
> > > Although 15....Bb4 is indeed unorthodox, the idea is not a bad
> > > one: ...Qf8 w/idea ...Qf5 is strong.
>
> > =A0 It was strong against what you played, but
> > that was hardly the optimal attack; your
> > funky Nd6 is what brought the misguided
> > Bishop back into the action; but what if you
> > had held out for some other square, like g5
> > or f6? =A0And what of the loss of time these
> > maneuvers require?
>
> Hmm, you're right. =A0During the game, my line of thought was "17.f4 Qf5
> and then what"? =A0But I missed 18.Qe2, and the BQ does indeed look
> stupid. =A0So maybe Black sacs the piece back with 18...c5 19.Nd6 Qd3
> 20.Qxd3 cd 21.Nxb7 c4 and I would guess that Black is better?
or 17.f4 Qf5 18.fg Qxg4 19.Bxg4 hg 20.Ng5 Nf8 and Black is more than
OK. (Carbon-based analysis: no Fritz on this machine)
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 23:33:41
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly)
|
On Jun 30, 10:31=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> billbrock wrote:
>
> > And 14.Qg4 sure made 18...Nf6 more painful.
> > Although 15....Bb4 is indeed unorthodox, the idea is not a bad
> > one: ...Qf8 w/idea ...Qf5 is strong.
>
> =A0 It was strong against what you played, but
> that was hardly the optimal attack; your
> funky Nd6 is what brought the misguided
> Bishop back into the action; but what if you
> had held out for some other square, like g5
> or f6? =A0And what of the loss of time these
> maneuvers require?
Hmm, you're right. During the game, my line of thought was "17.f4 Qf5
and then what"? But I missed 18.Qe2, and the BQ does indeed look
stupid. So maybe Black sacs the piece back with 18...c5 19.Nd6 Qd3
20.Qxd3 cd 21.Nxb7 c4 and I would guess that Black is better?
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 20:31:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly)
|
billbrock wrote:
> > > Does my move 11 TN make me "nearly an IM"?
> > No. You can only obtain the nearly-an-IM title
> > by playing -- and defeating -- another Nearly in
> > a set match.
> My young opponent is a full IM.
It makes no difference what he is now. The
question is, what was he when you pummeled
him like a rhudebaga? I see from the chart:
http://ratings.fide.com/id.phtml?event=3D14000652
=2E..that he is a very rapidly improving youngster,
at or near his peak... that is, until you ruined
his entire chess career, you dog!
> Doesn't 50% in a two-game "match"
> suffice for the Nearly title?
No. It has to be an official match consisting
of at least 6 games, draws not counting. And
you of course get a half-million dollars for
participating-- the same as everyone else in
the nearly section. Sir IMnes spent his on a
vacation to the arctic circle in late-winter, but
it was spoiled by numerous polar bear attacks
while he attempted to fry freshly-caught fish
out in the open on his Coleman porta-stove.
(In the end, the bears always prevailed, but
not without a titanic struggle; you see, the
bears were not yet fully awakened from their
winter slumbers.)
> My FIDE rating may soon be over 2000!
That would make you a nearly-an-FM, not a
nearly-an-IM.
> > Generally speaking, this is precisely the sort
> > of game you want when facing a nearly-an-IM.
> > Instead of facing their presumed strength, you
> > make them try to anticipate every conceivable
> > attack-- which is quite impossible for humans.
> > You also get them to have a material advantage
> > on the far side of the board-- away from the real
> > action, away from their King. Instead of just
> > repeating the position he of course holds you
> > in contempt, and thus plays what he knows to
> > be inferior moves... deliberately... unable to
> > control his emotions and play the board, not
> > the man. You quite effectively pinpointed his
> > weaknesses: defense and objectivity.
> >
> > But your sac' was unsound, sorry.
> >
> > -- help bot
> Yeah, I know. Better to play 11.O-O Bg7 12.Nxf7!?, =EF=BF=BD la Topalov &=
> Cheparinov. Frankly, I mixed up the move order!
Is there anyone left in the world who has
not simply *memorized* all their opening
moves, by rote? No wonder you had
trouble with Mr. Sloan's idiotic nonsense.
> And 14.Qg4 sure made 18...Nf6 more painful.
> Although 15....Bb4 is indeed unorthodox, the idea is not a bad
> one: ...Qf8 w/idea ...Qf5 is strong.
It was strong against what you played, but
that was hardly the optimal attack; your
funky Nd6 is what brought the misguided
Bishop back into the action; but what if you
had held out for some other square, like g5
or f6? And what of the loss of time these
maneuvers require?
> It's just that 15...Rh7
> (advocated by Shiva Maharaj in the post mortem)
> seems like an even
> cleaner refutation. I would be more critical of 14...Nc7. Even
> though Fritz likes this move, it makes the work harder for the human
> defender. However, Black's moves 16 thru 25 are excellent defensive
> play.
Really? All of them?!!
> Amanov did not toss the win until missing 29...c5!, easy to do
> in game/60.
Ah-- I know what you mean. When I've
played such time controls recently, it
seems very silly for often as not, both of
us expend an inordinate amount of time
early on, leaving precious little for the
finale-- where the quality of play suffers
accordingly.
> And, as a weakie who takes consolation where he can find it, I am
> pleased with myself for finding 26.Rg4 and 31.Rf1, which I consider
> the best practical chances in this objectively doomed attack.
As your opponent did not defend very
well for an IM, you came out quite well
when he failed to simply repeat the
position-- a suicidal decision. He must
have been firmly convinced that you were
a duffer; perhaps he read about your
grudge match result?
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 19:02:52
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly)
|
On Jun 30, 8:30=A0pm, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> And, as a weakie who takes consolation where he can find it, I am
> pleased with myself for finding 26.Rg4 and 31.Rf1, which I consider
> the best practical chances in this objectively doomed attack.
Make that 29.Rf1 :-)
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 18:30:51
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly)
|
On Jun 30, 7:03=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2:51 pm, billbrock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Does my move 11 TN make me "nearly an IM"?
>
> =A0No. =A0You can only obtain the nearly-an-IM title
> by playing -- and defeating -- another Nearly in
> a set match.
My young opponent is a full IM. Doesn't 50% in a two-game "match"
suffice for the Nearly title? My FIDE rating may soon be over 2000!
>
> > [Event "US Game/60"]
> > [Site "Chicago"]
> > [Date "2008.06.28"]
> > [Round "1"]
> > [White "Brock, Bill"]
> > [Black "Amanov, Mesgen"]
> > [Result "1-0"]
> > [ECO "D43"]
> > [Annotator "Brock,Bill"]
> > [PlyCount "73"]
>
> > 1. Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. d4 c6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 dxc4 7. e4 g5
> > 8. Bg3 b5 9. Be2 Bb7 10. Ne5 Nbd7 11. Nxf7
>
> =A0 I checked this with my GetClub program and
> just to be sure, double-checked it with Fritz;
> conclusion? =A0the f-pawn was in fact defended
> by the Black King (GC: nine hours, full width
> two ply search).
>
> > $6 (11. O-O Bg7 12. Nxf7
> > Kxf7 13. e5 Nd5 14. Ne4) (11.
> > Qc2 Bg7) 11... Kxf7 12. e5 Nd5 13. Bh5+ Kg8 14. Qg4 Nc7 15. O-O Bb4
>
> =A0 The GC program approves; moving as many
> potential defenders as possible *away from*
> the field of action renders them moot; thus,
> they are less likely to get picked off!?!
>
> > (15... Rh7
> > 16. f4 (16. Ne4 c5) 16... c5 17. f5 cxd4 18. fxe6 dxc3 19. Rad1 Bc5+
> > 20. Kh1
> > Nd5) 16. Ne4 Qf8 17. Nd6 Bxd6 18. exd6 Nf6 19. Qe2 Nxh5 20. Qxh5 Qe8
> > 21. Qe2
> > Nd5 22. f4 Rh7 23. Rae1 gxf4 24. Bxf4 Nxf4 25. Rxf4 Rg7 26. Rg4 Rd8
>
> =A0 Another brilliant move! =A0This way, Black keeps
> the attack alive, thus tricking White-- as we will
> see below.
>
> > 27. Rxg7+
> > Kxg7 28. Qe5+ Kh7 29. Rf1 $1 Qg6 $2 (29... c5 $1 30. Rf6 (30. dxc5 Qg6
> > 31. g3
> > Rd7 32. Rf8 Qb1+ 33. Kf2 Qc2+ 34. Ke1 Qe4+ 35. Qxe4+ Bxe4 $19) 30...
> > Qg8 31. g3
> > Bd5 32. dxc5 Rd7) 30. Rf6 $1 $11 Qb1+
>
> =A0 Setting a trap.
>
> > 31. Rf1 Qg6 32. Rf6 Qg7
>
> =A0 It is painfully obvious that now Black has
> the upper hand; since White accepted a
> repetition of position, he now suffers the
> moral obligation to falter in his attack in
> order to obtain the draw he (apparently)
> wanted.
>
> > 33. Qe4+ Kh8 34. Qxe6 Qg5 35. h4 Bc8 36. Qe7 Qc1+
>
> =A0 The crusher! =A0Now, White has no choice but
> to win decisive material; Black's deep plans
> have finally borne fruit. =A0No, wait... .
>
> > 37. Rf1 1-0
>
> =A0 Generally speaking, this is precisely the sort
> of game you want when facing a nearly-an-IM.
> Instead of facing their presumed strength, you
> make them try to anticipate every conceivable
> attack-- which is quite impossible for humans.
> You also get them to have a material advantage
> on the far side of the board-- away from the real
> action, away from their King. =A0Instead of just
> repeating the position he of course holds you
> in contempt, and thus plays what he knows to
> be inferior moves... deliberately... unable to
> control his emotions and play the board, not
> the man. =A0You quite effectively pinpointed his
> weaknesses: defense and objectivity.
>
> =A0 But your sac' was unsound, sorry.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
Yeah, I know. Better to play 11.O-O Bg7 12.Nxf7!?, =E0 la Topalov &
Cheparinov. Frankly, I mixed up the move order! And 14.Qg4 sure made
18...Nf6 more painful.
Although 15....Bb4 is indeed unorthodox, the idea is not a bad
one: ...Qf8 w/idea ...Qf5 is strong. It's just that 15...Rh7
(advocated by Shiva Maharaj in the post mortem) seems like an even
cleaner refutation. I would be more critical of 14...Nc7. Even
though Fritz likes this move, it makes the work harder for the human
defender. However, Black's moves 16 thru 25 are excellent defensive
play. Amanov did not toss the win until missing 29...c5!, easy to do
in game/60.
And, as a weakie who takes consolation where he can find it, I am
pleased with myself for finding 26.Rg4 and 31.Rf1, which I consider
the best practical chances in this objectively doomed attack.
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 17:03:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly)
|
On Jun 30, 2:51 pm, billbrock <[email protected] > wrote:
> Does my move 11 TN make me "nearly an IM"?
No. You can only obtain the nearly-an-IM title
by playing -- and defeating -- another Nearly in
a set match.
> [Event "US Game/60"]
> [Site "Chicago"]
> [Date "2008.06.28"]
> [Round "1"]
> [White "Brock, Bill"]
> [Black "Amanov, Mesgen"]
> [Result "1-0"]
> [ECO "D43"]
> [Annotator "Brock,Bill"]
> [PlyCount "73"]
>
> 1. Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. d4 c6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 dxc4 7. e4 g5
> 8. Bg3 b5 9. Be2 Bb7 10. Ne5 Nbd7 11. Nxf7
I checked this with my GetClub program and
just to be sure, double-checked it with Fritz;
conclusion? the f-pawn was in fact defended
by the Black King (GC: nine hours, full width
two ply search).
> $6 (11. O-O Bg7 12. Nxf7
> Kxf7 13. e5 Nd5 14. Ne4) (11.
> Qc2 Bg7) 11... Kxf7 12. e5 Nd5 13. Bh5+ Kg8 14. Qg4 Nc7 15. O-O Bb4
The GC program approves; moving as many
potential defenders as possible *away from*
the field of action renders them moot; thus,
they are less likely to get picked off!?!
> (15... Rh7
> 16. f4 (16. Ne4 c5) 16... c5 17. f5 cxd4 18. fxe6 dxc3 19. Rad1 Bc5+
> 20. Kh1
> Nd5) 16. Ne4 Qf8 17. Nd6 Bxd6 18. exd6 Nf6 19. Qe2 Nxh5 20. Qxh5 Qe8
> 21. Qe2
> Nd5 22. f4 Rh7 23. Rae1 gxf4 24. Bxf4 Nxf4 25. Rxf4 Rg7 26. Rg4 Rd8
Another brilliant move! This way, Black keeps
the attack alive, thus tricking White-- as we will
see below.
> 27. Rxg7+
> Kxg7 28. Qe5+ Kh7 29. Rf1 $1 Qg6 $2 (29... c5 $1 30. Rf6 (30. dxc5 Qg6
> 31. g3
> Rd7 32. Rf8 Qb1+ 33. Kf2 Qc2+ 34. Ke1 Qe4+ 35. Qxe4+ Bxe4 $19) 30...
> Qg8 31. g3
> Bd5 32. dxc5 Rd7) 30. Rf6 $1 $11 Qb1+
Setting a trap.
> 31. Rf1 Qg6 32. Rf6 Qg7
It is painfully obvious that now Black has
the upper hand; since White accepted a
repetition of position, he now suffers the
moral obligation to falter in his attack in
order to obtain the draw he (apparently)
wanted.
> 33. Qe4+ Kh8 34. Qxe6 Qg5 35. h4 Bc8 36. Qe7 Qc1+
The crusher! Now, White has no choice but
to win decisive material; Black's deep plans
have finally borne fruit. No, wait... .
> 37. Rf1 1-0
Generally speaking, this is precisely the sort
of game you want when facing a nearly-an-IM.
Instead of facing their presumed strength, you
make them try to anticipate every conceivable
attack-- which is quite impossible for humans.
You also get them to have a material advantage
on the far side of the board-- away from the real
action, away from their King. Instead of just
repeating the position he of course holds you
in contempt, and thus plays what he knows to
be inferior moves... deliberately... unable to
control his emotions and play the board, not
the man. You quite effectively pinpointed his
weaknesses: defense and objectivity.
But your sac' was unsound, sorry.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Jun 2008 11:51:10
From: billbrock
Subject: It is better to have the initiative than to play (mostly) well....
|
On Jun 27, 11:05=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > > =A0 Grudge match? =A0Neil Brennen versus nearly-IMnes,
> > > blindfolded.
> > That's hardly a contest. As a writer I already give him Rook odds, and
> > trounce him.
>
> =A0 But English is your native language, whereas
> Sir Innes is obviously from some far-distant
> galaxy. =A0What about chess? =A0Would you play
> the nearly-an-IMpostor if we blinded him (oops!)
> I mean if he were *blindfolded*? =A0The great
> (Chess) One ran from Sam Sloan, frightened
> like a plucked chicken in a fox's den; which
> will back down first, I wonder. =A0(Does anyone
> believe the nearly-an-IM can play anywhere near
> his purely imaginary 2450 strength, blindfolded?)
>
> =A0 Note that Mr. Sloan was not elected President;
> he didn't even get elected chief honcho of the
> Libertarian party, so he is free to beat up on Mr.Brocksome more. =A0But =
we want variety-- you
> know, the spice of life and all that.
>
> =A0 -- help bot
Does my move 11 TN make me "nearly an IM"?
http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=3D14000652
[Event "US Game/60"]
[Site "Chicago"]
[Date "2008.06.28"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Brock, Bill"]
[Black "Amanov, Mesgen"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D43"]
[Annotator "Brock,Bill"]
[PlyCount "73"]
1. Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. d4 c6 5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 dxc4 7. e4 g5
8. Bg3 b5 9. Be2 Bb7 10. Ne5 Nbd7 11. Nxf7 $6 (11. O-O Bg7 12. Nxf7
Kxf7 13. e5 Nd5 14. Ne4) (11.
Qc2 Bg7) 11... Kxf7 12. e5 Nd5 13. Bh5+ Kg8 14. Qg4 Nc7 15. O-O Bb4
(15... Rh7
16. f4 (16. Ne4 c5) 16... c5 17. f5 cxd4 18. fxe6 dxc3 19. Rad1 Bc5+
20. Kh1
Nd5) 16. Ne4 Qf8 17. Nd6 Bxd6 18. exd6 Nf6 19. Qe2 Nxh5 20. Qxh5 Qe8
21. Qe2
Nd5 22. f4 Rh7 23. Rae1 gxf4 24. Bxf4 Nxf4 25. Rxf4 Rg7 26. Rg4 Rd8
27. Rxg7+
Kxg7 28. Qe5+ Kh7 29. Rf1 $1 Qg6 $2 (29... c5 $1 30. Rf6 (30. dxc5 Qg6
31. g3
Rd7 32. Rf8 Qb1+ 33. Kf2 Qc2+ 34. Ke1 Qe4+ 35. Qxe4+ Bxe4 $19) 30...
Qg8 31. g3
Bd5 32. dxc5 Rd7) 30. Rf6 $1 $11 Qb1+ 31. Rf1 Qg6 32. Rf6 Qg7 33. Qe4+
Kh8 34.
Qxe6 Qg5 35. h4 Bc8 36. Qe7 Qc1+ 37. Rf1 1-0
Full disclosure: revenge was swift. (A few meaningless moves were
played after 36. h5! in the time scramble.)
[Event "US Game/30"]
[Site "Chicago"]
[Date "2008.06.29"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Amanov, Mesgen"]
[Black "Brock, Bill"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A46"]
[Annotator "Brock,Bill"]
[PlyCount "71"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 h6
4. Bxf6 Qxf6 5. e4 d6 6. Nc3 Nd7 7. Qd2 g6 $2 (7... a6 {is book.}) 8.
O-O-O (8.
Nb5 $1 Qd8 9. Qc3 $1 (9. Qa5 $2 c6 $1 10. Nc7+ Ke7 $13) 9... c6 10. d5
$16)
8... Bg7 9. e5 dxe5 10. dxe5 Qe7 11. Qe3 a6 12. h4 Qc5 13. Qxc5 Nxc5
$11 14.
Bd3 $1 Nxd3+ 15. Rxd3 Bd7 16. Re1 O-O-O 17. g3 Bc6 18. Nd4 Bg2 19. f4
c5 20.
Nb3 Rxd3 21. cxd3 b6 22. Ne4 Rd8 23. Nd6+ Kc7 (23... Rxd6 24. exd6
Kd7) 24. d4
cxd4 25. Nxf7 Rd5 (25... Rd7 $5 26. Nd6 Rxd6 27. exd6+ Kxd6 $11) 26.
Kd2 Bf8
27. Kd3 Bh3 28. Nd6 Bf5+ $6 ({I should have played} 28... Bxd6 29.
exd6+ Kxd6
30. Nxd4 Bf5+ $11) 29. Nxf5 gxf5 30. Rc1+ Kd7 31. Rc4 Bc5 32. Nxc5+
Rxc5 ({
Emory Tate suggested} 32... bxc5 33. Ra4 a5 $1) 33. Rxd4+ Kc7 34. Rd6
Rc6 35.
Rxc6+ Kxc6 36. h5 $1 {And Black has no defense against Ke3-Kf3-g4. If
I had
had more time, I would've resigned here....} (36. Kc4 $4 h5 37. a4 Kb7
38. b4
Kc8 39. a5 b5+ 40. Kd4 Kb7 41. Kc5 Kc7 $11) 1-0
|
| |
Date: 28 Jun 2008 00:05:10
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
THE DIVIDED SELF
"I never left Larry, but your passion for me borders
on the psychological, wouldn't you say?" -- SBD
Rynd/Dowd has begun to forget his absences while
earlier merely failing to remember his presences.
We all thought that he left in shame after forging my name
name on a university website, but if he insists upon a continuous
locus among us, we are generous enough to accommodate
him until he again departs.
Readers may notice that Rynd/Dowd views himself
or his selves as a cynosure of passion. He imagines
that passion "borders on the psychological, whereas
we have always thought that passion is psychological,
almost by definition.
Unpsychological passion, if it exists, could be
an emotive chemical reaction to a forgotten absence or
an unremembered presence. Rynd/Dowd becomes is/is
not. To his or their mind, when he was not, he is;
and when he is, he was not.
Yours, Larry Parr
SBD wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2:46 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > THE RETURN OF RYND/DOWD
> >
> > >Considering he probably didn't read the article in
> >
> > question (he has stated many times he doesn't read
> > the magazine), what would he complain about? -- SBD
> >
> > Whether or not Phil Innes read the article in
> > question is not an interesting point. Far more
> > fascinating is whether Rynd/Dowd, though biologically
> > in the singular, read it twice simultaneously.
>
> I never left Larry, but your passion for me borders on the
> psychological, wouldn't you say? Creepy.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 21:05:41
From: help bot
Subject: Grudge Match
|
The Historian wrote:
> > Grudge match? Neil Brennen versus nearly-IMnes,
> > blindfolded.
> That's hardly a contest. As a writer I already give him Rook odds, and
> trounce him.
But English is your native language, whereas
Sir Innes is obviously from some far-distant
galaxy. What about chess? Would you play
the nearly-an-IMpostor if we blinded him (oops!)
I mean if he were *blindfolded*? The great
(Chess) One ran from Sam Sloan, frightened
like a plucked chicken in a fox's den; which
will back down first, I wonder. (Does anyone
believe the nearly-an-IM can play anywhere near
his purely imaginary 2450 strength, blindfolded?)
Note that Mr. Sloan was not elected President;
he didn't even get elected chief honcho of the
Libertarian party, so he is free to beat up on Mr.
Brock some more. But we want variety-- you
know, the spice of life and all that.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 12:59:06
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
On Jun 27, 8:41 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have no expectations that you can talk about chess at all -
Given what you know about the game, or even the parts of chess that
are not a game, you wouldn't be able to understand much of what anyone
discusses about chess, Grandmaster, I mean nearly an IM, I mean Master
Innes
There are those of us who have actually achieved master ratings and
titles and regularly are published in chess magazines around the world
who find this sort of display by you offensive. Achieve something in
chess besides writing a muckraking piece of shit editorial on a crappy
website and maybe people will take you seriously.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 12:50:55
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
On Jun 27, 2:46 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> THE RETURN OF RYND/DOWD
>
> >Considering he probably didn't read the article in
>
> question (he has stated many times he doesn't read
> the magazine), what would he complain about? -- SBD
>
> Whether or not Phil Innes read the article in
> question is not an interesting point. Far more
> fascinating is whether Rynd/Dowd, though biologically
> in the singular, read it twice simultaneously.
I never left Larry, but your passion for me borders on the
psychological, wouldn't you say? Creepy.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 12:46:38
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
THE RETURN OF RYND/DOWD
>Considering he probably didn't read the article in
question (he has stated many times he doesn't read
the magazine), what would he complain about? -- SBD
Whether or not Phil Innes read the article in
question is not an interesting point. Far more
fascinating is whether Rynd/Dowd, though biologically
in the singular, read it twice simultaneously.
In any event, after a relatively brief period in
the Sunny Acres repair shop having his gear box
readjusted, Rynd/Dowd has returned. We have thus
far always found his visits enjoyable.
We are certain that his current stay among us,
though necessarily limited by his corroded sparkplug,
will prove edifying to all.
Yours, Larry Parr
SBD wrote:
> On Jun 26, 9:59 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 26, 3:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I earlier this day asked the board and Lucas how come they publish
> >
> > > him?
> >
> > Care to post a copy of the email? If you actually sent it, I could
> > obtain a copy easily enough from USCF. But I'm sure you didn't.
>
> Considering he probably didn't read the article in question (he has
> stated many times he doesn't read the magazine), what would he
> complain about? It was probably one of those secret emails that really
> wasn't an email.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 06:48:04
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
On Jun 27, 8:19 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 26, 9:59 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 26, 3:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I earlier this day asked the board and Lucas how come they publish
>
> > > him?
>
> > Care to post a copy of the email? If you actually sent it, I could
> > obtain a copy easily enough from USCF. But I'm sure you didn't.
>
> Considering he probably didn't read the article in question (he has
> stated many times he doesn't read the magazine), what would he
> complain about? It was probably one of those secret emails that really
> wasn't an email.
Agreed.
|
| |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 06:19:34
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
On Jun 26, 9:59 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 26, 3:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I earlier this day asked the board and Lucas how come they publish
>
> > him?
>
> Care to post a copy of the email? If you actually sent it, I could
> obtain a copy easily enough from USCF. But I'm sure you didn't.
Considering he probably didn't read the article in question (he has
stated many times he doesn't read the magazine), what would he
complain about? It was probably one of those secret emails that really
wasn't an email.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 17:34:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life online
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jun 26, 9:59 pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jun 26, 3:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I earlier this day asked the board and Lucas how come they publish
>>
>> > him?
>>
>> Care to post a copy of the email? If you actually sent it, I could
>> obtain a copy easily enough from USCF. But I'm sure you didn't.
>
> Considering he probably didn't read the article in question (he has
> stated many times he doesn't read the magazine), what would he
> complain about? It was probably one of those secret emails that really
> wasn't an email.
Says Dowd/Rynd, the MD who is always a sick person so he would profess to
us, who cannot but repeat a serial abuser here, and is proud to trash
others. What this has to do with decent speech evades them.
What Rynd/Dowd suggests to you as 'probably' is as probable as his
orientation to chess. Others in this group were copied, btw, and as when I
offered Rynd/Dowd a refuge here, at my expense, he denied it! He denied it
even though he could see who was copied.
I have no need to persecute such a sad fellow. But Rynd/Dowd persecutes the
truth about others- and he makes it as a challenge. Okay Rynd/Dowd, it is
not about you, but about decency - and you cavort here with the lowest of
the low.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 19:59:56
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
On Jun 26, 3:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
I earlier this day asked the board and Lucas how come they publish
> him?
Care to post a copy of the email? If you actually sent it, I could
obtain a copy easily enough from USCF. But I'm sure you didn't.
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 19:56:41
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
On Jun 26, 4:00 pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jun 26, 4:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > It's odd that it's low rated players - Nibbelin, Mitchell, Innes, etc
> > > - defending Truong. Perhaps chess lessons are in order?
> > So says the notorious liar Neil Brennan - who I could literally beat with my
> > eyes closed.
>
> Grudge match? Neil Brennen versus nearly-IMnes,
> blindfolded.
>
> -- help bot
That's hardly a contest. As a writer I already give him Rook odds, and
trounce him.
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 14:24:52
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
On Jun 26, 3:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> They will no doubt not notice his anti-women screeds, his hate speech and
> stalking, neither will those who like his stuff. But a search, any date, on
> any 100 posts of his, show you what sort of mind he has.
At least you can read his posts without thinking a doofus wrote them.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 09:48:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life online
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jun 26, 3:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> They will no doubt not notice his anti-women screeds, his hate speech
>> and
>> stalking, neither will those who like his stuff. But a search, any date,
>> on
>> any 100 posts of his, show you what sort of mind he has.
>
> At least you can read his posts without thinking a doofus wrote them.
More defamation by USCF writers!
I mean, they intercede off-topic to write trash, then they complain that
others resent what they do, is if it were equal. Unless writing trash about
others gets them brownie-points at USCF, then there is no explanation why,
in this instance RYND/DOWD ignores hate-speech, especially in connection
with abuse to women.
Instead he trashes people who point it out. He can't seem to understand what
is written - but I challenge that! I say he doesn't want to understand.
Now, I think how Rynd/Dowd behaves is a vote for if he cares, or if he
doesn't, and its not a matter of opinion, its demonstrated by what he does.
I rather doubt he will understand that either.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 14:22:25
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
On Jun 26, 3:55 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:baa49556-1fbf-469b-994f-54fee108a6a9@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 26, 7:38 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> It's odd that it's low rated players - Nibbelin, Mitchell, Innes, etc
> >> - defending Truong. Perhaps chess lessons are in order?
>
> > Trollgar, like any false god(s), seem to need worshippers and
> > idolators, and the weaker the mind, the greater the worship.
>
> A bit more defamation and spite which cannot even decently mention a
> person's name, by people who can't sign their own. Both, I notice are proud
> to be published by Chess Dead Magazine.
>
> And this dupliticous shit colludes with the greatest abuser of people here
> as if they were to state something of any decency in public and to any
> public benefit.
So let me see - anything you want to say about anyone is fine, but
other people's opinions are defamation?
I think the Trollgars ride a very high horse - and if that's fine by
you, so be it. But don't expect us all to be so weak-minded.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jun 2008 09:41:46
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life online
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a1c8bdb7-ebb0-4567-bb91-fb6daa4334ea@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 26, 3:55 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:baa49556-1fbf-469b-994f-54fee108a6a9@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 26, 7:38 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's odd that it's low rated players - Nibbelin, Mitchell, Innes, etc
>> >> - defending Truong. Perhaps chess lessons are in order?
>>
>> > Trollgar, like any false god(s), seem to need worshippers and
>> > idolators, and the weaker the mind, the greater the worship.
>>
>> A bit more defamation and spite which cannot even decently mention a
>> person's name, by people who can't sign their own. Both, I notice are
>> proud
>> to be published by Chess Dead Magazine.
>>
>> And this dupliticous shit colludes with the greatest abuser of people
>> here
>> as if they were to state something of any decency in public and to any
>> public benefit.
>
> So let me see - anything you want to say about anyone is fine, but
> other people's opinions are defamation?
Is this what Rynd/Dowd sees? Where does he see it? What I don't see is any
attempt to talk about chess by certain people - and their constant
rubbishing of those who do.
> I think the Trollgars ride a very high horse - and if that's fine by
> you, so be it. But don't expect us all to be so weak-minded.
I have no expectations that you can talk about chess at all - instead of
trashing those who would promote the game. It is very curious that there is
often a coincidence in this orientation and those published by USCF.
The title of this thread has to do with the "no risk" comment by Bill the
Great, which, even if Sam Sloan writes it, is not just a little risible.
There would appear to be substantial risk, not just to the magazine's
future, but actually to USCF's membership.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 14:00:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
On Jun 26, 4:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > It's odd that it's low rated players - Nibbelin, Mitchell, Innes, etc
> > - defending Truong. Perhaps chess lessons are in order?
> So says the notorious liar Neil Brennan - who I could literally beat with my
> eyes closed.
Grudge match? Neil Brennen versus nearly-IMnes,
blindfolded.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 12:38:15
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
On Jun 26, 7:38 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> It's odd that it's low rated players - Nibbelin, Mitchell, Innes, etc
> - defending Truong. Perhaps chess lessons are in order?
Trollgar, like any false god(s), seem to need worshippers and
idolators, and the weaker the mind, the greater the worship.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 22:09:49
From: I.P. Knightly
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
SBD wrote:
> On Jun 26, 7:38 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It's odd that it's low rated players - Nibbelin, Mitchell, Innes, etc
>> - defending Truong. Perhaps chess lessons are in order?
>
> Trollgar, like any false god(s), seem to need worshippers and
> idolators, and the weaker the mind, the greater the worship.
No kidding! Witness Obama.
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 16:55:12
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life online
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:baa49556-1fbf-469b-994f-54fee108a6a9@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 26, 7:38 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It's odd that it's low rated players - Nibbelin, Mitchell, Innes, etc
>> - defending Truong. Perhaps chess lessons are in order?
>
> Trollgar, like any false god(s), seem to need worshippers and
> idolators, and the weaker the mind, the greater the worship.
A bit more defamation and spite which cannot even decently mention a
person's name, by people who can't sign their own. Both, I notice are proud
to be published by Chess Dead Magazine.
And this dupliticous shit colludes with the greatest abuser of people here
as if they were to state something of any decency in public and to any
public benefit.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 05:38:28
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
On Jun 26, 7:16 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mark Nibbelin is a 945 USCF Rated player who is the strongest
> supporter of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, is the strongest supporter
> of the Goichberg "New Plan" which will put Chess Life OnLine, and is
> the strongest critic of the Mottershead Report and those who say that
> Truong is guilty, on the USCF Issues Forum.
>
> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12818435
>
> Sam Sloan
It's odd that it's low rated players - Nibbelin, Mitchell, Innes, etc
- defending Truong. Perhaps chess lessons are in order?
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 16:35:36
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life online
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:66b10e75-de6a-4aeb-b477-e29880d4737d@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 26, 7:16 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Mark Nibbelin is a 945 USCF Rated player who is the strongest
>> supporter of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, is the strongest supporter
>> of the Goichberg "New Plan" which will put Chess Life OnLine, and is
>> the strongest critic of the Mottershead Report and those who say that
>> Truong is guilty, on the USCF Issues Forum.
>>
>> http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12818435
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
> It's odd that it's low rated players - Nibbelin, Mitchell, Innes, etc
> - defending Truong. Perhaps chess lessons are in order?
So says the notorious liar Neil Brennan - who I could literally beat with my
eyes closed.
The same Brennan who is now published in Chess Dead magazine, to their
shame! SHAME! And who lied his way to the bottom.
If you want hate-speech, tune into Brennen, CD does - and won't their eyes
water! I earlier this day asked the board and Lucas how come they publish
him?
They will no doubt not notice his anti-women screeds, his hate speech and
stalking, neither will those who like his stuff. But a search, any date, on
any 100 posts of his, show you what sort of mind he has.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 26 Jun 2008 05:16:09
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Goichberg says that there is "no risk" to putting Chess Life
|
[quote="marknibb"]Give people a basic membership for $5 which only
gives them access to the rating system and they will join.
Mark Nibbelin [/quote]
I am glad that now I understand that what you really want is for USCF
Membership Dues to go down to five dollars.
Mark Nibbelin is a 945 USCF Rated player who is the strongest
supporter of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, is the strongest supporter
of the Goichberg "New Plan" which will put Chess Life OnLine, and is
the strongest critic of the Mottershead Report and those who say that
Truong is guilty, on the USCF Issues Forum.
http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlTnmtHst.php?12818435
Sam Sloan
|
|
