| |
Main
Date: 18 Oct 2007 03:44:27
From:
Subject: Innes' rating
|
Why the question? Why doesn't Innes just play a few rated
tournaments and establish once and for all what his rating is?
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 12:32:44
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Innes' rating
|
On Oct 18, 11:57 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 11:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Why the question? Why doesn't Innes just play a few rated
> > tournaments and establish once and for all what his rating is?
>
> Innes' rating is easily found; just enter his name in the search box
> on this page:
>
> http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
>
> There you will see that he is currently rated 2044, but he has not
> played a rated game since 1995. In his last tournament he lost 55 Elo
> points.
According to my calculations, this would seem to indicate
a 2450 rating some time around the year 1907 A.D.
Might it be possible that the our IM Innes is in fact the
real Mr. Pillsbury, and it was a fake who died, but the
slow-bleed of playing strength over so much time has left
him a mere vestige of his former self -- after all, what do
we really know about him? That he is rather tall and
lanky, weighing a mere 165 pounds in spite of being
three kilometers tall; that he sometimes plays the
Sicilian Defense; that he often rants about long-past
successes on the continent, claiming wins over Mr.
Mason or Mr. Tarrasch in Simpson's on the Strand... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 09:57:01
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Innes' rating
|
On Oct 17, 11:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Why the question? Why doesn't Innes just play a few rated
> tournaments and establish once and for all what his rating is?
Innes' rating is easily found; just enter his name in the search box
on this page:
http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
There you will see that he is currently rated 2044, but he has not
played a rated game since 1995. In his last tournament he lost 55 Elo
points.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 21:14:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Kingston's Complaint
|
"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 17, 11:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> Why the question? Why doesn't Innes just play a few rated
>> tournaments and establish once and for all what his rating is?
>
> Innes' rating is easily found; just enter his name in the search box
> on this page:
>
> http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/
>
> There you will see that he is currently rated 2044, but he has not
> played a rated game since 1995. In his last tournament he lost 55 Elo
> points.
That's because I had the flu, already worked 60 hours that week, and fuck
you! Kingston - What a bitch! You never even got that high, but you
pretended to, in a coy posting, which you had to write in as an anon to
admire about yourself :)))) Using some girl's name ;))))
Kerist! What is this thing with some Americans that they will fuck you over
/your/ rating, while they never even sniffed anything close? And they will
do it in public, as if their pathetic resentment was not entirely obvious?
Some people play chess because they /like/ it for itself. And whether they
are 1300 or 2300 makes no difference. They are not obsessed about their
rating - and their critics are, mentioning it 1,000 times!
That's no love of the game. That is an awful orientation to it.
Not even your own play, but having to put down that of others. Wankers!
If you like chess, play chess. What the hell is this other shit about ranks?
This is not the fucking Third Reich!
People like you already drove off all the strong players used to post here
in chess.misc, and people like Brennan are shielded, and 'not' noticed'.
That is you legacy, and what you inflict on your country. That is why there
are hardly any hoem grown American talents - you would hate them for being
good at the game!
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 08:17:38
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Innes' rating
|
On Oct 17, 10:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Why the question? Why doesn't Innes just play a few rated
> tournaments and establish once and for all what his rating is?
Because bragging rights disappear when there's nothing to brag about.
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 06:57:47
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Innes' rating
|
On Oct 18, 8:41 am, [email protected] wrote:
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> >> Why the question? Why doesn't Innes just play a few rated
> >> tournaments and establish once and for all what his rating is?
>
> >why don't you?
>
> I have made no public claims that "[email protected]" has a particular
> rating. You *have* claimed to have a particular rating.
>
> >maybe the dumbest thing here is the obsession by weak players with weak
> >characters, who don't have no rating and don't have no name,
>
> For all you know I might not know whether the horsie jumps. For all you know I
> might be Bobby Fischer. None of that matters. The question is a fair question
> no matter who asks it. And I am sure that several people here with published
> ratings will be happy to chime in and ask the same question if your only objection
> is my pseudonym.
>
> >get your own life, anon-moron
>
> I find deflating blowhards to be a fulfilling pastime.
Oh no! He's going to think you are me! For the record, I am not
[email protected].
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 06:56:11
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Innes' rating
|
On Oct 17, 10:44 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Why the question? Why doesn't Innes just play a few rated
> tournaments and establish once and for all what his rating is?
Google swallowed my post last night. I wrote that bragging rights
disappear when there's nothing to brag about. And as we saw in his 17
move loss posted in the "Innes' Rating" subthread, there's nothing to
brag about.
|
| |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 11:49:06
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Innes' rating
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> Why the question? Why doesn't Innes just play a few rated
> tournaments and establish once and for all what his rating is?
why don't you?
maybe the dumbest thing here is the obsession by weak players with weak
characters, who don't have no rating and don't have no name,
get your own life, anon-moron
pi
|
| | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 13:41:36
From:
Subject: Re: Innes' rating
|
"Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
>
>
><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> Why the question? Why doesn't Innes just play a few rated
>> tournaments and establish once and for all what his rating is?
>
>why don't you?
I have made no public claims that "[email protected]" has a particular
rating. You *have* claimed to have a particular rating.
>maybe the dumbest thing here is the obsession by weak players with weak
>characters, who don't have no rating and don't have no name,
For all you know I might not know whether the horsie jumps. For all you know I
might be Bobby Fischer. None of that matters. The question is a fair question
no matter who asks it. And I am sure that several people here with published
ratings will be happy to chime in and ask the same question if your only objection
is my pseudonym.
>get your own life, anon-moron
I find deflating blowhards to be a fulfilling pastime.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Oct 2007 16:43:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Innes' rating
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why the question? Why doesn't Innes just play a few rated
>>> tournaments and establish once and for all what his rating is?
>>
>>why don't you?
>
> I have made no public claims that "[email protected]" has a particular
> rating. You *have* claimed to have a particular rating.
>
>>maybe the dumbest thing here is the obsession by weak players with weak
>>characters, who don't have no rating and don't have no name,
>
> For all you know I might not know whether the horsie jumps. For all you
> know I
> might be Bobby Fischer. None of that matters. The question is a fair
> question
> no matter who asks it.
Your question is fair, and mine is foul? Get lost cowardy-anon!
Phil Innes
> And I am sure that several people here with published
> ratings will be happy to chime in and ask the same question if your only
> objection
> is my pseudonym.
>
>>get your own life, anon-moron
>
> I find deflating blowhards to be a fulfilling pastime.
>
|
|
