Main Date: 14 Aug 2008 12:49:07 From: Chess One Subject: Man, Piece As some people here know, I am designing an accredited chess course for initially home schooled students, then opened up as a distance learning course for all students. The age range is k-12, and there is a beginners course to acquaint players with basics, then an Intermediate course which should suffice players or any age to at least 1500 level play. For high-school students the 36 lesson Intermediate course gains a full academic credit. The course draws on contributions from half a dozen or 10 authors, and in several media, ie as books, hyper-texts, DVD and CD ROMS. With Dan Heisman we are converting his book "A Parent's Guide to Chess" to a hyper-text, and I would like to ask particularly American readers here a couple of questions I have about Dan's Glossary entries. TOPIC 1 Dan makes some distinction between "Piece" and "Man", I give both his definitions below, then ask my questions: MAN: Any chess piece, including pawns. PIECE: (1) Any of the chess men, as in "Get all the pieces out of the bag." (2) A non-pawn, as in "You have to develop all your pieces." (3) A Bishop or a Knight, as in "I am up a piece." My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use? If it is, is Dan's definition to your liking? My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions we have 3 contradictions! These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's limited sense of piece in #3? Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS? Elsewhere Dan provides normal definitions of minor-piece and major-piece, as in Bishop&Knight, and Rook&Queen resp. TOPIC 2 Dan defines ZWISCHENZUG normally, and states its meaning as "in-between move" which is uncontroversial. Is that universally understood or do people also say INTERMEZZO? I have seen the Italian versions in print, but I suppose I want to know what word Americans actually use - and is this one worth adding? Thank you! Phil Innes   Date: 19 Aug 2008 21:45:16 From: help bot Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) Chess One wrote: > > One detail the critics seem to overlook is > > the fact that nearly-IMnes is the only chess > > writer of note in the Andean language, since > > Fred Reinfeld. > One fact that all posters have overlooked is that there are 5 Andean > languages Why keep us all in suspense? Go ahead and name them. Oops-- did you perhaps misuse the term "languages" again? > and that spelling [ROFL] and certainly enunciation of the sound > of Spanish words does differ there from both Mexican-type Spanish and what > is said in Spain, both Castillian and Andalusian. You're ducking the issue; are you or are you not the *only* writer of note since Fred Reinfeld, in Andean? Yes or no. > Or perhaps Corn-fed doesn't know shit, is too tired-out from the factory job What factory job is that? Are you on those LP or LSD drugs again? > to read anything serious and watches tv all and every evening? Perhaps > perhaps? Actually, I am intending to send off for a coupon to buy a converter box so that I /can/ watch TV... but I never seem to get 'round to it. Oh well. When the Olympics are over, maybe I will buy a DVD so I can see what I missed. > The newsgroup becomes brutalised by such babies who attempt to ensure no > grown ups enter 'their' self-proscribed reservation - if they do they will > be whined at! Dear Dr. IMnes, grown ups do not pretend they are nearly-IMs with an imaginary rating of 2450. Grown ups live in the real world, with its annoying but real ratings and titles. Yours is USCF "Expert", and that puts you among the top 2% in Vermont. In the real world, when you are caught in a lie, you have to pay the price. No go sit in the corner and here, wear this pointed cap. -- help bot   Date: 19 Aug 2008 06:35:11 From: help bot Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) SBD wrote: > > **But as with Hooper, I am not attached to any result; whether Chernev > > became a prodigious English writer or otherwise, I simply state there is no > > particular evidence he was, and I don't see any presented here, either. I do > > not feel compelled to 'believe' anything about Chernev's prowess simply to > > relieve my anxiety > > Maybe instead of 'believing' if you took some time to 'read,' and > then, perhaps, 'understand,' you might be able to judge Chernev as a > writer. > > But you are too busy writing this chess course to actually try to > 'understand' chess and chess writing, I suppose. One detail the critics seem to overlook is the fact that nearly-IMnes is the only chess writer of note in the Andean language, since Fred Reinfeld. -- help bot     Date: 19 Aug 2008 15:49:35 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:6cc82e77-9095-434b-9196-0c901565549c@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > SBD wrote: > > >> > **But as with Hooper, I am not attached to any result; whether Chernev >> > became a prodigious English writer or otherwise, I simply state there >> > is no >> > particular evidence he was, and I don't see any presented here, either. >> > I do >> > not feel compelled to 'believe' anything about Chernev's prowess simply >> > to >> > relieve my anxiety >> >> Maybe instead of 'believing' if you took some time to 'read,' and >> then, perhaps, 'understand,' you might be able to judge Chernev as a >> writer. >> >> But you are too busy writing this chess course to actually try to >> 'understand' chess and chess writing, I suppose. > > > One detail the critics seem to overlook is > the fact that nearly-IMnes is the only chess > writer of note in the Andean language, since > Fred Reinfeld. One fact that all posters have overlooked is that there are 5 Andean languages, and that spelling [ROFL] and certainly enunciation of the sound of Spanish words does differ there from both Mexican-type Spanish and what is said in Spain, both Castillian and Andalusian. Another fact all posters should note is that no one writing to mock this fact has presented other than their own profound ignorance, with which they are well pleased. If it were only a self-conscious mocking - but such clowns actually know nothing at all! they sort of joke about it, but are unsure, really. They ain't brave nor decent enough to admit which it is. Gratuitous contributions, such as by Corn-fed here, are almost as funny and enjoyable as Taylor Kingston Taylor's analogies. Perhaps today I am like Mussolini, playing Mah Jong in the NFL? uh... dude? And like, that is insane? Or perhaps Corn-fed doesn't know shit, is too tired-out from the factory job to read anything serious and watches tv all and every evening? Perhaps perhaps? I dunno what for-free analysis I should provide stalkers and wanton speculators - verbal wankers - everthing seems to piss them off, especially things they never heard of before, plus asking anything about their own understanding - since they are so insistent on talking about other people, but so shy of their dear poor selves to even own their names. A culture of complaint - wrote Robt Hughes, about Americans who got used to non-stop whining, and who think that is 'free-speech' worth expressing. The newsgroup becomes brutalised by such babies who attempt to ensure no grown ups enter 'their' self-proscribed reservation - if they do they will be whined at! One detail that Greg Kennedy seems to have overlooked is that he is content to live other people's lives, in fact, he wants to take them over! Maybe Transylvannia is a better location? He should let us know if he likes it there, not if he thinks he would. Phil Innes > > -- help bot > >   Date: 19 Aug 2008 05:12:00 From: SBD Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) On Aug 19, 6:30 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **But as with Hooper, I am not attached to any result; whether Chernev > became a prodigious English writer or otherwise, I simply state there is no > particular evidence he was, and I don't see any presented here, either. I do > not feel compelled to 'believe' anything about Chernev's prowess simply to > relieve my anxiety Maybe instead of 'believing' if you took some time to 'read,' and then, perhaps, 'understand,' you might be able to judge Chernev as a writer. But you are too busy writing this chess course to actually try to 'understand' chess and chess writing, I suppose.     Date: 19 Aug 2008 09:24:33 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:dd9eaa64-c042-4157-bda4-6c08623e37e7@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 19, 6:30 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> **But as with Hooper, I am not attached to any result; whether Chernev >> became a prodigious English writer or otherwise, I simply state there is >> no >> particular evidence he was, and I don't see any presented here, either. I >> do >> not feel compelled to 'believe' anything about Chernev's prowess simply >> to >> relieve my anxiety > > Maybe instead of 'believing' if you took some time to 'read,' and > then, perhaps, 'understand,' you might be able to judge Chernev as a > writer. Pardon me? Can't you read, is the spit getting in your eyes? Should I insult your comprehension or your honesty? Both? I clearly stated that /I/ do not /have/ to believe anything - its Taylor who must be believing things he presents no basis for, - not on Chernev nor on Hooper - but he is sure of things which I am not. That's what I belief is, you can't prove it but have a set opinion. Its merely one more step to becoming a pedant, you not only have one fixed opinion, but you insist it is the right one, and no other opinion is permitted. I am also not attached to the result - which is what Rynd/Dowd has cut so that he can suggest the opposite; that I must believe. I also mentioned that I have quoted Chernev more in this newsgroup than any other person has, and that's a fact. Perhaps Rynd/Dowd missed that fact, preferring his own belief... which he continues to tell us about below > But you are too busy writing this chess course to actually try to > 'understand' chess and chess writing, I suppose. RoFL! You *suppose?* You too believe, in the face of the facts, then you project onto others your suppositions. What a farce of a post! Everyone can judge for themselves Rynd/Dowd's attention to any facts, as such, in his message, and if you don't even attemnpt facts, what are you doing? Phil Innes   Date: 17 Aug 2008 05:44:11 From: SBD Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) On Aug 17, 7:28 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > Our Phil responds in his usual way. When shown to be in a hole, he > digs himself deeper, and when shown to be full of hot air, he blows > all the harder. > > **The Taylor Kingston try basic level! The Taylor Kingston say show hole, > but do not show hole or where digging is. The Taylor Kingston play shy! PI No, he was saying, "Idiot, get out of the hole everyone else with an IQ above room temperature can see." You look pretty foolish standing in it, but then again, you would look pretty foolish outside of it.   Date: 16 Aug 2008 16:08:35 From: help bot Subject: Re: Man, Piece On Aug 16, 10:44=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **I know Sanny's computer has many opinions, and is always getting better= . I > wonder if I should offer it a column? Perhaps it could be called, "Better > Now How about "The Art of Chess Improvement"? > ***Actually, Hyde was active at the end of the Elizabethan period, and an > Elizabeth who successfully baffled the French and Spanish into not > attempting war. 3 million English protestants faced 12 Million aggressive > continental catholics. Suppose the Catholic armada were to crash on the rocks in a storm? > Perhaps Hyde actually preferred an English male > General to take the field against that lot, and be gloriously defeated? > > =A0 I take > it this Mr. Hyde was a weak-minded duffer-- > perhaps a Rook-odds player at best. > > Dr. Hyde was the author of the first objectively serious [non mythologica= l] > study of chess. He concluded the game originated from the City of Peace, > circa 600 - we no longer hold that view, but it was better than any other > explanations at the time. Yes, yes, I know: two wrongs make a right and all that hooey. Look, did he or didn't he figure out that chess was invented by Nuns? > In terms of the strength of his play, there is not > the slightest indication. Probably the only way to have become good was t= o > buy the secret chess rutter of Greco, which among other things went half = a > dozen moves deep into several openings. But after its publication Greco > dissapeared! Typical openings-book obsessed nearly-an-IM. How many times do I have to explain that true chess mastery comes from understanding, not rote memorization of moves from the starting position? > Not vires [L], but homo [L] from homos [Gr] ? Your obsession with "homo" and such is just plain silly. Can you not see that if all "homos" were 100% faithful, they would die off in but a single generation? It is therefore absolutely essential to do like Bill Clinton-- to either be unfaithful, or to practice a different, um, sex- religion than this "homo" of yours. I don't know if this is technically called "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" or what, but do the math-- it turns out that the heteros religion has a huge edge over time, if only because they multiply like rabbits! > Its awkward in English when nouns are uncertainly gendered, and where we = are > not embarrassed to refer to the chess man, the Queen, as she? English is one messed up language. I think I first noticed this fact in the second grade, when the teacher started talking about "exceptions" to rules. Excuse me, but if there are exceptions, then there is something wrong with the rule. I am reminded of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, with its eccentricities and oddball approach. > **I am not pretending anything. I am doing this! But as above, you are > unable to percieve that, since you deny rather than question. You think y= ou > question, but not really! You are not a cynic who questions, you are a > nihilist, a denier, same as them. Then how come I don't get a hut on de Nile, like those other guys-- hmmm? > **No sir. You mock your own low-brow understanding, and you seek to level > others with that. It is a psychological mechanism that you /need/ to depl= oy > since otherwise you would have to live your own life, instead of living > vicariously the lives of others. Talk about projection. Whew! I know of nobody here in rgc who has more of this "psychological mechanism" than the one and only nearly-an-IM Innes-- a chap who so strongly desires a chess title and high rating that he just invented them and put them on, like the emperor's new clothes. > =A0 There is an old (a very old, in fact) saying that > conveys the idea that one is not known by what > one /claims/ to be or to do, but rather by the > actuality, by one's /fruits/. =A0If Mr. IMnes would > reflect on that idea for a moment, he might then > come to realize why his poor acting has been, > and is doomed to always remain, unconvincing. > (In short: if you wish to be thought of as a chess > promoter, then simply promote chess!!!) Maybe it's *too* simple? Or maybe the state of things is such that a sort of black hole exists, and some people are just sucked in. I see you, nearly-IMnes, as a man stuck in deep quicksand, quite unable to save himself, yet afraid to reach for a thrown rope. Let's start with baby steps: 1. I, nearly-an-IM Innes do admit that I am not -- and I never was -- a 2450-rated IM. I made that up. signed, Phil Innes     Date: 17 Aug 2008 16:14:04 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Man, Piece "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Aug 16, 10:44 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **I know Sanny's computer has many opinions, and is always getting better. > I > wonder if I should offer it a column? Perhaps it could be called, "Better > Now How about "The Art of Chess Improvement"? **legal complications will ensue, whereas, it there is no promise that others will get better by using said program, then we achieve normative condition of chess programming! > ***Actually, Hyde was active at the end of the Elizabethan period, and an > Elizabeth who successfully baffled the French and Spanish into not > attempting war. 3 million English protestants faced 12 Million aggressive > continental catholics. Suppose the Catholic armada were to crash on the rocks in a storm? **A near thing. If they had landed, then formed a secure beachhead. But Drake knew which way wind blew... > Perhaps Hyde actually preferred an English male > General to take the field against that lot, and be gloriously defeated? > > I take > it this Mr. Hyde was a weak-minded duffer-- > perhaps a Rook-odds player at best. > > Dr. Hyde was the author of the first objectively serious [non > mythological] > study of chess. He concluded the game originated from the City of Peace, > circa 600 - we no longer hold that view, but it was better than any other > explanations at the time. Yes, yes, I know: two wrongs make a right and all that hooey. Look, did he or didn't he figure out that chess was invented by Nuns? He did figure it out. Most monastic chess since 12th Century was attempted to be repressed, mostly on the bloke side. And if you read your Yalom, you will see that women achieved intellectual parity at the game by about the Elizabethan period, to the same extent as had real European Queens. But he didn't report what he knew of the anthrology of the middle ages - he harped on Persian origins, and was betrayed by his own lack of the language. > In terms of the strength of his play, there is not > the slightest indication. Probably the only way to have become good was to > buy the secret chess rutter of Greco, which among other things went half a > dozen moves deep into several openings. But after its publication Greco > dissapeared! Typical openings-book obsessed nearly-an-IM. How many times do I have to explain that true chess mastery comes from understanding, not rote memorization of moves from the starting position? **Explain what about openings? True, I can't give you or likely any 2 other posters here 6 free moves with black while I play a format with white, but even you would beat Greco. So... I have just proved something, whatever it is, but I know its true. **More importantantly if you open 1.e4, [The Pawn to the King's fourth, (not the Firth of Fourth)] then you learn patterns resulting from that initiative. Just imagine if someone could tell you the /best/ patterns to deploy - that was why Greco sold [not very good] codexes on openings - because people were not very stimulated to figure it out themselves, and these things would give you huge advantage! Just like our fried at GetNo is learning! > Not vires [L], but homo [L] from homos [Gr] ? Your obsession with "homo" and such is just plain silly. Can you not see that if all "homos" were 100% faithful, they would die off in but a single generation? **You picked the wrong homo, which was a gender rather than sexual term. This distinction may seem fine to Americans, but not to anyone ever lived in the Mediterannean basin. It is therefore absolutely essential to do like Bill Clinton-- to either be unfaithful, or to practice a different, um, sex- religion than this "homo" of yours. I don't know if this is technically called "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" or what, but do the math-- it turns out that the heteros religion has a huge edge over time, if only because they multiply like rabbits! So you subscribe to the notion that homosexuals are genetically derived, yet fail to mention that they are, nolens volens, always born after the involvement of a woman. If we catch this woman we can ask her about it, but wherever she is, she ain't talking. > Its awkward in English when nouns are uncertainly gendered, and where we > are > not embarrassed to refer to the chess man, the Queen, as she? English is one messed up language. I think I first noticed this fact in the second grade, when the teacher started talking about "exceptions" to rules. ** Quite - to except a rule is to invalidate the rule. Not unlike "Old English..." etc when to use old english to invalidate old english is not thought [in some cases simply not thought, but in others, illogical] to be utterly daft, to use a psychological term. Excuse me, but if there are exceptions, then there is something wrong with the rule. I am reminded of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, with its eccentricities and oddball approach. **Let us not Keplerise the good people here. > **I am not pretending anything. I am doing this! But as above, you are > unable to percieve that, since you deny rather than question. You think > you > question, but not really! You are not a cynic who questions, you are a > nihilist, a denier, same as them. Then how come I don't get a hut on de Nile, like those other guys-- hmmm? **You can reside wherever you wish - but that supposition is your interior dialog [to use another <dread phrase > psychological term] > **No sir. You mock your own low-brow understanding, and you seek to level > others with that. It is a psychological mechanism that you /need/ to > deploy > since otherwise you would have to live your own life, instead of living > vicariously the lives of others. Talk about projection. Whew! **yes. I did talk about projection to some degree, but also compulsive behaviors, their relation to projection. I know of nobody here in rgc who has more of this "psychological mechanism" than the one and only nearly-an-IM Innes-- a chap who so strongly desires a chess title and high rating that he just invented them and put them on, like the emperor's new clothes. **The emperors title is wearable? You mixed your metaphor, which is likely fair indication of the clarity of your thought. Besides, it is your obsession, no, this rating thing? So I am stronger than you. Get over it Yank and stop your adolescent WHINING. :)) **Or don't and continue to whine, but I should formally say that I am not your momma - so don't whine to me - ALL the time. I don't desire any title, I desire intelligent conversation on subjects of mutual interest, and not to insist on my point of view or of self promotion, but to compare my experience with the point of view of others who have actual experience of things and are not terrified of saying so in public - not speculators whose protests fool no one at all. > There is an old (a very old, in fact) saying that > conveys the idea that one is not known by what > one /claims/ to be or to do, but rather by the > actuality, by one's /fruits/. If Mr. IMnes would > reflect on that idea for a moment, he might then > come to realize why his poor acting has been, > and is doomed to always remain, unconvincing. > (In short: if you wish to be thought of as a chess > promoter, then simply promote chess!!!) Maybe it's *too* simple? Or maybe the state of things is such that a sort of black hole exists, and some people are just sucked in. I see you, nearly-IMnes, as a man stuck in deep quicksand, quite unable to save himself, yet afraid to reach for a thrown rope. **More compulsive living in others lives and of such [obvious!] envy as to use no facts whatever. I am just designing a chess course! I am not inventing that I am, neither am I defensive about it, and in any way desperate! Let's start with baby steps: 1. I, nearly-an-IM Innes do admit that I am not -- and I never was -- a 2450-rated IM. I made that up. signed, Phil Innes **Greg Kennedy, the person can't sign his own name and who is OBSESSED with the lives of others, proves it every day, and who denies it <gasp > every day, and who can't face a fact without his constant escapism into reducing others so that his declared lack of interest in things are not embarassing to himself! **Now, be a good chap and fuck off, or show up and play. When you had the chance to, YOU ducked out ;) I am not interested in your absurdities fantasies, and really, man to man, you ain't got much going on for you other than your little obsessions, and you know it, and you can't achieve what you think you want by fucking other with the lives of real people. Plain enough? **Stop being cute Kennedy. I don't need a pet with the emotions of a weird teenager. Phil Innes   Date: 16 Aug 2008 16:21:31 From: Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) On Aug 16, 5:35=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **After 25 tries you present no evidence that Hooper has made a mistake. = And > in reporting Hooper you say I am "bloviating" - whatever you think that > means. I am simply asking you why you contradict some while presenting no > evidence at all - not in 25 tries. Ahem, Phil, a quick google search will demonstrate that I have presented all manner of evidence, including from the actual book of the Nottingham 1936 tournament, Lasker's biography, various other chess encyclopedias, and the testimony of the respected historian Bernard Cafferty. If you don't consider these "evidence," then I'd like to know what you would. In rebuttal, you have presented nothing -- you have just repeatedly insisted that the Sunnucks entry be accepted uncritically. The plain fact is that Lasker tied with Flohr for 7th and 8th places at Nottingham 1936. This is as certain as, say, that Franklin Roosevelt was re-elected President of the United States that same year. End of story. That you so irrationally cling to a mistake and so vociferously insist Hooper's slightly but plainly inaccurate statement is Gospel Truth utterly dumbfounds me, and that you make a mountain out of what is far less than a molehill just makes me (for the umpteenth time) seriously question your sanity.     Date: 01 Sep 2008 08:14:04 From: Subject: Re: James K. Polk (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Sep 1, 8:17=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:458a7060-4bdd-411b-b6ac-a3bd72887b8d@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 29, 11:55 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:17cb6fa4-729b-432f-8250-214073377e8d@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com..= . > > On Aug 26, 1:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Polk was from the south, eschewed any popularity whatever, and very > > > unusual > > > for a southern gent did /not/ think the expansion West should be > > > slave-based. > > > On what do you base that, Phil? > > > **O! No! ~ On what do I base what, Taylor? > > =A0 Our Phil engages in his usual BS: > > =A0 Phil: I say X is true. > > =A0 TK: On what do you base that, Phil? > > =A0 Phil: On what do I base what? > > **Yes, that's the principle! But Our Taylor cheats! He wants to suggest t= o > readers that the 'that' in his own single sentence is sufficiently clear = not > to be identified, rather than as he /actually/ did, refer to the 'that' i= n > an entire paragraph containing a dozen phrases. Taylor solves this by > analogy! > > **Back on topic - I said Polk was unusual as a Southerner to be anti-West= ern > slavery, And again I ask: on what basis do you consider Polk to have been "anti-Western slavery"? He was a slave-owner all his life. In his political maneuvering, he pretty much straddled the fence between pro- and anti-slavery factions. As far as westward expansion of slavery was concerned, he certainly was happy to allow it in Texas. As for further west, it says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Polk that "Polk argued instead for extending the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean, which would prohibit the expansion of slavery above 36=B0 30' west of Missouri, but allow it below that line if approved by eligible voters in the territory." The 36=B0 30' line runs roughly along the northern borders of modern- day Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona, and through lower Nevada and mid-California. Quite a chunk of western real estate for someone supposedly "anti-Western slavery" to allow slavery in.       Date: 02 Sep 2008 18:16:32 From: Chess One Subject: Re: James K. Polk (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Sep 1, 8:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:458a7060-4bdd-411b-b6ac-a3bd72887b8d@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 29, 11:55 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:17cb6fa4-729b-432f-8250-214073377e8d@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > On Aug 26, 1:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Polk was from the south, eschewed any popularity whatever, and very > > > unusual > > > for a southern gent did /not/ think the expansion West should be > > > slave-based. > > > On what do you base that, Phil? > > > **O! No! ~ On what do I base what, Taylor? > > Our Phil engages in his usual BS: > > Phil: I say X is true. > > TK: On what do you base that, Phil? > > Phil: On what do I base what? > > **Yes, that's the principle! But Our Taylor cheats! He wants to suggest to > readers that the 'that' in his own single sentence is sufficiently clear > not > to be identified, rather than as he /actually/ did, refer to the 'that' in > an entire paragraph containing a dozen phrases. Taylor solves this by > analogy! > > **Back on topic - I said Polk was unusual as a Southerner to be > anti-Western > slavery, And again I ask: on what basis do you consider Polk to have been "anti-Western slavery"? **Again you ask? He was a slave-owner all his life. **Which I already said In his political maneuvering, he pretty much straddled the fence between pro- and anti-slavery factions. **Too general - the issue is East and West As far as westward expansion of slavery was concerned, he certainly was happy to allow it in Texas. As for further west, it says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Polk that "Polk argued instead for extending the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean, which would prohibit the expansion of slavery above 36� 30' west of Missouri, but allow it below that line if approved by eligible voters in the territory." The 36� 30' line runs roughly along the northern borders of modern- day Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona, and through lower Nevada and mid-California. Quite a chunk of western real estate for someone supposedly "anti-Western slavery" to allow slavery in. ** I think Hampton Sides is still around - perhaps you will like to confront him with whomever wrote the Wiki entry - [it wasn't him!] then tell us what he said as response - if indeed, mere contradiction does not suffice your purpose? **You might also tell us what you understand about what happened, rather than reports of supposed intent as you actually report, and even why you contest what never happened? This last is, I refer to you, is your own strange but constant predeliction to suppose on things which never existed. **I shall be fascinated with your further researches in this area, beyond your current and new found Wiki knowledge, and if indeed your opinion will be less absolute thereby. Phil Innes     Date: 23 Aug 2008 06:46:35 From: Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 23, 8:35=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote: > CONSPIRACY THEORIES > > Taylor Kingston and this writer have had several disputes, but I think > we can agree that Greg Kennedy (help bot) is a fount of > misinformation. There are few things we agree more on, Larry. Our Greg is not only a fount of misinformation, both intentionally and unintentionally, but his logical and rhetorical skills are comparable to a blind man's marksmanship. Rereading an old favorite, the Harvard Lampoon's Tolkien parody "Bored of the Rings," I found this passage illustrating Greg's typical style of argument: "Them what say that may be right," agreed Fatlip, winking to his cronies to tell them a punchline was coming. "But them that say such may be **wrong**, too." > His latest tidbit: > > <Now, there remains a separate issue =A0with regard to the real loss of > strength of > =A0Mr. Alekhine near the end of his life -- just before the French > underground offed him.> -- Greg Kennedy > > THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 214) > > ALEKHINE=92S LAST MEAL > > Alekhine=92s Death Photo > > The death of world champion Alexander Alekhine at age 53 refuses to > die. Although it didn=92t look suspicious, rumors are still circulating > that he either killed himself or was murdered. > > The AP reported that he choked to death on a piece of meat on March > 24, 1946, in Estoril, Portugal: "Intimates said Alekhine was > accustomed to eating with his friends, never using knives or forks > when he could avoid them, and that he would eat alone when he wanted > complete enjoyment from a meal." > > Alas, nobody was around to administer the Heimlich maneuver. A famous > police photo shows the great man slumped in a chair wearing an > overcoat to keep warm on a cold day. Also visible is a room service > tray with empty dishes and a peg-in set ready for another game. > > A waiter found the body when he brought in breakfast. "He was slumped > at the table and yesterday=92s supper had not been touched, although his > napkin was already tucked in," he said=97a statement that conflicted > with the photo showing empty dishes, thus giving rise to various > conspiracy theories (take your pick).... > > In December 1999 Canadian GM Kevin Spragett cited Alekhine as "the > world > champion who died under the most mysterious circumstances." On his Web > > site Spragett wrote: > > =A0"What is wrong with the official story? (I mean, apart from the fact > that if a =91normal=92 person was sitting down and choking he would get u= p > and become quite frantic, possibly even overturning the board and > pieces in the process!?) > > "The doctor who wrote the official death certificate (Dr. Antonio > Ferreira, just by chance an avid chess player himself) later told > friends that Alekhine=92s body was found on the street, in front of his > hotel room! He had been shot! He said that > government pressure had forced him to complete the death certificate > as it now exists. (Portugal was neutral during World War II, and might > have wanted to avoid any controversy.) > > "According to well placed sources (including Spassky, who is married > to a French woman who worked in the diplomatic services) the French > Resistance created a super secret =91Death Squad=92 after the second worl= d > war to =91deal=92 appropriately with those people on a blacklist who had > collaborated too willingly with the Nazis once France was overrun by > Germany. Apparently the list was not less than 200,000 names! > > "Correspondence of Alekhine, shortly before his untimely demise, > mentioned that he felt he was being followed! Alexander Alekhine=92s > initials were AA, so that would put him at the top of any list! > Alekhine died within a day or two of the British Chess > Federation voting to hold the Botvinnik-Alekhine match...so if there > was an assassin then he had to move quickly since Alekhine was about > to go to England!=85The truth is out there!!" > > The reason I discount these rumors is that an American doctor, who was > then a medical student, wrote a letter to my column in Chess Life > saying that he witnessed the actual autopsy and that Alekhine died by > choking on a piece of meat. So did Dr. Antonio Ferreira, who allegedly > signed the death certificate. But he was also a student then, as he > attested in the following letter to George Koltanowski: > > "'His body was sent to the Medical School of Lisbon, where an autopsy > was performed. As reported in 1946, Alekhine died of =91asphyxia due to > an obstruction in his breathing channels, due to a piece of meat.=92 And > how do I know? I was at the time a student of medicine there and like > other students had to attend a number of autopsies=85In one of those > routine attendances the subject was Alekhine." (Quoted in "Everything > You Always Wanted To know About Alekhine=97But Didn=92t Know Enough to > Ask" by this writer and Larry Parr in Chess Life, May 1993). > > > > help bot wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > > =A0(...nothing of note.) > > > =A0 I'm forced to interpret this non-response as > > an admission of guilt; that is, an admission > > of having mindlessly parroted the comment > > by Mr. Crowther which was effortlessly > > debunked by The Great Pedant Edward > > Winter. =A0Anything less than such a "duck" > > would have been quite surprising-- a > > shocking anomaly in fact, given our hero's > > pattern. > > > =A0 Note the fact of Mr. Kingston's claimed > > inability to "find" his own recent words; one > > can only hope that when he ventures out, > > Mr. Kingston can somehow "find" his way > > back home, that is, if he can even recall > > where he lives and how to get there. > > > =A0 The possible causes of such frequent > > mental lapses are endless-- requiring an > > expert examination by a trained > > professional-- doctor, psychoanalyst or > > witch-doctor, as the case may be. > > > ---- > > > =A0 Now, there remains a separate issue > > with regard to the real loss of strength of > > Mr. Alekhine near the end of his life-- just > > before the French underground offed him. > > > =A0 We know that Boris Spassky somehow > > managed to drop precipitously, yet the > > general pattern is that a world champion > > retains most of his former strength for > > years after his peak. =A0Still, I have not > > actually seen the games, so I must > > withhold judgment for the time being. > > > =A0 Certainly, were it say, Bobby Fischer, > > the apologists would crawl out of the > > woodwork to try and explain away any > > failure, however small (such as the very > > brief match against /one/ Portuguese > > master which Mr. Alekhine won by a > > small margin). > > > =A0 But it doesn't require a die-hard > > apologist to point out that weighing a > > single result such as that is highly > > unlikely to yield a precipitous drop from > > the world's top 50 players, especially > > back then. =A0To my mind, only a severe > > affliction -- such as the one we've seen > > in the case of Mr. Kingston himself -- > > could possibly explain such a dramatic > > fall from greatness. =A0Had such a terrible > > disease befallen the poor man, even > > Mr. Bogolubov might have wrested the > > title away without much difficulty, for > > chess is not an easy game. > > > =A0 -- help bot- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -     Date: 16 Aug 2008 17:00:37 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:21:31 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote: >The plain fact is that Lasker tied with Flohr for 7th and 8th >places at Nottingham 1936. .... That you so irrationally cling to a mistake and so >vociferously insist Hooper's slightly but plainly inaccurate statement >is Gospel Truth utterly dumbfounds me, and that you make a mountain >out of what is far less than a molehill just makes me (for the >umpteenth time) seriously question your sanity. Not so much sanity as judgment, IMO.       Date: 23 Aug 2008 07:33:45 From: Subject: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 23, 10:07=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > *^*I think we have rehearsed the issue of Alekhine's death before. There = are > still some things to say... > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:bec57202-ef80-4241-8107-03ca5eec40e5@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > CONSPIRACY THEORIES > > Taylor Kingston and this writer have had several disputes, but I think > we can agree that Greg Kennedy (help bot) is a fount of > misinformation. His latest tidbit: > > <Now, there remains a separate issue =A0with regard to the real loss of > strength of > =A0Mr. Alekhine near the end of his life -- just before the French > underground offed him.> -- Greg Kennedy > > *^*Which was the preamble to the dispute of the death circumstance. But > included in that message was a question by Greg Kennedy on how we know > things - are they simply reported over and over as if they were true? Or > what are other views? What is our level of certainty that any one view > contains enough to accommodate contradictions of circumstance, etc. > > THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 214) > > ALEKHINE=92S LAST MEAL > > Alekhine=92s Death Photo > > *^*To interupt this report - there is another significant reporter, Hans > Ree, who in NiC 2006, issue 6, took up the investigation - possibly start= led > by the fact that not only did Spraggett think Alekhine was murdered, but = so > did the direct of Chessbase, Frederic Friedel. > > The death of world champion Alexander Alekhine at age 53 refuses to > die. Although it didn=92t look suspicious, rumors are still circulating > that he either killed himself or was murdered. > > *^*Here Ree comments that an unnamed Dutch fella actually told him of an = old > man at the Parque Hotel who said they found Alekhine in an alley and drag= ged > him inside - no need for an overcoat in the Portugese hotel, except to hi= de > bullet wounds - this seems to be the fons et origo of the 'was' shot piec= e > of speculation. In the end, Hans Ree didn't buy the assassination plot. > Though there are many things still unknown... below > > The AP reported that he choked to death on a piece of meat on March > 24, 1946, in Estoril, Portugal: "Intimates said Alekhine was > accustomed to eating with his friends, never using knives or forks > when he could avoid them, and that he would eat alone when he wanted > complete enjoyment from a meal." > > Alas, nobody was around to administer the Heimlich maneuver. A famous > police photo shows the great man slumped in a chair wearing an > overcoat to keep warm on a cold day. Also visible is a room service > tray with empty dishes and a peg-in set ready for another game. > > A waiter found the body when he brought in breakfast. "He was slumped > at the table and yesterday=92s supper had not been touched, although his > napkin was already tucked in," he said=97a statement that conflicted > with the photo showing empty dishes, thus giving rise to various > conspiracy theories (take your pick).... > > In December 1999 Canadian GM Kevin Spragett cited Alekhine as "the > world > champion who died under the most mysterious circumstances." On his Web > > site Spragett wrote: > > =A0"What is wrong with the official story? (I mean, apart from the fact > that if a =91normal=92 person was sitting down and choking he would get u= p > and become quite frantic, possibly even overturning the board and > pieces in the process!?) > > "The doctor who wrote the official death certificate (Dr. Antonio > Ferreira, just by chance an avid chess player himself) later told > friends that Alekhine=92s body was found on the street, in front of his > hotel room! He had been shot! He said that > > *^*To interupt: this is likely at odds that the hotel staff found him, an= d > dragged him inside - for the purpose of averting scandal. > > government pressure had forced him to complete the death certificate > as it now exists. (Portugal was neutral during World War II, and might > have wanted to avoid any controversy.) > > *^*But that's a gloss. Portugal was the #1 listening station to Allied > Europe. In Spain and Portugal both Abwehr and OSS agents were, according = to > that fascinating woman's book, engaged in mutually aggressive behaviors; = a > euphemism for frequent assassinations. Officially, as it were, she said s= he > was the only women agent in Spain and ini 1943 there were only 6 OSS - bu= t > there were 100 Abwehr. Both Spain and Portugal were 'agressively' neutral= , > so to speak. > > "According to well placed sources (including Spassky, who is married > to a French woman who worked in the diplomatic services) the French > Resistance created a super secret =91Death Squad=92 after the second worl= d > war to =91deal=92 appropriately with those people on a blacklist who had > collaborated too willingly with the Nazis once France was overrun by > Germany. Apparently the list was not less than 200,000 names! > > *^*There are 4 candidates for conspiracy theory Villain > > =A0 =A0 Abwehr > =A0 =A0 French Govt > =A0 =A0 French Resistance > =A0 =A0 French Communist > > *^*I note that Orwell said the most active group in 1945 were French > Communists, who, like in Spain, turned on similar groups to themselves an= d > conspicuous enemies. In fact this is the famous instance when Henry Mille= r > got Orwell a pistol, which he took, declining the body guard. > > "Correspondence of Alekhine, shortly before his untimely demise, > mentioned that he felt he was being followed! Alexander Alekhine=92s > initials were AA, so that would put him at the top of any list! > Alekhine died within a day or two of the British Chess > Federation voting to hold the Botvinnik-Alekhine match...so if there > was an assassin then he had to move quickly since Alekhine was about > to go to England!=85The truth is out there!!" > > The reason I discount these rumors is that an American doctor, who was > then a medical student, wrote a letter to my column in Chess Life > saying that he witnessed the actual autopsy and that Alekhine died by > choking on a piece of meat. So did Dr. Antonio Ferreira, who allegedly > signed the death certificate. But he was also a student then, as he > attested in the following letter to George Koltanowski: > > *^*This actually would seem to close the lid on the shooting conspiracy, = if > in fact these reporting doctors were not hushing things up. If you want y= our > conspiracy then you can still have it - date of death is not accurately > recorded on Alekhines grave in Paris - and why is that? [Other than Fide = put > it up, and they got his birthdate wrong too!] > > *^*But these reports does not close the door on murder, just asserts its = by > asphyxiation. I wonder how perfunctory an examination there was to determ= ine > if Alekhine was asphyxiated [gas bag leaves no marks] and then the infamo= us > piece of meat subsequently =A0inserted as significant prop? > > "'His body was sent to the Medical School of Lisbon, where an autopsy > was performed. As reported in 1946, Alekhine died of =91asphyxia due to > an obstruction in his breathing channels, due to a piece of meat.=92 And > > *^*What we needed on-scene was a Miss Marple. I think medical opinion > suggests that without other evident trauma, [burst blood vessels, etc], > choking to death is quite difficult to achieve. Perhaps the coroner's rep= ort > was a tad pro-forma, and thereby even if aspyhixiation was cause of death= , > varoom? > > how do I know? I was at the time a student of medicine there and like > other students had to attend a number of autopsies=85In one of those > routine attendances the subject was Alekhine." (Quoted in "Everything > You Always Wanted To know About Alekhine=97But Didn=92t Know Enough to > Ask" by this writer and Larry Parr in Chess Life, May 1993). > > *^*Of course, Alekhine may have been very drunk, and too stupid thereby t= o > effect any remedy to his own choking. Certainly his alcohol intake relega= ted > the quality of his chess severely. > > Phil Innes > > > > help bot wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > > =A0(...nothing of note.) > > > =A0 I'm forced to interpret this non-response as > > an admission of guilt; that is, an admission > > of having mindlessly parroted the comment > > by Mr. Crowther which was effortlessly > > debunked by The Great Pedant Edward > > Winter. =A0Anything less than such a "duck" > > would have been quite surprising-- a > > shocking anomaly in fact, given our hero's > > pattern. > > > =A0 Note the fact of Mr. Kingston's claimed > > inability to "find" his own recent words; one > > can only hope that when he ventures out, > > Mr. Kingston can somehow "find" his way > > back home, that is, if he can even recall > > where he lives and how to get there. > > > =A0 The possible causes of such frequent > > mental lapses are endless-- requiring an > > expert examination by a trained > > professional-- doctor, psychoanalyst or > > witch-doctor, as the case may be. > > > ---- > > > =A0 Now, there remains a separate issue > > with regard to the real loss of strength of > > Mr. Alekhine near the end of his life-- just > > before the French underground offed him. > > > =A0 We know that Boris Spassky somehow > > managed to drop precipitously, yet the > > general pattern is that a world champion > > retains most of his former strength for > > years after his peak. =A0Still, I have not > > actually seen the games, so I must > > withhold judgment for the time being. > > > =A0 Certainly, were it say, Bobby Fischer, > > the apologists would crawl out of the > > woodwork to try and explain away any > > failure, however small (such as the very > > brief match against /one/ Portuguese > > master which Mr. Alekhine won by a > > small margin). > > > =A0 But it doesn't require a die-hard > > apologist to point out that weighing a > > single result such as that is highly > > unlikely to yield a precipitous drop from > > the world's top 50 players, especially > > back then. =A0To my mind, only a severe > > affliction -- such as the one we've seen > > in the case of Mr. Kingston himself -- > > could possibly explain such a dramatic > > fall from greatness. =A0Had such a terrible > > disease befallen the poor man, even > > Mr. Bogolubov might have wrested the > > title away without much difficulty, for > > chess is not an easy game. > > > =A0 -- help bot Personally I have no firm opinion about the cause of Alekhine's death; it's not a subject I have looked into much. About all I can contribute to the discussion is a link to this article by Edward Winter: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhine3.html Plus I recall a comment by Koltanowski, on his PBS television show in the mid-1960s. He opined that it was suicide, but said that Portuguese law forbade reporting a death as suicide. Given Koltanowski's patchy record with factual recall, I can't say what his opinion is worth.         Date: 25 Oct 2008 10:26:30 From: thumbody Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) a)http://www.anglia-models.co.uk/saloon-photo39.htm.. b)http://landedunderclass.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/cloth-eared-git/.. t. help bot wrote: > > On Aug 31, 10:54 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > **I did not swim across even the close bits of the Atlantic even though it > > is the same one as washes against the sceptered isles. The gulf stream not > > being present this far north. Where I was in the south west it was very > > warm, you could stay in for hours and play with the dolphins. Instead this > > is a 500 acre lake on top of a mountain. > > Aren't you worried about the possibility > of sharks? And suppose there is a deep, > underground connection between your > mountain lake and Loch Ness? (Gulp) > > > > The very real shame & humiliation to be visited on him by a 'vengeful > > > humanity' is nothing to be sniffed at - so I feel it's timely that an > > > inopportune sliver of donkey-meat or, as I myself was privy to hearken > > > unto - shhh!(pitted-olive, laced with cyanide, free-French death-squad, > > > forced down craw..) took away from the world the shambling vestiges of > > > that which could have been great.. > > > > Which had *already been* great, you surely > > mean. > > > > **Like Fischer, are we discussing the chess art or the man? > > Mr. Fischer did not discuss art; what he > preferred to discuss was the incontrovertible > fact that he was persecuted by everyone (and > why not? he felt he was *that* important). > > > Certainly like Fischer Alekhine had a great > > opportunity to attend to the latter. > > Well, I was discussing Mr. Alekhine the > chess player. It is difficult to say whether > or not "the man" was great, but it is ever > so easy to grasp the greatness of his > chess play. The truth is, I have never > bothered to study Alekhine "the man", > perhaps because I am not searching for > a hero to worship or to idolize. Even my > study of his games was motivated by a > desire to better understand chess-- and > this could indeed be accomplished in > many other ways. > > I recently stumbled across a quotation > in which it is opined that greatness in > chess cannot deliver greatness in life, > because, it was said, the great chess > player leaves the world no better than > the way he found it. This of course > ignores chess-as-art, and in so doing, > seems to dismiss art itself as having > no real value-- a dubious concept. > > But the gist is true; Mr. Einstein -- a > famous scientist of sorts -- once asked > why someone who was highly intelligent > would "waste" (my term) so much time > and effort on something as stupid (my > term) as chess, as opposed to that > which is useful (like say, proposing the > possibility of time-travel or mis-leading > people into believing things actually > shrink when moved relative to an > observer). But one might just as well > ask Mr. Einstein (were he still alive) > why he wasted time and effort the way > he did instead of say, chasing women, > drinking wine, and engaging in song... . > > -- help bot         Date: 31 Aug 2008 10:08:05 From: help bot Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 31, 10:54=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **I did not swim across even the close bits of the Atlantic even though i= t > is the same one as washes against the sceptered isles. The gulf stream no= t > being present this far north. Where I was in the south west it was very > warm, you could stay in for hours and play with the dolphins. Instead thi= s > is a 500 acre lake on top of a mountain. Aren't you worried about the possibility of sharks? And suppose there is a deep, underground connection between your mountain lake and Loch Ness? (Gulp) > > The very real shame & humiliation to be visited on him by a 'vengeful > > humanity' is nothing to be sniffed at - so I feel it's timely that an > > inopportune sliver of donkey-meat or, as I myself was privy to hearken > > unto - shhh!(pitted-olive, laced with cyanide, free-French death-squad, > > forced down craw..) took away from the world the shambling vestiges of > > that which could have been great.. > > =A0 Which had *already been* great, you surely > mean. > > **Like Fischer, are we discussing the chess art or the man? Mr. Fischer did not discuss art; what he preferred to discuss was the incontrovertible fact that he was persecuted by everyone (and why not? he felt he was *that* important). > Certainly like Fischer Alekhine had a great > opportunity to attend to the latter. Well, I was discussing Mr. Alekhine the chess player. It is difficult to say whether or not "the man" was great, but it is ever so easy to grasp the greatness of his chess play. The truth is, I have never bothered to study Alekhine "the man", perhaps because I am not searching for a hero to worship or to idolize. Even my study of his games was motivated by a desire to better understand chess-- and this could indeed be accomplished in many other ways. I recently stumbled across a quotation in which it is opined that greatness in chess cannot deliver greatness in life, because, it was said, the great chess player leaves the world no better than the way he found it. This of course ignores chess-as-art, and in so doing, seems to dismiss art itself as having no real value-- a dubious concept. But the gist is true; Mr. Einstein -- a famous scientist of sorts -- once asked why someone who was highly intelligent would "waste" (my term) so much time and effort on something as stupid (my term) as chess, as opposed to that which is useful (like say, proposing the possibility of time-travel or mis-leading people into believing things actually shrink when moved relative to an observer). But one might just as well ask Mr. Einstein (were he still alive) why he wasted time and effort the way he did instead of say, chasing women, drinking wine, and engaging in song... . -- help bot         Date: 28 Aug 2008 10:04:26 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 28, 9:41=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > ... and as Max Euwe was asked to explain when he > proposed Alekhine should rejoin the world chess community after WWII, he > responded: > > =A0 =A0 "Humanity is the best revenge", Phil, what is your source for that quote? If it is genuine, are you sure it was Euwe who said it, and not Tartakower? It sounds very much like what Hans Ree describes here, in connection with Tartakower: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans35.txt           Date: 02 Sep 2008 01:29:08 From: help bot Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Sep 1, 1:22=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > =A0 No, it's simply as Paul Newman said: "Yeah, well, it'd be something > to do." Phil is just something to do, like a crossword puzzle or > sudoku. Just a lot simpler. I am reminded of a comment made by Mr. Einstein regarding some chess book he was given to read. In essence, he wondered why anybody who was hard-working and intelligent as was the author of that book, would waste so much time and effort on something as unimportant as chess. The logical conclusion is that at some point, the intellect breaks down; an energetic worker fails to grasp the crucial fact that chess is merely a game, and that life is short. -- help bot           Date: 28 Aug 2008 15:51:32 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:6cae4872-89de-4489-aec2-e6e4efdab48a@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... On Aug 28, 9:41 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > ... and as Max Euwe was asked to explain when he > proposed Alekhine should rejoin the world chess community after WWII, he > responded: > > "Humanity is the best revenge", Phil, what is your source for that quote? If it is genuine, are you sure it was Euwe who said it, and not Tartakower? It sounds very much like what Hans Ree describes here, in connection with Tartakower: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans35.txt --------------------- I see that Ree speaks of Karpov thus: Of course Nikitin had underestimated Karpov. What he did not know was that permission for these negotiations had been granted by an even higher authority, the Central Committee of the Communist Party. When Karpov came to hear of Nikitin's denunciation, he demanded Nikitin to be fired. This happened. Nikitin was accused of "immoral behaviour toward his prot,g," [[a reference to Kasparov]] and demoted to the humble function of trainer of the club Spartak. I don't remember where I read the Euwe comment - which may not be even be published at all? But I do remember it was Euwe. Though please do be careful of your Soviets, including Nikitin. be very careful of anything Soviet-era taken straight. Karpov does not better in the above than he does in the Gulko material, which I think I should publish soon. Interestingly Ray Keene smuggled out of Russia stuff [samizdat] on refuseniks under the very noses of the KGB search-squads - since no one could suspect what is evidently an eidetic memory. I see that the report you citation mentions a similar sense - though rather more acerbic, from... "Arnold Denker reminisces ... " i preserve your copyright, people should read for themselves - I wrote to Arnold about this - or, actually, he wrote to me after I had mentioned post war London from my mother's experience there, she who unlike Vera Menchik a few miles away, survived the blitz. What he said was interesting about the sociology of the time and what anyone actually cared for chess when they were still trying to care to feed themselves and their families and stay alive. Anyway... I do note your text has many "maybes" in it' such as "Maybe Tartakower was more annoyed by the easy unity of his colleagues, than forgiving Alekhine." and also "And maybe his collection for the pennyless Alekhine". This is thereby a self-admitted speculation on the part of the writer. The force of Tartakower issuing this sentiment from the relative safety of London compared with Euwe's in occupied Europe is a marked difference. Phil Innes         Date: 23 Aug 2008 11:09:32 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) > *^*There are 4 candidates for conspiracy theory Villain > > Abwehr > French Govt > French Resistance > French Communist Abwehr [German secret police] seem to have little motive, but since this is just speculation, its interesting to take in varieties of possibility. Elsewhere people have reported individual or specific circumstances of the death, however accurate or verified they are. Motive for assassination, however, seems collective - by some group of people, rather than identified as individually motivated. Less likely Abwehr assassins that Polish ones. Not only did Alekhine stay with Hans Frank, head Nazi jurist and the Butcher of Krakow, but continued to play correspondence chess with him. See Shachgenie Aljechin, Hans Muller and A. Pawelczak, for Alekhine & Frank against Bogoljubov & Others. As for French Government - unlikely Col. de Gaulle can have had a beef with Alekhine [bad choke, non?] The French Resistance are naturally suspect, though again, Max Euwe as conspicuously went to Germany and 'collaborated'. So why Alekhine particularly? The Paris Zeitinger articles are barbed missifs. A careful reading reveals the abstruce strategy Alekhine used in writing them, but which remarkably escaped notice of the censors - they start with normal racial depredations, but end with one-by-one exemptions of Jewish players, being the players Alekhine knew. A back-hander to the up-front rascism. As if to say, 'Jews suck, except the ones I know'. And of French Communists? Naive to think they could have acted with specific instruction from Moscow about such a famous person, and especially since there could have been little doubt of who would prevail between the post-war Alekhine and Botvinnik, which would have brought the world title 'home'. Soviets would have wanted to actually preserve candiate Alekhine, no? Of institutions - Germany was an up and coming chess force in the world and performed very well in South America, yet none of the players in Buenos Aires in 1939 returned to Germany. German chess camps were 'spartan' with communal beds of straw, and so on [Ree]. Even ideological motives to defeat 'entartete Kunst'or degenerate art [in chess] seem hardly sufficient to post-war bump off AA. Of other candidates: the Japanese were the main spying agency in Portugal with their 'listening' stations - but what possible motive was there? the Americans would seem to have least motive, especially to fake up an admittedly vague or in-training eye-witness so that he could volunteer to Mr. Parr, Editor Chess Life that the coroner's opinion was correct - why 'cover-up' something already dusty with time and where the general balance of opinion is as it says in the chess histories? If Frank had survived he may have wanted to keep all the treasures he had stored at Wewel Castle - spirit them off to South America, and eliminate witnesses to it - but he didn't, and besides, there would have been too many witnesses. Therefore - motive for murder is obscure. And without motive, all else is very 2nd place provenance. Phil Innes       Date: 19 Aug 2008 09:46:31 From: Chess One Subject: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously "Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:21:31 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] > wrote: > >>The plain fact is that Lasker tied with Flohr for 7th and 8th >>places at Nottingham 1936. .... That you so irrationally cling to a >>mistake and so >>vociferously insist Hooper's slightly but plainly inaccurate statement >>is Gospel Truth utterly dumbfounds me, and that you make a mountain >>out of what is far less than a molehill just makes me (for the >>umpteenth time) seriously question your sanity. Taylor Kingston always questions people's sanity, especially those who disagree with him. In fact, he always does, supplemented by a couple of variations on a theme. But does he 'seriously question anything' at all? The score was level at Nottingham, the //places// were described as 7th and 8th by Hooper. I don't /know/ if its a mistake since I have no means of determining if it is. Its a LIE to say I insist on Hooper's comment being the Gospel Truth. A lie! I never said that! It is not a quotation, and Kinston Taylor made it up in order to speculate negatively on other people instead of mentioning any facts about his own understanding. He says this despite my unchanged message for 30 posts that I don't know, and I also don't know why he is so sure that he is right. This is common behavior in two senses of common. Its deceitful argument from a pedant not to careful with any truth at all. What can we think of Taylor's judgement on any subject when he will openly lie as he does here about what I said, and without presenting any evidence to continue to insist on his own sureties? Taylor Kingston suggests other are insane [which is merely his //usual// abuse, varied only by suggestions of drug use, with very occassional comparisons to Mussolini or Hitler] but Taylor Kingston doesn't know more than I do. <ggg > Then Kingston says /I/ make a mountain of a molehill, whereas it was HE who hissed for 20 posts then another 10 here, about how sure he is, without presenting the slightest reason that Hooper was wrong except to mention that the encyclopedia is wrong elsewhere. > Not so much sanity as judgment, IMO. I just don't know if Hooper is right or wrong! Without evidence to decide either way I could only /suppose/ or guess one way or another - but that's not knowing, that is believing, and can be more or less informed - but knowing? For this statement to which I have never varied, Taylor Kingston writes in public that he seriously questions my sanity. Well... how, enthusiastic! Phil Innes         Date: 02 Sep 2008 17:45:12 From: Subject: Re: James K. Polk (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Sep 2, 6:16=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > On Sep 1, 8:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:458a7060-4bdd-411b-b6ac-a3bd72887b8d@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com..= . > > On Aug 29, 11:55 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > >news:17cb6fa4-729b-432f-8250-214073377e8d@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com= ... > > > On Aug 26, 1:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Polk was from the south, eschewed any popularity whatever, and very > > > > unusual > > > > for a southern gent did /not/ think the expansion West should be > > > > slave-based. > > > > On what do you base that, Phil? > > > > **O! No! ~ On what do I base what, Taylor? > > > Our Phil engages in his usual BS: > > > Phil: I say X is true. > > > TK: On what do you base that, Phil? > > > Phil: On what do I base what? > > > **Yes, that's the principle! But Our Taylor cheats! He wants to suggest= to > > readers that the 'that' in his own single sentence is sufficiently clea= r > > not > > to be identified, rather than as he /actually/ did, refer to the 'that'= in > > an entire paragraph containing a dozen phrases. Taylor solves this by > > analogy! > > > **Back on topic - I said Polk was unusual as a Southerner to be > > anti-Western > > slavery, > > =A0 And again I ask: on what basis do you consider Polk to have been > "anti-Western slavery"? > > **Again you ask? > > =A0He was a slave-owner all his life. > > **Which I already said > > =A0In his > political maneuvering, he pretty much straddled the fence between pro- > and anti-slavery factions. > > **Too general - the issue is East and West > > =A0As far as westward expansion of slavery was > concerned, he certainly was happy to allow it in Texas. As for further > west, it says here: > > =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Polk > > that "Polk argued instead for extending the Missouri Compromise line > to the Pacific Ocean, which would prohibit the expansion of slavery > above 36=B0 30' west of Missouri, but allow it below that line if > approved by eligible voters in the territory." > =A0 The 36=B0 30' line runs roughly along the northern borders of modern- > day Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona, and through lower Nevada and > mid-California. Quite a chunk of western real estate for someone > supposedly "anti-Western slavery" to allow slavery in. > > ** I think Hampton Sides is still around - perhaps you will like to confr= ont > him with whomever wrote the Wiki entry - [it wasn't him!] then tell us wh= at > he said as response - if indeed, mere contradiction does not suffice your > purpose? > > **You might also tell us what you understand about what happened, rather > than reports of supposed intent as you actually report, and even why you > contest what never happened? This last is, I refer to you, is your own > strange but constant predeliction to suppose on things which never existe= d. > > **I shall be fascinated with your further researches in this area, beyond > your current and new found Wiki knowledge, and if indeed your opinion wil= l > be less absolute thereby. > > Phil Innes Phil, do you *_ever_* try to make sense? More to the point, do you ever actually succeed?         Date: 19 Aug 2008 10:56:38 From: Chess One Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously <[email protected] > wrote in message news:463db7ec-8cd6-4dc8-a581-16ea4fde75d5@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... On Aug 19, 9:46 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:21:31 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] > > wrote: > > >>The plain fact is that Lasker tied with Flohr for 7th and 8th > >>places at Nottingham 1936. .... That you so irrationally cling to a > >>mistake and so > >>vociferously insist Hooper's slightly but plainly inaccurate statement > >>is Gospel Truth utterly dumbfounds me, and that you make a mountain > >>out of what is far less than a molehill just makes me (for the > >>umpteenth time) seriously question your sanity. > > Taylor Kingston always questions people's sanity, especially those who > disagree with him. In fact, he always does, supplemented by a couple of > variations on a theme. But does he 'seriously question anything' at all? > > The score was level at Nottingham, the //places// were described as 7th > and > 8th by Hooper. Good grief, Phil. You can't even quote correctly from a book you claim to have on hand. I quote, yet again, from the Emanuel Lasker entry in Sunnucks' encyclopaedia, page 276: "He [Lasker] entered more tournaments, coming 5th at Zurich 1934; 3rd, half a point behind the winners, at Moscow 1935; 6th at Moscow 1936; and 8th at Nottingham 1936." You see, Phil? Nothing about "7th and 8th" -- just "8th." And that is incorrect. **There are 2 things to wrap your mind around about chess tournament. When it says score, then its the amount of points players get for wins draws loses, therefore I said "The score was level at Nottingham" - I then continued to another aspect of tournaments and signalled it by empahsising the "//places//" for these scores was 7th and 8th. Do you in fact understand the difference in score and place? As for quotes, I use no quotation marks above! Do you in fact know what a quote is? In terms of your own continuation you then confound all together by saying "Nothing about "7th and 8th" -- just "8th." And that is incorrect. **What can such a vague utterance possibly convey to anyone? > I don't /know/ if its a mistake since I have no means of > determining if it is. Then you have no business arguing about it, do you? **ROFL! Arguing about "it?" Who is arguing, and about what? You are sure, I see no reason to be sure, so I aska question. You insist yours is the only opinion, I admit it could be right, and it could be wrong. I see no compelling reason presented here to determine it either way. I have mentioned many sources where you can get the accurate facts. For example, the Oxford Companion to Chess, co-authored by -- guess who? -- David Hooper, author of the Sunnucks entry you so prize. **Look Kingston - you lied about my attitude. You insist that I say its true. I DON'T KNOW. But you do not repeat that. You lie in saying I do think its true. Then you offer abuse. From that basis I rather suspect you are in some way desperate to prove something or other, no matter what! I simply found a reference from an encyclopedia which may or may not be true - I don't know. I quote from its entry on Lasker, page 218: "He [Lasker] played in five more tournaments: Moscow 1925, second (+10 =8 -2) after Bogoljubow, ahead of Capablanca; Zurich 1934, fifth (+9 =2 -4); Moscow 1935, third (+6 =13), after Botvinnik and Flohr, ahead of Capablanca; Moscow 1936, sixth; and Nottingham 1936 (+6 =5 -3) TO SHARE SEVENTH PLACE." (emphasis added) Do you see that, Phil? "TO SHARE SEVENTH PLACE." Very plain and easy to understand. Why can't you? **Because others say different. Bill Wall for example talks of 1st to 8th place. The TD later married Menchik, his name was Rufus Henry Streatfeild Stevenson - and he would be a prime source of resolution. But all writers contradict each other to some degree - including the prize money which uncertainly would be shared 1 thu 8, and 6 received 58 pounds, and 7/8 unclearly anything. Retrospective entries reporting on earlier material can be wrong. I simply think its suspicious and have an open mind about the 'error'. I see that you keep creating threads for your strawman, which continues the lie - that I insist on some result rather than I have a question. > Then Kingston says /I/ make a mountain of a molehill, whereas it was HE > who > hissed for 20 posts then another 10 here, about how sure he is, without > presenting the slightest reason that Hooper was wrong except to mention > that > the encyclopedia is wrong elsewhere. Phil, why do you keep lying to the people? You know very well that I have presented conclusive evidence about the results of Nottingham 1936. From the tournament book, no less, plus various other sources, including the OC just now. You have presented nothing, except your own lies and absurd pseudo-logic, and you do it over and over, on this matter and many others. **You lie about what I say - and conclusive? From Vaguer Kingston? You got to be kidding! I really don't mind whatever the result of this is - but insistence is not knowledge - and when I see you rubbish people, including telling lies in public, I gotta think you are pretty weird. If its evidence you are talking, then YOU are the presenter, OTHERS assess evidence. Get it? Do you understand the difference? Or are you prosecutor, judge and jury - and all who do not agree are liars? **Phil Innes         Date: 19 Aug 2008 10:17:58 From: Chess One Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Aug 16, 5:35 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **After 25 tries you present no evidence that Hooper has made a mistake. > And > in reporting Hooper you say I am "bloviating" - whatever you think that > means. I am simply asking you why you contradict some while presenting no > evidence at all - not in 25 tries. Ahem, Phil, a quick google search will demonstrate that I have presented all manner of evidence, including from the actual book of the Nottingham 1936 tournament, Lasker's biography, various other chess encyclopedias, and the testimony of the respected historian Bernard Cafferty. If you don't consider these "evidence," then I'd like to know what you would. **The evidence? And from the respected Cafferty, but not the respected Hooper? I do understand there are differing opinions, sufficient for the question to be open. I wonder which of them wrote nearest to the time of the tourney. Your contrary mentions raise the possibility that Hooper is wrong, they don't prove it. They don't prove it anymore than the book you reviewed which repeated a mistake from book to book ;) Do you remember that episode? You didn't know did you, you took the word of the author, who hadn't noticed a previous correction on Duras, and you didn't like Ray Keene pointing out that several books continued to point it out. As to the 'actual book of the Nottingham tournament' I wonder why you mention it [but not why you mention it so vaguely!] since I don't remember you being able to find anything in the tournament book which mentioned score/place resolution. Was there any? If not, why do you continue to cite that book as authority for your views? And if you can't find it there, how shall we then accommodate what either Cafferty or Hooper think? These are just questions about how we know what we know. They are not unusual forms of inquiry - and to skip them you merely return to uncritically repeating mistakes such as the Duras game. You see the intellectual need to inquire? In rebuttal, you have presented nothing -- you have just repeatedly insisted that the Sunnucks entry be accepted uncritically. **That is a lie. I have never said that. You invent that with the certainty you invent your other sureties. I said I don't know. Do you actually acknowledge I say that? The plain fact is that Lasker tied with Flohr for 7th and 8th places at Nottingham 1936. This is as certain as, say, that Franklin Roosevelt was re-elected President of the United States that same year. End of story. **An unfortunate analogy. In any draw in elections, you don't wind up with 2 presidents. In current tournaments there are often lots of people with similar scores, but either by play-off or /by other means/ placement is decided. That you so irrationally cling to a mistake and so vociferously insist Hooper's slightly but plainly inaccurate statement is Gospel Truth utterly dumbfounds me, **You are not quoting me - since you can't! That is a very telling thing. and that you make a mountain out of what is far less than a molehill just makes me (for the umpteenth time) seriously question your sanity. **You personally have fallen out with Evans on this same basis, with Keene, with Parr and how many others? You 'interpret' what they have to say in some peculiar way which you then insist upon is their intent - despite their own protestations than such an interpretation is perverse, and even if it /could/ be ambiguous to some, they have since clarified their statement to suit the meanest intelligence. **You see, its not enough for you to be right, you don't admit doubts where even GMs do - where they need to interpolate what we know with their own /informed/ speculations of things. There are few absolutes so clear cut, especially in historical matters, where doubts are out of place, and where sureties are not the mark of wisdom. **A result of publicly resenting questions on ambiguities is to cease to discriminate altogether. In this instance I simply say that the Jury is out, and doesn't matter who says it is or it ain't, what matters is the /providence/ of their comment - lest you repeat something merely because it is written, and you wind up adopting the infamous standard of '100 patzers can't be wrong.' Phil Innes   Date: 15 Aug 2008 15:36:18 From: help bot Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) On Aug 15, 5:38=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > =A0 Our Phil responds in his usual way. When shown to be in a hole, he > digs himself deeper, and when shown to be full of hot air, he blows > all the harder. The China Syndrome discussed what might happen were a nuclear reactor to get out of control, having a so-called "melt down". Some might fear that the poisonous radiation could go right through the Earth all the way to the other side, killing folks at the opposite end of the Earth's surface. But the reality is that due to gravity, all this nasty radiation would tend to stop and accumulate at the Earth's core. So you see, even if our nearly-an-IM innes were to keep digging forever, he could never hope to make it clear through to the other side. The temperature at just a few thousand feet down would begin to melt his shovel. This is why he must remain near the surface-- even if that means digging /sideways/ or in circles. It is a sad fate, and one that reminds me of the fellow who was forced to roll a boulder up a hill, only to have it roll back down again and again, for all eternity. And then there was that poor chap who was chained to a cliff, and whose flesh was eternally picked at by vultures. Indeed, with nearly-IMnes, I am also reminded of the fellow who, upon seeing his own reflection in a stream, fell madly in love... . -- help bot   Date: 15 Aug 2008 15:15:17 From: help bot Subject: Re: Man, Piece On Aug 15, 7:41=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **Such wits! But I really want to know what they prefer at your club. Please specify: do you mean Get Club, or some other club (where we patzers meet to play OTB)? > If you > don't go there, you won't know, anything else is clutter and if we use 10 > terms many of which contradict others, then I suggest that is because peo= ple > insist on cluttering up the subject, to hear their own voice rather than > contribute to chess I know exactly what you mean; there are a good number of such nitwits right here in rgc =2E..if you catch my drift. > =A0 Lastly, I think it is high time the term chess > "man" was changed to better reflect our > modern attitudes; is it not true that chess > "person" would serve just as well? > **Ah! - 400 years ago a fellow called Hyde had the same problem - how can= a > queen be the strongest piece in a war-game, he asked, and actually tried = to > change the gender of the Queen. Then he was a dolt; it is perfectly obvious how a female can be stronger in war, because of her innate ability to unduly influence males (who of course are directing these insane wars). I take it this Mr. Hyde was a weak-minded duffer-- perhaps a Rook-odds player at best. > **These days we are, so people here are insisting, seemingly content to c= all > the chess Queen a "Man". Which is //equally// numb, no? Man refers not to the gender of a chess token, but to the fact that it is a separate unit, which is maneuverable/manipulable as such. Compare to "platoon", "boat", "attack force" and so forth. > **If you can't answer the question to advise young players of current ter= ms > in use, you can't contribute to this thread On the contrary, ridiculing the numskull who felt it necessary to ask such an idiotic question here is just about as productive as anything else. Also, the way in which the questions were asked opened the floodgates to such responses-- especially in view of the utterly preposterous claims regarding "promotion" of chess. > I see that Brennen and Ken > Sloan have followed Kingston's lead of mocking public discussion on chess > terms in a public chess newsgroup That's not true... . What they were mocking was the pretentiousness of nearly-an-IM Innes. A more general mocking of all discussion on rgc is quite beyond their meager grasp... which is precisely why *I* have been sent here by the intergalactic federation (oops! I take that back. Mum's the word). > but their's is a long established pattern > of noisy destruction Funny, but I believe this precisely describes how most readers here feel about the nearly- an-IMpostor, Andean scholar Innes himself. > since they both demonstrate no ability to write > anything cogent on topic in English, nor at any length, not now, not ever= . Ditto. But unlike those meanies, I try -- I say TRY -- to make allowances for those poor unfortunate souls who simply lack the ability to communicate in some comprehensible language or in English. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- There is an old (a very old, in fact) saying that conveys the idea that one is not known by what one /claims/ to be or to do, but rather by the actuality, by one's /fruits/. If Mr. IMnes would reflect on that idea for a moment, he might then come to realize why his poor acting has been, and is doomed to always remain, unconvincing. (In short: if you wish to be thought of as a chess promoter, then simply promote chess!!!) -- help bot     Date: 16 Aug 2008 10:44:01 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Man, Piece "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:af7c6cc5-50c0-4ad2-80db-11a70c779447@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... On Aug 15, 7:41 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **Such wits! But I really want to know what they prefer at your club. Please specify: do you mean Get Club, or some other club (where we patzers meet to play OTB)? **I know Sanny's computer has many opinions, and is always getting better. I wonder if I should offer it a column? Perhaps it could be called, "Better Now"? > If you > don't go there, you won't know, anything else is clutter and if we use 10 > terms many of which contradict others, then I suggest that is because > people > insist on cluttering up the subject, to hear their own voice rather than > contribute to chess I know exactly what you mean; there are a good number of such nitwits right here in rgc ...if you catch my drift. **I do understand that people have used lots of terms - and there may even be no current consensus, but, without asking if there is, should we just continue to report the undifferentiated way people have referred to the, er, pieces? **More directly, in terms of direct contact with students, I wish to refer to peieces and pawns without using a glossary of synonyms, in case there is confusion about what those are. **The folks who have written here do seem to think references to Pieces and Pawns makes sense, and will be sensible to others. > Lastly, I think it is high time the term chess > "man" was changed to better reflect our > modern attitudes; is it not true that chess > "person" would serve just as well? > **Ah! - 400 years ago a fellow called Hyde had the same problem - how can > a > queen be the strongest piece in a war-game, he asked, and actually tried > to > change the gender of the Queen. Then he was a dolt; it is perfectly obvious how a female can be stronger in war, because of her innate ability to unduly influence males (who of course are directing these insane wars). ***Actually, Hyde was active at the end of the Elizabethan period, and an Elizabeth who successfully baffled the French and Spanish into not attempting war. 3 million English protestants faced 12 Million aggressive continental catholics. Perhaps Hyde actually preferred an English male General to take the field against that lot, and be gloriously defeated? I take it this Mr. Hyde was a weak-minded duffer-- perhaps a Rook-odds player at best. Dr. Hyde was the author of the first objectively serious [non mythological] study of chess. He concluded the game originated from the City of Peace, circa 600 - we no longer hold that view, but it was better than any other explanations at the time. In terms of the strength of his play, there is not the slightest indication. Probably the only way to have become good was to buy the secret chess rutter of Greco, which among other things went half a dozen moves deep into several openings. But after its publication Greco dissapeared! The importance of Hyde's work is that it was a catalytic agent between the age of chess-as-manners, and the 'serious' game for players it is today. > **These days we are, so people here are insisting, seemingly content to > call > the chess Queen a "Man". Which is //equally// numb, no? Man refers not to the gender of a chess token, but to the fact that it is a separate unit, which is maneuverable/manipulable as such. Compare to "platoon", "boat", "attack force" and so forth. Not vires [L], but homo [L] from homos [Gr] ? Its awkward in English when nouns are uncertainly gendered, and where we are not embarrassed to refer to the chess man, the Queen, as she? > **If you can't answer the question to advise young players of current > terms > in use, you can't contribute to this thread On the contrary, ridiculing the numskull who felt it necessary to ask such an idiotic question here is just about as productive as anything else. **As productive? To whom? You are not producing anything! You merely ridicule those who do, and therefore set yourself in a seperate group who do the same, and presumably from your writing think that real chess players are in some conspiracy or ratpack as you put it, to oppose or even notice you? But this is not true. You contribute nothing to notice. I suppose if you are completely unproductive and without the slightest ambition to do anything, then, yes, anything is as unproductive as anything else - but you forget to note that this is ONLY true for you, and those similar to you. Also, the way in which the questions were asked opened the floodgates to such responses-- especially in view of the utterly preposterous claims regarding "promotion" of chess. **But why are you interested? You can't have it both ways - if people want to free relate and tell us about their deep ennui and constant boredom - should they not try playing chess and then commentating on their own real experiences? Otherwise they are condemned to guess why other people are not as they are. **I suppose it may seem 'preposterous' to such as yourself who may prefer to study Latin in high-school than chess. But to those interested in the game it may not be as you say? Therefore, if this initiative actually promotes chess to players of the game for academic credit is a topic which will continue to puzzle you, since you are personally not interested, either in learning it yourself, or noticing if others do. > I see that Brennen and Ken > Sloan have followed Kingston's lead of mocking public discussion on chess > terms in a public chess newsgroup That's not true... . What they were mocking was the pretentiousness of nearly-an-IM Innes. **I am not pretending anything. I am doing this! But as above, you are unable to percieve that, since you deny rather than question. You think you question, but not really! You are not a cynic who questions, you are a nihilist, a denier, same as them. A more general mocking of all discussion on rgc is quite beyond their meager grasp... which is precisely why *I* have been sent here by the intergalactic federation (oops! I take that back. Mum's the word). > but their's is a long established pattern > of noisy destruction Funny, but I believe this precisely describes how most readers here feel about the nearly- an-IMpostor, Andean scholar Innes himself. **No sir. You mock your own low-brow understanding, and you seek to level others with that. It is a psychological mechanism that you /need/ to deploy since otherwise you would have to live your own life, instead of living vicariously the lives of others. But you are not brave enough to criticise yourself, or actually attempt anything, since you /fear/ you will fail. > since they both demonstrate no ability to write > anything cogent on topic in English, nor at any length, not now, not ever. Ditto. But unlike those meanies, I try -- I say TRY -- to make allowances for those poor unfortunate souls who simply lack the ability to communicate in some comprehensible language or in English. **Your opinion of your opinion is extraordinary. If you want to write, then you must attempt to name your nouns, and also address your /own/ orientation. Otherwise what you say is only disguised whining [disguised from yourself] of why you prefer to be a juvenile sniper. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- There is an old (a very old, in fact) saying that conveys the idea that one is not known by what one /claims/ to be or to do, but rather by the actuality, by one's /fruits/. If Mr. IMnes would reflect on that idea for a moment, he might then come to realize why his poor acting has been, and is doomed to always remain, unconvincing. (In short: if you wish to be thought of as a chess promoter, then simply promote chess!!!) **Don't be stupid! How would you know what it is you criticise - you start and end every post by blaming others as an excuse to do nothing yourself. You are so bored, and you are so boring! And its not my fault, nor Fischers' nor Kasparovs nor Evans'. Phil Innes -- help bot   Date: 15 Aug 2008 14:55:26 From: Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) On Aug 15, 5:37=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Aug 15, 5:10=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > While Our Taylor is figuring out his response to the previous challenge= s I > > offered him, he might as well share his understanding of Laskers 8th pl= ace > > finish - which he denied ever happened - and which he sent off to Engla= nd > > for further information to refute! > > > At the time he accused me of being something on the wrong side of Musso= lini > > for opining at all - but since I merely reported an entry by Hooper, > > /naming/ my source, and the English Encyclopedia which carried the arti= cle, > > and which Our Taylor, BTW, has a copy of. > > > In refutation of this terrible crime Our Taylor hissed at me that I was > > nutz@ > > > He did not actually dispute the encyclopedia entry, which showed Lasker > > coming equal 7th / 8th on score but 8th in placement, > > =A0 What a load of bull, Phil. The Sunnucks encyclopaedia entry simply > says Lasker was "8th at Nottingham 1936." Nothing about him actually > placing =3D7th-8th with Flohr, both of them scoring 8=BD-5=BD. Therefore = it > is slightly inaccurate. > > > and accused Hooper of making a mistake. > > =A0 I wouldn't use the word "accused," but the plain fact is that it's a > mistake, and all your bloviating doesn't change that fact. In any > event, it's a rather minor mistake, and hardly worth the gaseous > effort you keep expending on it. > > > > > Now... Hooper may have done so, or he may not have - the material Our T= aylor > > received from England could not explain if final placements by virtue o= f > > opponents beaten, or other means, how equal placements on score were ra= nked. > > > This non-event caused Our Taylor some 20 hissy responses, since he deem= ed > > that the Great Lasker, [and he truly was], was being dissed by me in so= me > > way since I dared point out that these games came at the end of his car= ear > > in chess, and obvious 8th place [or even 7th] was not exactly a command= ing > > performance. > > > Why object so much without preseenting a scintilla of evidence that Hoo= per > > was wrong in his entry for Anne Sunnucks' Encyclopedia entry? I might point out that in its list of "International Tournaments 1851-1949," the Sunnucks encyclopaedia makes a much worse mistake about Nottingham 1936, showing Flohr, not Botvinnik, equal 1st with Capablanca. I notice also that it has Reshevsky winning Semmering- Baden 1937 (Keres actually won, while Reshevsky was =3D3rd-4th), Keres winning at Groningen 1946 (he didn't even play), and Botvinnik tieing with himself for first at Moscow 1947. In fact the whole list on page 464 is a complete mess due to the insertion of Rubinstein as a co-winner at Vienna 1908 (he was actually 4th), which throws off all the subsequent entries. No doubt Phil will find some way to argue that this too is correct.     Date: 19 Aug 2008 07:30:02 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Aug 15, 5:37 pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Aug 15, 5:10 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > While Our Taylor is figuring out his response to the previous challenges > > I > > offered him, he might as well share his understanding of Laskers 8th > > place > > finish - which he denied ever happened - and which he sent off to > > England > > for further information to refute! > > > At the time he accused me of being something on the wrong side of > > Mussolini > > for opining at all - but since I merely reported an entry by Hooper, > > /naming/ my source, and the English Encyclopedia which carried the > > article, > > and which Our Taylor, BTW, has a copy of. > > > In refutation of this terrible crime Our Taylor hissed at me that I was > > nutz@ > > > He did not actually dispute the encyclopedia entry, which showed Lasker > > coming equal 7th / 8th on score but 8th in placement, > > What a load of bull, Phil. The Sunnucks encyclopaedia entry simply > says Lasker was "8th at Nottingham 1936." Nothing about him actually > placing =7th-8th with Flohr, both of them scoring 8�-5�. Therefore it > is slightly inaccurate. > > > and accused Hooper of making a mistake. > > I wouldn't use the word "accused," but the plain fact is that it's a > mistake, and all your bloviating doesn't change that fact. In any > event, it's a rather minor mistake, and hardly worth the gaseous > effort you keep expending on it. > > > > > Now... Hooper may have done so, or he may not have - the material Our > > Taylor > > received from England could not explain if final placements by virtue of > > opponents beaten, or other means, how equal placements on score were > > ranked. > > > This non-event caused Our Taylor some 20 hissy responses, since he > > deemed > > that the Great Lasker, [and he truly was], was being dissed by me in > > some > > way since I dared point out that these games came at the end of his > > carear > > in chess, and obvious 8th place [or even 7th] was not exactly a > > commanding > > performance. > > > Why object so much without preseenting a scintilla of evidence that > > Hooper > > was wrong in his entry for Anne Sunnucks' Encyclopedia entry? I might point out that in its list of "International Tournaments 1851-1949," the Sunnucks encyclopaedia makes a much worse mistake about Nottingham 1936, showing Flohr, not Botvinnik, equal 1st with Capablanca. I notice also that it has Reshevsky winning Semmering- Baden 1937 (Keres actually won, while Reshevsky was =3rd-4th), Keres winning at Groningen 1946 (he didn't even play), and Botvinnik tieing with himself for first at Moscow 1947. In fact the whole list on page 464 is a complete mess due to the insertion of Rubinstein as a co-winner at Vienna 1908 (he was actually 4th), which throws off all the subsequent entries. No doubt Phil will find some way to argue that this too is correct. **Taylor Kingston needs me to do his thinking for him, so suggests that mistakes happen, and therefore by this means Hooper's entry is a mistake. And it may be! I never said it was not - but equally, it may not be a mistake as much as a fact that Taylor Kingston dislikes. <shrug > Why Taylor Kingston needs to set up such a straw man to 'win' something if best known to himself. All I ever said is that it IS an encyclopedia entry, and it may or may not be true. Our Taylor hissed at that perspective for 20 posts, and continues here with the usually dreary intellectual sloth of suggesting an opinion I never expressed at all. **I think it is respectable to suggest it could be a mistake - other entries were mistaken, but proof of this specific instance is still lacking - but Taylor's Kingston's insistence is that WITHOUT EVIDENCE he is right in saying mistake, and I am wrong by saying without evidence it may or may not be. **That this is Taylor Kingston's analogous pattern is the issue here - and his resort to strawmen suggestion, again with no evidence at all, to hiss about what I will 'no doubt' argue. <ggg > **With the in-between move question I was quite content to learn US preference for the German term, and so discarded the Italian one. In terms of reference to chess pieces... *for the same reason* I failed to see why Chernev's terms /should/ be mentioned if actual chess players in America do not use them. That's all Folks! **Hissing instance is nothing I find compelling, in fact, I also suspect it is a lack of confidence. I don't know if Hooper is right or wrong on Lasker, neither does Taylor Kingston. I am not attached to his being 7th or 8th, Our Taylor is. Similarly I wish to represent whatever terms are the primary ones to refer to chess pieces/men - and never said I would exclude other terms, but in addressing students I wish to use just one term, for one specific, not a term with 3 mutually contradictory meanings. **That is the simple proposition here which Our Taylor could not understand, and has to create a new thread to celebrate his non-understanding - which is the same whether the topic is Lasker, Chernev or pieces and pawns! Incidentally, I would maintain that there is equally no evidence of the felicity of Chernev's English, and suspect a good editorial hand is at work on his texts. In 2008 its /still/ true that in the borough of Queens 50% of the population speak a language other than English at home. **But as with Hooper, I am not attached to any result; whether Chernev became a prodigious English writer or otherwise, I simply state there is no particular evidence he was, and I don't see any presented here, either. I do not feel compelled to 'believe' anything about Chernev's prowess simply to relieve my anxiety - neither do I think I should adopt his terms if others here suggest they are not the primary ones in current use. At least, and even though that is a small survey, it is still something based on fact, and not 'shoulds' and 'beliefs'. **That is what I /do/ argue. Phil Innes   Date: 15 Aug 2008 14:38:57 From: Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) On Aug 15, 3:43=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > On Aug 15, 7:27 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:[email protected]... > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > >> On Aug 14, 3:52 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > >>>> On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> **um, well, don't know who translated Chernev, > > >>> Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to > > >>> the USA at about age 4. > > > English was his second language, and I have no idea of the facility of = his > > parents in English and suppose any English would have come late to him > > =A0 "Late"?? Um, Phil, just what do you consider a "late" age? I just > told you: Chernev came to the USA at about age 4. He learned English > as a child in Brooklyn. > > **Laugh! Taylor Kingston pronounces on what it is to speak a second langu= age > not acquired until the age of 4! At least 4! He fortunately does not tell= us > anything of his understanding, lest it come under question. > > **He is a bit backwards on the efficacy of early child education. Not jus= t a > little bit. But this is merely an absurd correspondance on Taylor's own > recommendation of speak-like-Chernev, and despite 2 other people > contradicting him already, Taylor has to insist as usual that some idioti= c > but unspoken understanding he has privately acquired is vitally relevent = to > the issue. What issue? What people say in 2008! Here, learning English at > [some unknown age, but 4+] from parents whose English muct have been > uncertain? =A0And in Brooklyn, [ROFL] does not phase him in the least. > > **"I just TOLD you" he says. > > > =A0and > > since I have quoted from his works extensively, [more than anyone here]= I > > always doubted how much English he could express, and what text was his > > and > > what of his editors? > > =A0 Good Lord, Phil, this is as big a gaffe as your saying that Spanish > was Andean. > > **Pardon me? I never said that you imbecile!@ YOU IMBECILE. YOU LIAR. I s= aid > that Mexican Spanish was not the same as Castillian, and Mexican differen= t > from that of the Andes. Did you actually dispute that? I can't tell from > your words. It is your understanding of things which is absurd, since I > don't believe you are so stupid. Instead I think you deliberately mis-sta= te > what others say - as you do here consistently, insisting, INSISTING, that > what Chernev says is current terminology. But you don't even go to the ch= ess > club, eh? > > **So you are the fool of your own diversions, and to cover that you inven= t > on what others say, insist on what /they/ mean, just like a pissy pedant. > > =A0Chernev grew up in America. He spoke and wrote English > like a native speaker. As a young man, he once pinch-hit for a sick > Lasker when the latter was scheduled to give a lecture to an American > audience. No editors to help him then. > > **How lovely for him! What a wonderful man! To stand up, we are to > understand, and speak English! > > =A0 I strongly suggest you read Denker's appreciation of Chernev in "The > Bobby Fischer I Knew and Other Stories." It will give you some idea of > how an American chess pro viewed his prose skills. > > **I strongly suggest you re-attend your chess club and answer what I aske= d > you: is Chernev's phrasing of things current terminology? You propose it = is > with no evidence at all - you ignore what 2 others say and create a whole > thread to pretend that others are wrong! If you have some other points to > make on what young players /should/ know, which you insisted upon! Then > maybe do your own chess course for those who want to know terms of > yesteryear they should now in case they encounter them? > > > I assumed from the often mannered phrasing that his work was translated= . > > =A0 The intersection between your assumptions/delusions and reality is > often scant. In this case, non-existent. > > **Taylor decides what reality is - =A0for other people! - especially thos= e who > disagree with him. In fact, always for them.Which so far, is everybody wh= o > replied substantively to what I actually asked. Naturally, this is their > fault, and a sure guide on how Our Taylor fell out with 2 of the most > popular chess writers on Earth, Evans and Keene - who I suggest to Taylor > Kingston received the vote of people willing to part with their money, > rather than consider your instructions what they /should/ do or buy. > > > Surely he used words like 'piquant' and 'impress' correctly, and indeed= , > > his > > adjectives are somewhat rich for a text book of chess annotation, even > > somewhat /superior/ to the writings of native speakers at the time. > > > But much of his phrasing is Russian, especially in the frequant avoidan= ce > > of > > the definite article, > > =A0 Hmmm. Let's see how many instances of the definite article we find > in this Chernev passage: > > =A0 "In this book we persuade him. We find out from the master the > purpose of every single move he makes in the course of a game. We > follow the ideas, the methods, the very thoughts of a master as he > outlines them in simple detail. We learn the inner workings of his > mind, and thus acquire the knowledge -- yes, the instinct -- for > recognizing good moves and rejecting inferior ones." > > =A0 I count nine instances of "the," and one of "this" -- ten in the > space of four sentences. Doesn't look like "avoidance of the definite > article" to me. > > **And ROFL this is typical is it, Mr. Kingston? It is not contradicted by > less-edited relapses? > > > 40 word unpunctuated sentences 'as wide as Taiga!' > > [lol] and just as commonly, his infinitive verb forms combat randomly w= ith > > his Western apostrophies. > > =A0 Care to give us examples of these alleged grammatical sins? > > **No. I did not say it was a sin, that again is your spin! Your bit of > defensive hyperbole about your hero! ROFL And talking of which, you are > patently in-sin-cere in your requests. [bottom of page 48 <wink>] > > =A0 It should also be noted that Chernev was probably more familiar with > chess literature than any other man, at least in America. Denker > writes "No one ever devoured chess lore like Irving did. 'I have > probably read more about chess and played over more games,' he once > plausibly claimed, 'than any man in history.'" Therefore I would > > **Write more about him here than I do? But you don't. =A0:)) > > consider Chernev quite well qualified as an authority on proper usage > of chess terminology. > > **as in use in 1946? What date does your preface for "The Russians Play > Chess" have? > > ** "The" Russians...? =A0Not exactly American diction, is it? It certainl= y > ain't now, and to return to MY subject, that is the context of MY inquiry= . > > ROFL > > Phil Innes Our Phil responds in his usual way. When shown to be in a hole, he digs himself deeper, and when shown to be full of hot air, he blows all the harder.     Date: 17 Aug 2008 08:28:35 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Aug 15, 3:43 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > ** "The" Russians...? Not exactly American diction, is it? It certainly > ain't now, and to return to MY subject, that is the context of MY inquiry. > > ROFL > > Phil Innes Our Phil responds in his usual way. When shown to be in a hole, he digs himself deeper, and when shown to be full of hot air, he blows all the harder. **The Taylor Kingston try basic level! The Taylor Kingston say show hole, but do not show hole or where digging is. The Taylor Kingston play shy! PI   Date: 15 Aug 2008 14:37:04 From: Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) On Aug 15, 5:10=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > While Our Taylor is figuring out his response to the previous challenges = I > offered him, he might as well share his understanding of Laskers 8th plac= e > finish - which he denied ever happened - and which he sent off to England > for further information to refute! > > At the time he accused me of being something on the wrong side of Mussoli= ni > for opining at all - but since I merely reported an entry by Hooper, > /naming/ my source, and the English Encyclopedia which carried the articl= e, > and which Our Taylor, BTW, has a copy of. > > In refutation of this terrible crime Our Taylor hissed at me that I was > nutz@ > > He did not actually dispute the encyclopedia entry, which showed Lasker > coming equal 7th / 8th on score but 8th in placement, What a load of bull, Phil. The Sunnucks encyclopaedia entry simply says Lasker was "8th at Nottingham 1936." Nothing about him actually placing =3D7th-8th with Flohr, both of them scoring 8=BD-5=BD. Therefore it is slightly inaccurate. > and accused Hooper of making a mistake. I wouldn't use the word "accused," but the plain fact is that it's a mistake, and all your bloviating doesn't change that fact. In any event, it's a rather minor mistake, and hardly worth the gaseous effort you keep expending on it. > Now... Hooper may have done so, or he may not have - the material Our Tay= lor > received from England could not explain if final placements by virtue of > opponents beaten, or other means, how equal placements on score were rank= ed. > > This non-event caused Our Taylor some 20 hissy responses, since he deemed > that the Great Lasker, [and he truly was], was being dissed by me in some > way since I dared point out that these games came at the end of his carea= r > in chess, and obvious 8th place [or even 7th] was not exactly a commandin= g > performance. > > Why object so much without preseenting a scintilla of evidence that Hoope= r > was wrong in his entry for Anne Sunnucks' Encyclopedia entry? > > Phil Innes     Date: 29 Aug 2008 10:48:47 From: Subject: Re: James K. Polk (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 29, 11:55=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:17cb6fa4-729b-432f-8250-214073377e8d@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 26, 1:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Polk was from the south, eschewed any popularity whatever, and very > > unusual > > for a southern gent did /not/ think the expansion West should be > > slave-based. > > =A0 On what do you base that, Phil? > > **O! No! ~ On what do I base what, Taylor? Our Phil engages in his usual BS: Phil: I say X is true. TK: On what do you base that, Phil? Phil: On what do I base what? > =A0The more anti-slavery candidate in > the 1844 election was definitely Henry Clay, not Polk. > > **Ah! ~ You should be glad I'm doing this for free - (stage 1) take anoth= er > look at the whole sentence, and see if you tell if I say Polk's attitude = to > Western expansion was unusual in suggesting the West should be slave-base= d. No, you said just the opposite, Phil. I quote: "Polk was from the south, eschewed any popularity whatever, and very unusual for a southern gent did /not/ think the expansion West should be slave-based." Even the emphasis -- "/not/" -- is yours. But, if you want to pretend now that you did not say that, then there is no point in further discussion. No suprise there, with you!       Date: 01 Sep 2008 08:17:48 From: Chess One Subject: Re: James K. Polk (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:458a7060-4bdd-411b-b6ac-a3bd72887b8d@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... On Aug 29, 11:55 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:17cb6fa4-729b-432f-8250-214073377e8d@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 26, 1:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Polk was from the south, eschewed any popularity whatever, and very > > unusual > > for a southern gent did /not/ think the expansion West should be > > slave-based. > > On what do you base that, Phil? > > **O! No! ~ On what do I base what, Taylor? Our Phil engages in his usual BS: Phil: I say X is true. TK: On what do you base that, Phil? Phil: On what do I base what? **Yes, that's the principle! But Our Taylor cheats! He wants to suggest to readers that the 'that' in his own single sentence is sufficiently clear not to be identified, rather than as he /actually/ did, refer to the 'that' in an entire paragraph containing a dozen phrases. Taylor solves this by analogy! **Back on topic - I said Polk was unusual as a Southerner to be anti-Western slavery, and Taylor immediately contradicts this by suggesting that I wrote that he was the only Southerner against anti-Western slavery, and even that I wrote he was the greatest anti-Western slavery southerner. **Of course, I should not have continued to answer Our Taylor since he doesn't understand what I wrote. **Our Taylor as usual introduces new elective elements of his own chosing which do not contradict the original message, and continues to obscure the fact that by his continuous vague language /disgusies/ his mis-comprehension. **Taylor Kingston in the past week publicly said that he fell out with Evans, Parr and myself, who used to be his friends, because of our 'lies'. **It rather seems to be that Evans, Parr and myself, simply commit the crime of making our own statements, insufficiently anticipating what Our Taylor would have preferred to see. **In another post I use the term opening range both in the text and the lead sentence, and you guessed it! Taylor has introduced 2 new words Variety and Innovation, which he assures me "are not at all the same thing". Challenges of the Weak [sic] ** (a) Can Taylor Kingston justify why he need to 'correct': range or repetoire to variety, and that different thing, innovation? ** (b) Can Taylor Kingston justify why he needs to 'correct': "very unusual" to 'only' or 'most'. **Before goin 'deeper' to whatever Taylor Kingston thinks he is contradicting below - I have no idea whatever of his understanding of what he references. If he can tell us his something about his need to contribute (a) and (b) above - the matter may clarify all by itself. Come on Taylor! Be serious, since I am making a little demonstration here of the peculiar twists and turns of your writing which deprives you of previously collegiate 'friends'. Phil Innes > The more anti-slavery candidate in > the 1844 election was definitely Henry Clay, not Polk. > > **Ah! ~ You should be glad I'm doing this for free - (stage 1) take > another > look at the whole sentence, and see if you tell if I say Polk's attitude > to > Western expansion was unusual in suggesting the West should be > slave-based. No, you said just the opposite, Phil. I quote: "Polk was from the south, eschewed any popularity whatever, and very unusual for a southern gent did /not/ think the expansion West should be slave-based." Even the emphasis -- "/not/" -- is yours. But, if you want to pretend now that you did not say that, then there is no point in further discussion. No suprise there, with you!     Date: 23 Aug 2008 04:35:50 From: help bot Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously [email protected] wrote: (...nothing of note.) I'm forced to interpret this non-response as an admission of guilt; that is, an admission of having mindlessly parroted the comment by Mr. Crowther which was effortlessly debunked by The Great Pedant Edward Winter. Anything less than such a "duck" would have been quite surprising-- a shocking anomaly in fact, given our hero's pattern. Note the fact of Mr. Kingston's claimed inability to "find" his own recent words; one can only hope that when he ventures out, Mr. Kingston can somehow "find" his way back home, that is, if he can even recall where he lives and how to get there. The possible causes of such frequent mental lapses are endless-- requiring an expert examination by a trained professional-- doctor, psychoanalyst or witch-doctor, as the case may be. ---- Now, there remains a separate issue with regard to the real loss of strength of Mr. Alekhine near the end of his life-- just before the French underground offed him. We know that Boris Spassky somehow managed to drop precipitously, yet the general pattern is that a world champion retains most of his former strength for years after his peak. Still, I have not actually seen the games, so I must withhold judgment for the time being. Certainly, were it say, Bobby Fischer, the apologists would crawl out of the woodwork to try and explain away any failure, however small (such as the very brief match against /one/ Portuguese master which Mr. Alekhine won by a small margin). But it doesn't require a die-hard apologist to point out that weighing a single result such as that is highly unlikely to yield a precipitous drop from the world's top 50 players, especially back then. To my mind, only a severe affliction -- such as the one we've seen in the case of Mr. Kingston himself -- could possibly explain such a dramatic fall from greatness. Had such a terrible disease befallen the poor man, even Mr. Bogolubov might have wrested the title away without much difficulty, for chess is not an easy game. -- help bot       Date: 29 Aug 2008 19:50:45 From: thumbody Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) thumbody wrote: > > SBD wrote: > > > > On Aug 28, 6:38 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > **Another abstract absolutist, who /must/ put people down, a marked > > > behavioral pattern of anxious people whose simple understanding is > > > challenged by their address to even moderately complex issues. > > > > > > Phil Innes > > > > So your comment on someone who "puts you down" is a mealy-mouthed > > "down-put" of your own? OK.... > > Oh! c'mon chaps. Let's lighten this dialogue up. Add some up-put > so-to-speak. - put put put. Grey skies will clear up! Allways look on > the bright side of life! - put put..... put-put-put-put... put-put.. > > See how easy it is? - Phil is clearly tired out from his morning swim > across lake Superior & back. Let the poor puppy rest up & recuperate.. > > Yes. The silly boy has got his dates all muddled-up as the ever vigilant > Taylor has been @ pains to point out. Yes, it's possible to have read > something somewhere without that 'thing' ever having been published - > put put.. > > Yes, yes yes - the phrase: "humanity is the best revenge" is redolent, > nay! - pregnant with schadenfreudian meaning & possibility.. > > Consider the opprobrious scrutiny of each & every move Alekhine may have > made (beginning with his very own invention - the unbelievably radical & > innovative 1.nf3 - gasp!) had he indeed lived to attend the London > convenement.. > > The very real shame & humiliation to be visited on him by a 'vengeful > humanity' is nothing to be sniffed at - so I feel it's timely that an > inopportune sliver of donkey-meat or, as I myself was privy to hearken > unto - shhh!(pitted-olive, laced with cyanide, free-French death-squad, > forced down craw..) took away from the world the shambling vestige of > that which could have been great.. > > Ho hum. put put put. Almost time to drop in on that bright young man > from Indiana. Find out how he's getting along with Mrs. Rybka & if > *she's* got any more info on crop circles. put put put.. > > t. Fear not! - All who I see I will destroy if they meet not my expectations.. thumbody!..       Date: 29 Aug 2008 16:17:57 From: thumbody Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) SBD wrote: > > On Aug 28, 6:38 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > **Another abstract absolutist, who /must/ put people down, a marked > > behavioral pattern of anxious people whose simple understanding is > > challenged by their address to even moderately complex issues. > > > > Phil Innes > > So your comment on someone who "puts you down" is a mealy-mouthed > "down-put" of your own? OK.... Oh! c'mon chaps. Let's lighten this dialogue up. Add some up-put so-to-speak. - put put put. Grey skies will clear up! Allways look on the bright side of life! - put put..... put-put-put-put... put-put.. See how easy it is? - Phil is clearly tired out from his morning swim across lake Superior & back. Let the poor puppy rest up & recuperate.. Yes. The silly boy has got his dates all muddled-up as the ever vigilant Taylor has been @ pains to point out. Yes, it's possible to have read something somewhere without that 'thing' ever having been published - put put.. Yes, yes yes - the phrase: "humanity is the best revenge" is redolent, nay! - pregnant with schadenfreudian meaning & possibility.. Consider the opprobrious scrutiny of each & every move Alekhine may have made (beginning with his very own invention - the unbelievably radical & innovative 1.nf3 - gasp!) had he indeed lived to attend the London convenement.. The very real shame & humiliation to be visited on him by a 'vengeful humanity' is nothing to be sniffed at - so I feel it's timely that an inopportune sliver of donkey-meat or, as I myself was privy to hearken unto - shhh!(pitted-olive, laced with cyanide, free-French death-squad, forced down craw..) took away from the world the shambling vestiges of that which could have been great.. Ho hum. put put put. Almost time to drop in on that bright young man from Indiana. Find out how he's getting along with Mrs. Rybka & if *she's* got any more info on crop circles. put put put.. t.       Date: 28 Aug 2008 09:18:16 From: SBD Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 28, 6:38=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **Another abstract absolutist, who /must/ put people down, a marked > behavioral pattern of anxious people whose simple understanding is > challenged by their address to even moderately complex issues. > > Phil Innes So your comment on someone who "puts you down" is a mealy-mouthed "down-put" of your own? OK....         Date: 28 Aug 2008 13:20:42 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:4b35cfe1-90f4-4383-8958-123e33151d04@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... On Aug 28, 6:38 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **Another abstract absolutist, who /must/ put people down, a marked > behavioral pattern of anxious people whose simple understanding is > challenged by their address to even moderately complex issues. > > Phil Innes So your comment on someone who "puts you down" is a mealy-mouthed "down-put" of your own? OK....\ -- Try to respond to the method of investigation which is the subject matter, and which you cut so that your question appears not already answered, otherwise your suppositions are not just inane they are cheats on what is already demonstrated to you: If you chose to exclude my text which is the large human context here, to pick on what you volunteer to suppose,, and which suits your own bile, and are you thereby so very different than Alekhine? Here Dr Rynd/Dowd mocks a serious topic in favor of a serial abusenik whose suggestion to you all is that I am an anti-semite. I take formal note of what Dr Rynd/Dowd supports - what he likes to dissapear as a subect. And also note his own admission that he wrote in the name of another person who writes here - which I cannot think he did with kind intent. That is his miserable level of honor and integrity as a commentator on others, not as he says it is, but as it is demonstrated to be by his actions. But that is OK! It is not the posing that does the damage as well as the suppression of what causes inhuman actions in others. That is a spiritual matter, and takes more than personality level correspondence, mine, or anyone's to negotiate. To continue seriously, to a serious subject:- To other readers; under stress how would you behave - what is your price, and if you chose to answer, which you need not, is it from what you suppose you would be like or from actually being tested? I refer to what I wrote in the previous message which Rynd/Dowd has anxiously snipped away since the topic is, for him, taboo! And I despise that attitude when by all accounts of this world, it is hardly an aspect of human behavior which has dissapeared during our own times, nevermind think it only about WW II Nazis. That is the human level investigation of this issue of Alekhine's deeply obnoxious expressions, in fact a human level interogatory which engages your own spirit too. Be not content with personality commentary or sound-bite responses when serious issues are glossed-over thereby - and when such hatred would seem to still rule the world. Its a choice to look at it, or perpetuate it. No one is better than any other here, that is our mutual condition - as another Bard said, A Man's a man for all that - never less than a man, and never more. This is the way we might still understand ourselves through others. Phil Innes       Date: 28 Aug 2008 10:04:42 From: thumbody Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) thumbody wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > . > > Obviously you have no intention of admitting your faulty description > > of the Pariser Zeitung articles, or no ability to recognize it. I will > > leave you and help-bot to argue further, if you like. I have at least > > done my duty by rgc readers in correcting the misleading impression > > you tried to give them. > > Actually, iirc this whole topic of the *real* import of Arrogant Al's > notorious scribblings has been hashed over before on rgc & Phil's take > on AA's hidden meaning is neither unusual nor implausible among > Alekhine's many admirers.. > > Personally I believe A. had no problem quaffing stolen champagne, > feasting on filet mignon (hard to choke on - see.) & gorging on > pate-de-foie & the fact all this was provided by an odious regime > troubled him not one bit.. > > For another attractive chappie & also, sadly in the end, a good, > card-carring nazi see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzwwcTlhaiE > > t.       Date: 27 Aug 2008 22:31:37 From: thumbody Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) [email protected] wrote: . > Obviously you have no intention of admitting your faulty description > of the Pariser Zeitung articles, or no ability to recognize it. I will > leave you and help-bot to argue further, if you like. I have at least > done my duty by rgc readers in correcting the misleading impression > you tried to give them. Actually, iirc this whole topic of the *real* import of Arrogant Al's notorious scribblings has been hashed over before on rgc & Phil's take on AA's hidden meaning is neither unusual nor implausable among Alekhine's many admirers.. Personally I believe A. had no problem quaffing stolen champagne, feasting on filet mignon (hard to choke on - see.) & gorging on pate-de-foie & the fact all this was provided by an odious regime troubled him not one bit.. For another attractive chappie & also, sadly in the end, a good, card-carring nazi see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzwwcTlhaiE t.         Date: 05 Sep 2008 06:14:26 From: help bot Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Sep 4, 4:58=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: --Snip-- What is to be made of this last response? All I did was pick up on Dr. IMnes' *own* introduction of the term "gay" in his own chatter with former-harrasser -- now semi- retired -- Mr. Brennen, combined with whining over people chatting about his behavior here in rgc. Logic dictates that folks are chatting about this behavior because it stands out, because of its weirdness. But Dr. IMnes, a nearly-an-IM with a rating of 2450, so he said, wants to blame the chatters. Fine. But he can't have it both ways: either he is forbidden from ever chatting about others himself, or else he has to face the music, and allow others, if they want, to chat about him. That's just how it works. Now, I think the record will show that Dr. IMnes is, in reality, one of the chattiest posters in rgc; that he in fact has chatted, does chat, and in all likelihood, will continue to chat, about others here /ad infinitum/. Hence, the objection has no merit; it is a titanic hypocrisy-- a hypo. which has been struck by the world's largest iceberg, at supersonic speed, and is sinking to the bottom of the M- trench in the deepest part of the Pacific Ocean. Case closed. -- judge Chinny Chin Chin         Date: 31 Aug 2008 07:14:55 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 31, 9:57=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Aug 31, 9:45=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > =A0 If there is anything we don't already know, > > > it is why Mr. Kingston keeps trying to > > > "muscle in" on a contract won fair and square > > > by Mr. Brennen; > > > =A0 My attitude toward Phil is like that of Cool Hand Luke toward the > > eggs. > > =A0 It's been a long, long, long time since I > saw that movie. =A0Can anyone tell us what > role the eggs played? =A0I mean, I know > that Paul Newman was the leading man, > but did the eggs play the heavy, or > perhaps the love-interest of the leading > man, or some other vital role? =A0Because > my memory fails me on this, I suppose > what we have here is failure to > communicate. You'll hear the answer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DkNyl6gXLMLQ at about the 1:25 mark.       Date: 26 Aug 2008 07:50:44 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 26, 9:20=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:5b1a7b09-a980-4487-b91a-38be9a17ab2d@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 24, 4:50 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Aug 24, 2:47 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > **So - Perhaps Our Taylor is not quite realising that this long list = of > > > Jewish players is actually being celebrated by their mention? > > =A0 Phil seems to think "celebrated" means the same as denigrated and > vilified. > > **Good heavens! "To make known, or mention often" says Websters as the > primary meaning. In California this is never used except in the sense of = to > applaud a person. They have never read George Eliot there, nor DH Lawrenc= e, > and not even AS Byatt. > > **I suppose if I had written 'to make popular' that would also be not > understood since Our Taylor would /only/ think it means 'praise' rather t= han > 'known'. He would not be able to understand 'to popularize' in any other > sense than to have people like something, and not ever in the sense of > 'broadcast spam'. > > **I apologise to everyone here for not using the official > Californian-English mandatory on the net. > > > > > > >> =A0Maybe this is > > > just a European sense of high ironical and very black humor during a = war > > > and > > > for a cyncial politically audited propaganda sheet - and uses a level= of > > > commentary one does not exactly observe in the lyrics of the Beach Bo= ys? > > > He > > > did note previously that the criticisms are ridiculous, and so many > > > together > > > are plainly an absurd signal that this is a rant, as we would say tod= ay, > > > but > > > an extremely oddly worded rant. The thing of it is, how conscious was > > > Alekhine of performing this double message? That is the interpretive > > > question. It is indeed an open question - but no-one reading this can > > > think > > > it is straight-writing. > > > =A0How can you be so full of shit without exploding? > > =A0 ROFL! Excellent, Steve. I suppose next we will hear from Phil that > the Communist Manifesto is a subtle apologia for laissez faire > capitalism, and Mein Kampf is actually one of the Dead Sea scrolls. > > **A conversation among two elevated geniuses too great to condescend to > textual analysis, like We, the People. But given Taylor Kingston's absolu= te > [and wrong] single-minded example above - why did I expect such clowns co= uld > actually think of the text itself or reflect on what double-message you > could sneak under the nose of a nazi censor? > > **By these means, Vaguer Kingston has to 'suppose' shit which occurs to h= is > tiny little mind and suggest to people that I will next exculpate Mein > Kampf, et ca. To Vaguer, life is as black and white as a swastika. > > **And the joke is: I predicted it! I said in every encounter where this > pedant and absolutist finds any level of disagreement, he associates his > correspondent with Mussolini, Hitler, insanity... =A0But I like his analo= gies > most of all, even as much as his completely unsourced assurances of how h= e > can come to such strong points of view. > > **The net effect of someone who /has/ to write what others 'seem' to th= ink, > is that of someone incapable of the slightest shade in their own though= t - > and who is rather like the Kevin Cline [sic] character in A Fish Called= Wanda - > when presented with 2 options, he, panicked, asks what the middle one w= as > again? An interesting comparison, Phil. As usual, you fail to see how it actually applies best to yourself. Kline's character Otto had serious problems with reading comprehension. For example he believed the central message of Buddhism was "every man for himself," a misreading as bad as yours on the Alekhine articles. Obviously you have no intention of admitting your faulty description of the Pariser Zeitung articles, or no ability to recognize it. I will leave you and help-bot to argue further, if you like. I have at least done my duty by rgc readers in correcting the misleading impression you tried to give them.         Date: 02 Sep 2008 06:39:08 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Sep 2, 8:30=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > Chess One wrote: > > =A0 Even worse is the fact that PI just told us > > he has "returned" the emails to Mr. Kingston. > > > **Just 2 of them, and at his request. > > =A0 So then, without revealing the actual content > of the alleged emails, you could easily prove > their existence by simply proving that TK did > in fact request "they" be returned to him-- > unless of course both you and Mr. Kingston > somehow shared the same exact delusion, > at precisely the same time (very unlikely). > > > **Is it a threat? What would make it a threat, exactly? The contents, d= o you > > think? > > =A0 No, I think what would give oomph to such a > threat would be their existing in the realm of > reality, not merely delusion. > > > **While I am of course gratified to have attached to my postings people= who > > love to speculate about me > > =A0 I notice you denied being "gay" after being > referred to as "Philsy" by alleged retiree NB. > (He says he has handed the reigns to two > others, but then he keeps trying to whip the > horse!) =A0 Now then, we know that often times > gays will marry to conceal the fact of their > being gay, and we also know, or at any rate, > think we know, that *you* are married. =A0Put > two and two together, and what is the logical > conclusion? =A0 The strained denials... the > coincidental marriage to a person of the op- > posite sex... the unusual attraction between > you and NB... =A0it all fits together, like pieces > of a really weird puzzle. My attitude toward P Innes is like that of Cool Hand Luke toward the eggs, to quote another poster. > > I really intend the subject matter to dominate - > > after all, this is not USCF! > > =A0 Ha! =A0Another cheap shot, taken while, for > some reason or other, nearly all the great > defenders of the USCF are kept busy with > infighting and baseless lawsuits and more > infighting and of course, constant infighting. > > > **I do not even say I will post the things here - I say that Taylor Kin= gston > > does not 'recall' them. > > =A0 Mr. Kingston often seems to have trouble > recalling what he himself has written in the > past week. =A0So of course he cannot recall > these alleged emails, if they are not right > there in front of him. > > > They seemed contextually to display a level of > > interest in personality, that is, against this and that person, rather = more > > than they expressed any interest in other subject matter - and I merely= note > > the fact that this is not the typical behavior of a history 'buff'. Eve= n > > Edward Winter glosses better than that. > > =A0 Indeed, it has been said that those of > small mind tend occupy themselves with > issues of personalities, while those a > step up tend to think more about events. > =A0 Truly great minds we need not bother > discussing here... . > > =A0 -- help bot         Date: 28 Aug 2008 17:14:27 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > **The net effect of someone who /has/ to write what others 'seem' to > think, > is that of someone incapable of the slightest shade in their own > thought - > and who is rather like the Kevin Cline [sic] character in A Fish Called > Wanda - > when presented with 2 options, he, panicked, asks what the middle one > was > again? An interesting comparison, Phil. As usual, you fail to see how it actually applies best to yourself. Kline's character Otto had serious problems with reading comprehension. **Not really, he actually had verbal comprehension, in the moments of his confusions? For example he believed the central message of Buddhism was "every man for himself," a misreading as bad as yours on the Alekhine articles. **A typical Vaguer reference. Didn't you compose the analysis :: <prediction > :: evaluation, middle part yourself, a-la-Otto, which is to say you inserted the <prediction > bit, which was not actually mentioned by anyone els; and on the subject of Fischer's and graphology? As someone who can propose such a specific which no one else mentioned at all, and who does not provide specifics of others, can this be something to do with you? How come you don't notice this reason for defaming other people. Especially since you MUST feel strongly about it, since you have, as usual, compared your correspondents with insane people, Hitler, etc. Obviously you have no intention of admitting your faulty description of the Pariser Zeitung articles, **predictive sentence based on judgemental levels of an unexampled 'faulty'? That is not pretty precise, it is pretty vague and pretty usual. You describe yourself as what, 'pretty specific'? ;) or no ability to recognize it. ** "it" ? You attempt a point but say "it" as though that compasses something or other? Vaguer thou art! But why should that inhibit you from not even addressing the same point as others, indeed, you declare them insane! I will leave you and help-bot to argue further, if you like. I have at least done my duty by rgc readers in correcting the misleading impression you tried to give them. ** You say I misled 'them' [ROFL] rather than asked 'you' what you meant by your statements? In suggesting readers here evaluate a text to their own determination of what it means; did it seemed curious to them? Thank you though for stopping by with your usual certainties and condemnations of those who used to be your friends and who you do not understand the current reservations to friendship thereupon. **Many people here are like you are just because an issue is authoritatively spoken of, and this suffices their curiosity, rather than what others describe as method, science and those bananas. Chess players particularly want to know what any line of thought result in. ** I resist the temptation to finish with a "Heil!" which would nominate your certainties - I am resistant to that since it is especially evident from the record of the C20th that it is a disastrous way to behave, when one has one's own intelligence to guide one. **That is ever the open offer from me. Otherwise I am sufficiently Celt to claim both as ancient a language as any Hebrew, and equally of repression of our cultures. Both Hebrew and Celt don't pop their corks because some 'authority' says so: Most authorities are the words of the victors from their own perspectives - one might note it or suffer it, eventually, those are the choices. Phil Innes     Date: 16 Aug 2008 17:35:17 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Aug 15, 5:10 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > While Our Taylor is figuring out his response to the previous challenges I > offered him, he might as well share his understanding of Laskers 8th place > finish - which he denied ever happened - and which he sent off to England > for further information to refute! > > At the time he accused me of being something on the wrong side of > Mussolini > for opining at all - but since I merely reported an entry by Hooper, > /naming/ my source, and the English Encyclopedia which carried the > article, > and which Our Taylor, BTW, has a copy of. > > In refutation of this terrible crime Our Taylor hissed at me that I was > nutz@ > > He did not actually dispute the encyclopedia entry, which showed Lasker > coming equal 7th / 8th on score but 8th in placement, What a load of bull, Phil. **What is a load of bull Taylor? > The Sunnucks encyclopaedia entry simply says Lasker was "8th at Nottingham 1936." **Thank you! Nothing about him actually **Well, actually a /specific/ about him coming 8th. placing =7th-8th with Flohr, both of them scoring 8�-5�. Therefore it is slightly inaccurate. **I see you refer to scores not placement! But often, even very often, equal scores are decided in terms of place. Why do you dispute Hooper? > and accused Hooper of making a mistake. I wouldn't use the word "accused," **Of course not! That would be too specific for Vaguer Kingston! but the plain fact is that it's a mistake, **Plain fact? What is a plain fact? and all your bloviating doesn't change that fact. **Which fact? You do not 'accuse Hooper of making a mistake, but you say "it's a mistake". :)))) And its a mistake because...? In any event, **Oh dear. You perform a "Spinrad" in public! The "secret material" whatever that is, is no reason for Goichberg to resign. :))) What do you mean exactly by 'in any event?" it's a rather minor mistake, and hardly worth the gaseous effort you keep expending on it. **So you present no evidence at all that it is a mistake, a minor mistake, you assert it, and say nothing else. Because...? **After 25 tries you present no evidence that Hooper has made a mistake. And in reporting Hooper you say I am "bloviating" - whatever you think that means. I am simply asking you why you contradict some while presenting no evidence at all - not in 25 tries. **Fucking Hell! Even you Taylor, should get off it! Is this some standard you employ in your own thinking? You do not need to substantiate what you say or even admit it /could/ be a mistake, but you can't prove it is - but you insist anyway? You should edit Jerry Spinrad! He is full of same. **But to be on topic, let us hear more of your opinion on current chess terms as proposed by Chernev in 1945, but the rules are that you (a) cannot claim to know what is said in your local chess club since (b) you admit you don't go there, and (c) to be fair to you, you never said it /was/ any current term in use, you just said people /should/ use the term of your choice. Finally, (d) you do not notice that others do not agree with you, but you prefer to suggest I am Mussolino's armpit, and the usual blagh. **Bust again? You present no more evidence of terms people currently [which was the question] use than you presented over Hooper's 'mistake'. A fair comment? Phil Innes > Now... Hooper may have done so, or he may not have - the material Our > Taylor > received from England could not explain if final placements by virtue of > opponents beaten, or other means, how equal placements on score were > ranked. > > This non-event caused Our Taylor some 20 hissy responses, since he deemed > that the Great Lasker, [and he truly was], was being dissed by me in some > way since I dared point out that these games came at the end of his carear > in chess, and obvious 8th place [or even 7th] was not exactly a commanding > performance. > > Why object so much without preseenting a scintilla of evidence that Hooper > was wrong in his entry for Anne Sunnucks' Encyclopedia entry? > > Phil Innes       Date: 26 Aug 2008 05:42:24 From: Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 25, 10:12=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > =A0 Good Lord, what a ninny our Greg is. He considers citing an > > exhaustively researched, highly detailed, well-written, respected, > > scholarly source to be "admitting to parroting." What a joke. The only > > "facts" Greg respects are those he makes up. > > =A0 I could be wrong, but I believe the dimwit > known as Taylor Kingston is now trying to > assert that in his original post, he was > plagiarizing (i.e. citing without credit) the > work of others, and insisting that this is > somehow different from what I described > as parroting. > > =A0 Let me see... =A0yes, there are some > differences there. =A0One activity involves > dishonesty, while the other does not. > =A0 And one involves originality, while the > other does not. =A0Now that I think about > it, Mr. Kingston may well be right. > > =A0 -- help bot Greg Kennedy, who virtually *_never_* names a specific source for anything he claims, even when repeatedly challenged, now presumes to criticize someone for not *_immediately_* naming a source? Rather like a barnyard hog criticizing table manners.       Date: 23 Aug 2008 05:35:47 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously CONSPIRACY THEORIES Taylor Kingston and this writer have had several disputes, but I think we can agree that Greg Kennedy (help bot) is a fount of misinformation. His latest tidbit: <Now, there remains a separate issue with regard to the real loss of strength of Mr. Alekhine near the end of his life -- just before the French underground offed him. > -- Greg Kennedy THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 214) ALEKHINE=92S LAST MEAL Alekhine=92s Death Photo The death of world champion Alexander Alekhine at age 53 refuses to die. Although it didn=92t look suspicious, rumors are still circulating that he either killed himself or was murdered. The AP reported that he choked to death on a piece of meat on March 24, 1946, in Estoril, Portugal: "Intimates said Alekhine was accustomed to eating with his friends, never using knives or forks when he could avoid them, and that he would eat alone when he wanted complete enjoyment from a meal." Alas, nobody was around to administer the Heimlich maneuver. A famous police photo shows the great man slumped in a chair wearing an overcoat to keep warm on a cold day. Also visible is a room service tray with empty dishes and a peg-in set ready for another game. A waiter found the body when he brought in breakfast. "He was slumped at the table and yesterday=92s supper had not been touched, although his napkin was already tucked in," he said=97a statement that conflicted with the photo showing empty dishes, thus giving rise to various conspiracy theories (take your pick).... In December 1999 Canadian GM Kevin Spragett cited Alekhine as "the world champion who died under the most mysterious circumstances." On his Web site Spragett wrote: "What is wrong with the official story? (I mean, apart from the fact that if a =91normal=92 person was sitting down and choking he would get up and become quite frantic, possibly even overturning the board and pieces in the process!?) "The doctor who wrote the official death certificate (Dr. Antonio Ferreira, just by chance an avid chess player himself) later told friends that Alekhine=92s body was found on the street, in front of his hotel room! He had been shot! He said that government pressure had forced him to complete the death certificate as it now exists. (Portugal was neutral during World War II, and might have wanted to avoid any controversy.) "According to well placed sources (including Spassky, who is married to a French woman who worked in the diplomatic services) the French Resistance created a super secret =91Death Squad=92 after the second world war to =91deal=92 appropriately with those people on a blacklist who had collaborated too willingly with the Nazis once France was overrun by Germany. Apparently the list was not less than 200,000 names! "Correspondence of Alekhine, shortly before his untimely demise, mentioned that he felt he was being followed! Alexander Alekhine=92s initials were AA, so that would put him at the top of any list! Alekhine died within a day or two of the British Chess Federation voting to hold the Botvinnik-Alekhine match...so if there was an assassin then he had to move quickly since Alekhine was about to go to England!=85The truth is out there!!" The reason I discount these rumors is that an American doctor, who was then a medical student, wrote a letter to my column in Chess Life saying that he witnessed the actual autopsy and that Alekhine died by choking on a piece of meat. So did Dr. Antonio Ferreira, who allegedly signed the death certificate. But he was also a student then, as he attested in the following letter to George Koltanowski: "'His body was sent to the Medical School of Lisbon, where an autopsy was performed. As reported in 1946, Alekhine died of =91asphyxia due to an obstruction in his breathing channels, due to a piece of meat.=92 And how do I know? I was at the time a student of medicine there and like other students had to attend a number of autopsies=85In one of those routine attendances the subject was Alekhine." (Quoted in "Everything You Always Wanted To know About Alekhine=97But Didn=92t Know Enough to Ask" by this writer and Larry Parr in Chess Life, May 1993). help bot wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > (...nothing of note.) > > I'm forced to interpret this non-response as > an admission of guilt; that is, an admission > of having mindlessly parroted the comment > by Mr. Crowther which was effortlessly > debunked by The Great Pedant Edward > Winter. Anything less than such a "duck" > would have been quite surprising-- a > shocking anomaly in fact, given our hero's > pattern. > > Note the fact of Mr. Kingston's claimed > inability to "find" his own recent words; one > can only hope that when he ventures out, > Mr. Kingston can somehow "find" his way > back home, that is, if he can even recall > where he lives and how to get there. > > The possible causes of such frequent > mental lapses are endless-- requiring an > expert examination by a trained > professional-- doctor, psychoanalyst or > witch-doctor, as the case may be. > > ---- > > Now, there remains a separate issue > with regard to the real loss of strength of > Mr. Alekhine near the end of his life-- just > before the French underground offed him. > > We know that Boris Spassky somehow > managed to drop precipitously, yet the > general pattern is that a world champion > retains most of his former strength for > years after his peak. Still, I have not > actually seen the games, so I must > withhold judgment for the time being. > > Certainly, were it say, Bobby Fischer, > the apologists would crawl out of the > woodwork to try and explain away any > failure, however small (such as the very > brief match against /one/ Portuguese > master which Mr. Alekhine won by a > small margin). > > But it doesn't require a die-hard > apologist to point out that weighing a > single result such as that is highly > unlikely to yield a precipitous drop from > the world's top 50 players, especially > back then. To my mind, only a severe > affliction -- such as the one we've seen > in the case of Mr. Kingston himself -- > could possibly explain such a dramatic > fall from greatness. Had such a terrible > disease befallen the poor man, even > Mr. Bogolubov might have wrested the > title away without much difficulty, for > chess is not an easy game. > > > -- help bot         Date: 28 Aug 2008 23:53:25 From: help bot Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 29, 2:17=A0am, thumbody <[email protected] > wrote: > > So your comment on someone who "puts you down" is a mealy-mouthed > > "down-put" of your own? OK.... > > Oh! c'mon chaps. Let's lighten this dialogue up. Add some up-put > so-to-speak. - put put put. Grey skies will clear up! But... what about global warming? If we heat up like Venus, there will be nothing bot gray skies (apart from the large ozone hole above Antarctica). > Allways look on > the bright side of life! - put put..... put-put-put-put... =A0put-put.. Pooht-pooht, or did you mean putt-putt? > See how easy it is? - Phil is clearly tired out from his morning swim > across lake Superior & back. Let the poor puppy rest up & recuperate.. Geography blunder: Vermont is nearer the Atlantic (which is widening even as we type!). > Yes. The silly boy has got his dates all muddled-up as the ever vigilant > Taylor has been @ pains to point out. Yes, it's possible to have read > something somewhere without that 'thing' ever having been published - > put put.. Weird science. So, if Mr. Kingston has one of his many "failures" in finding, it is just assumed that a text cannot therefore exist? What if I find it-- where are you then, with your pseudo "science"? > Yes, yes yes - the phrase: "humanity is the best revenge" is redolent, > nay! - pregnant with schadenfreudian meaning & possibility.. Watched an oldie on the Neuremberg trials; the leading man asked "what was it all about", referring to WWII in general. The idea, I suppose, was that "it" was all about "our" vast moral superiority, and this point was driven home at the finish (which was smooth, but tart). No humanity there, just a peck of "holier than thou", served up straight. > Consider the opprobrious scrutiny Hang on while I fetch my dictionary... Okay, "the: an article used an awful lot in front of other English words". Hmm. > of each & every move Alekhine may have made And don't forget to bash him for all those moves he *didn't* actually make, but said he did! >(beginning with his very own invention - the unbelievably radical & > innovative 1.nf3 - gasp!) had he indeed lived to attend the London > convenement.. Every patzer knows that 1. Nf3 was not invented by Mr. Alekhine; it was first popularized by Howard Staunton, and because he won so often, it was later adopted by those who could not handle the tactics after 1. e4!! > The very real shame & humiliation to be visited on him by a 'vengeful > humanity' is nothing to be sniffed at - so I feel it's timely that an > inopportune sliver of donkey-meat or, as I myself was privy to hearken > unto - shhh!(pitted-olive, laced with cyanide, free-French death-squad, > forced down craw..) took away from the world the shambling vestiges of > that which could have been great.. Which had *already been* great, you surely mean. > Ho hum. put put put. Almost time to drop in on that bright young man > from Indiana. Find out how he's getting along with Mrs. Rybka & if > *she's* got any more info on crop circles. put put put.. Oh yes, the rural parts of Indiana must have some of those. Living here in the middle of urbania, I often forget that much of the state consists of farms, with their perplexed owners, wondering whether to plant corn or soybeans or if proper crop- rotation can somehow be swindled. They say the newest version of Rybka is about 3200 strength, which I expect is quite good. But who can afford to keep upgrading and acquiring all these things, when the cost of bananas is so high these days? Only those who win lawsuits have that kind of money... . -- help bot           Date: 31 Aug 2008 10:54:34 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Aug 29, 2:17 am, thumbody <[email protected] > wrote: Geography blunder: Vermont is nearer the Atlantic (which is widening even as we type!). **I did not swim across even the close bits of the Atlantic even though it is the same one as washes against the sceptered isles. The gulf stream not being present this far north. Where I was in the south west it was very warm, you could stay in for hours and play with the dolphins. Instead this is a 500 acre lake on top of a mountain. No power boats, and, against a perfect sky I saw 2 Osprey and 1 red-tailed hawk. > Consider the opprobrious scrutiny Hang on while I fetch my dictionary... Okay, "the: an article used an awful lot in front of other English words". Hmm. ** "opprobrious scrutiny" is an English euphemism for too-tight underware, another term is 'torque-shreddies' [north] >(beginning with his very own invention - the unbelievably radical & > innovative 1.nf3 - gasp!) had he indeed lived to attend the London > convenement.. Every patzer knows that 1. Nf3 was not invented by Mr. Alekhine; it was first popularized by Howard Staunton, and because he won so often, it was later adopted by those who could not handle the tactics after 1. e4!! **Some people even think it was 1. ...Nf6. > The very real shame & humiliation to be visited on him by a 'vengeful > humanity' is nothing to be sniffed at - so I feel it's timely that an > inopportune sliver of donkey-meat or, as I myself was privy to hearken > unto - shhh!(pitted-olive, laced with cyanide, free-French death-squad, > forced down craw..) took away from the world the shambling vestiges of > that which could have been great.. Which had *already been* great, you surely mean. **Like Fischer, are we discussing the chess art or the man? Certainly like Fischer Alekhine had a great opportunity to attend to the latter. PI -- help bot         Date: 28 Aug 2008 00:21:51 From: help bot Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 27, 8:31=A0am, thumbody <[email protected] > wrote: > Actually, iirc this whole topic of the *real* import of Arrogant Al's > notorious scribblings has been hashed over before on rgc & Phil's take > on AA's hidden meaning is neither unusual nor implausable among > Alekhine's many admirers.. > > Personally I believe A. had no problem quaffing stolen champagne, > feasting on filet mignon (hard to choke on - see.) & gorging on > pate-de-foie & the fact all this was provided by an odious regime > troubled him not one bit.. Obviously, thumbody has no clue regarding the fact that Mr. Alekhine has insisted that... "wars *ruined* me". (This hardly squares with fantasies of him feasting on grapes, watching movies about the successes of Nazi tank invasions, and calmly figuring on the inevitable shachmat of the Allies by Germany.) I think this black/white approach is, as Dr. IMnes has pointed out, rather dimwitted. The real instigators of wars are not the chess players; they are the ones you want, if you dare face them alone (though many be dead). As with Dr. Kimble and the one- armed man, you are blindly chasing the wrong guy. -- help bot           Date: 01 Sep 2008 10:04:33 From: help bot Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 31, 10:14=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > =A0 If there is anything we don't already know, > > > > it is why Mr. Kingston keeps trying to > > > > "muscle in" on a contract won fair and square > > > > by Mr. Brennen; > > > =A0 My attitude toward Phil is like that of Cool Hand Luke toward the > > > eggs. > > =A0 It's been a long, long, long time since I > > saw that movie. =A0Can anyone tell us what > > role the eggs played? =A0I mean, I know > > that Paul Newman was the leading man, > > but did the eggs play the heavy, or > > perhaps the love-interest of the leading > > man, or some other vital role? =A0Because > > my memory fails me on this, I suppose > > what we have here is failure to > > communicate. > =A0 You'll hear the answer here: > > =A0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DkNyl6gXLMLQ > > =A0 at about the 1:25 mark. Hmm. So then, Mr. IMnes must be a sort of "satisfying meal" that has gotten quite out of hand through over-indulgence. (Why not say "thirty-five eggs"?) Another similarity is the way in which too many eggs and Mr. IMnes can both have detrimental effects-- the one via cholesterol clogging the arteries, and the other by way of a sort of intellectual equivalent. The real question remains whether or not Mr. Kingston is going to threaten to publish the alleged emails, allegedly "returned" to him by Dr. IMnes, who has repeatedly claimed to have once had them in his own possession. I believe Mr. Brennen and others may be willing to pay to see these, if for no other reason than to verify whether or not they ever existed in the real world outside of Dr. IMnes' imaginative mind. -- help bot           Date: 28 Aug 2008 09:41:55 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:e4ecbc22-867a-4597-aaf3-d467ed0c6c27@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com... On Aug 27, 8:31 am, thumbody <[email protected] > wrote: > Actually, iirc this whole topic of the *real* import of Arrogant Al's > notorious scribblings has been hashed over before on rgc & Phil's take > on AA's hidden meaning is neither unusual nor implausable among > Alekhine's many admirers.. > > Personally I believe A. had no problem quaffing stolen champagne, > feasting on filet mignon (hard to choke on - see.) & gorging on > pate-de-foie & the fact all this was provided by an odious regime > troubled him not one bit.. Obviously, thumbody has no clue regarding the fact that Mr. Alekhine has insisted that... "wars *ruined* me". (This hardly squares with fantasies of him feasting on grapes, watching movies about the successes of Nazi tank invasions, and calmly figuring on the inevitable shachmat of the Allies by Germany.) I think this black/white approach is, as Dr. IMnes has pointed out, rather dimwitted. ------- The way in which such black/white material is presented does inhibit understanding - there we have dim & wit married together by process of collision in the dark, rather than any mutuality of process - so that the writer above can state that "AA's hidden meaning" is only hidden to those who did not reflect on it to any measured degree by shining their intelligence on it. Before concluding on anything, the text itself needs to be clarified: if there are points of amelioration in it, then the reader might assess to what degree their likely reception by Parisians [natives and guests] would have, and then and only then conclude that these softening comments are (a) intended to cast a doubt upon the sincerity of the whole piece while still appeasing Nazi censors, OR (b) these are guilty mentions by Alekhine who needed to say, here and there, something of slight praise in order to justify to his own psychology via intellectualisation his need to publicly issue his spite. There may even be other understandings. The point of all is to notice the text itself, and not issue views of commentators as 'authorities' as if they were necessary or even useful to anyone's understanding - since attention to the text is all that is necessary. Quite evidently Alekhine/Aljechin changed the spelling of his name early in his life to a less semitic-sounding version, even before adopting the French spelling. And this was a clear /social/ posture in avoidance of the appearance of being Jewish. Whether it also reflected a personal dislike of Jewish culture might be estimated by his personal relationships throughout his life - since these were to large part elective relationships. That second aspect is less marked and commented on than the first. Alekhine was evidiently apolitical which is also very understandable considering his background. In terms of his continued relations with Frank he was amoral, if that word is quite strong enough. To the /degree/ that he personally held private antisemitic views is the real matter. His public proclamation was obscene, since it it hard to think that after direct experience in Poland he could have been naive about 'resettlement camps' or the fate of those he so addressed. Certainly one might make the same investigative measure in any assessment of Fischer. The attempt to understand why and how people are like this, whether they hide their private views in public, or profess publicly ways they do not behave personally, or the same inside as out, is a necessary exploration after the Age of Dictators, and as Max Euwe was asked to explain when he proposed Alekhine should rejoin the world chess community after WWII, he responded: "Humanity is the best revenge", For our times, if we cannot look at the past with some intelligence, are we presuming that such things do not exist for us? Or must we look quite in the spirit of Arendt, and if so we must look at the horror, and how it came about - we must especially look at a form of collective narcolepsy, a sleepwalking state where it would see zombies gave up their individual wills and were possessed of something then nulled the strongest taboos of the human heart. We must still be alert to the extant need to project what we will not look at in ourselves onto others and thereby celebrate the Victim-as-Scapegoat. Innocent of cause Innocent of blame The Sacrificed One Benefitting no one. Phil Innes             Date: 01 Sep 2008 10:22:24 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Sep 1, 1:04=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > > > > > > =A0 If there is anything we don't already know, > > > > > it is why Mr. Kingston keeps trying to > > > > > "muscle in" on a contract won fair and square > > > > > by Mr. Brennen; > > > > =A0 My attitude toward Phil is like that of Cool Hand Luke toward t= he > > > > eggs. > > > =A0 It's been a long, long, long time since I > > > saw that movie. =A0Can anyone tell us what > > > role the eggs played? =A0I mean, I know > > > that Paul Newman was the leading man, > > > but did the eggs play the heavy, or > > > perhaps the love-interest of the leading > > > man, or some other vital role? =A0Because > > > my memory fails me on this, I suppose > > > what we have here is failure to > > > communicate. > > =A0 You'll hear the answer here: > > > =A0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DkNyl6gXLMLQ > > > =A0 at about the 1:25 mark. > > =A0 Hmm. =A0So then, Mr. IMnes must be a > sort of "satisfying meal" that has gotten > quite out of hand through over-indulgence. No, it's simply as Paul Newman said: "Yeah, well, it'd be something to do." Phil is just something to do, like a crossword puzzle or sudoku. Just a lot simpler. > =A0 Another similarity is the way in which > too many eggs and Mr. IMnes can both > have detrimental effects-- the one via > cholesterol clogging the arteries, and > the other by way of a sort of intellectual > equivalent.         Date: 26 Aug 2008 08:03:45 From: SBD Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 26, 9:50 am, [email protected] wrote: > On Aug 26, 9:20 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:5b1a7b09-a980-4487-b91a-38be9a17ab2d@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > On Aug 24, 4:50 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Aug 24, 2:47 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > **So - Perhaps Our Taylor is not quite realising that this long list of > > > > Jewish players is actually being celebrated by their mention? > > > Phil seems to think "celebrated" means the same as denigrated and > > vilified. > > > **Good heavens! "To make known, or mention often" says Websters as the > > primary meaning. In California this is never used except in the sense of to > > applaud a person. They have never read George Eliot there, nor DH Lawrence, > > and not even AS Byatt. > > > **I suppose if I had written 'to make popular' that would also be not > > understood since Our Taylor would /only/ think it means 'praise' rather than > > 'known'. He would not be able to understand 'to popularize' in any other > > sense than to have people like something, and not ever in the sense of > > 'broadcast spam'. > > > **I apologise to everyone here for not using the official > > Californian-English mandatory on the net. > > > >> Maybe this is > > > > just a European sense of high ironical and very black humor during a war > > > > and > > > > for a cyncial politically audited propaganda sheet - and uses a level of > > > > commentary one does not exactly observe in the lyrics of the Beach Boys? > > > > He > > > > did note previously that the criticisms are ridiculous, and so many > > > > together > > > > are plainly an absurd signal that this is a rant, as we would say today, > > > > but > > > > an extremely oddly worded rant. The thing of it is, how conscious was > > > > Alekhine of performing this double message? That is the interpretive > > > > question. It is indeed an open question - but no-one reading this can > > > > think > > > > it is straight-writing. > > > > How can you be so full of shit without exploding? > > > ROFL! Excellent, Steve. I suppose next we will hear from Phil that > > the Communist Manifesto is a subtle apologia for laissez faire > > capitalism, and Mein Kampf is actually one of the Dead Sea scrolls. > > > **A conversation among two elevated geniuses too great to condescend to > > textual analysis, like We, the People. But given Taylor Kingston's absolute > > [and wrong] single-minded example above - why did I expect such clowns could > > actually think of the text itself or reflect on what double-message you > > could sneak under the nose of a nazi censor? > > > **By these means, Vaguer Kingston has to 'suppose' shit which occurs to his > > tiny little mind and suggest to people that I will next exculpate Mein > > Kampf, et ca. To Vaguer, life is as black and white as a swastika. > > > **And the joke is: I predicted it! I said in every encounter where this > > pedant and absolutist finds any level of disagreement, he associates his > > correspondent with Mussolini, Hitler, insanity... But I like his analogies > > most of all, even as much as his completely unsourced assurances of how he > > can come to such strong points of view. > > > **The net effect of someone who /has/ to write what others 'seem' to think, > > is that of someone incapable of the slightest shade in their own thought - > > and who is rather like the Kevin Cline [sic] character in A Fish Called Wanda - > > when presented with 2 options, he, panicked, asks what the middle one was > > again? > > An interesting comparison, Phil. As usual, you fail to see how it > actually applies best to yourself. Kline's character Otto had serious > problems with reading comprehension. For example he believed the > central message of Buddhism was "every man for himself," a misreading > as bad as yours on the Alekhine articles. > > Obviously you have no intention of admitting your faulty description > of the Pariser Zeitung articles, or no ability to recognize it. I will > leave you and help-bot to argue further, if you like. I have at least > done my duty by rgc readers in correcting the misleading impression > you tried to give them. Crackpot theories can be interesting; ones based on a totally erroneous interpretation (in this case, a lack of reading comprehension and interpretation that would merit community-college placement on an ACT test) rarely are.         Date: 23 Aug 2008 10:07:27 From: Chess One Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously *^*I think we have rehearsed the issue of Alekhine's death before. There are still some things to say... <[email protected] > wrote in message news:bec57202-ef80-4241-8107-03ca5eec40e5@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com... CONSPIRACY THEORIES Taylor Kingston and this writer have had several disputes, but I think we can agree that Greg Kennedy (help bot) is a fount of misinformation. His latest tidbit: <Now, there remains a separate issue with regard to the real loss of strength of Mr. Alekhine near the end of his life -- just before the French underground offed him. > -- Greg Kennedy *^*Which was the preamble to the dispute of the death circumstance. But included in that message was a question by Greg Kennedy on how we know things - are they simply reported over and over as if they were true? Or what are other views? What is our level of certainty that any one view contains enough to accommodate contradictions of circumstance, etc. THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 214) ALEKHINE�S LAST MEAL Alekhine�s Death Photo *^*To interupt this report - there is another significant reporter, Hans Ree, who in NiC 2006, issue 6, took up the investigation - possibly startled by the fact that not only did Spraggett think Alekhine was murdered, but so did the direct of Chessbase, Frederic Friedel. The death of world champion Alexander Alekhine at age 53 refuses to die. Although it didn�t look suspicious, rumors are still circulating that he either killed himself or was murdered. *^*Here Ree comments that an unnamed Dutch fella actually told him of an old man at the Parque Hotel who said they found Alekhine in an alley and dragged him inside - no need for an overcoat in the Portugese hotel, except to hide bullet wounds - this seems to be the fons et origo of the 'was' shot piece of speculation. In the end, Hans Ree didn't buy the assassination plot. Though there are many things still unknown... below The AP reported that he choked to death on a piece of meat on March 24, 1946, in Estoril, Portugal: "Intimates said Alekhine was accustomed to eating with his friends, never using knives or forks when he could avoid them, and that he would eat alone when he wanted complete enjoyment from a meal." Alas, nobody was around to administer the Heimlich maneuver. A famous police photo shows the great man slumped in a chair wearing an overcoat to keep warm on a cold day. Also visible is a room service tray with empty dishes and a peg-in set ready for another game. A waiter found the body when he brought in breakfast. "He was slumped at the table and yesterday�s supper had not been touched, although his napkin was already tucked in," he said�a statement that conflicted with the photo showing empty dishes, thus giving rise to various conspiracy theories (take your pick).... In December 1999 Canadian GM Kevin Spragett cited Alekhine as "the world champion who died under the most mysterious circumstances." On his Web site Spragett wrote: "What is wrong with the official story? (I mean, apart from the fact that if a �normal� person was sitting down and choking he would get up and become quite frantic, possibly even overturning the board and pieces in the process!?) "The doctor who wrote the official death certificate (Dr. Antonio Ferreira, just by chance an avid chess player himself) later told friends that Alekhine�s body was found on the street, in front of his hotel room! He had been shot! He said that *^*To interupt: this is likely at odds that the hotel staff found him, and dragged him inside - for the purpose of averting scandal. government pressure had forced him to complete the death certificate as it now exists. (Portugal was neutral during World War II, and might have wanted to avoid any controversy.) *^*But that's a gloss. Portugal was the #1 listening station to Allied Europe. In Spain and Portugal both Abwehr and OSS agents were, according to that fascinating woman's book, engaged in mutually aggressive behaviors; a euphemism for frequent assassinations. Officially, as it were, she said she was the only women agent in Spain and ini 1943 there were only 6 OSS - but there were 100 Abwehr. Both Spain and Portugal were 'agressively' neutral, so to speak. "According to well placed sources (including Spassky, who is married to a French woman who worked in the diplomatic services) the French Resistance created a super secret �Death Squad� after the second world war to �deal� appropriately with those people on a blacklist who had collaborated too willingly with the Nazis once France was overrun by Germany. Apparently the list was not less than 200,000 names! *^*There are 4 candidates for conspiracy theory Villain Abwehr French Govt French Resistance French Communist *^*I note that Orwell said the most active group in 1945 were French Communists, who, like in Spain, turned on similar groups to themselves and conspicuous enemies. In fact this is the famous instance when Henry Miller got Orwell a pistol, which he took, declining the body guard. "Correspondence of Alekhine, shortly before his untimely demise, mentioned that he felt he was being followed! Alexander Alekhine�s initials were AA, so that would put him at the top of any list! Alekhine died within a day or two of the British Chess Federation voting to hold the Botvinnik-Alekhine match...so if there was an assassin then he had to move quickly since Alekhine was about to go to England!�The truth is out there!!" The reason I discount these rumors is that an American doctor, who was then a medical student, wrote a letter to my column in Chess Life saying that he witnessed the actual autopsy and that Alekhine died by choking on a piece of meat. So did Dr. Antonio Ferreira, who allegedly signed the death certificate. But he was also a student then, as he attested in the following letter to George Koltanowski: *^*This actually would seem to close the lid on the shooting conspiracy, if in fact these reporting doctors were not hushing things up. If you want your conspiracy then you can still have it - date of death is not accurately recorded on Alekhines grave in Paris - and why is that? [Other than Fide put it up, and they got his birthdate wrong too!] *^*But these reports does not close the door on murder, just asserts its by asphyxiation. I wonder how perfunctory an examination there was to determine if Alekhine was asphyxiated [gas bag leaves no marks] and then the infamous piece of meat subsequently inserted as significant prop? "'His body was sent to the Medical School of Lisbon, where an autopsy was performed. As reported in 1946, Alekhine died of �asphyxia due to an obstruction in his breathing channels, due to a piece of meat.� And *^*What we needed on-scene was a Miss Marple. I think medical opinion suggests that without other evident trauma, [burst blood vessels, etc], choking to death is quite difficult to achieve. Perhaps the coroner's report was a tad pro-forma, and thereby even if aspyhixiation was cause of death, varoom? how do I know? I was at the time a student of medicine there and like other students had to attend a number of autopsies�In one of those routine attendances the subject was Alekhine." (Quoted in "Everything You Always Wanted To know About Alekhine�But Didn�t Know Enough to Ask" by this writer and Larry Parr in Chess Life, May 1993). *^*Of course, Alekhine may have been very drunk, and too stupid thereby to effect any remedy to his own choking. Certainly his alcohol intake relegated the quality of his chess severely. Phil Innes help bot wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > (...nothing of note.) > > I'm forced to interpret this non-response as > an admission of guilt; that is, an admission > of having mindlessly parroted the comment > by Mr. Crowther which was effortlessly > debunked by The Great Pedant Edward > Winter. Anything less than such a "duck" > would have been quite surprising-- a > shocking anomaly in fact, given our hero's > pattern. > > Note the fact of Mr. Kingston's claimed > inability to "find" his own recent words; one > can only hope that when he ventures out, > Mr. Kingston can somehow "find" his way > back home, that is, if he can even recall > where he lives and how to get there. > > The possible causes of such frequent > mental lapses are endless-- requiring an > expert examination by a trained > professional-- doctor, psychoanalyst or > witch-doctor, as the case may be. > > ---- > > Now, there remains a separate issue > with regard to the real loss of strength of > Mr. Alekhine near the end of his life-- just > before the French underground offed him. > > We know that Boris Spassky somehow > managed to drop precipitously, yet the > general pattern is that a world champion > retains most of his former strength for > years after his peak. Still, I have not > actually seen the games, so I must > withhold judgment for the time being. > > Certainly, were it say, Bobby Fischer, > the apologists would crawl out of the > woodwork to try and explain away any > failure, however small (such as the very > brief match against /one/ Portuguese > master which Mr. Alekhine won by a > small margin). > > But it doesn't require a die-hard > apologist to point out that weighing a > single result such as that is highly > unlikely to yield a precipitous drop from > the world's top 50 players, especially > back then. To my mind, only a severe > affliction -- such as the one we've seen > in the case of Mr. Kingston himself -- > could possibly explain such a dramatic > fall from greatness. Had such a terrible > disease befallen the poor man, even > Mr. Bogolubov might have wrested the > title away without much difficulty, for > chess is not an easy game. > > > -- help bot   Date: 15 Aug 2008 07:58:10 From: Subject: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) On Aug 15, 7:27=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > [email protected] wrote: > >> On Aug 14, 3:52 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >>>> On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> **um, well, don't know who translated Chernev, > >>> =A0 Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to > >>> the USA at about age 4. > > English was his second language, and I have no idea of the facility of hi= s > parents in English and suppose any English would have come late to him "Late"?? Um, Phil, just what do you consider a "late" age? I just told you: Chernev came to the USA at about age 4. He learned English as a child in Brooklyn. > and > since I have quoted from his works extensively, [more than anyone here] I > always doubted how much English he could express, and what text was his a= nd > what of his editors? Good Lord, Phil, this is as big a gaffe as your saying that Spanish was Andean. Chernev grew up in America. He spoke and wrote English like a native speaker. As a young man, he once pinch-hit for a sick Lasker when the latter was scheduled to give a lecture to an American audience. No editors to help him then. I strongly suggest you read Denker's appreciation of Chernev in "The Bobby Fischer I Knew and Other Stories." It will give you some idea of how an American chess pro viewed his prose skills. > I assumed from the often mannered phrasing that his work was translated. The intersection between your assumptions/delusions and reality is often scant. In this case, non-existent. > Surely he used words like 'piquant' and 'impress' correctly, and indeed, = his > adjectives are somewhat rich for a text book of chess annotation, even > somewhat /superior/ to the writings of native speakers at the time. > > But much of his phrasing is Russian, especially in the frequant avoidance= of > the definite article, Hmmm. Let's see how many instances of the definite article we find in this Chernev passage: "In this book we persuade him. We find out from the master the purpose of every single move he makes in the course of a game. We follow the ideas, the methods, the very thoughts of a master as he outlines them in simple detail. We learn the inner workings of his mind, and thus acquire the knowledge -- yes, the instinct -- for recognizing good moves and rejecting inferior ones." I count nine instances of "the," and one of "this" -- ten in the space of four sentences. Doesn't look like "avoidance of the definite article" to me. > 40 word unpunctuated sentences 'as wide as Taiga!' > [lol] and just as commonly, his infinitive verb forms combat randomly wit= h > his Western apostrophies. Care to give us examples of these alleged grammatical sins? It should also be noted that Chernev was probably more familiar with chess literature than any other man, at least in America. Denker writes "No one ever devoured chess lore like Irving did. 'I have probably read more about chess and played over more games,' he once plausibly claimed, 'than any man in history.'" Therefore I would consider Chernev quite well qualified as an authority on proper usage of chess terminology.     Date: 25 Aug 2008 00:18:53 From: help bot Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously [email protected] wrote: > Here is what I actually did say: > > "One thing leaps out from the 1940-49 [Chessmetrics] chart that > utterly defies credulity. It shows Alekhine's performance hitting a > low point of about 2700 in mid-1942, then rising about 100 Elo points > by late 1943, and never declining to anywhere near the mid-1942 low > even just before his death in 1946. Yet Alekhine in the last few years > of his life was a shadow of his former self. By 1945 he couldn't even > win tournaments involving only minor Spanish and Portuguese masters. > He probably wasn't playing at 2300 strength, let alone over 2700." Here is the problem with this kind of "reasoning": first, a chessmetrics rating of 2700 is far from equivalent to a FIDE rating of the same number. Second, a wild claim -- such as insisting that a reigning world champ was playing below the 2300 level -- quite simply *begs* for substantive evidence, none of which was forthcoming. Talk about "defying credulity"! I cannot recall having ever seen anyone -- not even nutters like IM Innes or Sam Sloan -- suggest that a reigning world champ played below the 2300 level before, say, reaching the age of 75. > The above comments were based on "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games > 1902-1946" by Skinner and Verhoeven Okay, so then our hero Mr. Kingston now admits he parroted a different source than the one I had expected, and the exact words he presents here do not match Mr. Crowther's exact words. Has our hero deliberately failed to "find" such words, or did bells go off in spite of the lack of an /exact-word/ match? I still say it is a match, in spirit; and this idea seems confirmed by the fact that despite his grave mental handicaps, even our hero was eventually able to locate his recent commentary on the matter, noting the key similarities (though refusing to admit them, for obvious reasons). > which is probably the most > authoritative reference on Alekhine ever published. Well, for some people a need for these "authorities" overwhelms all else-- even common sense. As for me, I don't have much faith in the "authority" of most sources, having found all too often from experience that such faith was unwarrant- ed, and that common sense is a far better compass. One thing to keep in mind is that if you are going to weigh-in every result against minor players, then in order to be fair you need to do this for everyone-- not just Mr. Alekhine. One consequence of this can be seen in the example which involved Mr. Fischer, where every apologist made efforts to "throw out" certain results in order to benefit one particular player; I don't go in for that sort of thing, because the end result is meaningless drivel. But there are many who eagerly embrace this method. The whole reason The Great Pedant Edward Winter bothered to debunk the nonsense published by Mr. Crowther is that he sees these "attacks" as an affront to the great chess players; as the work of arrogant fools who themselves are unworthy to even try to assess, say, the strength of a world champion. This is where we part company, but I need more than some offhand deferral to an alleged authority to convince me that I can now travel back in time and barely lose to a player like Mr. Alekhine. In fact, I need more convincing that some modern grandmasters could travel back in time with me and very easily beat him. As one famous American GM once put it: we'd be in a lot of trouble. (But then, I /could/ take my notebook computer back with me... .) ; >D -- help bot       Date: 26 Aug 2008 13:05:34 From: Chess One Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:13d73870-b68a-44ff-bfab-d8c0bc9e2c1e@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > This is where we part company, but I > need more than some offhand deferral to > an alleged authority to convince me that > I can now travel back in time and barely > lose to a player like Mr. Alekhine. In **Thus far so good, but Alekhine as World Champion almost got squashed by Elaine Pritchard - I think she was 11 years old [?] at the time she played him in London. What is at stake in refuting such as Mr. Kingston offers via his usual authorities is that commentaries and assessments without the necessary intelligence to understand they represent a part of something, and may even be typical, are misleading data. Without an attempt to evaluate the relative ups and downs in light of the carear, the changing times and personal circumstance, such adorations or condemnations mean nothing at all. **I have not noticed any answer yet, but I did pose Mr. Kingston a question about the strength of the Nottingham players in 1936 - did he think that Carlsen would have any trouble playing them, playing all of them in a simul, & winning? > fact, I need more convincing that some > modern grandmasters could travel back > in time with me and very easily beat him. Its a fair topic for conversation - but without saying why you think anything, its not an engaging basis to merely speculate. Look at the openings from the 1936 match - master level stuff these days? Anything there any master here found even unfamiliar? That would be an attempt to qualify opinion - and that is what is missing from much chess discussion. The only certain thing is that absolute certainties are ever suspect, in chess and in anything else in this relative universe. If that is a nutty opinion, then I'm a squirrel. Phil Innes > As one famous American GM once put > it: we'd be in a lot of trouble. (But then, I > /could/ take my notebook computer back > with me... .) ;>D > > > -- help bot > > >     Date: 22 Aug 2008 17:47:22 From: help bot Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously [email protected] wrote: > > I have discovered that sometimes > > Mr. Kingston gets an idea from a dubious > > source, then sticks to it like a pig-headed > > mule. One example was where he lifted > > the phrase "not inthe top 50" from Mark > > Crowther, regarding Mr. Alekhine near the > > end of his career. > Funny, I don't recall ever citing any statement by Mr. Crowther Nowhere have I claimed that Mr. Kingston "cited" Mr. Crowther; to the contrary, my comment simply noted the mindless way in which a phrase of Mr. Crowther's was parroted (formerly called "aped") by our hero, TK, in his own commentary regarding Mr. Alekhine. ---------------------------------------------------------- Now, I don't claim that Mr. Winter's research /completely debunks/ the idea of Mr. Alekhine having dropped off from the top 50, for that is a matter of how heavily you wish to weight his most recent results versus older ones. What I do claim is that parroting the phrase "not in the top fifty (or 50)" looks silly in view of the article to which our hero, TK, himself provided a handy link. -------------------------------------------------------------- In fact, this kind of parroting reminds me of the flock of parrots which infests rgc-- the Evans ratpackers, who will mindlessly repeat just about *anything*. > in any context. And a Google search of this group for the phrase "the top > 50" turns up only help-bot's 8/21/08 post. Nice "work". I see that the possibility of mental recall is ruled out entirely-- perhaps for good reason! And the equivalent spellings "fifty" and "50" somehow did not occur to our hero, the master of careful "research". Perhaps his mental failure can somehow be blamed on Google? If it means a lot to our hero, I can find the original post-- but only if he admits his own incompetence at such a simple task as recalling what he himself wrote here in rgc quite recently. (Personally, I see this as unsurprising evidence of the root of the whole problem with our hero's inability to reason.) Here is the same hint I gave before: we were discussing Mr. Alekhine in some thread of Mr. Sloan's, regarding one of his new books (on Mr. Fine). Mr. Sloan made some ludicrous claim regarding Mr. Fine's position with regard to the world championship title, and I responded by pointing to the Web site chessmetrics.com, which showed Mr. Fine to be significantly inferior except perhaps in one particular year. Next, our hero jumped in to point out that the Web site in question did not weigh-in (i.e. rate) certain results, or at least it did not have Mr. Alekhine's rating falling off a cliff at the finish of his career, as it /should have/. Obviously, Mr. Crowther had made a mountain out of the molehill of disap- pointing results against what he termed "Portuguese masters" (plural). Now enter The Great Pedant, who debunked Mr. Crowther's claim by pointing out that no such "matches" (plural) against these alleged "masters" (plural) existed, just one very brief match which AA won. It would not surprise me in the least if it turns out that Mr. Crowther was just parroting someone else, and in turn our hero, TK, was twice removed, or thrice removed from the original hack/source. What would be surprising is if it turned out that all these "thinkers" somehow managed to make the very same goofy error, independently. LOL -- help bot       Date: 27 Aug 2008 02:15:45 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 24, 3:50 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > On Aug 24, 2:47 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > **So - Perhaps Our Taylor is not quite realising that this long list of > > Jewish players is actually being celebrated by their mention? Maybe this is > > just a European sense of high ironical and very black humor during a war and > > for a cyncial politically audited propaganda sheet - and uses a level of > > commentary one does not exactly observe in the lyrics of the Beach Boys? He > > did note previously that the criticisms are ridiculous, and so many together > > are plainly an absurd signal that this is a rant, as we would say today, but > > an extremely oddly worded rant. The thing of it is, how conscious was > > Alekhine of performing this double message? That is the interpretive > > question. It is indeed an open question - but no-one reading this can think > > it is straight-writing. > > How can you be so full of shit without exploding? P Innes is practiced at defending anti-Semitism. He once claimed the 'blood libel' wasn't about Jews at all. And his claim that "no one was innocent" during the Holocaust - P Innes called it the "Showa", presumably Andean for "Shoah" - boggles the mind. The exchange is below. His defense of Alekhine's filth doesn't surprise me at all. ************ Bob Simpson to Phil Innes, May 2000: "Fischer said the Holocaust never happened. Do you agree?" Mr. Innes responded: "My understanding of the KZs has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Fischer's, who, as I have said clearly above, is encouraged by would-be-friends to make extravagant claims of a sensationalist nature. What Mr. Robt. J. Fischer really understands about the Showa is not necessarily represented though such 'friends,' and here this Bob, how do you or I know his opinion otherwise?" ************ Innes: > > A greater distress than the 'anti-semiticm' of Fischer are those who > > think it is of any value whatsoever to anonymously represent his views, > > while being so naive as to think that even a child reading here would > > not fail to see the errors in logic in such a pale troll. Simpson: > Which are? Innes: Shame on your triffling understanding, of logic, decency and frankness in expression, but especially of a particularly dark period in our human history, where no-one was much innocent. ***********         Date: 28 Aug 2008 07:38:07 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) "The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:80106c79-9a76-4728-a387-619cb6a76c5f@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 24, 3:50 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Aug 24, 2:47 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > **So - Perhaps Our Taylor is not quite realising that this long list of >> > Jewish players is actually being celebrated by their mention? Maybe >> > this is >> > just a European sense of high ironical and very black humor during a >> > war and >> > for a cyncial politically audited propaganda sheet - and uses a level >> > of >> > commentary one does not exactly observe in the lyrics of the Beach >> > Boys? He >> > did note previously that the criticisms are ridiculous, and so many >> > together >> > are plainly an absurd signal that this is a rant, as we would say >> > today, but >> > an extremely oddly worded rant. The thing of it is, how conscious was >> > Alekhine of performing this double message? That is the interpretive >> > question. It is indeed an open question - but no-one reading this can >> > think >> > it is straight-writing. >> >> How can you be so full of shit without exploding? > > P Innes is practiced at defending anti-Semitism. **Oh Look! Its Neil Brennen, populariser of the term 'Trollgar"; drawn here to accuse people of anti-semiticism! Especially me, since I am marked as being friendly with Susan Polgar, Gulko et ca. As he himself would say, the irony is staggeringly amazing etc. **Its seems that Brennen is not only drawn to this subject, he records this stuff, at least little snippets. **Below some troll asks me a good troll question, not making clear if its my understanding of Fischer or my understanding of the holocaust which he questions - or even being clear why he asks. **My response is quite distinct that Fischer's views were broadcast by people who could certainly not be considered his friends, and makes a distinction between anti-semiticism and holocaust denial. Fischer obviously made some obscene rants, not differentiating one thing from another, and from a plainly disturbed frame of mind. What is there of guess or speculate, about that? **How anyone can think I am an uncritical Alekhine 'fan' when I have already written //more// about Alekhine's amoral relations with Frank, butcher of Krakow, the incumbent of Wewel Castle, who wrote there are not enough trees in Poland from which to hang all the 'traitors' - have written far more about that than anyone here - and at such length that even Brennen couldn't get it wrong... (which actually presumes that Brennen wants to get anything right) > He once claimed the > 'blood libel' wasn't about Jews at all. **What is always at stake with Brennen is what he represents anyone 'claims' to say. An absurd phrasing in itself - and quite obviously not what they said nor any context in which it was said, otherwise why use that peculiar term? There /is/ a reason to do that - but no honest reason! **I see Brennen didn't bother to respond to what I wrote about Elizabethan blood-libel, any more than he comments on the current issue of what Alekhine wrote about Jewish chess players. Presumably other people are monsters, everyhing they do must be monstrous, and they are never understandable as human beings [since we, for example, never did anything bad, ever!], and which results in an understanding of villains as if from comic books suitable to 10 year olds. **Another abstract absolutist, who /must/ put people down, a marked behavioral pattern of anxious people whose simple understanding is challenged by their address to even moderately complex issues. Phil Innes >And his claim that "no one was > innocent" during the Holocaust - P Innes called it the "Showa", > presumably Andean for "Shoah" - boggles the mind. The exchange is > below. His defense of Alekhine's filth doesn't surprise me at all. > > ************ > Bob Simpson to Phil Innes, May 2000: > "Fischer said the Holocaust never happened. Do you agree?" > > Mr. Innes responded: > "My understanding of the KZs has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. > Fischer's, who, as I have said clearly above, is encouraged by > would-be-friends to make extravagant claims of a sensationalist > nature. > What Mr. Robt. J. Fischer really understands about the Showa is not > necessarily represented though such 'friends,' and here this Bob, how > do you or I know his opinion otherwise?" > > ************ > Innes: >> > A greater distress than the 'anti-semiticm' of Fischer are those who >> > think it is of any value whatsoever to anonymously represent his views, >> > while being so naive as to think that even a child reading here would >> > not fail to see the errors in logic in such a pale troll. > > Simpson: >> Which are? > > Innes: > Shame on your triffling understanding, of logic, decency and frankness > in expression, but especially of a particularly dark period in our > human > history, where no-one was much innocent. > *********** >       Date: 24 Aug 2008 17:11:14 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 24, 4:50=A0pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > On Aug 24, 2:47 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > **So - Perhaps Our Taylor is not quite realising that this long list of > > Jewish players is actually being celebrated by their mention? Phil seems to think "celebrated" means the same as denigrated and vilified. >> Maybe this is > > just a European sense of high ironical and very black humor during a wa= r and > > for a cyncial politically audited propaganda sheet - and uses a level o= f > > commentary one does not exactly observe in the lyrics of the Beach Boys= ? He > > did note previously that the criticisms are ridiculous, and so many tog= ether > > are plainly an absurd signal that this is a rant, as we would say today= , but > > an extremely oddly worded rant. The thing of it is, how conscious was > > Alekhine of performing this double message? That is the interpretive > > question. It is indeed an open question - but no-one reading this can t= hink > > it is straight-writing. > > How can you be so full of shit without exploding? ROFL! Excellent, Steve. I suppose next we will hear from Phil that the Communist Manifesto is a subtle apologia for laissez faire capitalism, and Mein Kampf is actually one of the Dead Sea scrolls.         Date: 01 Sep 2008 14:55:00 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Sep 1, 3:48 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:5eaf5e4b-6833-44e3-bdd8-cbddc5578f69@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 30, 3:03 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > **Factually? Shall I publish all your e-mails here so that people can see > > how "factually" engaged you really are? > > 3,675th time Phil has threatened this. > > ------- > > Is that actually true DR RD? I have 'threatened nothing. Unless of course > you mean this would threaten the reputation of Our Taylor. What do you mean? Probably that you have threated to publish these alleged emails 3,675 times. English isn't that difficult a language, Philsy. Even a moron like you can pick it up. > Have offered maybe 20 times? 30? What is this to DR RD - is he lacking some > spice in his own life and wants others to provide it? Since he is a very shy > man he rarely shares his motives with others, and has not shared them as > many as 3,675 times. Is that fair comment? > > --- > > Meanwhile Our Taylor is no doubt mulling over his potential 'exposure', > especially the contrast to what he protest are his methods and what he > actually does. Our Taylor can respond yes or no, or not respond at all. > Since he so forthrightly challenges others, I thought this was merely a fair > opportunity for him to demonstrate how much of a 'buff' he actually was. > > If he gets sued over it, after saying 'yes' that's up his own street. > > I would also ask in advance if server records should be the proof of such > correspondence, since not even I can 'fix' Verizon, and furthermore, I am > willing to do this service for free to the chess community and for chess > history. > > Phil Innes As I've asked before, why do you insist on computer records here, but deny the Mottershead Report has any validity?           Date: 01 Sep 2008 18:07:01 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) "The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:e45eda22-d1dc-4462-a882-72378cbf64eb@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 1, 3:48 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> >> news:5eaf5e4b-6833-44e3-bdd8-cbddc5578f69@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... >> On Aug 30, 3:03 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > **Factually? Shall I publish all your e-mails here so that people can >> > see >> > how "factually" engaged you really are? >> >> 3,675th time Phil has threatened this. >> >> ------- >> >> Is that actually true DR RD? I have 'threatened nothing. Unless of course >> you mean this would threaten the reputation of Our Taylor. What do you >> mean? > > Probably Leading word is probably ;)) > that you have threated to publish these alleged emails 3,675 > times. English isn't that difficult a language, Philsy. Sorry, not gay here. Nothing personal > Even a moron > like you can pick it up. Pick "it" up? Bit where is Taylor Kingston's unambiguous permission to do so? Can Neil Brennen answer that? > As I've asked before, why do you insist on computer records here, but > deny the Mottershead Report has any validity? Here our fatuous commentator compares Our Taylor to our FSS. Why he in particular should insist on this comparison is known best to himself, his short replies, indicating nothing. The offer stands to Kingston - publish you stuff or no? And then we can see who is fucking insane, like Hitler and Mussolini, etc. Those are Taylor Kingston's own stakes. Let him bite on it, or suffer in silence, defended as it were by an infamous abusenik.\ Phil Innes         Date: 31 Aug 2008 06:45:57 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 31, 2:12=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > > =A0 If there is anything we don't already know, > it is why Mr. Kingston keeps trying to > "muscle in" on a contract won fair and square > by Mr. Brennen; My attitude toward Phil is like that of Cool Hand Luke toward the eggs.           Date: 02 Sep 2008 08:56:18 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Aug 31, 2:12 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: My attitude toward Phil is like that of Cool Hand Luke toward the eggs. -- That's untrue. Your attitude is to conduct private abuse campaigns against those who disagree with you - and then in public declare them insane and make comparisons to Hitler, Mussolini - then continue to rubbish them in league with serial abuseniks like Brennen. Then you laugh it off and your true comic book understanding is revealed. This is all fun for you, you say, but then again, I think anyone reading your e-mails or your vociferous attitude here, would not exactly think you were as cool as Paul Newman. I don't need your permission to publish your e-mails. I just comment on your level of honest interest in discussing anything ;) 3 times in the past week you have made Otto-like inclusions into what other people say, then condemned them for your own action. What is evident in each case is your patent inability to understand what you read, or your willingness to join any mutual exploration of a topic. How cute you appear in public is not exactly the same as the somewhat more acidic private Kingston, eh? Phil Innes         Date: 30 Aug 2008 23:18:10 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 31, 1:12 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Aug 30, 11:59 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > **Factually? Shall I publish all your e-mails here so that people can see > > > how "factually" engaged you really are? > > > 3,675th time Phil has threatened this. > > Even worse is the fact that PI just told us > he has "returned" the emails to Mr. Kingston. > If they were in fact "returned", then logic > dictates they are no longer in PI's possession; > hence, the threat is an empty one. Only TK > may with any real logic and reason now > threaten to publish the emails now said to be > in his own possession (taking PI at his word). > > Personally, I think there is no need to make > such threats; everything we need to know > about these two flame-warriors is already > evident. For instance, the one cannot, on > pain of death, ever seem to "find" things he > does not want found, while the other cannot > write in English, nor can he understand that > his own purported standards are exactly the > reverse of his actual behavior here in rgc. > > If there is anything we don't already know, > it is why Mr. Kingston keeps trying to > "muscle in" on a contract won fair and square > by Mr. Brennen; does he covet my old chess > trophies, or what? I gave P Innes to Jerry Spinrad and Taylor Kingston months ago. They are kind enough to allow me to kick the Brattleboro Poofter every now and then, for old time's sake. > Dr. IMnes has not yet been paid, I wonder what his ex-wives think of that! but his bid > was not only the lowest (by far), but in > addition we felt there was a certain poetic > justice in assigning him to harry Mr. Kingston, > rather than, say, a Larry Parr or a Louis Blair. > > -- help bot         Date: 26 Aug 2008 09:20:47 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:5b1a7b09-a980-4487-b91a-38be9a17ab2d@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... On Aug 24, 4:50 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > On Aug 24, 2:47 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > **So - Perhaps Our Taylor is not quite realising that this long list of > > Jewish players is actually being celebrated by their mention? Phil seems to think "celebrated" means the same as denigrated and vilified. **Good heavens! "To make known, or mention often" says Websters as the primary meaning. In California this is never used except in the sense of to applaud a person. They have never read George Eliot there, nor DH Lawrence, and not even AS Byatt. **I suppose if I had written 'to make popular' that would also be not understood since Our Taylor would /only/ think it means 'praise' rather than 'known'. He would not be able to understand 'to popularize' in any other sense than to have people like something, and not ever in the sense of 'broadcast spam'. **I apologise to everyone here for not using the official Californian-English mandatory on the net. >> Maybe this is > > just a European sense of high ironical and very black humor during a war > > and > > for a cyncial politically audited propaganda sheet - and uses a level of > > commentary one does not exactly observe in the lyrics of the Beach Boys? > > He > > did note previously that the criticisms are ridiculous, and so many > > together > > are plainly an absurd signal that this is a rant, as we would say today, > > but > > an extremely oddly worded rant. The thing of it is, how conscious was > > Alekhine of performing this double message? That is the interpretive > > question. It is indeed an open question - but no-one reading this can > > think > > it is straight-writing. > > How can you be so full of shit without exploding? ROFL! Excellent, Steve. I suppose next we will hear from Phil that the Communist Manifesto is a subtle apologia for laissez faire capitalism, and Mein Kampf is actually one of the Dead Sea scrolls. **A conversation among two elevated geniuses too great to condescend to textual analysis, like We, the People. But given Taylor Kingston's absolute [and wrong] single-minded example above - why did I expect such clowns could actually think of the text itself or reflect on what double-message you could sneak under the nose of a nazi censor? **By these means, Vaguer Kingston has to 'suppose' shit which occurs to his tiny little mind and suggest to people that I will next exculpate Mein Kampf, et ca. To Vaguer, life is as black and white as a swastika. **And the joke is: I predicted it! I said in every encounter where this pedant and absolutist finds any level of disagreement, he associates his correspondent with Mussolini, Hitler, insanity... But I like his analogies most of all, even as much as his completely unsourced assurances of how he can come to such strong points of view. **The net effect of someone who /has/ to write what others 'seem' to think, is that of someone incapable of the slightest shade in their own thought - and who is rather like the Kevin Cline character in A Fish Called Wanda - when presented with 2 options, he, panicked, asks what the middle one was again? **Phil Innes           Date: 02 Sep 2008 06:30:55 From: help bot Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) Chess One wrote: > Even worse is the fact that PI just told us > he has "returned" the emails to Mr. Kingston. > > **Just 2 of them, and at his request. So then, without revealing the actual content of the alleged emails, you could easily prove their existence by simply proving that TK did in fact request "they" be returned to him-- unless of course both you and Mr. Kingston somehow shared the same exact delusion, at precisely the same time (very unlikely). > **Is it a threat? What would make it a threat, exactly? The contents, do you > think? No, I think what would give oomph to such a threat would be their existing in the realm of reality, not merely delusion. > **While I am of course gratified to have attached to my postings people who > love to speculate about me I notice you denied being "gay" after being referred to as "Philsy" by alleged retiree NB. (He says he has handed the reigns to two others, but then he keeps trying to whip the horse!) Now then, we know that often times gays will marry to conceal the fact of their being gay, and we also know, or at any rate, think we know, that *you* are married. Put two and two together, and what is the logical conclusion? The strained denials... the coincidental marriage to a person of the op- posite sex... the unusual attraction between you and NB... it all fits together, like pieces of a really weird puzzle. > I really intend the subject matter to dominate - > after all, this is not USCF! Ha! Another cheap shot, taken while, for some reason or other, nearly all the great defenders of the USCF are kept busy with infighting and baseless lawsuits and more infighting and of course, constant infighting. > **I do not even say I will post the things here - I say that Taylor Kingston > does not 'recall' them. Mr. Kingston often seems to have trouble recalling what he himself has written in the past week. So of course he cannot recall these alleged emails, if they are not right there in front of him. > They seemed contextually to display a level of > interest in personality, that is, against this and that person, rather more > than they expressed any interest in other subject matter - and I merely note > the fact that this is not the typical behavior of a history 'buff'. Even > Edward Winter glosses better than that. Indeed, it has been said that those of small mind tend occupy themselves with issues of personalities, while those a step up tend to think more about events. Truly great minds we need not bother discussing here... . -- help bot             Date: 04 Sep 2008 16:58:29 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:9edf1277-1271-4448-8cbb-26131a1e7f98@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > Chess One wrote: > >> Even worse is the fact that PI just told us >> he has "returned" the emails to Mr. Kingston. >> >> **Just 2 of them, and at his request. > > > So then, without revealing the actual content > of the alleged emails, you could easily prove > their existence by simply proving that TK did > in fact request "they" be returned to him-- **Look, bot, we got Blairism here. His own previous request was that he would 'see' if he wrote them. he didn't say what would happen next, and its not 2 e-mails, there are 25-30 of them. It is even interesting to see who was copied, Edward Winter, Neil Brennen, DR RD, and a few others! **When /they/ were asked about the matter, they too, 'did not recall.' You would almost think there was a collective conspiracy to forget, no? No-one actually denies they exist, they simply 'do not recall'. > unless of course both you and Mr. Kingston > somehow shared the same exact delusion, > at precisely the same time (very unlikely). > > >> **Is it a threat? What would make it a threat, exactly? The contents, do >> you >> think? > > > No, I think what would give oomph to such a > threat would be their existing in the realm of > reality, not merely delusion. **You evade the point. What is threatening here? The contents of the messages or not? What does it matter to me if someone can't write his own name thinks others who can are delusional? You might best attend yourself, Sir. >> **While I am of course gratified to have attached to my postings people >> who >> love to speculate about me > > > I notice you denied being "gay" after being > referred to as "Philsy" by alleged retiree NB. Some people with lots of kids are gay, or bi-sexual. I have 5 kids now, and happen not to be either. So yes, I 'deny' it, especially since as we know, mere accusation weighs more in our society, including newsnet, than reality. We love to speculate on what for us personally is taboo, no? What we hardly admit to ourselves. To continue on the theme of delusion, which is psychologically interesting, if some fatty weighing as much as 3 times as much as other people speculates on the sexual preferences of others, is this in itself an interesting phenomena? What can his experience actually be? God! The last histerical virgin on Usenet? Moreover, in terms of living other people's lives, rather than admitting some joy or sorry of your own, what level of imbecile could reconcile such consistent disorder with anything to do with intelligence or truth? You merely pretend to. But you have a bitty need to control things and people which is not entirely satisfactory or consequent with wanting to be free of your own control. When you get bored of it, fear not, you can give it up. Sorry to shrink you in public, but, hey! This is about people, not other people - its about We, the People. > (He says he has handed the reigns to two > others, but then he keeps trying to whip the > horse!) Now then, we know that often times > gays will marry to conceal the fact of their > being gay, and we also know, or at any rate, > think we know, that *you* are married. Put > two and two together, and what is the logical > conclusion? The strained denials... the > coincidental marriage to a person of the op- > posite sex... the unusual attraction between > you and NB... it all fits together, like pieces > of a really weird puzzle. The attraction is that of opposites in this instance. The relationship as such is like attracting a squadron of mosquitos, or a somewhat overweight would-be vampire. But please note that it is /you/ who find this interesting ;) Okay Greg? Some reason for that? It doesn't have to be said as 'reason' as such, in fact better not, but I note you note it. And its okay with me - I don't mind such stuff, especially in this medium where it is okay to say so - since who knows squat about others, really, except as they say about themselves. But nothing can be resolved for compulsive people unless they see what they do. Is this actually of them - or is it something they fear other people will condemn them for if they write about themselves frankly? The clinical aspect of such self-repression is much noted. There is scarcely anything going on here which is unsual, and the jokes about Dr Imnes, eg, are not really jokes, eh? I mean, such insistences and fishing behaviors are intended to attract a certain attention. For yourself, you have been speculating on other people for 10 years here, even as anon in chess.computer. You know I know. Its up to you if all things about others seem ridiculous and worth mocking or diminishing. But you should know its not reall about anyone else. You could try to live my life, but... and thanks for all the advice and the conversation, it is maybe for me and you a limited excursion, and you should understand that it is I who consciously patronise our engagement at that level. Real friends can do otherwise. They can say how it is without fear of judgement. That is a form of liberation if you can find it. It entails risk not certainty. Do not worry about me or Mr. Kingston. We both need attend our own entirely fallible selves. We both have to balance the jokes with other matter - and while we have our differences, I do not hate him, as much as see another person trying to tackle the difficult subject of being a human being. That is a sympathetic reference beyond any possible dissagreement. You and I are not in the same place as that. Phil Innes >> I really intend the subject matter to dominate - >> after all, this is not USCF! > > > Ha! Another cheap shot, taken while, for > some reason or other, nearly all the great > defenders of the USCF are kept busy with > infighting and baseless lawsuits and more > infighting and of course, constant infighting. > > >> **I do not even say I will post the things here - I say that Taylor >> Kingston >> does not 'recall' them. > > > Mr. Kingston often seems to have trouble > recalling what he himself has written in the > past week. So of course he cannot recall > these alleged emails, if they are not right > there in front of him. > > >> They seemed contextually to display a level of >> interest in personality, that is, against this and that person, rather >> more >> than they expressed any interest in other subject matter - and I merely >> note >> the fact that this is not the typical behavior of a history 'buff'. Even >> Edward Winter glosses better than that. > > > Indeed, it has been said that those of > small mind tend occupy themselves with > issues of personalities, while those a > step up tend to think more about events. > Truly great minds we need not bother > discussing here... . > > > -- help bot           Date: 31 Aug 2008 06:57:48 From: help bot Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 31, 9:45=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > > =A0 If there is anything we don't already know, > > it is why Mr. Kingston keeps trying to > > "muscle in" on a contract won fair and square > > by Mr. Brennen; > > =A0 My attitude toward Phil is like that of Cool Hand Luke toward the > eggs. It's been a long, long, long time since I saw that movie. Can anyone tell us what role the eggs played? I mean, I know that Paul Newman was the leading man, but did the eggs play the heavy, or perhaps the love-interest of the leading man, or some other vital role? Because my memory fails me on this, I suppose what we have here is failure to communicate. -- help bot           Date: 27 Aug 2008 21:06:42 From: thumbody Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) Chess One wrote: . > To Vaguer, life is as black and white as a swastika. Dear Phil, How does Darth Vaguer sound to you - eh?.. But, vaguely speaking, you might need to re-invent a new name for dear Taylor because there is nothing vague about black or white or swastika.. May the force be with you.. t. > > **And the joke is: I predicted it! I said in every encounter where this > pedant and absolutist finds any level of disagreement, he associates his > correspondent with Mussolini, Hitler, insanity... But I like his analogies > most of all, even as much as his completely unsourced assurances of how he > can come to such strong points of view. > > **The net effect of someone who /has/ to write what others 'seem' to think, > is that of someone incapable of the slightest shade in their own thought - > and who is rather like the Kevin Cline character in A Fish Called Wanda - > when presented with 2 options, he, panicked, asks what the middle one was > again? > > **Phil Innes     Date: 15 Aug 2008 15:43:43 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Aug 15, 7:27 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > [email protected] wrote: > >> On Aug 14, 3:52 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >>>> On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> **um, well, don't know who translated Chernev, > >>> Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to > >>> the USA at about age 4. > > English was his second language, and I have no idea of the facility of his > parents in English and suppose any English would have come late to him "Late"?? Um, Phil, just what do you consider a "late" age? I just told you: Chernev came to the USA at about age 4. He learned English as a child in Brooklyn. **Laugh! Taylor Kingston pronounces on what it is to speak a second language not acquired until the age of 4! At least 4! He fortunately does not tell us anything of his understanding, lest it come under question. **He is a bit backwards on the efficacy of early child education. Not just a little bit. But this is merely an absurd correspondance on Taylor's own recommendation of speak-like-Chernev, and despite 2 other people contradicting him already, Taylor has to insist as usual that some idiotic but unspoken understanding he has privately acquired is vitally relevent to the issue. What issue? What people say in 2008! Here, learning English at [some unknown age, but 4+] from parents whose English muct have been uncertain? And in Brooklyn, [ROFL] does not phase him in the least. **"I just TOLD you" he says. > and > since I have quoted from his works extensively, [more than anyone here] I > always doubted how much English he could express, and what text was his > and > what of his editors? Good Lord, Phil, this is as big a gaffe as your saying that Spanish was Andean. **Pardon me? I never said that you imbecile!@ YOU IMBECILE. YOU LIAR. I said that Mexican Spanish was not the same as Castillian, and Mexican different from that of the Andes. Did you actually dispute that? I can't tell from your words. It is your understanding of things which is absurd, since I don't believe you are so stupid. Instead I think you deliberately mis-state what others say - as you do here consistently, insisting, INSISTING, that what Chernev says is current terminology. But you don't even go to the chess club, eh? **So you are the fool of your own diversions, and to cover that you invent on what others say, insist on what /they/ mean, just like a pissy pedant. Chernev grew up in America. He spoke and wrote English like a native speaker. As a young man, he once pinch-hit for a sick Lasker when the latter was scheduled to give a lecture to an American audience. No editors to help him then. **How lovely for him! What a wonderful man! To stand up, we are to understand, and speak English! I strongly suggest you read Denker's appreciation of Chernev in "The Bobby Fischer I Knew and Other Stories." It will give you some idea of how an American chess pro viewed his prose skills. **I strongly suggest you re-attend your chess club and answer what I asked you: is Chernev's phrasing of things current terminology? You propose it is with no evidence at all - you ignore what 2 others say and create a whole thread to pretend that others are wrong! If you have some other points to make on what young players /should/ know, which you insisted upon! Then maybe do your own chess course for those who want to know terms of yesteryear they should now in case they encounter them? > I assumed from the often mannered phrasing that his work was translated. The intersection between your assumptions/delusions and reality is often scant. In this case, non-existent. **Taylor decides what reality is - for other people! - especially those who disagree with him. In fact, always for them.Which so far, is everybody who replied substantively to what I actually asked. Naturally, this is their fault, and a sure guide on how Our Taylor fell out with 2 of the most popular chess writers on Earth, Evans and Keene - who I suggest to Taylor Kingston received the vote of people willing to part with their money, rather than consider your instructions what they /should/ do or buy. > Surely he used words like 'piquant' and 'impress' correctly, and indeed, > his > adjectives are somewhat rich for a text book of chess annotation, even > somewhat /superior/ to the writings of native speakers at the time. > > But much of his phrasing is Russian, especially in the frequant avoidance > of > the definite article, Hmmm. Let's see how many instances of the definite article we find in this Chernev passage: "In this book we persuade him. We find out from the master the purpose of every single move he makes in the course of a game. We follow the ideas, the methods, the very thoughts of a master as he outlines them in simple detail. We learn the inner workings of his mind, and thus acquire the knowledge -- yes, the instinct -- for recognizing good moves and rejecting inferior ones." I count nine instances of "the," and one of "this" -- ten in the space of four sentences. Doesn't look like "avoidance of the definite article" to me. **And ROFL this is typical is it, Mr. Kingston? It is not contradicted by less-edited relapses? > 40 word unpunctuated sentences 'as wide as Taiga!' > [lol] and just as commonly, his infinitive verb forms combat randomly with > his Western apostrophies. Care to give us examples of these alleged grammatical sins? **No. I did not say it was a sin, that again is your spin! Your bit of defensive hyperbole about your hero! ROFL And talking of which, you are patently in-sin-cere in your requests. [bottom of page 48 <wink >] It should also be noted that Chernev was probably more familiar with chess literature than any other man, at least in America. Denker writes "No one ever devoured chess lore like Irving did. 'I have probably read more about chess and played over more games,' he once plausibly claimed, 'than any man in history.'" Therefore I would **Write more about him here than I do? But you don't. :)) consider Chernev quite well qualified as an authority on proper usage of chess terminology. **as in use in 1946? What date does your preface for "The Russians Play Chess" have? ** "The" Russians...? Not exactly American diction, is it? It certainly ain't now, and to return to MY subject, that is the context of MY inquiry. ROFL Phil Innes       Date: 26 Aug 2008 12:39:15 From: Subject: James K. Polk (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 26, 1:12=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > Polk was from the south, eschewed any popularity whatever, and very unusu= al > for a southern gent did /not/ think the expansion West should be > slave-based. On what do you base that, Phil? The more anti-slavery candidate in the 1844 election was definitely Henry Clay, not Polk. The Whigs had the slogan "Vote for Clay and peace and freedom. Vote for Polk and slavery and war." Polk strongly favored the annexation of Texas, which was coveted by slave-holding interests, and slavery in fact became legal there. Slave- holders' support of Polk is reflected in the 1844 electoral vote. Polk carried Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi. Missouri, South Carolina, and Virginia, i.e. 8 of the 12 slave states then existing. The Mexican-American War was very much about the expansion of slavery. > He wanted one term, got it, achieved pretty much everything he > wanted in that term, Yes, whatever one's opinion of his policies, one must admit he carried them out very effectively. He added more territory to the USA than any other president, even Jefferson. Pretty much everything west of the Rockies, plus Texas. Reduced tariffs and created an independent Federal Treasury.         Date: 29 Aug 2008 11:55:48 From: Chess One Subject: Re: James K. Polk (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:17cb6fa4-729b-432f-8250-214073377e8d@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... On Aug 26, 1:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > Polk was from the south, eschewed any popularity whatever, and very > unusual > for a southern gent did /not/ think the expansion West should be > slave-based. On what do you base that, Phil? **O! No! ~ On what do I base what, Taylor? The more anti-slavery candidate in the 1844 election was definitely Henry Clay, not Polk. **Ah! ~ You should be glad I'm doing this for free - (stage 1) take another look at the whole sentence, and see if you tell if I say Polk's attitude to Western expansion was unusual in suggesting the West should be slave-based. **Now (Stage 2), did I use the word 'unusual' or 'unique'? ** (Stage 3). Did I say 'more than others'? The Whigs had the slogan "Vote for Clay and peace and freedom. Vote for Polk and slavery and war." Polk strongly favored the annexation of Texas, which was coveted by slave-holding interests, and slavery in fact became legal there. Slave- holders' support of Polk is reflected in the 1844 electoral vote. Polk carried Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi. Missouri, South Carolina, and Virginia, i.e. 8 of the 12 slave states then existing. The Mexican-American War was very much about the expansion of slavery. **Polk owned slaves in the East and did not suggest nor attempt to change Eastern sea-baord culture - no doubt that is why he gained the confidence of 8 slave states. There may have been aspiration from those states to make slave states in the South-West, but AFAIK not by anything Polk said or did. **Slavery already existed in the West - first Spanish, then the new Mexican independent state upheld it, but oldest of all were the native traditions. Of particular import were the Navajo's attitudes especially in the time of Narbonna, which were considerably more liberal than those in the east, slaves gradually becoming fully adopted citizens of the tribes. **Ideas of slavery were rather superceded by 'the roaring apostle' of Manifest Destiny, Senator Thomas Hart Benton - and Polk's war [for Polk] was pure and simple, a massive land-grab. > He wanted one term, got it, achieved pretty much everything he > wanted in that term, Yes, whatever one's opinion of his policies, one must admit he carried them out very effectively. He added more territory to the USA than any other president, even Jefferson. Pretty much everything west of the Rockies, plus Texas. Reduced tariffs and created an independent Federal Treasury. **It is interesting to compare 2 records of changing American attitudes to the West - Blood and Thunder by Hampton Sides which covers approx 1840-1870, and the earlier records of Lewis and Clarke. Essentially, nothing much happened apres-Lewis - events waiting on the railroad and the telegraph. **Radically different were the urgent actions of Pres. Polk, and his agents; the glory-hound Fremont, steady Kierny, plus the somewhat ridiculous Stockton, who not only grabbed the entire south west, they even scared off the other main rival, the British, whose Oregon base and powerful men-o-war overlooked that lovely port of San Fransciso, or should I say Yerba Buena? Plus inflicted a new border on Mexico. Phil Innes       Date: 25 Aug 2008 06:20:23 From: Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 25, 3:18=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > Here is what I actually did say: > > > =A0 "One thing leaps out from the 1940-49 [Chessmetrics] chart that > > utterly defies credulity. It shows Alekhine's performance hitting a > > low point of about 2700 in mid-1942, then rising about 100 Elo points > > by late 1943, and never declining to anywhere near the mid-1942 low > > even just before his death in 1946. Yet Alekhine in the last few years > > of his life was a shadow of his former self. By 1945 he couldn't even > > win tournaments involving only minor Spanish and Portuguese masters. > > He probably wasn't playing at 2300 strength, let alone over 2700." > > > > =A0 The above comments were based on "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games > > 1902-1946" by Skinner and Verhoeven > > =A0 Okay, so then our hero Mr. Kingston > now admits he parroted a different source > than the one I had expected, Good Lord, what a ninny our Greg is. He considers citing an exhaustively researched, highly detailed, well-written, respected, scholarly source to be "admitting to parroting." What a joke. The only "facts" Greg respects are those he makes up.       Date: 22 Aug 2008 18:05:54 From: Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 22, 8:47=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > > I have discovered that sometimes > > > Mr. Kingston gets an idea from a dubious > > > source, then sticks to it like a pig-headed > > > mule. =A0One example was where he lifted > > > the phrase "not inthe top 50" from Mark > > > Crowther, regarding Mr. Alekhine near the > > > end of his career. > > > =A0 Funny, I don't recall ever citing any statement by Mr. Crowther > > =A0 Nowhere have I claimed that Mr. Kingston > "cited" Mr. Crowther; Thank you for retracting your false and baseless comment, Greg. Such humility and contrition from you is refreshing.       Date: 15 Aug 2008 17:10:32 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) While Our Taylor is figuring out his response to the previous challenges I offered him, he might as well share his understanding of Laskers 8th place finish - which he denied ever happened - and which he sent off to England for further information to refute! At the time he accused me of being something on the wrong side of Mussolini for opining at all - but since I merely reported an entry by Hooper, /naming/ my source, and the English Encyclopedia which carried the article, and which Our Taylor, BTW, has a copy of. In refutation of this terrible crime Our Taylor hissed at me that I was nutz@ He did not actually dispute the encyclopedia entry, which showed Lasker coming equal 7th / 8th on score but 8th in placement, and accused Hooper of making a mistake. Now... Hooper may have done so, or he may not have - the material Our Taylor received from England could not explain if final placements by virtue of opponents beaten, or other means, how equal placements on score were ranked. This non-event caused Our Taylor some 20 hissy responses, since he deemed that the Great Lasker, [and he truly was], was being dissed by me in some way since I dared point out that these games came at the end of his carear in chess, and obvious 8th place [or even 7th] was not exactly a commanding performance. Why object so much without preseenting a scintilla of evidence that Hooper was wrong in his entry for Anne Sunnucks' Encyclopedia entry? Phil Innes         Date: 26 Aug 2008 18:01:28 From: help bot Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously Chess One wrote: > > This is where we part company, but I > > need more than some offhand deferral to > > an alleged authority to convince me that > > I can now travel back in time and barely > > lose to a player like Mr. Alekhine. In > > **Thus far so good, but Alekhine as World Champion almost got squashed by > Elaine Pritchard - I think she was 11 years old As I said before, I need more than just an offhand anecdote... . > What is at stake in refuting such as Mr. Kingston offers via > his usual authorities is that commentaries and assessments without the > necessary intelligence to understand they represent a part of something, and > may even be typical, are misleading data. Without an attempt to evaluate the > relative ups and downs in light of the carear, the changing times and > personal circumstance, such adorations or condemnations mean nothing at all. In respect to rating Mr. Alekhine's strength, I think it's fair to insist that if we add in such anecdotes as yours above for him, then in order to compare apples to apples, we need to add in such anecdotes for others to which he is being compared. For instance, if I say that I played God a match giving her pawn odds, then that fictitious result must be rated if my strength is to be comparable to that of Mr. Alekhine on this anecdotal level. (You can well imagine how this could drag down most of the world champions from their lofty perches.) > **I have not noticed any answer yet, but I did pose Mr. Kingston a question > about the strength of the Nottingham players in 1936 - did he think that > Carlsen would have any trouble playing them, playing all of them in a simul, > & winning? The obvious flaw in this approach is that it merely assumes Mr. Kingston *can* think. I need convincing evidence. > > fact, I need more convincing that some > > modern grandmasters could travel back > > in time with me and very easily beat him. > > Its a fair topic for conversation - but without saying why you think > anything, its not an engaging basis to merely speculate. My response is that you could relate your own thinking on the matter, and then we could "engage" in a comparison, and then go from there. Instead, you have chosen to reject my thinking outright, without even considering its merits; what does that say about /you/? > Look at the openings from the 1936 match > - master level stuff these days? Anything there > any master here found even unfamiliar? Irrelevant. We were discussing the precipitous drop in Alekhine's strength years later, right before he died. Besides, there are no masters here, so why would you address the question to people who are nonexistent? > That would be an attempt to qualify opinion - and that is what is missing > from much chess discussion. The only certain thing is that absolute > certainties are ever suspect, in chess and in anything else in this relative > universe. If that is a nutty opinion, then I'm a squirrel. This is the impression I have evolved in studying the development of science. The more certain the pronouncement, the more likely the fanatic is to be covering for a dire weakness which may soon be discovered to have been bunk. -- help bot         Date: 25 Aug 2008 19:12:29 From: help bot Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously [email protected] wrote: > Good Lord, what a ninny our Greg is. He considers citing an > exhaustively researched, highly detailed, well-written, respected, > scholarly source to be "admitting to parroting." What a joke. The only > "facts" Greg respects are those he makes up. I could be wrong, but I believe the dimwit known as Taylor Kingston is now trying to assert that in his original post, he was plagiarizing (i.e. citing without credit) the work of others, and insisting that this is somehow different from what I described as parroting. Let me see... yes, there are some differences there. One activity involves dishonesty, while the other does not. And one involves originality, while the other does not. Now that I think about it, Mr. Kingston may well be right. -- help bot   Date: 15 Aug 2008 07:02:36 From: SBD Subject: Re: Man, Piece On Aug 15, 6:27 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > But much of his phrasing is Russian, especially in the frequant avoidance of Like you are able to pick up on anything like that..... > Tell me sometime if you understand such subtleties of logical sequencing, or > indeed, anything at all. Yes indeed, anytime we want advice from a puffed-up moron, we'll know where to look.     Date: 15 Aug 2008 10:41:40 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Man, Piece "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Aug 15, 6:27 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But much of his phrasing is Russian, especially in the frequant avoidance >> of > > Like you are able to pick up on anything like that..... > >> Tell me sometime if you understand such subtleties of logical sequencing, >> or >> indeed, anything at all. > > Yes indeed, anytime we want advice from a puffed-up moron, we'll know > where to look. OPENLY CHEATING Stephen Dowd/Rynd writes in specifically to //eliminate// my comments about why I had doubts about Chernev, the cheat just snipped it! He was not even brave enough to show he snipped anything. Certainly not capable of making a substantive answer, otherwise he would have done so. He contributes nothing whatever to the topic and proceeds directly to exercise his spite. This is his contribution to chess education in this country. Not a contribution, but an attempted reduction. EYERORE IS IN How odd that some people are hell-bent on destroying attempts to promote chess in America via their misanthropy, and if they have to publicly cheat as Dowd/Rynd does here so as to rubbish those who succeed where USCF never even thought of going before... ROFL ...well, what is that to them? That is the normal and flaccid corporate culture of chess in USA, which has slumbered through the post-Fischer era, and now makes up angry and anxious to discover they have been left in the dust. Kept dependent and barefoot and content with so little homegrown talent, they WHINE about strong players coming from overseas chess cultures to rule the roost here ;) And so they resent anyone escaping their own reduced conditions and expectations - since possibly they sense to engage promoting chess will require actual work and enterprise - in fact they have talked each into doubting their best asset, good old American know-how, and go-for-it. These are merely the received attitudes for a level of mediocrity which ensures that real initiatives keep away from flak issuing from the official dross-corps. It does not deserve condemnation. That would be to mock the old biddy in the wheelchair. What she needs more is to be told she ain't dead yet, and in fact she should pick up her wheelchair and walk - since in fact, she is only 38 years old ;) Phil Innes   Date: 15 Aug 2008 06:59:01 From: SBD Subject: Re: Man, Piece On Aug 14, 2:04 pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Aug 14, 2:38 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:519f0063-5468-4f29-89b5-4c462694413c@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > As some people here know, I am designing an accredited chess course for > > > initially home schooled students, then opened up as a distance learning > > > course for all students. The age range is k-12, and there is a beginners > > > course to acquaint players with basics, then an Intermediate course which > > > should suffice players or any age to at least 1500 level play. For > > > high-school students the 36 lesson Intermediate course gains a full > > > academic > > > credit. > > > > The course draws on contributions from half a dozen or 10 authors, and in > > > several media, ie as books, hyper-texts, DVD and CD ROMS. > > > > With Dan Heisman we are converting his book "A Parent's Guide to Chess" to > > > a > > > hyper-text, and I would like to ask particularly American readers here a > > > couple of questions I have about Dan's Glossary entries. > > > Since I edited that book, and wrote some of the glossary entries, I > > may be able to answer. > > > > TOPIC 1 > > > > Dan makes some distinction between "Piece" and "Man", I give both his > > > definitions below, then ask my questions: > > > > MAN: Any chess piece, including pawns. > > > From this small survey so far, a difference there from Mike's response > > > > PIECE: > > > (1) Any of the chess men, as in "Get all the pieces out of the bag." > > > (2) A non-pawn, as in "You have to develop all your pieces." > > > (3) A Bishop or a Knight, as in "I am up a piece." > > > > My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use? > > > Probably not used much by average chess players, but it's still > > often seen in books. It's useful for a young student of chess to > > understand terms he's going to see often in his studies. > > > I think the boat is still out on that one too - people do say 'chess-men' > > but doesn't sound like chess players do, and its a recent archaism? > > The man/piece distinction is one that beginners should learn, if > only because they will encounter it in chess literature. It doesn't > matter whether it comes up in conversation. > > > > If it is, is Dan's > > > definition to your liking? > > > That definition is correct. > > > > My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions we > > > have 3 contradictions! > > > Not really; it depends on context. I think the glossary entry makes > > clear the context for each of the three meanings of "piece." > > > **They have internal contradictions. > > I doubt that few readers will agree. > > > I suppose what I would most like to do > > is to talk of pawns distinct from other men, or pieces, as the main > > emphasis. > > Feel free. > > > > These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss > > > PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's > > > limited sense of piece in #3? > > > That meaning is seen very often in chess literature. I recall first > > encountering it in Chernev's "Logical Chess" back in the mid-1960s, I > > think. To "hang a piece," "win a piece," or "be up/down a piece," when > > no specific piece is named, invariably refers to a minor piece, > > > **um, well, don't know who translated Chernev, > > Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to > the USA at about age 4. Is Phil really this dense? And is pretending he can write anything of value to instruction?   Date: 14 Aug 2008 21:17:07 From: help bot Subject: Re: Man, Piece On Aug 14, 6:01=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > Thank you once more for attending to these simple issues: simply is > difficult. Ever was, will be. > > If you have some recommendation will you please say why you think your > choice a good one? Two choices here: 1) admit that the USA is well behind the curve and go with algebraic notation, the metric system, etc., or 2) remain in denial and tell people they must learn both descriptive and algebraic, and further, tell them that outdated works by writers like, say, Mr. Horowitz, Mr. Chernev and Mr. Reinfeld are their best bets for learning chess (a bold move, if admittedly stupid). Oh, and write the elementary explanation of how algebraic notation works in modern English-- not O.E., M.E. or Andean. One other thing: I noticed that there are some questions concerning the meaning of terms such as chess "man" versus chess "piece", and even confusion as to what constitutes a piece (major, minor, or both). For this it may be helpful to mention the vastly inferior game of checkers (or draughts), where a "man" represents a token on a square and all "men" are of the same, low value (much like the majority here in rgc) --until crowned. The thing is, the questions posed seemed to completely ignore the fact that the rules of the game of chess themselves define the answer. In the rule book, a "man" is defined and the term is then used; thus, it is ludicrous to try and pretend that "all chess men" can be called "pieces" AND that we can easily do away with the supposedly outmoded term chess "man", simplifying. (Well, the rules can always be revised or rewritten.) Lastly, I think it is high time the term chess "man" was changed to better reflect our modern attitudes; is it not true that chess "person" would serve just as well? And is it not hopeless bigotry to give infinite value to chess person Kings, while at the same time allowing chess person Queens to be captured and traded on a whim? What does this sort of gender bias say about our culture in this modern age? Is democracy only a term to be applied to /men/-- all of whom are purported to have been created equal? These are the real questions your readers need to address; not just how to notate chess games, but how to see and understand the world in general. -- help bot     Date: 15 Aug 2008 07:41:01 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Man, Piece "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Aug 14, 6:01 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > Thank you once more for attending to these simple issues: simply is > difficult. Ever was, will be. > > If you have some recommendation will you please say why you think your > choice a good one? Two choices here: 1) admit that the USA is well behind the curve and go with algebraic notation, the metric system, etc., or 2) remain in denial and tell people they must learn both descriptive and algebraic, and further, tell them that outdated works by writers like, say, Mr. Horowitz, Mr. Chernev and Mr. Reinfeld are their best bets for learning chess (a bold move, if admittedly stupid). Oh, and write the elementary explanation of how algebraic notation works in modern English-- not O.E., M.E. or Andean. **Such wits! But I really want to know what they prefer at your club. If you don't go there, you won't know, anything else is clutter and if we use 10 terms many of which contradict others, then I suggest that is because people insist on cluttering up the subject, to hear their own voice rather than contribute to chess - but you make a good joke below on who is a Queen and who aint... One other thing: I noticed that there are some questions concerning the meaning of terms such as chess "man" versus chess "piece", and even confusion as to what constitutes a piece (major, minor, or both). For this it may be helpful to mention the vastly inferior game of checkers (or draughts), where a "man" represents a token on a square and all "men" are of the same, low value (much like the majority here in rgc) --until crowned. The thing is, the questions posed seemed to completely ignore the fact that the rules of the game of chess themselves define the answer. In the rule book, a "man" is defined and the term is then used; thus, it is ludicrous to try and pretend that "all chess men" can be called "pieces" AND that we can easily do away with the supposedly outmoded term chess "man", simplifying. (Well, the rules can always be revised or rewritten.) Lastly, I think it is high time the term chess "man" was changed to better reflect our modern attitudes; is it not true that chess "person" would serve just as well? **Ah! - 400 years ago a fellow called Hyde had the same problem - how can a queen be the strongest piece in a war-game, he asked, and actually tried to change the gender of the Queen. **These days we are, so people here are insisting, seemingly content to call the chess Queen a "Man". Which is //equally// numb, no? **If you can't answer the question to advise young players of current terms in use, you can't contribute to this thread - I see that Brennen and Ken Sloan have followed Kingston's lead of mocking public discussion on chess terms in a public chess newsgroup, but their's is a long established pattern of noisy destruction, since they both demonstrate no ability to write anything cogent on topic in English, nor at any length, not now, not ever. **Peace, man! Phil Innes And is it not hopeless bigotry to give infinite value to chess person Kings, while at the same time allowing chess person Queens to be captured and traded on a whim? What does this sort of gender bias say about our culture in this modern age? Is democracy only a term to be applied to /men/-- all of whom are purported to have been created equal? These are the real questions your readers need to address; not just how to notate chess games, but how to see and understand the world in general. -- help bot   Date: 14 Aug 2008 21:12:04 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Man, Piece On Aug 14, 8:52 pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > On Aug 14, 3:52 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >>> On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> **um, well, don't know who translated Chernev, > >> Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to > >> the USA at about age 4. > > Did he also write in Olde English? And was it Olde English the dead language?   Date: 14 Aug 2008 17:16:33 From: Subject: Re: Man, Piece On Aug 14, 4:57 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:d489810c-4126-453e-9bae-38057bb21b54@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Aug 14, 3:52 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >> > On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > **um, well, don't know who translated Chernev, > > >> Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to > >> the USA at about age 4. > > >> **Well okay, so is his usage current? Is it unambigous - I am NOT hear me > >> NOT writing an encyclopedia of every term ever used, however well, but > >> want > >> to know the mainstream American terms for simple things! > > > And I told you the mainstream American usage of the term "piece" in > > the context of "being up/down a piece," citing Chernev as an example > > of a popular, widely read mainstream author who used it in that way. > > ** Please stop these protests! He may be widely read, but what is widely > understood? Is it ONLY his definition? If not, its okay to say so. But 2 > other people have written in to say they prefer to differentiate pieces and > pawns - so lets say the evidence thus far is that widely read does not equal > widely used in 2008. > > >> This is not > >> esoteric, and the function of the course is to learn chess play, not > >> chess > >> esoterica or even chess history. > > > No one ever said otherwise, least of all me. > > Yes you did - you /specifically/ diverted to older books saying you think > students /should/ understand their terms. > > >> **Yes - get over it Taylor, you are starting to get pissy already at > >> infered > >> criticism. > > > "Inferred" criticism?? Phil, I cite your own words: "one other thing > > and a criticism of Taylor's editing". No inference needed -- you were > > plainly and openly critical. > > But you fail to see that such 'criticism' is not the American sort, which is > always about people - and I was AT PAINS to say that Chessville did no > better. It is a criticism of absense of basic information, not of you > personally. > > > You were also quite wrong. To fault > > Heisman's book for not explaning "0-0" and "0-0-0" is like faulting a > > recipe for not being a bus schedule. > > And you now insist on being criticised! > > Its a fault in the books glossary, and since you insist on it being > personal - then it is also your fault for not noticing that some items are > notated and seemingly at random others are not. If you want person cricism > instead of critique then you have it. > > Happy now? > > But only a moron could go on about this when my context is -said 3 times > this day!- to try to find a royalty free on-line annotation that Americans > currently use. > > Any other context here is of your own contriving. > > >> You can't show game scores until you teach people notation, > >> right? I said Dan's book is no better than Chessville for finding a good > >> notation to use. > > > Of course it's no good for teaching notation. Neither is a compass > > any good as a raincoat. > > What? What is the intended meaning of thos esentences in response to what I > wrote. YOU CANT DO GAME SCORES BEFORE YOU DO NOTATION - get it? SO IF YOU > INCLUDE GAME SCORES PEOPLE CANT READ THEM. If you do not understand yet, > please don;t reply. Please instead insist that I insult your intelligence, > which in this instance, would be true. > > >> The glossary entry "Castle" is merely intended to explain the > >> mechanics of the castling move, and to differentiate the verb from the > >> noun, not to teach anything about notation. > > >> **Get off being defensive! > > > I don't feel the least defensive toward you, Phil. Watching you try > > to critique my work is like watching a fish try to ride a bicycle. > > O fuck off Taylor - you are the most precious and pissist twit writing here, > who insists on being affronted, the sooner trhe better! > > >> Other entries /do/ have annotations, in fact many > >> do. I think it is a draw-back in this book, but a wide-spread draw back > >> to > >> many books! Its nothing particular /only/ about Dan's book! > > > Phil, you seem to be hallucinating again. There is not a single > > annotation in "A Parent's Guide," unless one counts the "??" after > > 3...Nf6 in the illustration of Scholar's Mate on page 76. > > I AM NOT > > NOT > > ONLY TALKING ABOUT DAN'S BOOK. > > I am saying this appears in many books, it IS a fault. It is not an > hallucination. These are your emphatic insistances, and you can't even > rember what teh hell I asked, and why I asked it, instead you get pissy. As > usual. > > >> An online search for, say, "algebraic chess notation" will turn up > >> dozens of sites. Take your pick. > > >> **Will it? > > > Yes. Here is page one of the search results I got on MSN.com: > > But you cut my question!~ Which one do you like, since I have looked at > dozens of them - Wikipedia's seemed quite inadequate. Now, if you wish to > reply at all, you will answer just what I asked, and say why you like the > source. > > If you want to answer a direct question that is. If you don't then you can > do as you have done before, ignored what people say in order to consult > databases, or become personally offended. > > Phil Innes > > > > > Web1-10 of 79,300 results$B!&(B Advanced > > See also:Images, Video, News, Maps, More $B"'(BxRank > > See all...Results Algebraic chess notation - > > > Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > > Algebraic chess notation is used to record and describe the moves in a > > game of chess. It is now standard among all chess organizations and > > most books, magazines, and newspapers. In English speaking countries, > > it replaced the parallel system of descriptive chess notation, which > > became common in the 19th century, and was sporadically used as > > recently as the 1980s or 1990s. > > Naming squares on the ... $B!&(B Naming the pieces $B!&(B Notation for moves $B!&(B > > Example > > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_chess_notation $B!&(B Cached page > > Algebraic notation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > > ... infix notation, the practice of representing a binary operator and > > operands with the operator between the two operands (as in "2 + 2") In > > chess, algebraic chess notation, one of the ... > > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_notation $B!&(B Cached page > > Show more results from en.wikipedia.org > > Chess Tutorial : Chess Notation (1/6) > > Chess notation gives us the means to record and publish chess games. > > The most commonly used notation is algebraic, but it's useful to know > > the older descriptive notation. > > > chess.about.com/od/beginners/ss/ble21brd.htm $B!&(B Cached page > > Algebraic Chess Notation > > Here is a partial game score showing the use of algebraic chess > > notation. ... More from About.com. Work Hard, Travel Easy The best > > tips for business travelers. > > > chess.about.com/library/ble21zan.htm $B!&(B Cached page > > Show more results from chess.about.com > > Think You Know Algebraic Notation? - Chess.com > > Note added on Jan 15, 2007: Max Wootton (mxdplay4 here on chess.com) > > has discovered some errors in my calculations. We are corresponding on > > this topic and when all corrections ... > > > blog.chess.com/kurtgodden/think-you-know-algebraic-notation $B!&(B Cached > > page > > Algebraic Chess Notation - How to - ChessHouse.com > > You're going to quickly learn everything you need to know about > > reading and writing chess moves, called > > >www.chesshouse.com/how_to_read_and_write_chess_notation_a/166.htm$B!&(B > > Cached page > > Duif's Place: Chess Notation > > Duif's Place Chess Guide: How to Read Chess Notation. Duif's Place > > includes information for fans and tournament players, as well as > > special chess info for kids. ... Duif's Place > > >www.jaderiver.com/chess/notate.html$B!&(B Cached page > > ChessNotation.com --- Descriptive Chess Notation > > ... location), and any resulting effect (capture, promotion, check, > > checkmate, etc.). There are two main types of chess notation: > > descriptive and algebraic. 'Chess notation' can ... > > >www.chessnotation.com$B!&(B Cached page > > Algebraic notation - WikiChess > > Algebraic notation is a way to record chess games. Each square is > > given a specific label. Starting at White's left hand, the files are > > labeled from left to right with letters of ... > > > chess.wikia.com/wiki/Algebraic_notation $B!&(B Cached page > > Chessville - Misc. - Codes, etc. - Notation - Algebraic > > If you have disabled Java for your browser, use the Site Map (linked > > in the header and footer). > > >www.chessville.com/misc/misc_codes_notation_algebraic.htm$B!&(B Cached > > page > > > 12345Next Ah, Phil, it is such a delight to watch you twitch and froth. And your display of abysmal ignorance was by itself worth the price of admission. "Who translated Chernev?" -- Lord, but that is rich.     Date: 15 Aug 2008 06:48:14 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Man, Piece > Ah, Phil, it is such a delight to watch you twitch and froth. And > your display of abysmal ignorance was by itself worth the price of > admission. "Who translated Chernev?" -- Lord, but that is rich. Ah, Taylor, you added your note to a thousand words above, while not answering the question I asked, and instead changed the subject to your own by suggesting students should learn things that others here already said were a bit dusty - or indeed, patzer terms. Of course, you are pissy about it since you said you were editor of the title, and even though you gain no agreement you are still amused and self-righteous, and continue to insist on Russian Emigree Triumphalism circa 1945, however well they spoke their English. I have no idea of Chernev's language facility, but he was certainly not acculturated here, and his The Russians Play Chess could have been a cultural-political tract written by Kotov - and I merely had the temerity to ask in MY context of what people say in 2008, if they do actually follow terms Chernev used in 1945, eg. Which seemed to be /your/ recommendation. Apparently not. Phil Innes   Date: 14 Aug 2008 13:33:43 From: Subject: Re: Man, Piece On Aug 14, 3:52 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > **um, well, don't know who translated Chernev, > > Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to > the USA at about age 4. > > **Well okay, so is his usage current? Is it unambigous - I am NOT hear me > NOT writing an encyclopedia of every term ever used, however well, but want > to know the mainstream American terms for simple things! And I told you the mainstream American usage of the term "piece" in the context of "being up/down a piece," citing Chernev as an example of a popular, widely read mainstream author who used it in that way. > This is not > esoteric, and the function of the course is to learn chess play, not chess > esoterica or even chess history. No one ever said otherwise, least of all me. > **You may have saved our bacon, saved it for yourselves, you Yankee devils, > you! You owed us big time, after what you did 1775-1781 and during the War of 1812, if we're going to talk about devilish acts. > > To finish: one other thing and a criticism of Taylor's editing, which I > > also > > level at Chessville's efforts. Its to do with annotation. This particular > > book sometimes illustrates the term by citing a move, but not always, as > > in > > Castling, it doesn't mention 0-0 or 0-0-0, or even if those are zeros or > > capital 'o' s. > > ???? The relevance of this to "A Parent's Guide to Chess" is nil. > That book does not attempt to teach one how to play chess, nor much of > anything about chess notation, > > **Yes - get over it Taylor, you are starting to get pissy already at infered > criticism. "Inferred" criticism?? Phil, I cite your own words: "one other thing and a criticism of Taylor's editing". No inference needed -- you were plainly and openly critical. You were also quite wrong. To fault Heisman's book for not explaning "0-0" and "0-0-0" is like faulting a recipe for not being a bus schedule. > You can't show game scores until you teach people notation, > right? I said Dan's book is no better than Chessville for finding a good > notation to use. Of course it's no good for teaching notation. Neither is a compass any good as a raincoat. > Brad's book is not in the Intermediate course, so I can't > use that. So where is one? > > and certainly nothing about annotation. > The one brief mention of notation is on pages 75-76, the gist of it > being that one should learn algebraic notation, which is taught in > almost any beginner's book. > The glossary entry "Castle" is merely intended to explain the > mechanics of the castling move, and to differentiate the verb from the > noun, not to teach anything about notation. > > **Get off being defensive! I don't feel the least defensive toward you, Phil. Watching you try to critique my work is like watching a fish try to ride a bicycle. > Other entries /do/ have annotations, in fact many > do. I think it is a draw-back in this book, but a wide-spread draw back to > many books! Its nothing particular /only/ about Dan's book! Phil, you seem to be hallucinating again. There is not a single annotation in "A Parent's Guide," unless one counts the "??" after 3...Nf6 in the illustration of Scholar's Mate on page 76. > An online search for, say, "algebraic chess notation" will turn up > dozens of sites. Take your pick. > > **Will it? Yes. Here is page one of the search results I got on MSN.com: Web1-10 of 79,300 results$B!&(B Advanced See also:Images, Video, News, Maps, More $B"'(BxRank See all...Results Algebraic chess notation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Algebraic chess notation is used to record and describe the moves in a game of chess. It is now standard among all chess organizations and most books, magazines, and newspapers. In English speaking countries, it replaced the parallel system of descriptive chess notation, which became common in the 19th century, and was sporadically used as recently as the 1980s or 1990s. Naming squares on the ... $B!&(B Naming the pieces $B!&(B Notation for moves $B!&(B Example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_chess_notation $B!&(B Cached page Algebraic notation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ... infix notation, the practice of representing a binary operator and operands with the operator between the two operands (as in "2 + 2") In chess, algebraic chess notation, one of the ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_notation $B!&(B Cached page Show more results from en.wikipedia.org Chess Tutorial : Chess Notation (1/6) Chess notation gives us the means to record and publish chess games. The most commonly used notation is algebraic, but it's useful to know the older descriptive notation. chess.about.com/od/beginners/ss/ble21brd.htm $B!&(B Cached page Algebraic Chess Notation Here is a partial game score showing the use of algebraic chess notation. ... More from About.com. Work Hard, Travel Easy The best tips for business travelers. chess.about.com/library/ble21zan.htm $B!&(B Cached page Show more results from chess.about.com Think You Know Algebraic Notation? - Chess.com Note added on Jan 15, 2007: Max Wootton (mxdplay4 here on chess.com) has discovered some errors in my calculations. We are corresponding on this topic and when all corrections ... blog.chess.com/kurtgodden/think-you-know-algebraic-notation $B!&(B Cached page Algebraic Chess Notation - How to - ChessHouse.com You're going to quickly learn everything you need to know about reading and writing chess moves, called www.chesshouse.com/how_to_read_and_write_chess_notation_a/166.htm $B!&(B Cached page Duif's Place: Chess Notation Duif's Place Chess Guide: How to Read Chess Notation. Duif's Place includes information for fans and tournament players, as well as special chess info for kids. ... Duif's Place www.jaderiver.com/chess/notate.html $B!&(B Cached page ChessNotation.com --- Descriptive Chess Notation ... location), and any resulting effect (capture, promotion, check, checkmate, etc.). There are two main types of chess notation: descriptive and algebraic. 'Chess notation' can ... www.chessnotation.com $B!&(B Cached page Algebraic notation - WikiChess Algebraic notation is a way to record chess games. Each square is given a specific label. Starting at White's left hand, the files are labeled from left to right with letters of ... chess.wikia.com/wiki/Algebraic_notation $B!&(B Cached page Chessville - Misc. - Codes, etc. - Notation - Algebraic If you have disabled Java for your browser, use the Site Map (linked in the header and footer). www.chessville.com/misc/misc_codes_notation_algebraic.htm $B!&(B Cached page 12345Next     Date: 14 Aug 2008 20:52:40 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: Man, Piece [email protected] wrote: > On Aug 14, 3:52 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> <[email protected]> wrote in message >> >>> On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> **um, well, don't know who translated Chernev, >> Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to >> the USA at about age 4. Did he also write in Olde English? -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/       Date: 15 Aug 2008 07:27:28 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Man, Piece "Kenneth Sloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > [email protected] wrote: >> On Aug 14, 3:52 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> <[email protected]> wrote in message >>> >>>> On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> **um, well, don't know who translated Chernev, >>> Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to >>> the USA at about age 4. > > Did he also write in Olde English? Actually, a good point! English was his second language, and I have no idea of the facility of his parents in English and suppose any English would have come late to him - and since I have quoted from his works extensively, [more than anyone here] I always doubted how much English he could express, and what text was his and what of his editors? I assumed from the often mannered phrasing that his work was translated. Surely he used words like 'piquant' and 'impress' correctly, and indeed, his adjectives are somewhat rich for a text book of chess annotation, even somewhat /superior/ to the writings of native speakers at the time. But much of his phrasing is Russian, especially in the frequant avoidance of the definite article, 40 word unpunctuated sentences 'as wide as Taiga!' [lol] and just as commonly, his infinitive verb forms combat randomly with his Western apostrophies. As to Old[e] English, if you are going to add that 'e', then you should also use either Englisc or Englische. Though all 3 are spellings just as common in the Anglo Saxon Chronicles as the simple 'old' and 'english', and sometimes several versions of each word appear in the same document. Its the sound which is important Ken, not the spelling. In the beginning was the Word, not the text recording the word. Tell me sometime if you understand such subtleties of logical sequencing, or indeed, anything at all. Phil Innes > > -- > Kenneth Sloan [email protected] > Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 > University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 > Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/         Date: 25 Aug 2008 01:16:28 From: help bot Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously Chess One wrote: > What I find most interesting is how the Andes > mountains were moved northward, across > central America to where the Rockies used to > stand. > > **Circa 1840 they ["scientifically"] thought that there was a river running > from the Great Lakes to the Pacific Bam. We are right back to my point about the Ivy-league professor who first defined what "science" was, and then chucked that definition on a whim whenever it suited his fancy (and well, because he was among the multitude of other so-called scientists and did not want to risk being seen as a kook)! > they even gave it a name, > 'Buenaventura". Fremont's 3rd expedition couldn't find it, not even for > President Polk. I first heard of President Polk when I was a child; the local gas stations were giving away "coins" with all the former American presidents on them, one per fill-up. Now that I think about it, that was also the *last* time I ever heard about Mr. Polk. (Guess he wasn't having sex with some flusey in the White House, or where-ever.) > Indeed, the multitude of "Andean" > languages is akin to the many tribes we stole > our country from-- each with its own unique > language. What did you say those were > called-- the many "Andean languages" you > spoke of? Or did you say? > > **I did say. It's also Google-able if you are interested. Also written in > books, some encyclopedia's specifically I hope you aren't referring to that affront to decent academic standards, the EB? Indeed, every time I tried to verify some ridiculous-sounding claim of the foremost authority-on-everything, I could not find it in there. The logical conclusion is that either the Encyclopaedia Britannica is pure junk, or else the world's foremost authority on everything is as queer as a three-dollar bill. It even went so far as to try and claim that RK was *not* world champion, quoting some idiot named "Miles"! Well, those editors probably play checkers or tic-tac-toe. > as well as varieties of linguistic > commentary of varying levels of interception of the subject. I just tried > that and Google reports > > Results 1 - 10 of about 520,000 for Andean languages. That's interesting. Here's one for you: "IM Innes is world champion" (62,000 hits!) I wonder what might happen if I added "greatest ever", or even "chocolate"? > **Yes! Perhaps? As stuck as the good google? Why keep falling back on Google? Is this like when thumbody needed to know how many quarks there were in seven electrons plus a proton-butter sandwich, and he was forced to do a Google search out of desperation, not knowing the ultra- obvious answer offhand like the rest of us? > I know what many folks must be thinking: > that the reason Dr. IMnes cannot name > these many "Andean languages" is because > they don't exist! > > **These people, they deny there are Andean languages? No! They just want to know if you have any clue at all about what you toss out in the middle of discussing chess. You see, this is said to relate to Spanish-- a dead language in a sense, because the armada was smashed on the rocks and those stuffy Brits then moved ahead, after which there was a bit of a smash-up called WWII which left those ingrates, the Americans, in the front of the race. > How do they feel about the Red Sox? Let's take a poll: how many people here play football? How many like the Red Sox? How many like the Pacers better? (Or is that one baseball?) > Same? Yankee fans obviously. Hmm. New York slant there-- as if everything revolves around the Nor- eastern United States. Maybe even the sun and moon. (No... the lawyers of physics would never allow it.) > Of course they don't exist, half a > million testaments say so, and it amuses Greg Kennedy to deny them so that > he can exercise his lack of knowledge Did he once clobber you, perhaps some time around 1990 or so? Some people will hold a grudge forever. (Maybe that loss is why you did not quite make it to IM?) > denier, Taylor Kingston Himself Nice one. Only God, and a few others are entitled to use the capital h. (Maybe Elvis.) > **some adopted Saxon synonym for plain fact - you could find out in 10 > minutes reading, if, that is, /if /you inteneded knowledge to be your goal? Well, the problem there is that it doesn't matter what *I* know or don't know, since that was not the question. In fact, I have now forgotten the /original issue/, but one of the sidelines related to a claim by you which was perhaps just a red herring. If so, it has worked on me like a charm! I actually wanted to know if Spanish had many variants, *exactly matching your claims*, and if you had perhaps taken a degree from the Sorbonne in linguistics. > it is uncertainly so with the Kennedy who prefers emotional integrity! It is said that a master cannot allow emotions to control his play. All I know is that *some* (not necessarily all) of the weak players I've known were quite emotional during and about their play, while *some* (but not all) of the strong players are as dull as mud-- and a few have been known to utter a cruel laugh of sorts under their breath --sort of like a mad scientist -- when watching their opponents squirm. > **That is indeed true. The said Brennen, currently scarce since contrary > lawsuits were flung, is identified as being the idiotic commentator about a > painting to do with chess, which needed only perfunctory refutation. I wish this were obvious. In fact, I have trouble making out the position, while others claim to be able to determine each type of man and so forth, pointing to a bit of careful research by crazed chess-set "enthusiasts". My eyesight has since recovered considerably, but not to where I can make out the fine details of a lousy painting; this is why I like photographs. -- help bot           Date: 26 Aug 2008 13:12:27 From: Chess One Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:9717b6f0-d441-48c6-ad97-cef178edfbed@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > >> they even gave it a name, >> 'Buenaventura". Fremont's 3rd expedition couldn't find it, not even for >> President Polk. > > > I first heard of President Polk when I was > a child; the local gas stations were giving > away "coins" with all the former American > presidents on them, one per fill-up. > Now that I think about it, that was also > the *last* time I ever heard about Mr. Polk. > (Guess he wasn't having sex with some > flusey in the White House, or where-ever.) He was from the south, eschewed any popularity whatever, and very unusual for a southern gent did /not/ think the expansion West should be slave-based. He wanted one term, got it, achieved pretty much everything he wanted in that term, after being miraculously elected since no one thought such someone indifferent to popularity had a chance [against Clay, wasn't it?] - 3 months after his presidiental term expired, so did he. ------ >> **I did say. It's also Google-able if you are interested. Also written in >> books, some encyclopedia's specifically > > > I hope you aren't referring to that affront > to decent academic standards, the EB? > > Indeed, every time I tried to verify some > ridiculous-sounding claim of the foremost > authority-on-everything, I could not find it > in there. The logical conclusion is that > either the Encyclopaedia Britannica is **Don't trust the British matey! Like most winners write history the way they like it, the superior British write what they want whether they win or not. Look, gotta go swim across the lake... not that this isn't really fun. Phil Innes > pure junk, or else the world's foremost > authority on everything is as queer as a > three-dollar bill. It even went so far as to > try and claim that RK was *not* world > champion, quoting some idiot named > "Miles"! Well, those editors probably > play checkers or tic-tac-toe. > > >> as well as varieties of linguistic >> commentary of varying levels of interception of the subject. I just tried >> that and Google reports >> >> Results 1 - 10 of about 520,000 for Andean languages. > > > That's interesting. Here's one for you: > > "IM Innes is world champion" > > (62,000 hits!) > > I wonder what might happen if I added > "greatest ever", or even "chocolate"? > > >> **Yes! Perhaps? As stuck as the good google? > > > Why keep falling back on Google? Is > this like when thumbody needed to know > how many quarks there were in seven > electrons plus a proton-butter sandwich, > and he was forced to do a Google search > out of desperation, not knowing the ultra- > obvious answer offhand like the rest of us? > > >> I know what many folks must be thinking: >> that the reason Dr. IMnes cannot name >> these many "Andean languages" is because >> they don't exist! >> >> **These people, they deny there are Andean languages? > > > No! They just want to know if you have > any clue at all about what you toss out > in the middle of discussing chess. You > see, this is said to relate to Spanish-- a > dead language in a sense, because the > armada was smashed on the rocks and > those stuffy Brits then moved ahead, > after which there was a bit of a smash-up > called WWII which left those ingrates, > the Americans, in the front of the race. > > >> How do they feel about the Red Sox? > > > Let's take a poll: how many people here > play football? How many like the Red Sox? > How many like the Pacers better? (Or is > that one baseball?) > > >> Same? Yankee fans obviously. > > > Hmm. New York slant there-- as if > everything revolves around the Nor- > eastern United States. Maybe even > the sun and moon. (No... the lawyers > of physics would never allow it.) > > >> Of course they don't exist, half a >> million testaments say so, and it amuses Greg Kennedy to deny them so >> that >> he can exercise his lack of knowledge > > > Did he once clobber you, perhaps some > time around 1990 or so? Some people > will hold a grudge forever. (Maybe that > loss is why you did not quite make it to > IM?) > > >> denier, Taylor Kingston Himself > > > Nice one. Only God, and a few others > are entitled to use the capital h. (Maybe > Elvis.) > > >> **some adopted Saxon synonym for plain fact - you could find out in 10 >> minutes reading, if, that is, /if /you inteneded knowledge to be your >> goal? > > > Well, the problem there is that it doesn't > matter what *I* know or don't know, since > that was not the question. In fact, I have > now forgotten the /original issue/, but one > of the sidelines related to a claim by you > which was perhaps just a red herring. If > so, it has worked on me like a charm! I > actually wanted to know if Spanish had > many variants, *exactly matching your > claims*, and if you had perhaps taken a > degree from the Sorbonne in linguistics. > > >> it is uncertainly so with the Kennedy who prefers emotional integrity! > > > It is said that a master cannot allow > emotions to control his play. All I know > is that *some* (not necessarily all) of > the weak players I've known were quite > emotional during and about their play, > while *some* (but not all) of the strong > players are as dull as mud-- and a few > have been known to utter a cruel laugh > of sorts under their breath --sort of like > a mad scientist -- when watching their > opponents squirm. > > >> **That is indeed true. The said Brennen, currently scarce since contrary >> lawsuits were flung, is identified as being the idiotic commentator about >> a >> painting to do with chess, which needed only perfunctory refutation. > > > I wish this were obvious. In fact, I have > trouble making out the position, while > others claim to be able to determine each > type of man and so forth, pointing to a bit > of careful research by crazed chess-set > "enthusiasts". My eyesight has since > recovered considerably, but not to where > I can make out the fine details of a lousy > painting; this is why I like photographs. > > > -- help bot         Date: 23 Aug 2008 06:26:30 From: Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 22, 12:00=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > > =A0 Whew. =A0I have discovered that sometimes > Mr. Kingston gets an idea from a dubious > source, then sticks to it like a pig-headed > mule. =A0One example was where he lifted > the phrase "not in the top 50" from Mark > Crowther, regarding Mr. Alekhine near the > end of his career. Google search shows the phrases "the top 50" and/or "the top fifty" in this group only in help-bot's recent posts. What our Greg hopes to prove or gain by claiming I "lifted" the phrase from Mark Crowther is unclear. What is clear is that, as with with various other claims he has made over the years, he's making it all up. I suppose what Kennedy has in mind is this post about Alekhine from 28 July 2008. Here is what I actually did say: "One thing leaps out from the 1940-49 [Chessmetrics] chart that utterly defies credulity. It shows Alekhine's performance hitting a low point of about 2700 in mid-1942, then rising about 100 Elo points by late 1943, and never declining to anywhere near the mid-1942 low even just before his death in 1946. Yet Alekhine in the last few years of his life was a shadow of his former self. By 1945 he couldn't even win tournaments involving only minor Spanish and Portuguese masters. He probably wasn't playing at 2300 strength, let alone over 2700." The above comments were based on "Alexander Alekhine's Chess Games 1902-1946" by Skinner and Verhoeven, which is probably the most authoritative reference on Alekhine ever published. With references like that, I certainly have no need to "lift phrases" from the likes of Crowther. Help-bot's tendency to fabricate is well known, for example his claim several years ago that I had panned Edward Lasker's books in a published review, when in fact I like Lasker's books and have never reviewed them at all. Fabrication, pure and simple. In other words: lying. Kennedy is merely a mud-slinger, and when there's no mud handy he excretes in his own litter-box and flings that.         Date: 22 Aug 2008 06:00:42 From: Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 22, 12:00=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > > =A0 Whew. =A0I have discovered that sometimes > Mr. Kingston gets an idea from a dubious > source, then sticks to it like a pig-headed > mule. =A0One example was where he lifted > the phrase "not inthe top 50" from Mark > Crowther, regarding Mr. Alekhine near the > end of his career. Funny, I don't recall ever citing any statement by Mr. Crowther, in any context. And a Google search of this group for the phrase "the top 50" turns up only help-bot's 8/21/08 post.           Date: 26 Aug 2008 21:27:49 From: Rob Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 26, 8:08=A0am, [email protected] wrote: > On Aug 26, 8:50=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:aa1778c3-b834-4fd7-aa60-f41a3d3e7c97@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com..= . > > On Aug 23, 12:56 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > >news:[email protected].= .. > > > On Aug 23, 11:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So why Alekhine > > > > particularly? The Paris Zeitinger articles are barbed missifs. > > > > I presume you mean Pariser Zeitung. > > > > The Zeitung articles from Paris. Its same thing, you see. Unless ve i= nsist > > > on zer Chermun! > > > =A0 I merely prefer to call the Pariser Zeitung by its correct name, > > correctly spelled. AFAIK, there is no German word "Zeitinger." > > > **But I may a choke on not haffing to use zer Chermun! > > > =A0It does > > not appear in my Sch=F6ffler-Weis Dictionary, nor on Babelfish. The > > closest word is the verb "zeitigen," which means to produce or ripen. > > "Zeitung" on the other hand means "newspaper," which is what the > > articles were written in. > > > > > A careful > > > > reading reveals the abstruce strategy Alekhine used in writing them= , but > > > > which remarkably escaped notice of the censors - they start with no= rmal > > > > racial depredations, but end with one-by-one exemptions of Jewish > > > > players, > > > > being the players Alekhine knew. A back-hander to the up-front rasc= ism. > > > > As > > > > if to say, 'Jews suck, except the ones I know'. > > > > Phil, where do you see that? > > > > **See that? See what? > > > =A0 What you just described, o dim one. > > > **Our Taylor is as immune to humor as to specifics. After my paragraph = he > > refers to 'that'. Then when I ask Vaguer what 'quite exactly' he is > > questioning, he says I am dim - so far, so usual...! This is the same g= uy > > can't understand why he used to be friends with Evans, Parr, myself. > > > > Checking the English version of those > > > articles in "The Personality of Chess" (the same text I gave you some > > > years ago), I don't readily see any "exemptions of Jewish players." > > > > **Are you meaning to say you don't see the words you put in speech ma= rks? > > > I indicated a paraphrase by saying, "As if to say..." > > > =A0 I mean that I see nothing in the Alekhine articles that fits your > > description at all. > > > **It seems absurd to conduct a 'conversation' with someone can't be bot= hered > > to explain his own comments! And we have alread reverted to absolutes w= ith > > that 'nothing'. > > > > Rather, most of the Jewish masters Alekhine knew -- specifically > > > Lasker, Janowski, Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, R=E9ti, Flohr, Fine, > > > Botvinnik, Reshevsky, Mieses, Spielmann -- get some very derogatory, > > > even insulting treatment. The main gist is "Jews suck, including the > > > ones I know, and the ones I know suck for the following reasons." > > > > **This is confusing - you use speech or quotation marks, as if that w= as > > > what > > > Alekhine says, but offer a paraphrase. > > > =A0=A0 The only confusion, as usual, is yours, Phil. But you can allay = our > > =A0suspicions about your dyslexia by producing quotes that qualify as > > =A0"exemptions of Jewish players Alekhine knew" (your phrase). > > > =A0**I ask Vaguer why /he/ uses quotation marks when he is not quoting > > =A0anything, > > =A0 Our Phil, who often challenges people to "own their own words," now > denies his own. Um, Phil, I'm quoting *_you_* : > > =A0 "one-by-one exemptions of Jewish players, being the players Alekhine > knew." > > =A0 Please point out to us where the Pariser Zeitung articles fit this > description of yours. > > > and the confusion is mine. Yes it is! That is why I asked this > > /specific/ point. > > =A0 It does not surprise me that even your own writing confuses you, > Phil. It seems clear that almost all writing does. > =A0 To which, of course, you will reply "Does what?", reinforcing my > point. > > > =A0 In the meantime, I will supply quotes from the Alekhine articles > > showing just the opposite, that they specifically disparaged the > > Jewish masters Alekhine knew: > > > **Don't do it all over again! I already made a reply to this which /not= es/ > > the very odd way that Alekhine uses to disparage others - by also notin= g > > their worth. Vaguer can't see the wood because of the trees. Of course = these > > are gross condemnations of Jewish players, but as I suggest elsewhere, = they > > are not /only/ that. They are [almost] all qualified by other commentar= y. > > > **If Vaguer wants to not notice that - that is his choice. I am not > > insisting he does - but I am stating that the material is very oddly wo= rded, > > and given the circumstances of its publication, invite a serious look a= t > > that. =A0Phil Innes > > > =A0 "Lasker's great offense as a leading Chess Master ... was > > manifold ... Lasker plagiarized the great Morphy ... he was ... the > > most grotesque player in chess history." > > > =A0 "Janowski created 'brilliant games' ... but as it turned out, only > > against weaker opponents. When he played real masters, his style was > > as unimaginative, dry and materialistic as the style of 99 out of 100 > > of his jew brethren." > > > =A0 "[Rubinstein was] reared in hate against the 'Goyim' (Gentiles)" > > > =A0 "I am fully convinced that this whole 'Nimzovitch system' is based > > on wrong premises ... Nimzovitch's teachings ... did not originate in > > his own brain, but were borrowed from both old and contemporary > > masters and were consciously or unconsciously plagiarized." > > > =A0 "A united front of purely destructive Jewish chess tacticians > > (Steintiz-Lasker-Nimzovitch-Reti) began to shape up, destined to > > hamper, for half a century, the logical evolution of our fighting > > chess." > > > =A0 "[Reti's] cheap bluff, this shameless self-advertisement was > > swallowed hook, line and sinker by the chess world that had been > > poisoned by Jewish journalists." > > > =A0 "Reuben Fine [was] educated in a Communist school maintained by a > > Jewish community." > > > =A0 "[Reshevsky] showed that he represented the worst type of chess > > professional, resorting to the shabbiest tricks." > > > =A0 "Botvinnik's games leave a dry uninspired impression." > > > =A0 "Unfortunately there are ... phony artists, who explot the Aryan > > idea of attack to satisfy their professional lust for money. The most > > typical representatives of this tendency are probably the Viennese Jew > > Rudolf Spielmann ... and the Leipzig Jew Jacques Mieses." > > > =A0 So, Phil, I would say that rather than "one-by-one exemptions of > > Jewish players," as you claim to have found, it seems clear we have > > one-by-one condemnations. I strongly suggest you actually read a text > > before you try to summarize it. Now for a serious subject: http://www.imeem.com/people/81rk0g1/playlist/1i4qQHh7/best_songs_of_1976_mu= sic_playlist/           Date: 24 Aug 2008 13:50:44 From: SBD Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 24, 2:47 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **So - Perhaps Our Taylor is not quite realising that this long list of > Jewish players is actually being celebrated by their mention? Maybe this is > just a European sense of high ironical and very black humor during a war and > for a cyncial politically audited propaganda sheet - and uses a level of > commentary one does not exactly observe in the lyrics of the Beach Boys? He > did note previously that the criticisms are ridiculous, and so many together > are plainly an absurd signal that this is a rant, as we would say today, but > an extremely oddly worded rant. The thing of it is, how conscious was > Alekhine of performing this double message? That is the interpretive > question. It is indeed an open question - but no-one reading this can think > it is straight-writing. How can you be so full of shit without exploding?             Date: 30 Aug 2008 23:13:58 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 30, 10:59 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > On Aug 30, 3:03 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > **Factually? Shall I publish all your e-mails here so that people can see > > how "factually" engaged you really are? > > 3,675th time Phil has threatened this. I think you've miscounted. I counted 3,674 instances of P Innes threatening to 'expose' the alleged Kingston correspondence. But perhaps I am wrong - after all, these P Innes threats all start to read alike after a while. And, of course, nothing ever comes of them aside from P Innes screaming like a Cornish Hen for a day or two.             Date: 30 Aug 2008 23:12:03 From: help bot Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 30, 11:59=A0pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > > **Factually? Shall I publish all your e-mails here so that people can s= ee > > how "factually" engaged you really are? > > 3,675th time Phil has threatened this. Even worse is the fact that PI just told us he has "returned" the emails to Mr. Kingston. If they were in fact "returned", then logic dictates they are no longer in PI's possession; hence, the threat is an empty one. Only TK may with any real logic and reason now threaten to publish the emails now said to be in his own possession (taking PI at his word). Personally, I think there is no need to make such threats; everything we need to know about these two flame-warriors is already evident. For instance, the one cannot, on pain of death, ever seem to "find" things he does not want found, while the other cannot write in English, nor can he understand that his own purported standards are exactly the reverse of his actual behavior here in rgc. If there is anything we don't already know, it is why Mr. Kingston keeps trying to "muscle in" on a contract won fair and square by Mr. Brennen; does he covet my old chess trophies, or what? Dr. IMnes has not yet been paid, but his bid was not only the lowest (by far), but in addition we felt there was a certain poetic justice in assigning him to harry Mr. Kingston, rather than, say, a Larry Parr or a Louis Blair. -- help bot               Date: 02 Sep 2008 08:35:54 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:240dd559-4fd9-44f8-80cd-d2e5c9deb6fd@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... On Aug 30, 11:59 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote: > > **Factually? Shall I publish all your e-mails here so that people can > > see > > how "factually" engaged you really are? > > 3,675th time Phil has threatened this. Even worse is the fact that PI just told us he has "returned" the emails to Mr. Kingston. **Just 2 of them, and at his request. If they were in fact "returned", then logic dictates they are no longer in PI's possession; hence, the threat is an empty one. **O dear! I think this topic is too taboo! So Greg Kennedy must be silly. Only TK may with any real logic and reason now threaten to publish the emails now said to be in his own possession (taking PI at his word). **Is it a threat? What would make it a threat, exactly? The contents, do you think? Personally, I think there is no need to make such threats; everything we need to know about these two flame-warriors is already evident. For instance, the one cannot, on pain of death, ever seem to "find" things he does not want found, while the other cannot write in English, nor can he understand that his own purported standards are exactly the reverse of his actual behavior here in rgc. **While I am of course gratified to have attached to my postings people who love to speculate about me, I really intend the subject matter to dominate - after all, this is not USCF! **I do not even say I will post the things here - I say that Taylor Kingston does not 'recall' them. They seemed contextually to display a level of interest in personality, that is, against this and that person, rather more than they expressed any interest in other subject matter - and I merely note the fact that this is not the typical behavior of a history 'buff'. Even Edward Winter glosses better than that. Phil Innes If there is anything we don't already know, it is why Mr. Kingston keeps trying to "muscle in" on a contract won fair and square by Mr. Brennen; does he covet my old chess trophies, or what? Dr. IMnes has not yet been paid, but his bid was not only the lowest (by far), but in addition we felt there was a certain poetic justice in assigning him to harry Mr. Kingston, rather than, say, a Larry Parr or a Louis Blair. -- help bot         Date: 21 Aug 2008 21:00:41 From: help bot Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 21, 8:42=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > =A0 He is obviously /shielding a weakness/; it is > > **Maybe lazy - or merely presenting results to research which exists > elsewhere? Um, no. > The point being the reader/audience can determine little verity > from results alone. Philosophically what is not going on here is > 'transference' in the sense of sharing the means of inquiry. In this case, there was a decided *avoidance* of "inquiry"; you see, there was a war going on, between science and religion. This insistence that X cannot be used with regard to Y is a truce of sorts, or maybe a buffer zone having mainly to do with the war. > **Feynman is a good example in mathematics of uncritically acceping the > collected received opinion of 50 years of authorities. To heck with him then! Why can't he be more like me, and carefully scrutinize the claims of these "authorities", instead of blindly accepting them? > More recently in physics there is the infamous > announced result of : cold fusion in a test-tube. Already tried. The glass tube becomes brittle, and prone to shattering easily. As for the "fusion", it smells like sulfur and tastes like onion. > **certainly akin to the danger of rote memorised moves alone. Without > understanding the process of developing the whole team in such-and-such a > formation, then the individual moves may be known, but not understood. Precisely. I recently lost a game due to making two horrific tactical blunders in a row, yet my opponent remained convinced that I had gone awry in the opening-- because my early moves did not precisely match those in his books! As can easily be seen by objective examination, his conception was wrong; computer analysis shows that my loss was almost entirely due to those tactical blunders, which were so severe that I am shown to come out a full Queen down! > > As such, it is not a discussion of how we know what we know - which is > > itself a scientific phrase to do with research. He, in fact, discusses > > nothing whatever. That will be one of my next projects; I am especially interested in why, after careful definition of science as X, certain alleged scientists made reckless assumptions and were given a free pass, when others would have automatically have been termed pseudo-scientists or even hacks. > **Now, without knowing if Hooper was right or wrong, Our Taylor then beca= me > excited to the degree that he is prepared to call me insane for citing an > encylopedia. His own citation is of the tournament book which he hotly > obtained from UK, but which did /not/ illustrate means of placement. But > obviously, Our Taylor's strong reaction is /not/ to the encyclopedia entr= y, > but to the refutation of Lasker's world status as proposed by Our Taylor, > whether Lasker finished 7th or 8th. And that is the context for everythin= g, > including inventing my opinion for me. Whew. I have discovered that sometimes Mr. Kingston gets an idea from a dubious source, then sticks to it like a pig-headed mule. One example was where he lifted the phrase "not in the top 50" from Mark Crowther, regarding Mr. Alekhine near the end of his career. > =A0 Is it perhaps a PhD in law, "taken from" the > Sorbonne? =A0(They never recovered the one > Dr. Alekhine stole from them, you know.) > > **No, no that sort of law. Perhaps scientific law of sorts. At one time > study of both Physics and Nature was called "Natural Philosophy". They ha= ve > been not exactly divorced, but definitely experiencing a trial-seperation > since the onset of the Industrial Age. An interesting synopsis of the > subject is the 1991 title by Rupert Sheldrake: The Rebirth of Nature; The > Greening of Science and God. As if, you know, there was one operating sys= tem > for the Cosmos, and our Universe suggested that the Nature of Man, the > Nature of Nature, and the Nature of God, also share one Operating System. > Very much of this title points to the dead-end result of received knowled= ge, > which is seen to be merely rule-of-thumb conveniences fitting only some > circumstances, and not addressing the whole, though presuming to do so. There are many "courses" on this subject from which to choose-- some fitting the category of science and some fitting religion, or even both. > **The rule of pedants, especially literary ones, is the story of our mode= rn > age - if I can date that to the emergence of the printing press, and the > contrary instinct from such as Galileo's preference for observation befor= e > thought. Indeed, this hidden animus of singular insistences was noted ear= ly, > and also its nature: > > =A0 =A0 No-one who sees the iconoclasts raging thus against wood > =A0 =A0 and stone would doubt that there is a spirit hidden in > =A0 =A0 them which is death-dealing, not life-giving, and which at > =A0 =A0 the first opportunity will also kill men. > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 //Martin Luther, 1525. Not all of these "scientists" placed so heavy a weighting on objective observation. In fact, many sought to incorporate flawed thinking into their "revolutionary" ideas, not reject and reformulate from scratch to simply match the data. > **At about the same time Henry VIII was destroying the integrated means o= f > knowledge in destroying the English monasteries - which certainly provide= d > greater emphasis to how we know things, and their meaning to us, than wha= t > succeeded that; a simple quantification of result which is the modus of o= ur > current age. [I hasten to stress that Our Taylor is not responsible for a= ll > of this! Merely responsive to it, and that, alas, is 'normative'.] So then, Mr. Kingston is not accountable for this alleged destruction of knowledge, perpetrated by the sinister Henry five-one- one-one. (I once knew a fellow from the Borg, with a somewhat similar name.) I've read similar-sounding accounts on the Web, but it seems to me that since we have no way of knowing what would have happened otherwise, the claims to "protection of knowledge" by the church are specious. Can it be demonstrated for a fact that they did more protecting and promoting overall, than they did of the opposite? How so? Without the oppression of certain forces, knowledge has often sprung up from out of the blue, and it is impossible to calculate where or when. I note that /even today/, there are such oppressive forces hard at work. The Ivy- leaguer of whom I wrote earlier, often feels compelled to stop in mid-course to address these issues. The war continues... . -- help bot           Date: 26 Aug 2008 06:08:59 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 26, 8:50=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:aa1778c3-b834-4fd7-aa60-f41a3d3e7c97@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 23, 12:56 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:[email protected]... > > On Aug 23, 11:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So why Alekhine > > > particularly? The Paris Zeitinger articles are barbed missifs. > > > I presume you mean Pariser Zeitung. > > > The Zeitung articles from Paris. Its same thing, you see. Unless ve ins= ist > > on zer Chermun! > > =A0 I merely prefer to call the Pariser Zeitung by its correct name, > correctly spelled. AFAIK, there is no German word "Zeitinger." > > **But I may a choke on not haffing to use zer Chermun! > > =A0It does > not appear in my Sch=F6ffler-Weis Dictionary, nor on Babelfish. The > closest word is the verb "zeitigen," which means to produce or ripen. > "Zeitung" on the other hand means "newspaper," which is what the > articles were written in. > > > > A careful > > > reading reveals the abstruce strategy Alekhine used in writing them, = but > > > which remarkably escaped notice of the censors - they start with norm= al > > > racial depredations, but end with one-by-one exemptions of Jewish > > > players, > > > being the players Alekhine knew. A back-hander to the up-front rascis= m. > > > As > > > if to say, 'Jews suck, except the ones I know'. > > > Phil, where do you see that? > > > **See that? See what? > > =A0 What you just described, o dim one. > > **Our Taylor is as immune to humor as to specifics. After my paragraph he > refers to 'that'. Then when I ask Vaguer what 'quite exactly' he is > questioning, he says I am dim - so far, so usual...! This is the same guy > can't understand why he used to be friends with Evans, Parr, myself. > > > Checking the English version of those > > articles in "The Personality of Chess" (the same text I gave you some > > years ago), I don't readily see any "exemptions of Jewish players." > > > **Are you meaning to say you don't see the words you put in speech mark= s? > > I indicated a paraphrase by saying, "As if to say..." > > =A0 I mean that I see nothing in the Alekhine articles that fits your > description at all. > > **It seems absurd to conduct a 'conversation' with someone can't be bothe= red > to explain his own comments! And we have alread reverted to absolutes wit= h > that 'nothing'. > > > Rather, most of the Jewish masters Alekhine knew -- specifically > > Lasker, Janowski, Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, R=E9ti, Flohr, Fine, > > Botvinnik, Reshevsky, Mieses, Spielmann -- get some very derogatory, > > even insulting treatment. The main gist is "Jews suck, including the > > ones I know, and the ones I know suck for the following reasons." > > > **This is confusing - you use speech or quotation marks, as if that was > > what > > Alekhine says, but offer a paraphrase. > > =A0 The only confusion, as usual, is yours, Phil. But you can allay our > suspicions about your dyslexia by producing quotes that qualify as > "exemptions of Jewish players Alekhine knew" (your phrase). > > **I ask Vaguer why /he/ uses quotation marks when he is not quoting > anything, Our Phil, who often challenges people to "own their own words," now denies his own. Um, Phil, I'm quoting *_you_* : "one-by-one exemptions of Jewish players, being the players Alekhine knew." Please point out to us where the Pariser Zeitung articles fit this description of yours. > and the confusion is mine. Yes it is! That is why I asked this > /specific/ point. It does not surprise me that even your own writing confuses you, Phil. It seems clear that almost all writing does. To which, of course, you will reply "Does what?", reinforcing my point. > =A0 In the meantime, I will supply quotes from the Alekhine articles > showing just the opposite, that they specifically disparaged the > Jewish masters Alekhine knew: > > **Don't do it all over again! I already made a reply to this which /notes= / > the very odd way that Alekhine uses to disparage others - by also noting > their worth. Vaguer can't see the wood because of the trees. Of course th= ese > are gross condemnations of Jewish players, but as I suggest elsewhere, th= ey > are not /only/ that. They are [almost] all qualified by other commentary. > > **If Vaguer wants to not notice that - that is his choice. I am not > insisting he does - but I am stating that the material is very oddly word= ed, > and given the circumstances of its publication, invite a serious look at > that. =A0Phil Innes > > =A0 "Lasker's great offense as a leading Chess Master ... was > manifold ... Lasker plagiarized the great Morphy ... he was ... the > most grotesque player in chess history." > > =A0 "Janowski created 'brilliant games' ... but as it turned out, only > against weaker opponents. When he played real masters, his style was > as unimaginative, dry and materialistic as the style of 99 out of 100 > of his jew brethren." > > =A0 "[Rubinstein was] reared in hate against the 'Goyim' (Gentiles)" > > =A0 "I am fully convinced that this whole 'Nimzovitch system' is based > on wrong premises ... Nimzovitch's teachings ... did not originate in > his own brain, but were borrowed from both old and contemporary > masters and were consciously or unconsciously plagiarized." > > =A0 "A united front of purely destructive Jewish chess tacticians > (Steintiz-Lasker-Nimzovitch-Reti) began to shape up, destined to > hamper, for half a century, the logical evolution of our fighting > chess." > > =A0 "[Reti's] cheap bluff, this shameless self-advertisement was > swallowed hook, line and sinker by the chess world that had been > poisoned by Jewish journalists." > > =A0 "Reuben Fine [was] educated in a Communist school maintained by a > Jewish community." > > =A0 "[Reshevsky] showed that he represented the worst type of chess > professional, resorting to the shabbiest tricks." > > =A0 "Botvinnik's games leave a dry uninspired impression." > > =A0 "Unfortunately there are ... phony artists, who explot the Aryan > idea of attack to satisfy their professional lust for money. The most > typical representatives of this tendency are probably the Viennese Jew > Rudolf Spielmann ... and the Leipzig Jew Jacques Mieses." > > =A0 So, Phil, I would say that rather than "one-by-one exemptions of > Jewish players," as you claim to have found, it seems clear we have > one-by-one condemnations. I strongly suggest you actually read a text > before you try to summarize it.             Date: 28 Aug 2008 08:07:21 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > **This is confusing - you use speech or quotation marks, as if that was > > what > > Alekhine says, but offer a paraphrase. > > The only confusion, as usual, is yours, Phil. But you can allay our > suspicions about your dyslexia by producing quotes that qualify as > "exemptions of Jewish players Alekhine knew" (your phrase). **What a sleeze - but I already commented on /were/ his 'quotes'. In each case I appended a specific comment to illustrate the point I was making. > **I ask Vaguer why /he/ uses quotation marks when he is not quoting > anything, Our Phil, who often challenges people to "own their own words," now denies his own. Um, Phil, I'm quoting *_you_* : **Another sleeze-by-simile. Here Kingston does not answer why he quotes someone, but did not use the words he puts in speech marks - he says this is the /same/ as asking people to sign their posts. A quaint understanding indeed. But this is his usual reaction to being accused of being a fallible human being. **In another post he quotes without quotation marks but does not cite - then he criticises Greg Kennedy for saying his piece which similarly appeared as not-quotation - then Vaguer confuses quotations with citations... "one-by-one exemptions of Jewish players, being the players Alekhine knew." Please point out to us where the Pariser Zeitung articles fit this description of yours. **I already pointed it out. It is your understanding of things which is not so sharp! If you wish to conclude that there is /nothing/ to take note of, so be it! But I think the document is a very curious and technically sophisticated document, which a candid mind will find /some/ sophistication therein. **Only complete idiots see absolute black and white everywhere, and even conclude that if you see shades then you are some opposite pole of thought to the black or white of their opinion. Look at the what happens when this occurs - you get an understanding of things to suit a Brennen. > and the confusion is mine. Yes it is! That is why I asked this > /specific/ point. It does not surprise me that even your own writing confuses you, Phil. It seems clear that almost all writing does. To which, of course, you will reply "Does what?", reinforcing my point. **Vaguer~ If //you// can't bother to name your nouns, then what is any 'it' or 'that' to which you refer? Given a whole paragraph as reference, what are //YOU// referring to? And from this basis of not knowing how to ask a question on any specific, you continue to blame other people, AS IF /they/ were not being specific. **Your own understanding of expressions in English is atrocious! You can even write about my 'evading an issue by semantics', while being blissfully innocent that what you have written is the same as that what I write means something, is detailed, has sense, the word semantics, you see, means 'meaning'. ROFL **Maybe only you are the only person who could innocently write here blaming other people for writing meaningful posts! **I really don't know to what degree Alekhine adhered to what he wrote, and I rather doubt that anyone can, except that they look at the text itself as a starting point. Not seeing anything odd in it may disqualify many commentators. Phil Innes               Date: 29 Aug 2008 21:06:03 From: thumbody Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) Chess One wrote: . > **I really don't know to what degree Alekhine adhered to what he wrote, and > I rather doubt that anyone can, except that they look at the text itself as > a starting point. Not seeing anything odd in it may disqualify many > commentators. > > Phil Innes Yeah! it moight Phil uh?.. Y'know, Phil, you sound increasingly like a ferkin pom whos' really gettin' up 'illarie's nose. Y'gno'w. A real losing cunt fr' shropshire. But I couldn't give a shite about you & your little Vermont run-arounds - Zorro!.. t.                 Date: 31 Aug 2008 16:54:31 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) "thumbody" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Chess One wrote: > . >> **I really don't know to what degree Alekhine adhered to what he wrote, >> and >> I rather doubt that anyone can, except that they look at the text itself >> as >> a starting point. Not seeing anything odd in it may disqualify many >> commentators. >> >> Phil Innes > > Yeah! it moight Phil uh?.. Intelligence test for the cousins, init? > Y'know, Phil, you sound increasingly like a ferkin pom whos' really > gettin' up 'illarie's nose. She's gone mate, no one wanted to hear that voice for 4 years, especially not amplified by the presidency. This is sad for women, but Mother Hubbard with an attitude is not everyone's idea of one. > Y'gno'w. A real losing cunt fr' shropshire. > But I couldn't give a shite about you & your little Vermont run-arounds > - Zorro!.. Of course not! That is why you feel compelled to say so, stand to reason dunnit? Welcome to newsnet, newbie. PI > t.                   Date: 03 Sep 2008 12:02:06 From: thumbody Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) Chess One wrote: > > . > >> **I really don't know to what degree Alekhine adhered to what he wrote, > >> and > >> I rather doubt that anyone can, except that they look at the text itself > >> as > >> a starting point. Not seeing anything odd in it may disqualify many > >> commentators. > >> > >> Phil Innes > > > > Yeah! it moight Phil uh?.. > > Intelligence test for the cousins, init? Well, yes. It could be construed that way - yes indeed.. Observed a rough-looking 1960's ford http://www.anglia-models.co.uk/saloon-photo00.htm go by, with number plate = SPELLS. The significance of this took me a lot longer than missus rybka to figure out, but eventually I got it*.. JK Rowling* - major literary influence on children worldwide. Inventor of the scary dementor word (google 'dementors' about this assertion - ).. _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ So now I've got this Zorro character, safely corked, back in his bottle.. Just ignore him. He doesn't _really_ speak for me.. Usually, he's not too bad. He teams up with the other two famous mooseburghers; Loxley of Greenwood & Will Burroughs of Tell City (Ind.) & they specialise in doing good.. Like applying to the Vatican to see if they might re/communicate marianne-faithless or hosing down the flames round joan.. (potty-mouth, snipped) > > gettin' up 'illarie's nose. > > She's gone mate, no one wanted to hear that voice for 4 years, especially > not amplified by the presidency. This is sad for women, but Mother Hubbard > with an attitude is not everyone's idea of one. Well put, chum.. Seems to me she's been strutting the world stage an awfully long time.. Last I saw of her, addressing the multitude, she seemed like some sort of mad china doll.. The fixed grin, her head almost revolving, & every time she grated out the word 'proud' which she did over & over, the yellowish/whites of her eyes appeared to expand.. Could be she grossed-out on scraped cow-bone tucker over the course of the campaign & everyone knows what happens to them that are just a bit too proud - no?.. =================================================================================== Well y'know, I've had to snip this 'Zorro' character's hurtful & destructive garbage here - hopefully for the last time.. I've pointed out to him that his sort of behaviour is all too common on usenet, emphasising the term 'common'.. That anger-management for "netrage" is available, that Father's day is rapidly approaching, that Spring has just sprung & that cormorants are rather masterful, being @ home - up, - on, - & under, so to speak.. He seems to have taken it on board so maybe he learns something of use & says good-riddance to bad rubbish.. Thanks mate.. t.                     Date: 08 Sep 2008 09:47:58 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) "thumbody" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Chess One wrote: >> Intelligence test for the cousins, init? > > Well, yes. It could be construed that way - yes indeed.. > > Observed a rough-looking 1960's ford > http://www.anglia-models.co.uk/saloon-photo00.htm go by, with number > plate = SPELLS. The significance of this took me a lot longer than > missus rybka to figure out, but eventually I got it*.. Your crank-starter for 10? Bamber had to stop the Internationals, since it was too embarrassing when Jesus beat Harvard 2:1. It weren't untypical. What was Hitler's middle name? uuuuugh.... Barry? Dave? In Syr Gawaine, what was 'most loathily feared?' uuuugh is the answer brocolli? uuuugh the kyng's legges? >> She's gone mate, no one wanted to hear that voice for 4 years, especially >> not amplified by the presidency. This is sad for women, but Mother >> Hubbard >> with an attitude is not everyone's idea of one. > > Well put, chum.. Maggie's syndrome scores Maggies drawers? > Seems to me she's been strutting the world stage an awfully long time.. > > Last I saw of her, addressing the multitude, she seemed like some sort > of mad china doll.. > > The fixed grin, her head almost revolving, & every time she grated out > the word 'proud' which she did over & over, the yellowish/whites of her > eyes appeared to expand.. That's what being corn-fed will do to yer. And she is one of the less expanded ones - some have expanded all over. > Could be she grossed-out on scraped cow-bone tucker over the course of > the campaign & everyone knows what happens to them that are just a bit > too proud - no?.. What they need is a proper bit of humour like Dame whatsername by Barry H. Or Sir Les! Aussie [burp!] bamdassafer to Inglind and the Count of Saint Pom. But they don't do that 'ere. No spittin image, nuffink. Dame wassername used to get stacks of mail from the BBC both for and against being a strong wimmin, sent by people who didn't know who she was. Now We the People have a new wimmin VP, who is a for-real Dame wassername, though people can't believe she's for real. Interesting in it? If Barry H was around he would get in. Phil > > t.                   Date: 01 Sep 2008 13:44:46 From: thumbody Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) Chess One wrote: . > > - Zorro!.. > > Of course not! That is why you feel compelled to say so, stand to reason > dunnit? Welcome to newsnet, newbie. Well thks. - have to fly. Saw a fox last week. Will return tomorrow.. t.         Date: 21 Aug 2008 07:34:57 From: SBD Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 20, 7:37 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > I think No you don't, that is the problem. You spew forth without thinking.         Date: 21 Aug 2008 07:28:48 From: SBD Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 20, 6:08 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > Bill Wall? Bill Wall?? ROFLMAO! Bill Wall is one of the most > > careless, most inaccurate writers who ever said a word about chess. > > For examples of his studious scholarship, I commend you to these > > links: > > >http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/credibility.html > > >http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fun.html > > > Bill Wall. Lord, I can't stop chuckling. Innes had found his ideal. Wall is pretty ridiculous, confusing say, Wolfgang Pauli with Wolfgang Pauly. Does he work as a fact-checker for Chessvile?         Date: 21 Aug 2008 07:22:15 From: Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 21, 9:56=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > =A0 Well, Phil, you might start by conceding some credibility to what > the actual tournament book of Nottingham 1936 says. > > **Which is? Says about what? Come on!@ 35 tries and you're out! Phil, you have this preposterous habit of pretending a question has not been answered. You ask, say, "Who was the first President of the United States." I reply "George Washington," citing several authoritative sources. Then you spend innumerable posts pretending I have not answered the question, presented no evidence, etc. Do you realize how foolish that makes you look? Apparently not, or else you enjoy being foolish. Yet again, the Nottingham tournament book is _the_ authoritative source on a matter you've belabored here off and on for at least a year: where Lasker stood in the final standings at Nottingham 1936. You keep supporting the Sunnucks encyclopaedia's statement that he was sole 8th. Whereas the tournament book clearly shows him tied for 7th and 8th places with Salo Flohr. End of story. I have two copies of the Nottingham 1936 book. Shall I send you one? Then you can see for yourself. Alas, I suspect you will just continue as you have always done.         Date: 20 Aug 2008 18:57:16 From: help bot Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 20, 8:52=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > One remarkable fact of language acquisition I just read about is from > Hampton Sides, writing on Kit Carson. He says Carson had about 10 languag= es > which he spoke /very/ well, but was an illiterate! He could hardly read i= n > English. But he mastered 6 native languages, including the somewhat > universal Navajo. What I find most interesting is how the Andes mountains were moved northward, across central America to where the Rockies used to stand. Indeed, the multitude of "Andean" languages is akin to the many tribes we stole our country from-- each with its own unique language. What did you say those were called-- the many "Andean languages" you spoke of? Or did you say? (Perhaps you are stuck here, like those miners who could not find a way to instruct aborigines to collect only "yellow" rocks, because they had no word for yellow and could not grasp it.) I know what many folks must be thinking: that the reason Dr. IMnes cannot name these many "Andean languages" is because they don't exist! But that would be a grave error; it is only a bashful reluctance to display his quite vast -- to say the least -- knowledge in linguistics that holds our man back; he is not one to boast, or make such brazen displays of great intellect, unless absolutely necessary. Indeed, one can see the same attribute on any other forum, such as for instance the Shakespeare newsgroup, where Dr. IMnes did not wish to attest to his great achievements in the realms of chess, but had to have them /dragged out of him/ by a very determined Neil Brennen. -- help bot           Date: 23 Aug 2008 18:08:35 From: Chess One Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Aug 20, 8:52 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > One remarkable fact of language acquisition I just read about is from > Hampton Sides, writing on Kit Carson. He says Carson had about 10 > languages > which he spoke /very/ well, but was an illiterate! He could hardly read in > English. But he mastered 6 native languages, including the somewhat > universal Navajo. What I find most interesting is how the Andes mountains were moved northward, across central America to where the Rockies used to stand. **Circa 1840 they ["scientifically"] thought that there was a river running from the Great Lakes to the Pacific - they even gave it a name, 'Buenaventura". Fremont's 3rd expedition couldn't find it, not even for President Polk. Indeed, the multitude of "Andean" languages is akin to the many tribes we stole our country from-- each with its own unique language. What did you say those were called-- the many "Andean languages" you spoke of? Or did you say? **I did say. It's also Google-able if you are interested. Also written in books, some encyclopedia's specifically, as well as varieties of linguistic commentary of varying levels of interception of the subject. I just tried that and Google reports Results 1 - 10 of about 520,000 for Andean languages. (Perhaps you are stuck here, like those miners who could not find a way to instruct aborigines to collect only "yellow" rocks, because they had no word for yellow and could not grasp it.) **Yes! Perhaps? As stuck as the good google? But that is the smallest quantitative measure I could recommend you, not the qualitative best source. These, though similar words in their beginnings, are meant to indicate different 'things' - as wood Our Taylor say. I know what many folks must be thinking: that the reason Dr. IMnes cannot name these many "Andean languages" is because they don't exist! **These people, they deny there are Andean languages? How do they feel about the Red Sox? Same? Yankee fans obviously. Of course they don't exist, half a million testaments say so, and it amuses Greg Kennedy to deny them so that he can exercise his lack of knowledge, no doubt guiltily, since the original denier, Taylor Kingston Himself, first said so. And though we currently despise said Vagueness, he is still honored and followed for his nihillism! But that would be a grave error; it is only a bashful reluctance to display his quite vast -- to say the least -- knowledge in linguistics that holds our man back; he is not one to boast, or make such brazen displays of great intellect, unless **some adopted Saxon synonym for plain fact - you could find out in 10 minutes reading, if, that is, /if /you inteneded knowledge to be your goal? it is uncertainly so with the Kennedy who prefers emotional integrity! Even to emotions he doesn't have. absolutely necessary. Indeed, one can see the same attribute on any other forum, such as for instance the Shakespeare newsgroup, where Dr. IMnes did not wish to attest to his great achievements in the realms of chess, but had to have them /dragged out of him/ by a very determined Neil Brennen. **That is indeed true. The said Brennen, currently scarce since contrary lawsuits were flung, is identified as being the idiotic commentator about a painting to do with chess, which needed only perfunctory refutation. Even help-bog could have done it, half a bog could do it, and even <dread words > Sanny could have done it, saving my brilliant and additional insights for those receptive to same. Cordially, [the usual titles, here reduced in the Americas, et ca, et ca.] Phil Innes -- help bot         Date: 20 Aug 2008 16:08:20 From: Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 20, 3:20=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:939aeb58-5877-4b02-a9c7-282d5eebf8bc@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 19, 10:56 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > "He [Lasker] played in five more tournaments: Moscow 1925, second > > (+10 =3D8 -2) after Bogoljubow, ahead of Capablanca; Zurich 1934, fifth > > (+9 =3D2 -4); Moscow 1935, third (+6 =3D13), after Botvinnik and Flohr, > > ahead of Capablanca; Moscow 1936, sixth; and Nottingham 1936 (+6 =3D5 > > -3) TO SHARE SEVENTH PLACE." (emphasis added) > > > Do you see that, Phil? "TO SHARE SEVENTH PLACE." Very plain and easy > > to understand. Why can't you? > > > **Because others say different. Bill Wall for example talks of 1st to 8= th > > place. > > =A0 Bill Wall? Bill Wall?? =A0ROFLMAO! Bill Wall is one of the most > careless, most inaccurate writers who ever said a word about chess. > For examples of his studious scholarship, I commend you to these > links: > > http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/credibility.html > > http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fun.html > > =A0 Bill Wall. Lord, I can't stop chuckling. Innes had found his ideal. > > **Our Taylor prefers the Oxford encyclopedia To Bill Wall, I certainly do. > whose idea of accuracy was to > describe Boris Gulko as being away from chess, when he and his wife were > being beaten up by KGB. Really, Phil? I believe your erstwhile friend Bill Hyde (or perhaps it was Larry Tapper) pointed out that the time period referred to in that OC passage did *_not_* correspond to the time Gulko was persecuted. But of course such inconvenient facts don't concern you. > **The point is not to argue 'authorities' but on veracities - how do we k= now > that anyone got it right? Well, Phil, you might start by conceding some credibility to what the actual tournament book of Nottingham 1936 says. On the subject of the Nottingham 1936 tournament, I would call that an authoritative source. > That is the only issue here. To be sure of things > takes more than a list of 'authorities' and calling those who have other > opinion, or who simply are not convinced 'insane'. To be sure of things certainly takes more than the muddled thought processes of Phil Innes. > **Bill Wall may often be criticized because he does not hide his opinion > with his words. Bill Wall is often criticized because he often reports arrant nonsense as fact. > To avoid being criticized one should be Vague, That's why I tend to be quite specific. But of course in Phil's Newspeak, to be specific is to be vague, if the specific statement is not what he wants to hear. > then no one > can tell if we are right or wrong - and we place ourselves beyond critici= sm. Yes, Phil, we all know that no matter what the facts, you consider yourself beyond criticism. > The only drawback with Vaguery is that nothing is revealed, which is to > place oneself beyond notice. > > Phil Innes Phil, the plain fact is that in the area of chess history, you are pretty much a nincompoop. Everyone else here knows that. I suspect you do do too, but of course you dare not admit it publicly.           Date: 21 Aug 2008 09:56:47 From: Chess One Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously <[email protected] > wrote in message news:7f7c54d1-ab2c-483b-ab4f-8f0e27dbb274@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > **Our Taylor prefers the Oxford encyclopedia To Bill Wall, I certainly do. > whose idea of accuracy was to > describe Boris Gulko as being away from chess, when he and his wife were > being beaten up by KGB. Really, Phil? I believe your erstwhile friend Bill Hyde (or perhaps it was Larry Tapper) pointed out that the time period referred to in that OC passage did *_not_* correspond to the time Gulko was persecuted. But of course such inconvenient facts don't concern you. **There you go again! "Pointed out" facts too precious to repeat! But that is a diversion and not exactly the frame that Larry Parr offered you, which was to ask if you personally thought the entry fair, from whatever basis of knowledge or interest you had? You always seem a bit evasive on these Soviets subjects - but I give you the main thing below - since in fact you challenge me to it. > **The point is not to argue 'authorities' but on veracities - how do we > know > that anyone got it right? Well, Phil, you might start by conceding some credibility to what the actual tournament book of Nottingham 1936 says. **Which is? Says about what? Come on!@ 35 tries and you're out! On the subject of the Nottingham 1936 tournament, I would call that an authoritative source. > That is the only issue here. To be sure of things > takes more than a list of 'authorities' and calling those who have other > opinion, or who simply are not convinced 'insane'. To be sure of things certainly takes more than the muddled thought processes of Phil Innes. **More vagueness? I am muddled because you are sure but present no evidence to refute Hooper, who I presume is also muddled and insane? I see Bill Wall has now joined the crew. > **Bill Wall may often be criticized because he does not hide his opinion > with his words. Bill Wall is often criticized because he often reports arrant nonsense as fact. **From the general to the specific, then? > To avoid being criticized one should be Vague, That's why I tend to be quite specific. But of course in Phil's Newspeak, to be specific is to be vague, if the specific statement is not what he wants to hear. **Our Taylor is now psychic and knows what I want to hear. He even foretells it, telling me I hold an opinion I do not, but fails to be 'quite specific' enough to quote my opinion back at me. At no time is he quite specific enough to mention what I did say, which is that I don't know for sure from what I have read if an error was made by Hooper and his editors. > then no one > can tell if we are right or wrong - and we place ourselves beyond > criticism. Yes, Phil, we all know that no matter what the facts, you consider yourself beyond criticism. **To be 'quite specific' in this instance of these /particular/ facts, you now tell me that I think my question about knowing what is true is 'beyond criticism?' > The only drawback with Vaguery is that nothing is revealed, which is to > place oneself beyond notice. > > Phil Innes Phil, the plain fact is that in the area of chess history, you are pretty much a nincompoop. Everyone else here knows that. I suspect you do do too, but of course you dare not admit it publicly. **Let's be 'quite specific! Does everybody know you asked me about Soviet Cheating? Do they know because you accused me of knowing Russian players since I evidently did. Does everybody know the /specific/ was about Averbakh's role in Soviet chess organisation? Do they know I obtained you 2 Russian references which admitted that he might not tell the truth? Do they know that after you received that information you neglected to ask Averbakh a pertinent question about it? Do they know that instead you attacked Larry Evans about his own sources, interpretations, while neglecting to provide your own quite specific questions when you had the opportunity to do so? Do they know that you then told me my opinion that I would 'jumped at' the chance to interview him? Do they know that after this more than somewhat duplitious inquiry Evans and Averbakh on Soviet cheating, as explored in this very newsgroup at great length, you then admitted you would 'under prepared'. Do they know that is not strictly true - but you rather selected from your preparations to edit the issue out. **And do they know that this would otherwise be just a hill of beans by someone doing a celebity interview, rather than historical interview EXCEPT that you made such a fuss in Evan's face, preferring, so it seems, the guy who the 2 Russians rather doubted, and who Boris Gulko specifically mentioned, to the views of the 5 time US Champions own /experience/? Phil Innes         Date: 20 Aug 2008 16:05:58 From: help bot Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 20, 3:20=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **The point is not to argue 'authorities' but on veracities - how do we k= now > that anyone got it right? That is the only issue here. To be sure of thin= gs > takes more than a list of 'authorities' and calling those who have other > opinion, or who simply are not convinced 'insane'. Quite right old chap. > **Bill Wall may often be criticized because he does not hide his opinion > with his words. To avoid being criticized one should be Vague, then no on= e > can tell if we are right or wrong - and we place ourselves beyond critici= sm. > The only drawback with Vaguery is that nothing is revealed, which is to > place oneself beyond notice. Mr./Dr./IM Innes: please read the top link in Mr. Kingston's last post before attempting to address the issue of Mr. Wall's credibility. I know it is painful to face the music, but The Great Pedant Edward Winter does not just make stuff up. It appears that Mr. Wall just spews nonsense at times, even committing atrocious spelling errors (gasp!) and aping silly stories, much like the Evans ratpackers. This is *not* a question of daring to state one's opinions-- you have intellectually "derailed". -- help bot           Date: 21 Aug 2008 09:25:56 From: Chess One Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:1a452307-c3a0-491e-8513-18ba3a8cd959@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... On Aug 20, 3:20 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **The point is not to argue 'authorities' but on veracities - how do we > know > that anyone got it right? That is the only issue here. To be sure of > things > takes more than a list of 'authorities' and calling those who have other > opinion, or who simply are not convinced 'insane'. Quite right old chap. > **Bill Wall may often be criticized because he does not hide his opinion > with his words. To avoid being criticized one should be Vague, then no one > can tell if we are right or wrong - and we place ourselves beyond > criticism. > The only drawback with Vaguery is that nothing is revealed, which is to > place oneself beyond notice. Mr./Dr./IM Innes: please read the top link in Mr. Kingston's last post before attempting to address the issue of Mr. Wall's credibility. I know it is painful to face the music, but The Great Pedant Edward Winter does not just make stuff up. It appears that Mr. Wall just spews nonsense at times, even committing atrocious spelling errors (gasp!) and aping silly stories, much like the Evans ratpackers. This is *not* a question of daring to state one's opinions-- you have intellectually "derailed". **I said Bill Wall is not 'daring', but 'able' to say... Dr. n-IMnes is too much like Dr. Nimo, and besides, authorities... authorities everywhere! Like flies round our eyes, dirty flies who need us more than we need them! In The Story of the Great Pedant, part deux; he, who after 2 years issued forth with so many mistakes the publication needed to be reprinted, the sacrificial victim to error became the printer. Mere human beings are often wrong, pedants never. Being right or wrong is always possible in a relative-universe, but that is not to frame the issue well. What is actually interesting is not even the absolutism of right or wrong, but the degree anyone can explain /how/ some part of what they espouse is right, or at least produces their result. Phil Innes -- help bot         Date: 20 Aug 2008 15:57:24 From: help bot Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 20, 8:37=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > Its okay to say 'don't know' or even 'most likely' but to not know and be > sure at the same time is not a happy combination. What we want is qualifi= ed > information or qualified guesses. > > In other words, relative statements not absolute ones. Okay, I am watching a "lecture" on DVD, being delivered by a supposedly top-1% of all Ivy Leaguer professors, and he flatly states that "you can't use X to try and answer questions of type Y". Trouble is, you *can*, and I already have! So, what is his beef with using X in relation to Y? He is obviously /shielding a weakness/; it is akin to a player who will lock up as many pawns as possible, because he is tired of hanging pieces to unexpected forks by the opponent's Queen. > As such, it is not a discussion of how we know what we know - which is > itself a scientific phrase to do with research. He, in fact, discusses > nothing whatever. Maybe he gets paid "by the word"? > > Maybe he just doesn't know about the > > tiebreaks? > > If there were any? Otherwise placements can be decided by ratings of > opponents [from wins or loses]. Hmm. If it's the prize money that's at issue, then there ought to have been no tiebreaks-- they just split it. But if there is a trophy (or title) at stake (i.e. "dead last finisher"), then there has to be some sort of tiebreak or else you have to get out a chainsaw. > Its as daft as continuing to write about Morphy's shoes The one's he danced around in a circle, stark naked, yelling "fire!"? Well, it is true that Mr. Alekhine had peed on them and tossed out a lit match, but then, they were no longer in style after The War Between the States. > > =A0Well, if you don't like having your sanity > > questioned, then what on Earth are you > > doing in here? =A0Go outside, into the fresh > > air. =A0Smell the roses. =A0Take the dog for a > > walk. =A0Teach your kids how to play ball. > > Laugh - I walk 5 miles a day, minimum, and one of my kids started her PhD > this week. Is it perhaps a PhD in law, "taken from" the Sorbonne? (They never recovered the one Dr. Alekhine stole from them, you know.) -- help bot           Date: 23 Aug 2008 13:28:25 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 23, 12:56=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > On Aug 23, 11:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So why Alekhine > > particularly? The Paris Zeitinger articles are barbed missifs. > > =A0 I presume you mean Pariser Zeitung. > > The Zeitung articles from Paris. Its same thing, you see. Unless ve insis= t > on zer Chermun! I merely prefer to call the Pariser Zeitung by its correct name, correctly spelled. AFAIK, there is no German word "Zeitinger." It does not appear in my Sch=F6ffler-Weis Dictionary, nor on Babelfish. The closest word is the verb "zeitigen," which means to produce or ripen. "Zeitung" on the other hand means "newspaper," which is what the articles were written in. > > A careful > > reading reveals the abstruce strategy Alekhine used in writing them, bu= t > > which remarkably escaped notice of the censors - they start with normal > > racial depredations, but end with one-by-one exemptions of Jewish playe= rs, > > being the players Alekhine knew. A back-hander to the up-front rascism.= As > > if to say, 'Jews suck, except the ones I know'. > > =A0 Phil, where do you see that? > > **See that? See what? What you just described, o dim one. > =A0Checking the English version of those > articles in "The Personality of Chess" (the same text I gave you some > years ago), I don't readily see any "exemptions of Jewish players." > > **Are you meaning to say you don't see the words you put in speech marks? > I indicated a paraphrase by saying, "As if to say..." I mean that I see nothing in the Alekhine articles that fits your description at all. > Rather, most of the Jewish masters Alekhine knew -- specifically > Lasker, Janowski, Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, R=E9ti, Flohr, Fine, > Botvinnik, Reshevsky, Mieses, Spielmann -- get some very derogatory, > even insulting treatment. The main gist is "Jews suck, including the > ones I know, and the ones I know suck for the following reasons." > > **This is confusing - you use speech or quotation marks, as if that was w= hat > Alekhine says, but offer a paraphrase. The only confusion, as usual, is yours, Phil. But you can allay our suspicions about your dyslexia by producing quotes that qualify as "exemptions of Jewish players Alekhine knew" (your phrase). In the meantime, I will supply quotes from the Alekhine articles showing just the opposite, that they specifically disparaged the Jewish masters Alekhine knew: "Lasker's great offense as a leading Chess Master ... was manifold ... Lasker plagiarized the great Morphy ... he was ... the most grotesque player in chess history." "Janowski created 'brilliant games' ... but as it turned out, only against weaker opponents. When he played real masters, his style was as unimaginative, dry and materialistic as the style of 99 out of 100 of his jew brethren." "[Rubinstein was] reared in hate against the 'Goyim' (Gentiles)" "I am fully convinced that this whole 'Nimzovitch system' is based on wrong premises ... Nimzovitch's teachings ... did not originate in his own brain, but were borrowed from both old and contemporary masters and were consciously or unconsciously plagiarized." "A united front of purely destructive Jewish chess tacticians (Steintiz-Lasker-Nimzovitch-Reti) began to shape up, destined to hamper, for half a century, the logical evolution of our fighting chess." "[Reti's] cheap bluff, this shameless self-advertisement was swallowed hook, line and sinker by the chess world that had been poisoned by Jewish journalists." "Reuben Fine [was] educated in a Communist school maintained by a Jewish community." "[Reshevsky] showed that he represented the worst type of chess professional, resorting to the shabbiest tricks." "Botvinnik's games leave a dry uninspired impression." "Unfortunately there are ... phony artists, who explot the Aryan idea of attack to satisfy their professional lust for money. The most typical representatives of this tendency are probably the Viennese Jew Rudolf Spielmann ... and the Leipzig Jew Jacques Mieses." So, Phil, I would say that rather than "one-by-one exemptions of Jewish players," as you claim to have found, it seems clear we have one-by-one condemnations. I strongly suggest you actually read a text before you try to summarize it.             Date: 30 Aug 2008 08:05:30 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 29, 2:30=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:8b099e82-491c-48c2-abac-ee8b6bdd6aed@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 28, 3:51 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't remember where I read the Euwe comment - which may not be even = be > > published at all? > > =A0 If it was never published at all, how could you have read it? > > ** Because someone wrote me about it. "Someone"? Tut, tut, Phil -- very vague. > **Because someone wrote me about it. Ah, then it is hearsay. > > But I do remember it was Euwe. > > =A0 It seems like something Euwe's biographer M=FCnninghoff would have > reported, had Euwe said it. But I don't see it there. However, there > is this: > > =A0 "The World Champion was in an awful state when, on the eve of > Christmas tournament of Hastings 1945/46, he was roundly condemned: > because of his behavior during the war, neither the Russians, nor the > Americans, **** nor Euwe ****, nor anyone at all, was prepared to play > against him." -- "Max Euwe: The Biography" (NIC 2001) p.247 (emphasis > added) > > **But the W Ch invite came in early 46, no? Not Christmas 1945. Yes, Skinner & Verhoeven say Alekhine got a telegram from the BCF about Botvinnik's challenge "15 days before his death," which would be around 8 March 1946. So now you are saying Euwe said "Humanity is the best revenge" in connection with this? > > The force of Tartakower issuing this sentiment from the relative safety= of > > London compared with Euwe's in occupied Europe is a marked difference. > > =A0 "Occupied Europe"? Occupied by whom? > > **Nazi's mate! They took over the whole of contintental Europe during WW = II. How much of Europe were they occupying in March 1946? Last I heard, Germany surrendered in May 1945, almost a year earlier. > =A0You just said Euwe's statement > was made *_after_* WW II, when Holland was no longer occupied by any > hostile power. > > **ROFL! ~ God Taylor! your comprehension is abysmal. I said that if > Tartakower made the statement it would be of less force than Euwe. That's > because Euwe was in occupied Europe, and Tartakower was in London! Well, we have a definite conundrum then, Phil. If Euwe said this in connection with Botvinnik's challenge to Alekhine, or at the same time as Tartakower made the statements I referred to (January 1946), Euwe simply could not have said it in Nazi-occupied Europe. If Euwe said this while in Nazi-occupied Europe, it could not have been in conection with Botvinnik's challenge, or at the same time as Tartakower's statements. > **If you want to continue this 'conversation' can you please STOP your > idiotic 'interpretations' of plain sentences, I'll remember that, in the unlikely event that you write a plain sentence. > Why would you want to know /when/ they said what when Because I'm a history buff, Phil. A student of history always wants to know "When?" Also because I enjoy pointing out how sloppy and uninformed you are. > the importance is their experience of occupation or lack of it? But the plain fact is that the time element was introduced by you. I quote: "The force of Tartakower issuing this sentiment from the relative safety of London compared with Euwe's in occupied Europe is a marked difference." You are clearly locating both men in time as well as geography. As for Euwe's alleged statement carrying more force, wherever, whenever, and if ever it was actually said, that's as may be. I would say that Tartakower's willingness to forgive the anti-Semite Alekhine carries *_considerable_* force, in view of the fact that Tartakower's parents were killed in a pogrom.               Date: 01 Sep 2008 15:37:27 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:db493b74-d67f-45a9-abe8-37072f2704c6@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... On Aug 29, 2:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:8b099e82-491c-48c2-abac-ee8b6bdd6aed@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 28, 3:51 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't remember where I read the Euwe comment - which may not be even > > be > > published at all? > > If it was never published at all, how could you have read it? > > ** Because someone wrote me about it. "Someone"? Tut, tut, Phil -- very vague. **Very discreet! You yourself wrote me 30 e-mails about you know who ;) Do you remember? When I bring this up you said, I don't recall, then privately asked me for some of them. 2 years later you still couldn't recall, as if nothing happened. Shall I be vague with your e-mails, Vaguer? You even ducked the question before, not saying yea or nay. > **Because someone wrote me about it. Ah, then it is hearsay. **Sure its hearsay, but what of it? People's letters are often most revealing, more than their public postures - you should know! --------- > > **But the W Ch invite came in early 46, no? Not Christmas 1945. Yes, Skinner & Verhoeven say Alekhine got a telegram from the BCF about Botvinnik's challenge "15 days before his death," which would be around 8 March 1946. So now you are saying Euwe said "Humanity is the best revenge" in connection with this? **In connection with Euwe's efforts to re-establish Alekhine on the chess circuit. [you excuse my 'avoidance' of your 'this' since I have no idea if you intend a reference to the telegram, or the process by which it was possible to send it, nor why you can't be bothered to name your nouns]. > > The force of Tartakower issuing this sentiment from the relative safety > > of > > London compared with Euwe's in occupied Europe is a marked difference. > > "Occupied Europe"? Occupied by whom? > > **Nazi's mate! They took over the whole of contintental Europe during WW > II. How much of Europe were they occupying in March 1946? Last I heard, Germany surrendered in May 1945, almost a year earlier. **And here we have another MAGNIFICENT example of Taylor Kingston's comprehension abilities. He now introduces his own idea yet again, that the when of the statement is what I intended, than by the status of the person who uttered it: to wit; the sentiment would be more magnanimous if issued by someone suffering occupation rather than sitting it out in London. Having clarified who the occupations forces were, for our Californian, he has found grounds to confuse himself about a straightforward couple of sentence I dare repeat [since they exist immediately above!] ** "The force of Tartakower issuing this sentiment from the relative safety of London compared with Euwe's in occupied Europe is a marked difference." ** So our Taylor writes as if it were important /when/ the statement at issue was issued, but does not explain this deviation from the main force being if it issued from someone under occupation or not. Why he does this or indeed requests further information to become increasingly confused about, is unknown. > You just said Euwe's statement > was made *_after_* WW II, when Holland was no longer occupied by any > hostile power. **That's right. Since negotiation for Alekhine's re-inclusion to the chess world was probably no priority to secret radio communications. Yet you seem to note this fact, but not that you may be a tad off in your appreciation of what has been said. **Before responding further with your idiotic deviancies, please be so kind as to repeat what you understand from what people say, since you are [5th time in a week?] in danger of seeming to be an airhead. > **ROFL! ~ God Taylor! your comprehension is abysmal. I said that if > Tartakower made the statement it would be of less force than Euwe. That's > because Euwe was in occupied Europe, and Tartakower was in London! Well, we have a definite conundrum then, Phil. If Euwe said this in connection with Botvinnik's challenge to Alekhine, or at the same time as Tartakower made the statements I referred to (January 1946), Euwe simply could not have said it in Nazi-occupied Europe. **Duh - well yeah! But who said when he said it? You did. I certainly didn't. If Euwe said this while in Nazi-occupied Europe, it could not have been in conection with Botvinnik's challenge, or at the same time as Tartakower's statements. > **If you want to continue this 'conversation' can you please STOP your > idiotic 'interpretations' of plain sentences, I'll remember that, in the unlikely event that you write a plain sentence. **Good! Please begin any time. You haven't yet, you failed the first instance! Say you understand what is written, and if you don't agree with it, make that clearly seperate - since you are still in denial, with words, and by your actions. Say what you think others mean first. Do you understand that plain sentence? [2nd asking]. > Why would you want to know /when/ they said what when Because I'm a history buff, Phil. A student of history always wants to know "When?" Also because I enjoy pointing out how sloppy and uninformed you are. ** you are no history 'buff' whatever that is. you are a flak who inserts material into the scripts of others and insists that is their message, rather than your own. what you write may or may not interest what they did, and be more or less interesting. **what is galliing about you is your innocence. you think you are a 'buff' but act like a librarian. becoming a 'buff' requires a little more contextual initiative to make the right inquiries. you are also notably active in proposing yourself at the expense of other people, and you do this in public and in private. and when your own issue eventually is eventually revealed, is it but another idea - and was it worth comparing people to Hitler for - for declaring them insane - of some misperceived issue about chess which is your own misconcpetion. you have the unfortunate mark [for an historian] of being an enthusiast, but lacking real aggression to find stuff out for yourself. > the importance is their experience of occupation or lack of it? But the plain fact is that the time element was introduced by you. I quote: "The force of Tartakower issuing this sentiment from the relative safety of London compared with Euwe's in occupied Europe is a marked difference." You are clearly locating both men in time as well as geography. **Not clear to me. Where is any reference to time, other than the statement must necessarily issue after the war ended? So - explain yourself and resist insulting others - have a go at it. Its harded than it seems and failure to achieve it will take you down the path of a Brennen, a numbskull who now can only write that way, at anyone's expense. **Come on! I make an emphasis of PLACE, right? Where is there reference to time? Time of what? Why am I "clearly locating both men in time as well as geography", when I merely mention their 'geography' as you put it. As for Euwe's alleged statement carrying more force, wherever, whenever, and if ever it was actually said, that's as may be. I would say that Tartakower's willingness to forgive the anti-Semite Alekhine carries *_considerable_* force, in view of the fact that Tartakower's parents were killed in a pogrom. **Your idea is suppositional based on another understandable factor of the issuance of the sentiment. Ok! I understand your expression. Phil Innes             Date: 29 Aug 2008 11:41:49 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 29, 2:08=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > On Aug 28, 3:51 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:6cae4872-89de-4489-aec2-e6e4efdab48a@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com..= . > > On Aug 28, 9:41 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The force of Tartakower issuing this sentiment from the relative safety= of > > London compared with Euwe's in occupied Europe is a marked difference. > > > Phil Innes > > =A0 So you can't name a source? > > ** > Certainly can't be bothering to look for 'a source' to satisfy someone wh= o > can't say why it is important that Tartakover rather than Euwe said anyth= ing > at all, rather than the nature of the sentiment expressed. So you don't think it's at all important to attribute a quote to the person who actually said it? An interesting view. I guess our Phil would accept these: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." -- Jefferson Davis "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." -- Abraham Lincoln "I was nearly an IM, with a rating of 2450" -- Neil Brennen "It is not Spanish, it is Andean." -- Greg Kennedy "I am not your boy." -- Barack Obama > I assume by this > current request [?] that Our Tinker Taylor /resents/ and challenges the > anecdote - I question -- "challenge" is too strong a word -- the attribution to Euwe. Ive never seen any such statement by him, but I have seen things close to it by Tartakower. That leads me to think you may have them confused -- and you are very often confused, Phil. But if you can cite a credible source, I will accept the attribution. > but what is that to me? Well, you might want to be seen here as being factually accurate for once. But indeed, what is that to you?               Date: 30 Aug 2008 16:03:06 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:71eb6255-2c2a-4cf2-b1f5-92202ab177ea@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... On Aug 29, 2:08 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > On Aug 28, 3:51 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:6cae4872-89de-4489-aec2-e6e4efdab48a@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > On Aug 28, 9:41 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The force of Tartakower issuing this sentiment from the relative safety > > of > > London compared with Euwe's in occupied Europe is a marked difference. > > > Phil Innes > > So you can't name a source? > > ** > Certainly can't be bothering to look for 'a source' to satisfy someone who > can't say why it is important that Tartakover rather than Euwe said > anything > at all, rather than the nature of the sentiment expressed. So you don't think it's at all important to attribute a quote to the person who actually said it? **That's not what I said. Instead I said I would not look for a source for someone who couldn't say what was so important about it. Especially to someone who previously asked me about my sources, and who ignored them - even more especially since if the answer resided in Arnold's e-mails, should I publicise those when the current writer denies his own e-mail contribution to chess history? <I refer to the campaing by Our Taylor on the subject of Evans, which TK does not 'recall' he conducted, not even after a previous challenge by him to this issue, when I returned him his own e-mails to utter silence on his part An interesting view. I guess our Phil would accept these: **Our Taylor must always guess, since he knows little. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." -- Jefferson Davis "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." -- Abraham Lincoln "I was nearly an IM, with a rating of 2450" -- Neil Brennen "It is not Spanish, it is Andean." -- Greg Kennedy "I am not your boy." -- Barack Obama **What is Taylor suggesting? He can't say why I should find a source for him, and indulges himself with this exhibition, as if that would inspire me to do it for him? What a light-weight is our Taylor! But these are not light-weight matters to those whose result mattered to their lives. I merely dismiss Kingston's challenges since they are only here to posture a bit about sources - something important to him, whereas what these sources say is important to me. > I assume by this > current request [?] that Our Tinker Taylor /resents/ and challenges the > anecdote - I question -- "challenge" is too strong a word -- the attribution to Euwe. Ive never seen any such statement by him, but I have seen things close to it by Tartakower. **Even given what is close to your knowledge, what do you make of the sentiment? Whether Tartakowers or Euwe's? That leads me to think you may have them confused -- and you are very often confused, Phil. But if you can cite a credible source, I will accept the attribution. **Taylor doesn't know shit as usual, and because he MUST nail down who said what because this is more important to him and Eddiue Winter than what was said, then he, despite knowing shit himself, suggest others are confused. :)) > but what is that to me? Well, you might want to be seen here as being factually accurate for once. But indeed, what is that to you? **Factually? Shall I publish all your e-mails here so that people can see how "factually" engaged you really are? **Fucking Hell! What a poseur thou art! If you canj't say why you want to know anything, and you can't, since this was the challenge I offered you, then shall we suppose it has nothing to do with history, and more about your opinion and standing? **Easy to suppose things, no? Who here thinks either of us the more vulnerable to public applause? Phil Innes             Date: 26 Aug 2008 08:50:02 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:aa1778c3-b834-4fd7-aa60-f41a3d3e7c97@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... On Aug 23, 12:56 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > On Aug 23, 11:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So why Alekhine > > particularly? The Paris Zeitinger articles are barbed missifs. > > I presume you mean Pariser Zeitung. > > The Zeitung articles from Paris. Its same thing, you see. Unless ve insist > on zer Chermun! I merely prefer to call the Pariser Zeitung by its correct name, correctly spelled. AFAIK, there is no German word "Zeitinger." **But I may a choke on not haffing to use zer Chermun! It does not appear in my Sch�ffler-Weis Dictionary, nor on Babelfish. The closest word is the verb "zeitigen," which means to produce or ripen. "Zeitung" on the other hand means "newspaper," which is what the articles were written in. > > A careful > > reading reveals the abstruce strategy Alekhine used in writing them, but > > which remarkably escaped notice of the censors - they start with normal > > racial depredations, but end with one-by-one exemptions of Jewish > > players, > > being the players Alekhine knew. A back-hander to the up-front rascism. > > As > > if to say, 'Jews suck, except the ones I know'. > > Phil, where do you see that? > > **See that? See what? What you just described, o dim one. **Our Taylor is as immune to humor as to specifics. After my paragraph he refers to 'that'. Then when I ask Vaguer what 'quite exactly' he is questioning, he says I am dim - so far, so usual...! This is the same guy can't understand why he used to be friends with Evans, Parr, myself. > Checking the English version of those > articles in "The Personality of Chess" (the same text I gave you some > years ago), I don't readily see any "exemptions of Jewish players." > > **Are you meaning to say you don't see the words you put in speech marks? > I indicated a paraphrase by saying, "As if to say..." I mean that I see nothing in the Alekhine articles that fits your description at all. **It seems absurd to conduct a 'conversation' with someone can't be bothered to explain his own comments! And we have alread reverted to absolutes with that 'nothing'. > Rather, most of the Jewish masters Alekhine knew -- specifically > Lasker, Janowski, Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, R�ti, Flohr, Fine, > Botvinnik, Reshevsky, Mieses, Spielmann -- get some very derogatory, > even insulting treatment. The main gist is "Jews suck, including the > ones I know, and the ones I know suck for the following reasons." > > **This is confusing - you use speech or quotation marks, as if that was > what > Alekhine says, but offer a paraphrase. The only confusion, as usual, is yours, Phil. But you can allay our suspicions about your dyslexia by producing quotes that qualify as "exemptions of Jewish players Alekhine knew" (your phrase). **I ask Vaguer why /he/ uses quotation marks when he is not quoting anything, and the confusion is mine. Yes it is! That is why I asked this /specific/ point. In the meantime, I will supply quotes from the Alekhine articles showing just the opposite, that they specifically disparaged the Jewish masters Alekhine knew: **Don't do it all over again! I already made a reply to this which /notes/ the very odd way that Alekhine uses to disparage others - by also noting their worth. Vaguer can't see the wood because of the trees. Of course these are gross condemnations of Jewish players, but as I suggest elsewhere, they are not /only/ that. They are [almost] all qualified by other commentary. **If Vaguer wants to not notice that - that is his choice. I am not insisting he does - but I am stating that the material is very oddly worded, and given the circumstances of its publication, invite a serious look at that. Phil Innes "Lasker's great offense as a leading Chess Master ... was manifold ... Lasker plagiarized the great Morphy ... he was ... the most grotesque player in chess history." "Janowski created 'brilliant games' ... but as it turned out, only against weaker opponents. When he played real masters, his style was as unimaginative, dry and materialistic as the style of 99 out of 100 of his jew brethren." "[Rubinstein was] reared in hate against the 'Goyim' (Gentiles)" "I am fully convinced that this whole 'Nimzovitch system' is based on wrong premises ... Nimzovitch's teachings ... did not originate in his own brain, but were borrowed from both old and contemporary masters and were consciously or unconsciously plagiarized." "A united front of purely destructive Jewish chess tacticians (Steintiz-Lasker-Nimzovitch-Reti) began to shape up, destined to hamper, for half a century, the logical evolution of our fighting chess." "[Reti's] cheap bluff, this shameless self-advertisement was swallowed hook, line and sinker by the chess world that had been poisoned by Jewish journalists." "Reuben Fine [was] educated in a Communist school maintained by a Jewish community." "[Reshevsky] showed that he represented the worst type of chess professional, resorting to the shabbiest tricks." "Botvinnik's games leave a dry uninspired impression." "Unfortunately there are ... phony artists, who explot the Aryan idea of attack to satisfy their professional lust for money. The most typical representatives of this tendency are probably the Viennese Jew Rudolf Spielmann ... and the Leipzig Jew Jacques Mieses." So, Phil, I would say that rather than "one-by-one exemptions of Jewish players," as you claim to have found, it seems clear we have one-by-one condemnations. I strongly suggest you actually read a text before you try to summarize it.           Date: 21 Aug 2008 08:42:20 From: Chess One Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Aug 20, 8:37 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > Its okay to say 'don't know' or even 'most likely' but to not know and be > sure at the same time is not a happy combination. What we want is > qualified > information or qualified guesses. > > In other words, relative statements not absolute ones. Okay, I am watching a "lecture" on DVD, being delivered by a supposedly top-1% of all Ivy Leaguer professors, and he flatly states that "you can't use X to try and answer questions of type Y". Trouble is, you *can*, and I already have! So, what is his beef with using X in relation to Y? ** Yes, the method is all, and 'top' people, especially academics, have better opportunity to tell us method, since that is the presumption on their employment. To be only told something, rather than have the decision process explained, is merely rote learning, and in fact you cannot determine if what you are told is correct or not - not to any degree - and not so that you can objectify result by comparing it with your own process. Strictly speaking, results are part of process, but somewhere near the end of the process. In the age of sound-bite [byte?] people therefore know much, understand little. He is obviously /shielding a weakness/; it is **Maybe lazy - or merely presenting results to research which exists elsewhere? The point being the reader/audience can determine little verity from results alone. Philosophically what is not going on here is 'transference' in the sense of sharing the means of inquiry. **Feynman is a good example in mathematics of uncritically acceping the collected received opinion of 50 years of authorities. More recently in physics there is the infamous announced result of : cold fusion in a test-tube. akin to a player who will lock up as many pawns as possible, because he is tired of hanging pieces to unexpected forks by the opponent's Queen. **certainly akin to the danger of rote memorised moves alone. Without understanding the process of developing the whole team in such-and-such a formation, then the individual moves may be known, but not understood. > As such, it is not a discussion of how we know what we know - which is > itself a scientific phrase to do with research. He, in fact, discusses > nothing whatever. Hmm. If it's the prize money that's at issue, then there ought to have been no tiebreaks-- they just split it. But if there is a trophy (or title) at stake (i.e. "dead last finisher"), then there has to be some sort of tiebreak or else you have to get out a chainsaw. **reporting on the subject is less than informative. Wall shows prize money awarded, but oddly not to 7th & 8th places. Similarly, in charts of the tournament the top 8 places are shown with Lasker always in 8th position even though from his score he might sometimes we included as 7th? This is surely the result of one source repeating another, over and over. [I note Wiki places him in 8th place.] It doesn't prove anything, either way. **But that's not why Our Taylor is inistent that it does prove something. Even before the placement issue at Nottingham arose, another poster contested that Lasker was not on top of his game at the end of his carear and said that he finished 8th etc - Our Taylor took great exception to the contradiction of Lasker's actual performance. I then picked up the most relevant Encyclopedia to hand, whcih was the British one by Sunnucks, and there was Hooper saying 8th place. **Now, without knowing if Hooper was right or wrong, Our Taylor then became excited to the degree that he is prepared to call me insane for citing an encylopedia. His own citation is of the tournament book which he hotly obtained from UK, but which did /not/ illustrate means of placement. But obviously, Our Taylor's strong reaction is /not/ to the encyclopedia entry, but to the refutation of Lasker's world status as proposed by Our Taylor, whether Lasker finished 7th or 8th. And that is the context for everything, including inventing my opinion for me. > Its as daft as continuing to write about Morphy's shoes > Laugh - I walk 5 miles a day, minimum, and one of my kids started her PhD > this week. Is it perhaps a PhD in law, "taken from" the Sorbonne? (They never recovered the one Dr. Alekhine stole from them, you know.) **No, no that sort of law. Perhaps scientific law of sorts. At one time study of both Physics and Nature was called "Natural Philosophy". They have been not exactly divorced, but definitely experiencing a trial-seperation since the onset of the Industrial Age. An interesting synopsis of the subject is the 1991 title by Rupert Sheldrake: The Rebirth of Nature; The Greening of Science and God. As if, you know, there was one operating system for the Cosmos, and our Universe suggested that the Nature of Man, the Nature of Nature, and the Nature of God, also share one Operating System. Very much of this title points to the dead-end result of received knowledge, which is seen to be merely rule-of-thumb conveniences fitting only some circumstances, and not addressing the whole, though presuming to do so. **The rule of pedants, especially literary ones, is the story of our modern age - if I can date that to the emergence of the printing press, and the contrary instinct from such as Galileo's preference for observation before thought. Indeed, this hidden animus of singular insistences was noted early, and also its nature: No-one who sees the iconoclasts raging thus against wood and stone would doubt that there is a spirit hidden in them which is death-dealing, not life-giving, and which at the first opportunity will also kill men. //Martin Luther, 1525. **At about the same time Henry VIII was destroying the integrated means of knowledge in destroying the English monasteries - which certainly provided greater emphasis to how we know things, and their meaning to us, than what succeeded that; a simple quantification of result which is the modus of our current age. [I hasten to stress that Our Taylor is not responsible for all of this! Merely responsive to it, and that, alas, is 'normative'.] Phil Innes -- help bot             Date: 24 Aug 2008 07:59:34 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 23, 4:28=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Aug 23, 12:56=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:[email protected]... > > On Aug 23, 11:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So why Alekhine > > > particularly? The Paris Zeitinger articles are barbed missifs. > > > =A0 I presume you mean Pariser Zeitung. > > > The Zeitung articles from Paris. Its same thing, you see. Unless ve ins= ist > > on zer Chermun! > > =A0 I merely prefer to call the Pariser Zeitung by its correct name, > correctly spelled. AFAIK, there is no German word "Zeitinger." It does > not appear in my Sch=F6ffler-Weis Dictionary, nor on Babelfish. The > closest word is the verb "zeitigen," which means to produce or ripen. > "Zeitung" on the other hand means "newspaper," which is what the > articles were written in. > > > > A careful > > > reading reveals the abstruce strategy Alekhine used in writing them, = but > > > which remarkably escaped notice of the censors - they start with norm= al > > > racial depredations, but end with one-by-one exemptions of Jewish pla= yers, > > > being the players Alekhine knew. A back-hander to the up-front rascis= m. As > > > if to say, 'Jews suck, except the ones I know'. > > > =A0 Phil, where do you see that? > > > **See that? See what? > > =A0 What you just described, o dim one. > > > =A0Checking the English version of those > > articles in "The Personality of Chess" (the same text I gave you some > > years ago), I don't readily see any "exemptions of Jewish players." > > > **Are you meaning to say you don't see the words you put in speech mark= s? > > I indicated a paraphrase by saying, "As if to say..." > > =A0 I mean that I see nothing in the Alekhine articles that fits your > description at all. > > > Rather, most of the Jewish masters Alekhine knew -- specifically > > Lasker, Janowski, Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, R=E9ti, Flohr, Fine, > > Botvinnik, Reshevsky, Mieses, Spielmann -- get some very derogatory, > > even insulting treatment. The main gist is "Jews suck, including the > > ones I know, and the ones I know suck for the following reasons." > > > **This is confusing - you use speech or quotation marks, as if that was= what > > Alekhine says, but offer a paraphrase. > > =A0 The only confusion, as usual, is yours, Phil. But you can allay our > suspicions about your dyslexia by producing quotes that qualify as > "exemptions of Jewish players Alekhine knew" (your phrase). > > =A0 In the meantime, I will supply quotes from the Alekhine articles > showing just the opposite, that they specifically disparaged the > Jewish masters Alekhine knew: > > =A0 "Lasker's great offense as a leading Chess Master ... was > manifold ... Lasker plagiarized the great Morphy ... he was ... the > most grotesque player in chess history." I should correct the last part of the above quote, which gives the impression Alekhine considered Lasker "most grotesque." That part of the article reads: "To Lasker the idea of attack as a gratifying experience was altogether foreign, and in this respect he was a natural successor to Steinitz, the most grotesque player in chess history." > =A0 "Janowski created 'brilliant games' ... but as it turned out, only > against weaker opponents. When he played real masters, his style was > as unimaginative, dry and materialistic as the style of 99 out of 100 > of his jew brethren." > > =A0 "[Rubinstein was] reared in hate against the 'Goyim' (Gentiles)" > > =A0 "I am fully convinced that this whole 'Nimzovitch system' is based > on wrong premises ... Nimzovitch's teachings ... did not originate in > his own brain, but were borrowed from both old and contemporary > masters and were consciously or unconsciously plagiarized." > > =A0 "A united front of purely destructive Jewish chess tacticians > (Steintiz-Lasker-Nimzovitch-Reti) began to shape up, destined to > hamper, for half a century, the logical evolution of our fighting > chess." > > =A0 "[Reti's] cheap bluff, this shameless self-advertisement was > swallowed hook, line and sinker by the chess world that had been > poisoned by Jewish journalists." > > =A0 "Reuben Fine [was] educated in a Communist school maintained by a > Jewish community." > > =A0 "[Reshevsky] showed that he represented the worst type of chess > professional, resorting to the shabbiest tricks." > > =A0 "Botvinnik's games leave a dry uninspired impression." > > =A0 "Unfortunately there are ... phony artists, who explot the Aryan > idea of attack to satisfy their professional lust for money. The most > typical representatives of this tendency are probably the Viennese Jew > Rudolf Spielmann ... and the Leipzig Jew Jacques Mieses." > > =A0 So, Phil, I would say that rather than "one-by-one exemptions of > Jewish players," as you claim to have found, it seems clear we have > one-by-one condemnations. I strongly suggest you actually read a text > before you try to summarize it. Checking the articles again, I see that Alekhine also lumped the English with the Jews in his condemnation of "Jewish chess": "But Staunton's defeat by Anderssen was far more than a decision between two chess masters; it was actually the defeat of the Anglo- Jewish concept of defense and a triumph for the German-European idea of fighting chess." A few more specific quotes about Jewish masters whom Innes says Alekhine tried to "exempt" from his condemnation of "Jewish chess": "We would like to point out one of the typical attributes of Lasker's 'talent,' avoiding the most dangerous opponents while in their prime." "This happened in a period of decadence of chess when the so-called Viennese School reigned supreme ... Founded by the Jew Max Weiss, and fostered later by the Jewes Kaufman and Fahdrich, this School saw the secret of success not in winning, but in not-losing." "One could feel that [Rubinstein's] effort was too much for a brain showing a talent for chess but otherwise altogether mediocre." "And with such petty tricks Nimzovitch succeeded in in building up his reputation as a chess authority." "Fear of the fight, doubts about its spiritual qualities =97 a sad picture indeed of intellectual degradation! Leaving this pitiful chess legacy behind him, Nizovitch died lamented by few disciples and even fewer friends (except for some Jews)." "Solomon Flohr of Prague is a product partly of Steinitz's timorous concept of defense ..." The only statement I see that could conceivably be characterized as an "exemption" is this one: "All the same, Botvinnik can be called an exception to all others referred to." Yet this statement makes very clear that "all others referred to" _do_ come under the general condemnation of "Jewish chess," that they have _not_ been exempted.               Date: 30 Aug 2008 08:28:20 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 29, 1:41 pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Aug 29, 2:08 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:[email protected]... > > On Aug 28, 3:51 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > >news:6cae4872-89de-4489-aec2-e6e4efdab48a@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > On Aug 28, 9:41 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The force of Tartakower issuing this sentiment from the relative safety of > > > London compared with Euwe's in occupied Europe is a marked difference. > > > > Phil Innes > > > So you can't name a source? > > > ** > > Certainly can't be bothering to look for 'a source' to satisfy someone who > > can't say why it is important that Tartakover rather than Euwe said anything > > at all, rather than the nature of the sentiment expressed. > > So you don't think it's at all important to attribute a quote to the > person who actually said it? An interesting view. I guess our Phil > would accept these: > > "A house divided against itself cannot stand." -- Jefferson Davis > "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." -- Abraham Lincoln > "I was nearly an IM, with a rating of 2450" -- Neil Brennen Taylor, please leave me out of your never-ending flame war with P Innes. > "It is not Spanish, it is Andean." -- Greg Kennedy > "I am not your boy." -- Barack Obama > > > I assume by this > > current request [?] that Our Tinker Taylor /resents/ and challenges the > > anecdote - > > I question -- "challenge" is too strong a word -- the attribution to > Euwe. Ive never seen any such statement by him, but I have seen things > close to it by Tartakower. That leads me to think you may have them > confused -- and you are very often confused, Phil. But if you can cite > a credible source, I will accept the attribution. > > > but what is that to me? > > Well, you might want to be seen here as being factually accurate for > once. But indeed, what is that to you? Yes, why ruin his reputation for perpetual falsehood?               Date: 30 Aug 2008 08:26:30 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 30, 10:05 am, [email protected] wrote: > As for Euwe's alleged statement carrying more force, wherever, > whenever, and if ever it was actually said, that's as may be. I would > say that Tartakower's willingness to forgive the anti-Semite Alekhine > carries *_considerable_* force, in view of the fact that Tartakower's > parents were killed in a pogrom. Didn't Alekhine suggest Tartakower as an opponent for a training match prior to meeting Botvinnik?               Date: 30 Aug 2008 02:39:15 From: help bot Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) [email protected] wrote: > > So you can't name a source? An odd question, considering that Dr. IMnes already named his source. I think some folks just can't do memory "recall". > > Certainly can't be bothering to look for 'a source' to satisfy someone who > > can't say why it is important that Tartakover rather than Euwe said anything > > at all, rather than the nature of the sentiment expressed. > > So you don't think it's at all important to attribute a quote to the > person who actually said it? An interesting view. I guess our Phil > would accept these: > > "A house divided against itself cannot stand." -- Jefferson Davis This is house-building 101. > "We hold these truths to be self-evident ..." -- Abraham Lincoln Then why even bother discussing them? > "I was nearly an IM, with a rating of 2450" -- Neil Brennen Implausible, as that is precisely the same rating and title Dr. IMnes once had. > "It is not Spanish, it is Andean." -- Greg Kennedy You must be talking about the chess openings (i.e. the Spanish is 1. e4 e5, 2. Nf3 Nc6, 3. Bb5). > "I am not your boy." -- Barack Obama The term "boy" is a huge no-no; PIC. > > I assume by this > > current request [?] that Our Tinker Taylor /resents/ and challenges the > > anecdote - > > I question -- "challenge" is too strong a word -- the attribution to > Euwe. Ive never seen any such statement by him, but I have seen things > close to it by Tartakower. That leads me to think you may have them > confused -- and you are very often confused, Phil. But if you can cite > a credible source, I will accept the attribution. > > > but what is that to me? > > Well, you might want to be seen here as being factually accurate for > once. But indeed, what is that to you? Much ado about nothing; the story was that Mr. Euwe chaired the committee, but it was of course Mr. Tartakower who took up a collection for poor old Mr. Alekhine and who gets the credit/blame for any high-falutin' quotation. The funny thing about this stuff is that supposedly, any "war crime" committed by evil Nazis was defensible if and only if "we", the victors, had committed the same type of "war crime" and admitted to it publicly. What an odd arbiter... . No-- I'm not going to point out once again our grave disappointment after having been promised a deep discussion of WWII but then getting nada, zippo, zilch-amundo. Suffice it to say that I am ordering "The World at War" on 8-track tape-- er, no, make that VHS, this week. Next, I will watch "In Harm's Way" or maybe "It Came From Outer Space". -- help bot                 Date: 30 Aug 2008 16:10:09 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > [email protected] wrote: > >> > So you can't name a source? > > > An odd question, considering that Dr. IMnes > already named his source. I think some folks > just can't do memory "recall". Even more so... Grace Alekhine as she called herself intermittently, graced the St. Ives chess club in Cornwall, some 20 miles from where I was born and where I played chess a dozen years later - she rather liked the place [anyone would!] after the world war and before her death she lived there for extended periods of time. She was a very strong woman player, and how should I be expected to not know of that or not obtain an interest in her, her husband, their circumstances? Not everything not published is not true! There is a source for you to investigate: the Jewish American native; Mme. Alekhine! A strong chess player, would beat most here! Phil Innes >               Date: 24 Aug 2008 15:47:37 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:40dd4b4e-40f5-4634-a2f5-1454d4e64da9@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... I should correct the last part of the above quote, which gives the impression Alekhine considered Lasker "most grotesque." That part of the article reads: "To Lasker the idea of attack as a gratifying experience was altogether foreign, and in this respect he was a natural successor to Steinitz, the most grotesque player in chess history." **How generous can you get? No doubt the people of Paris were appalled by Lasker's lack of gratifying attacking spirit as much as that of Steinitz - neither of them ever took their city. > "Janowski created 'brilliant games' ... but as it turned out, only > against weaker opponents. When he played real masters, his style was > as unimaginative, dry and materialistic as the style of 99 out of 100 > of his jew brethren." **"Brilliant", but... and here is the clearly announced /thema/ > "[Rubinstein was] reared in hate against the 'Goyim' (Gentiles)" **Though not English gentiles as we will see, possibly German ones? How shocking Zeitung readers must have felt about this sort of feeling about their kind occupiers. > "I am fully convinced that this whole 'Nimzovitch system' is based > on wrong premises ... Nimzovitch's teachings ... did not originate in > his own brain, but were borrowed from both old and contemporary > masters and were consciously or unconsciously plagiarized." **So we celebrate Nimzo and zer system! but not any named proper-Aryans as such - besides, Nimzo seems to have done the Aryan thing rather better than Aryan's themselves, non? > "A united front of purely destructive Jewish chess tacticians > (Steintiz-Lasker-Nimzovitch-Reti) began to shape up, destined to > hamper, for half a century, the logical evolution of our fighting > chess." **Steintiz-Lasker-Nimzovitch-Reti dominated chess for half a century... > "[Reti's] cheap bluff, this shameless self-advertisement was > swallowed hook, line and sinker by the chess world that had been > poisoned by Jewish journalists." **Accepted by World, but not by us! We the Occupiers and you the Occupied. > "Reuben Fine [was] educated in a Communist school maintained by a > Jewish community." **Its a Jewish-English and also Communist conspiracy to .. [win?] This is not exactly a criticism at all, is it? > "[Reshevsky] showed that he represented the worst type of chess > professional, resorting to the shabbiest tricks." **A bit vague on Sammy and Reuben Fine. But we are to understand they are tricky in unspecified shabby ways. Unlike Das Reich! > "Botvinnik's games leave a dry uninspired impression." **How much harder can you hit someone that that? Dry! Hillary said worse about Barack on national TV. > "Unfortunately there are ... phony artists, who explot the Aryan > idea of attack to satisfy their professional lust for money. **Interesting! Let me guess who can 'exploit' the Aryan idea of attack better than Aryan's themselves? > The most > typical representatives of this tendency are probably the Viennese Jew > Rudolf Spielmann ... and the Leipzig Jew Jacques Mieses." **I guessed right! > So, Phil, I would say that rather than "one-by-one exemptions of > Jewish players," as you claim to have found, it seems clear we have > one-by-one condemnations. I strongly suggest you actually read a text > before you try to summarize it. Checking the articles again, I see that Alekhine also lumped the English with the Jews in his condemnation of "Jewish chess": **Anticipating Monty Python... "But Staunton's defeat by Anderssen was far more than a decision between two chess masters; it was actually the defeat of the Anglo- Jewish concept of defense and a triumph for the German-European idea of fighting chess." **Hilarious ain't he? Like anyone in Paris at the time would not be aware that the "Anglo-Jewish" idea of Defence had just shot the Luftwaffe out of the skies. ROFL. A few more specific quotes about Jewish masters whom Innes says Alekhine tried to "exempt" from his condemnation of "Jewish chess": **I hope I am suggesting here something of the /means/ to speak with forked tongue! Especially since a politicial censor will audit the result. Our Taylor is struggling with these exemptions, since in almost every case Alekhine simultaneously honors each player with something or other. "We would like to point out one of the typical attributes of Lasker's 'talent,' avoiding the most dangerous opponents while in their prime." "This happened in a period of decadence of chess when the so-called Viennese School reigned supreme ... **You see - The Vienesse School reigned supreme! Of course they avoided real Aryans, like Bogo, and, um...? Founded by the Jew Max Weiss, and fostered later by the Jewes Kaufman and Fahdrich, this School saw the secret of success not in winning, but in not-losing." **At least Alekhine had the tact not to send this opinion straight to Hermann Goring, who shudda won the Battle of Britain, but sadly wound up just like the J*** and he not-lost it. ; (( "One could feel that [Rubinstein's] effort was too much for a brain showing a talent for chess but otherwise altogether mediocre." "And with such petty tricks Nimzovitch succeeded in in building up his reputation as a chess authority." **Rubinstein had talent, but couldn't do other stuff, and Nimzo - well he built up his reputation as a chess authority, presumably on the stinking Jew-principle of hard work? "Fear of the fight, doubts about its spiritual qualities � **This, to remind readers is to remind readers that now is the time they might reflect on the spiritual qualities of the current war? a sad picture indeed of intellectual degradation! Leaving this pitiful chess legacy behind him, Nizovitch died lamented by few disciples and even fewer friends (except for some Jews)." "Solomon Flohr of Prague is a product partly of Steinitz's timorous concept of defense ..." **However effective! and Flohr is his protege. **So - Perhaps Our Taylor is not quite realising that this long list of Jewish players is actually being celebrated by their mention? Maybe this is just a European sense of high ironical and very black humor during a war and for a cyncial politically audited propaganda sheet - and uses a level of commentary one does not exactly observe in the lyrics of the Beach Boys? He did note previously that the criticisms are ridiculous, and so many together are plainly an absurd signal that this is a rant, as we would say today, but an extremely oddly worded rant. The thing of it is, how conscious was Alekhine of performing this double message? That is the interpretive question. It is indeed an open question - but no-one reading this can think it is straight-writing. **Who exactly after reading about that lot of world dominating genius chess players can quite square it with the evidently petty level of criticism? Moreover, the lack of direct comparsion with un-named master Aryan chess players? More a back-handed compliment to those insulted? One interesting exercise is to take the entire series of commentary and remove all derogatory comments, much as I did above, and see what's left. The only statement I see that could conceivably be characterized as an "exemption" is this one: "All the same, Botvinnik can be called an exception to all others referred to." Yet this statement makes very clear that "all others referred to" _do_ come under the general condemnation of "Jewish chess," that they have _not_ been exempted. **I wonder if Taylor Kingston ever came across the word "Taqquiyah" in Southern California during his youth? It is not a likely word that the Beach Boys ever used, not that they ever were exactly profound in anything they said. You must understand that this is written in occupied Europe during a world war. Taqquiyah is a Turkish word. **If, on the threat of your life, or that of your wife, you were encouraged to write such a missif, and had to use the usual Jew-baiting Jew-hating rhetoric and sneak it under the nose of the official censor, and also indicate a subtle second message too... how would you...? Phil Innes                 Date: 30 Aug 2008 20:59:22 From: SBD Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 30, 3:03=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **Factually? Shall I publish all your e-mails here so that people can see > how "factually" engaged you really are? 3,675th time Phil has threatened this.                   Date: 01 Sep 2008 16:48:06 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) "SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:5eaf5e4b-6833-44e3-bdd8-cbddc5578f69@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... On Aug 30, 3:03 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > **Factually? Shall I publish all your e-mails here so that people can see > how "factually" engaged you really are? 3,675th time Phil has threatened this. ------- Is that actually true DR RD? I have 'threatened nothing. Unless of course you mean this would threaten the reputation of Our Taylor. What do you mean? Have offered maybe 20 times? 30? What is this to DR RD - is he lacking some spice in his own life and wants others to provide it? Since he is a very shy man he rarely shares his motives with others, and has not shared them as many as 3,675 times. Is that fair comment? --- Meanwhile Our Taylor is no doubt mulling over his potential 'exposure', especially the contrast to what he protest are his methods and what he actually does. Our Taylor can respond yes or no, or not respond at all. Since he so forthrightly challenges others, I thought this was merely a fair opportunity for him to demonstrate how much of a 'buff' he actually was. If he gets sued over it, after saying 'yes' that's up his own street. I would also ask in advance if server records should be the proof of such correspondence, since not even I can 'fix' Verizon, and furthermore, I am willing to do this service for free to the chess community and for chess history. Phil Innes                 Date: 30 Aug 2008 14:45:24 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 30, 4:03=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > =A0 So you don't think it's at all important to attribute a quote to the > person who actually said it? > > **That's not what I said. Instead I said I would not look for a source fo= r > someone who couldn't say what was so important about it. I've already explained that, Phil. I consider it important to be factually accurate in attributing any statement to anyone. One should try be sure about several things: (1) Exactly what was said, (2) exactly who said it, (3) exactly where and when they said it, and (4) under what circumstances they said it. Based on what you've said here, none of these have been established with any surety. > > **Even given what is close to your knowledge, what do you make of the > sentiment? Whether Tartakowers or Euwe's? I prefer not to speculate in the absence of facts. We haven't even established if anyone, ever, actually said or wrote "Humanity is the best revenge" in connection with forgiving Alekhine post-WWII. All we have is your claim that some correspondent, whose name you can't even remember, said he said this. Hearsay, the kind of testimony that would be instantly thrown out of any decent court. But accepting, for the nonce, that it _was_ said, if I were forced to choose, my bet right now would be on Tartakower. We do have some record of him saying similar things, but I do not know of any such statements by Euwe. And we do have Euwe's biographer clearly agreeing with banning Alekhine from Hastings 1945-46 (an event won, incidentally, by Tartakower, 2=BD points ahead of Euwe). > =A0That leads me to think you may have them > confused -- and you are very often confused, Phil. But if you can cite > a credible source, I will accept the attribution. > > **Taylor doesn't know shit as usual, and because he MUST nail down who sa= id > what because this is more important to him and Eddiue Winter than what wa= s > said, then he, despite knowing shit himself, suggest others are confused. Phil, your own confusion is a matter of common knowledge and public record. We've even known you to disagree with yourself in this forum. Therefore I am very reluctant to take anythng on faith from you.                   Date: 01 Sep 2008 16:07:47 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Aug 30, 4:03 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > So you don't think it's at all important to attribute a quote to the > person who actually said it? > > **That's not what I said. Instead I said I would not look for a source for > someone who couldn't say what was so important about it. I've already explained that, Phil. **You have already 'explained what, Taylor? I consider it important to be factually accurate in attributing any statement to anyone. **You mean, you insist that others attribute or cite anything they know in order for them to say it, their own sense of things gained over time, being insufficient because? ... Because why? Shit! I have written with the top players in the world, should I not mention it? Their sense of things because they did not put these things in a book? **And when YOU did know something from this level of correspondance, which incidentally was about the suppression of Jewish refuseniks in Russia, you couldn't think of a question to ask your correspondent, and explained that away because you were 'underprepared'. **I'm afraid what you say and what you do are hardly consistent! One should **What Taylor Kingstons means is any one other than himself. When 'one' does follow his prescription here, nothing happens at all. try be sure about several things: (1) Exactly what was said, (2) exactly who said it, (3) exactly where and when they said it, and (4) under what circumstances they said it. Based on what you've said here, none of these have been established with any surety. > > **Even given what is close to your knowledge, what do you make of the > sentiment? Whether Tartakowers or Euwe's? I prefer not to speculate in the absence of facts. **Taylor Kingston now cannot think of why he is pursuing the origin of a fact. As above, when he received 'facts' from 2 Russian sources he still did not speculate on them. **If I didn't expose Kingstson pose yet, I am still willing to, by publishing his own e-mails - which I think would contrast rather sharply with his public performances here. ;) Phil Innes ---------- We haven't even established if anyone, ever, actually said or wrote "Humanity is the best revenge" in connection with forgiving Alekhine post-WWII. All we have is your claim that some correspondent, whose name you can't even remember, said he said this. Hearsay, the kind of testimony that would be instantly thrown out of any decent court. But accepting, for the nonce, that it _was_ said, if I were forced to choose, my bet right now would be on Tartakower. We do have some record of him saying similar things, but I do not know of any such statements by Euwe. And we do have Euwe's biographer clearly agreeing with banning Alekhine from Hastings 1945-46 (an event won, incidentally, by Tartakower, 2� points ahead of Euwe). > That leads me to think you may have them > confused -- and you are very often confused, Phil. But if you can cite > a credible source, I will accept the attribution. > > **Taylor doesn't know shit as usual, and because he MUST nail down who > said > what because this is more important to him and Eddiue Winter than what was > said, then he, despite knowing shit himself, suggest others are confused. Phil, your own confusion is a matter of common knowledge and public record. We've even known you to disagree with yourself in this forum. Therefore I am very reluctant to take anythng on faith from you.             Date: 21 Aug 2008 10:18:01 From: Kenneth Sloan Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously Chess One wrote: > ** Yes, the method is all, and 'top' people, especially academics, have > better opportunity to tell us method, since that is the presumption on their > employment. To be only told something, rather than have the decision process > explained, is merely rote learning, and in fact you cannot determine if what > you are told is correct or not - not to any degree - and not so that you can > objectify result by comparing it with your own process. Strictly speaking, > results are part of process, but somewhere near the end of the process. In > the age of sound-bite [byte?] people therefore know much, understand little. > What process did you follow to reach these conclusions? -- Kenneth Sloan [email protected] Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213 University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473 Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/         Date: 19 Aug 2008 23:47:54 From: help bot Subject: Taylor Kingston on Alekhine, seriously [email protected] wrote: > Bill Wall? Bill Wall?? ROFLMAO! Bill Wall is one of the most > careless, most inaccurate writers who ever said a word about chess. > For examples of his studious scholarship, I commend you to these > links: > > http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/credibility.html > > http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fun.html > > Bill Wall. Lord, I can't stop chuckling. Innes had found his ideal. Funny thing, but one of these links above has Edward Winter debunking a comment by Mark Crowther (in addition to blasting Bill Wall). The funny part is that it appears our Mr. Kingston has mindlessly aped the debunked commentary, much as nearly- IMnes apes Larry Parr, who mindlessly apes Larry Evans, who himself is quite unreliable. The comment involved Mr. Alekhine and his purported "matches" against Portuguese players. According to Mr. Winter there was but one such match; it was quite short and Mr. Alekhine won. So we have a sweeping condemnation of Mr. Alekhine's strength based on a single, very brief match in which he prevailed, albeit not by the expected vast margin. It was the precise wording that convinced me of the mindless aping going on here; a certain phrase -- not in the top fifty -- just leaps out at you, like an unexpected Knight fork. I don't recall the exact thread, but this is precisely the wording chosen by our own Mr. Kingston when discussing Mr. Alekhine as rated on the chessmetrics Web site. (I believe we had been discussing Mr. Fine, due to the release of another Sam Sloan reprint.) -- help bot         Date: 19 Aug 2008 08:06:14 From: Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously On Aug 19, 10:56=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > =A0 "He [Lasker] played in five more tournaments: Moscow 1925, second > (+10 =3D8 -2) after Bogoljubow, ahead of Capablanca; Zurich 1934, fifth > (+9 =3D2 -4); Moscow 1935, third (+6 =3D13), after Botvinnik and Flohr, > ahead of Capablanca; Moscow 1936, sixth; and Nottingham 1936 (+6 =3D5 > -3) TO SHARE SEVENTH PLACE." (emphasis added) > > =A0 Do you see that, Phil? "TO SHARE SEVENTH PLACE." Very plain and easy > to understand. Why can't you? > > **Because others say different. Bill Wall for example talks of 1st to 8th > place. Bill Wall? Bill Wall?? ROFLMAO! Bill Wall is one of the most careless, most inaccurate writers who ever said a word about chess. For examples of his studious scholarship, I commend you to these links: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/credibility.html http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fun.html Bill Wall. Lord, I can't stop chuckling. Innes had found his ideal.           Date: 20 Aug 2008 15:20:10 From: Chess One Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously <[email protected] > wrote in message news:939aeb58-5877-4b02-a9c7-282d5eebf8bc@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... On Aug 19, 10:56 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > "He [Lasker] played in five more tournaments: Moscow 1925, second > (+10 =8 -2) after Bogoljubow, ahead of Capablanca; Zurich 1934, fifth > (+9 =2 -4); Moscow 1935, third (+6 =13), after Botvinnik and Flohr, > ahead of Capablanca; Moscow 1936, sixth; and Nottingham 1936 (+6 =5 > -3) TO SHARE SEVENTH PLACE." (emphasis added) > > Do you see that, Phil? "TO SHARE SEVENTH PLACE." Very plain and easy > to understand. Why can't you? > > **Because others say different. Bill Wall for example talks of 1st to 8th > place. Bill Wall? Bill Wall?? ROFLMAO! Bill Wall is one of the most careless, most inaccurate writers who ever said a word about chess. For examples of his studious scholarship, I commend you to these links: http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/credibility.html http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fun.html Bill Wall. Lord, I can't stop chuckling. Innes had found his ideal. **Our Taylor prefers the Oxford encyclopedia whose idea of accuracy was to describe Boris Gulko as being away from chess, when he and his wife were being beaten up by KGB. On being asked by Larry Parr if this seemed a fair reference, Our Taylor spoke at great length. It is still unclear if he thought it was fair. Considered opinion thinks the Oxford was a trifle 'pink' on this issue. **The point is not to argue 'authorities' but on veracities - how do we know that anyone got it right? That is the only issue here. To be sure of things takes more than a list of 'authorities' and calling those who have other opinion, or who simply are not convinced 'insane'. **Bill Wall may often be criticized because he does not hide his opinion with his words. To avoid being criticized one should be Vague, then no one can tell if we are right or wrong - and we place ourselves beyond criticism. The only drawback with Vaguery is that nothing is revealed, which is to place oneself beyond notice. Phil Innes         Date: 19 Aug 2008 07:28:07 From: help bot Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously Chess One wrote: > The score was level at Nottingham, the //places// were described as 7th and > 8th by Hooper. I don't /know/ if its a mistake since I have no means of > determining if it is. > > Its a LIE to say I insist on Hooper's comment being the Gospel Truth. A lie! > I never said that! It is not a quotation, and Kinston Taylor made it up in > order to speculate negatively on other people instead of mentioning any > facts about his own understanding. He says this despite my unchanged message > for 30 posts that I don't know, and I also don't know why he is so sure that > he is right. Normally, Mr. Kingston is certain he is right because he has some book or other in front of him, and even if he doesn't, he will boldly admit he "can't find" any facts which may contradict his opinions. This reminds me of that Nick Bourbaki chap-- a fellow who could not find a single "respected academic" who ever disagreed with a single one of his multitudinous opinions, on anything. It's a strange handicap -- this inability to find things not in perfect agreement -- but apparently not a rare one in rgc. > This is common behavior in two senses of common. Its deceitful argument from > a pedant not to careful with any truth at all. > > What can we think of Taylor's judgement on any subject when he will openly > lie as he does here about what I said, and without presenting any evidence > to continue to insist on his own sureties? Maybe he just doesn't know about the tiebreaks? > Taylor Kingston suggests other are insane [which is merely his //usual// > abuse, varied only by suggestions of drug use, with very occassional > comparisons to Mussolini or Hitler] Mr. Hitler hadst more charm than thou, while I believe Mr. Mussolini was far more handsome. Nevertheless, looking deeper we find that they both lacked judgment. For instance, after stuffing Poland and a half-dozen other countries in his mouth, Mr. Hitler decided he could also swallow Russia-- without even chewing! > but Taylor Kingston doesn't know more > than I do. <ggg> Maybe he just has more chess books on a handy shelf? > I just don't know if Hooper is right or wrong! Who cares? You were already "busted at hello", when you tried to get off the hook with that silly comment about Mr. Chernev being "translated" into English. Busted by Taylor Kingston? I'm embarrassed for you. > Without evidence to decide > either way I could only /suppose/ or guess one way or another - but that's > not knowing, that is believing, and can be more or less informed - but > knowing? > > For this statement to which I have never varied, Taylor Kingston writes in > public that he seriously questions my sanity. Well, if you don't like having your sanity questioned, then what on Earth are you doing in here? Go outside, into the fresh air. Smell the roses. Take the dog for a walk. Teach your kids how to play ball. Go on, be brave. Face the real world, and leave this nearly-an-IM fantasy of yours behind, once and for all. We're all sitting here watching to see if it can be done. If *you* can do it, then maybe there is hope for the rest of us... . -- help bot           Date: 25 Oct 2008 09:16:31 From: The Historian Subject: Re: James K. Polk (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Sep 2, 7:45=A0pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Sep 2, 6:16=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:[email protected]... > > On Sep 1, 8:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > >news:458a7060-4bdd-411b-b6ac-a3bd72887b8d@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com= ... > > > On Aug 29, 11:55 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > > >news:[email protected]= om... > > > > On Aug 26, 1:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Polk was from the south, eschewed any popularity whatever, and ve= ry > > > > > unusual > > > > > for a southern gent did /not/ think the expansion West should be > > > > > slave-based. > > > > > On what do you base that, Phil? > > > > > **O! No! ~ On what do I base what, Taylor? > > > > Our Phil engages in his usual BS: > > > > Phil: I say X is true. > > > > TK: On what do you base that, Phil? > > > > Phil: On what do I base what? > > > > **Yes, that's the principle! But Our Taylor cheats! He wants to sugge= st to > > > readers that the 'that' in his own single sentence is sufficiently cl= ear > > > not > > > to be identified, rather than as he /actually/ did, refer to the 'tha= t' in > > > an entire paragraph containing a dozen phrases. Taylor solves this by > > > analogy! > > > > **Back on topic - I said Polk was unusual as a Southerner to be > > > anti-Western > > > slavery, > > > =A0 And again I ask: on what basis do you consider Polk to have been > > "anti-Western slavery"? > > > **Again you ask? > > > =A0He was a slave-owner all his life. > > > **Which I already said > > > =A0In his > > political maneuvering, he pretty much straddled the fence between pro- > > and anti-slavery factions. > > > **Too general - the issue is East and West > > > =A0As far as westward expansion of slavery was > > concerned, he certainly was happy to allow it in Texas. As for further > > west, it says here: > > > =A0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Polk > > > that "Polk argued instead for extending the Missouri Compromise line > > to the Pacific Ocean, which would prohibit the expansion of slavery > > above 36=B0 30' west of Missouri, but allow it below that line if > > approved by eligible voters in the territory." > > =A0 The 36=B0 30' line runs roughly along the northern borders of moder= n- > > day Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona, and through lower Nevada and > > mid-California. Quite a chunk of western real estate for someone > > supposedly "anti-Western slavery" to allow slavery in. > > > ** I think Hampton Sides is still around - perhaps you will like to con= front > > him with whomever wrote the Wiki entry - [it wasn't him!] then tell us = what > > he said as response - if indeed, mere contradiction does not suffice yo= ur > > purpose? > > > **You might also tell us what you understand about what happened, rathe= r > > than reports of supposed intent as you actually report, and even why yo= u > > contest what never happened? This last is, I refer to you, is your own > > strange but constant predeliction to suppose on things which never exis= ted. > > > **I shall be fascinated with your further researches in this area, beyo= nd > > your current and new found Wiki knowledge, and if indeed your opinion w= ill > > be less absolute thereby. > > > Phil Innes > > =A0 Phil, do you *_ever_* try to make sense? More to the point, do you > ever actually succeed? I trust these are rhetorical questions.             Date: 25 Oct 2008 16:53:46 From: Chess One Subject: Re: James K. Polk (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) "The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Sep 2, 7:45 pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Sep 2, 6:16 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > >news:[email protected]... > > On Sep 1, 8:17 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > >news:458a7060-4bdd-411b-b6ac-a3bd72887b8d@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > On Aug 29, 11:55 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > > > >news:17cb6fa4-729b-432f-8250-214073377e8d@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Aug 26, 1:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Polk was from the south, eschewed any popularity whatever, and > > > > > very > > > > > unusual > > > > > for a southern gent did /not/ think the expansion West should be > > > > > slave-based. > > > > > On what do you base that, Phil? > > > > > **O! No! ~ On what do I base what, Taylor? > > > > Our Phil engages in his usual BS: > > > > Phil: I say X is true. > > > > TK: On what do you base that, Phil? > > > > Phil: On what do I base what? > > > > **Yes, that's the principle! But Our Taylor cheats! He wants to > > > suggest to > > > readers that the 'that' in his own single sentence is sufficiently > > > clear > > > not > > > to be identified, rather than as he /actually/ did, refer to the > > > 'that' in > > > an entire paragraph containing a dozen phrases. Taylor solves this by > > > analogy! > > > > **Back on topic - I said Polk was unusual as a Southerner to be > > > anti-Western > > > slavery, > > > And again I ask: on what basis do you consider Polk to have been > > "anti-Western slavery"? > > > **Again you ask? > > > He was a slave-owner all his life. > > > **Which I already said > > > In his > > political maneuvering, he pretty much straddled the fence between pro- > > and anti-slavery factions. > > > **Too general - the issue is East and West > > > As far as westward expansion of slavery was > > concerned, he certainly was happy to allow it in Texas. As for further > > west, it says here: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_K._Polk > > > that "Polk argued instead for extending the Missouri Compromise line > > to the Pacific Ocean, which would prohibit the expansion of slavery > > above 36� 30' west of Missouri, but allow it below that line if > > approved by eligible voters in the territory." > > The 36� 30' line runs roughly along the northern borders of modern- > > day Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona, and through lower Nevada and > > mid-California. Quite a chunk of western real estate for someone > > supposedly "anti-Western slavery" to allow slavery in. > > > ** I think Hampton Sides is still around - perhaps you will like to > > confront > > him with whomever wrote the Wiki entry - [it wasn't him!] then tell us > > what > > he said as response - if indeed, mere contradiction does not suffice > > your > > purpose? > > > **You might also tell us what you understand about what happened, rather > > than reports of supposed intent as you actually report, and even why you > > contest what never happened? This last is, I refer to you, is your own > > strange but constant predeliction to suppose on things which never > > existed. > > > **I shall be fascinated with your further researches in this area, > > beyond > > your current and new found Wiki knowledge, and if indeed your opinion > > will > > be less absolute thereby. > > > Phil Innes > > Phil, do you *_ever_* try to make sense? More to the point, do you > ever actually succeed? I trust these are rhetorical questions. **Neil Brennen trusts... by which short exclamation he must mean that he has another opinion? derived from...? And in contradiction to serious researchers? Such are all his expectations, as if, someone popped the balloon on Gilbert and Sullivan being other than light opera, and very gay stuff indeed, as much as Victorians could get away with <wink wink > in public. He 'trusts' not his own sense of things, even about his own country. He 'trusts' for no evident reason at all. The West was raped. The natives were betrayed, reduced by Battaan-like death marches, then deployed in concentration camps, and exterminated by starvation. This, I hope is also entrusted as true? But a Brennen will not remark on these things more than he remarks on any thing. Lest he appear less than 'an historian', a mock title provided him by Larry Parr, as would befit Ezra Pound's history and propaganda for a Mussolini. Polk did not encourage nor support western slavery as the base of US take-over. Period. Polk achieved every goal he set himself. He did not care for popular acclaim, and discarded that card for what it was worth. He was a least likeable president, who nevertheless, by pure grit got done what he willed, for better or worse. That is your history, Americans. Like all people's history you must like and dislike it to degrees, but let you understand what it was! Phil Innes           Date: 23 Aug 2008 08:49:34 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 23, 11:09=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > So why Alekhine > particularly? The Paris Zeitinger articles are barbed missifs. I presume you mean Pariser Zeitung. > A careful > reading reveals the abstruce strategy Alekhine used in writing them, but > which remarkably escaped notice of the censors - they start with normal > racial depredations, but end with one-by-one exemptions of Jewish players= , > being the players Alekhine knew. A back-hander to the up-front rascism. A= s > if to say, 'Jews suck, except the ones I know'. Phil, where do you see that? Checking the English version of those articles in "The Personality of Chess" (the same text I gave you some years ago), I don't readily see any "exemptions of Jewish players." Rather, most of the Jewish masters Alekhine knew -- specifically Lasker, Janowski, Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, R=E9ti, Flohr, Fine, Botvinnik, Reshevsky, Mieses, Spielmann -- get some very derogatory, even insulting treatment. The main gist is "Jews suck, including the ones I know, and the ones I know suck for the following reasons." If there's any "back-handing" in evidence, I'd say it takes the form of criticisms so ridiculous that even casual chess fans would know not to take them seriously. > And of French Communists? Naive to think they could have acted with speci= fic > instruction from Moscow about such a famous person, and especially since > there could have been little doubt of who would prevail between the post-= war > Alekhine and Botvinnik, which would have brought the world title 'home'. > > Soviets would have wanted to actually preserve candiate Alekhine, no? > > Of institutions - Germany was an up and coming chess force in the world a= nd > performed very well in South America, yet none of the players in Buenos > Aires in 1939 returned to Germany. German chess camps were 'spartan' with > communal beds of straw, and so on [Ree]. Even ideological motives to defe= at > 'entartete Kunst'or degenerate art [in chess] seem hardly sufficient to > post-war bump off AA. > > Of other candidates: > > the Japanese were the main spying agency in Portugal with their 'listenin= g' > stations - but what possible motive was there? > > the Americans would seem to have least motive, especially to fake up an > admittedly vague or in-training eye-witness so that he could volunteer to > Mr. Parr, Editor Chess Life that the coroner's opinion was correct - why > 'cover-up' something already dusty with time and where the general balanc= e > of opinion is as it says in the chess histories? > > If Frank had survived he may have wanted to keep all the treasures he had > stored at Wewel Castle - spirit them off to South America, and eliminate > witnesses to it - but he didn't, and besides, there would have been too m= any > witnesses. > > Therefore - motive for murder is obscure. And without motive, all else is > very 2nd place provenance. > > Phil Innes             Date: 28 Aug 2008 13:37:42 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 28, 3:51=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:6cae4872-89de-4489-aec2-e6e4efdab48a@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 28, 9:41 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ... and as Max Euwe was asked to explain when he > > proposed Alekhine should rejoin the world chess community after WWII, h= e > > responded: > > > "Humanity is the best revenge", > > =A0 Phil, what is your source for that quote? If it is genuine, are you > sure it was Euwe who said it, and not Tartakower? It sounds very much > like what Hans Ree describes here, in connection with Tartakower: > > =A0 =A0http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans35.txt > > > I don't remember where I read the Euwe comment - which may not be even be > published at all? If it was never published at all, how could you have read it? > But I do remember it was Euwe. It seems like something Euwe's biographer M=FCnninghoff would have reported, had Euwe said it. But I don't see it there. However, there is this: "The World Champion was in an awful state when, on the eve of Christmas tournament of Hastings 1945/46, he was roundly condemned: because of his behavior during the war, neither the Russians, nor the Americans, **** nor Euwe ****, nor anyone at all, was prepared to play against him." -- "Max Euwe: The Biography" (NIC 2001) p.247 (emphasis added) This rather indicates that Euwe was not in a mood to let Alekhine back into organized chess, and does not exactly fit a stance of "humanity is the best revenge." > The force of Tartakower issuing this sentiment from the relative safety o= f > London compared with Euwe's in occupied Europe is a marked difference. "Occupied Europe"? Occupied by whom? You just said Euwe's statement was made *_after_* WW II, when Holland was no longer occupied by any hostile power.               Date: 29 Aug 2008 14:30:14 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:8b099e82-491c-48c2-abac-ee8b6bdd6aed@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... On Aug 28, 3:51 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:6cae4872-89de-4489-aec2-e6e4efdab48a@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 28, 9:41 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ... and as Max Euwe was asked to explain when he > > proposed Alekhine should rejoin the world chess community after WWII, he > > responded: > > > "Humanity is the best revenge", > > Phil, what is your source for that quote? If it is genuine, are you > sure it was Euwe who said it, and not Tartakower? It sounds very much > like what Hans Ree describes here, in connection with Tartakower: > > http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans35.txt > > > I don't remember where I read the Euwe comment - which may not be even be > published at all? If it was never published at all, how could you have read it? **Because someone wrote me about it. How else could I have read it? What is unpublished about chess is more than all the chess books together. Some 2,000 e-mails from very strong Russians sources on their perspectives on chess and Soviet-era shenanigans are almost entirely unpublished, eg. This is literally 'non-authoritative', which means that such people have not put their comments in books acting as authors. **But rather than proceed with Tinker-Taylor's inquiry [is it?] I want to know why he wants to know - because when he did get an entree, he ignored it on serious business - that being repression of refuseniks - in other words, Jewish chess players. > But I do remember it was Euwe. It seems like something Euwe's biographer M�nninghoff would have reported, had Euwe said it. But I don't see it there. However, there is this: "The World Champion was in an awful state when, on the eve of Christmas tournament of Hastings 1945/46, he was roundly condemned: because of his behavior during the war, neither the Russians, nor the Americans, **** nor Euwe ****, nor anyone at all, was prepared to play against him." -- "Max Euwe: The Biography" (NIC 2001) p.247 (emphasis added) **But the W Ch invite came in early 46, no? Not Christmas 1945. This rather indicates that Euwe was not in a mood to let Alekhine back into organized chess, and does not exactly fit a stance of "humanity is the best revenge." **Alekhine was detested with more or less reason by those who had been brutalised in a world war. I don't know the import of who said what, but do not intend to give up my memory to someone who cannot own his own interest in the affair - to wit, of what import would resolving this issue have to Taylor Kingston? > The force of Tartakower issuing this sentiment from the relative safety of > London compared with Euwe's in occupied Europe is a marked difference. "Occupied Europe"? Occupied by whom? **Nazi's mate! They took over the whole of contintental Europe during WW II. You just said Euwe's statement was made *_after_* WW II, when Holland was no longer occupied by any hostile power. **ROFL! ~ God Taylor! your comprehension is abysmal. I said that if Tartakower made the statement it would be of less force than Euwe. That's because Euwe was in occupied Europe, and Tartakower was in London! **If you want to continue this 'conversation' can you please STOP your idiotic 'interpretations' of plain sentences, since you always screw yourself by doing so - in this instance the 3rd OTTO- thing you observe of the 2 items I mention is a <when > issue. Now, what can it matter when anyone said what, when I mention the WHERE of the commentators as being the significant factor? Why would you want to know /when/ they said what when the importance is their experience of occupation or lack of it? **That you chose to confound your introduction of the 'when' with what I wrote is some matter ofyour own deviant comprehension ability - and in one day, you can't resist repeating this theme of your own, not based on what others wrote, 3 times [thus far]. **Obviously anyone suffering occupation who says something human about his perceived oppressor, has greater force than from those not occupied. Obviously? Yes, I think its as plain as day. Phil Innes Phil Innes             Date: 28 Aug 2008 12:58:56 From: Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Aug 28, 3:51=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:6cae4872-89de-4489-aec2-e6e4efdab48a@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 28, 9:41 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > ... and as Max Euwe was asked to explain when he > > proposed Alekhine should rejoin the world chess community after WWII, h= e > > responded: > > > "Humanity is the best revenge", > > =A0 Phil, what is your source for that quote? If it is genuine, are you > sure it was Euwe who said it, and not Tartakower? It sounds very much > like what Hans Ree describes here, in connection with Tartakower: > > =A0 =A0http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hans35.txt > > --------------------- > > I see that Ree speaks of Karpov thus: Of course Nikitin had underestimate= d > Karpov. What he did not > know was that permission for these negotiations had been granted > by an even higher authority, the Central Committee of the > Communist Party. > > =A0 =A0 When Karpov came to hear of Nikitin's denunciation, he demanded > =A0 =A0 Nikitin to be fired. This happened. Nikitin was accused of > =A0 =A0 "immoral behaviour toward his prot,g," [[a reference to Kasparov]= ] =A0and > demoted to the > =A0 =A0 humble function of trainer of the club Spartak. > > I don't remember where I read the Euwe comment - which may not be even be > published at all? But I do remember it was Euwe. > > =A0Though please do be careful of your Soviets, including Nikitin. be ver= y > careful of anything Soviet-era taken straight. Karpov does not better in = the > above than he does in the Gulko material, which I think I should publish > soon. Interestingly Ray Keene smuggled out of Russia stuff [samizdat] on > refuseniks under the very noses of the KGB search-squads - since no one > could suspect what is evidently an eidetic memory. > > I see that the report you citation mentions a similar sense - though rath= er > more acerbic, from... > > "Arnold Denker reminisces ... " =A0i preserve your copyright, people shou= ld > read for themselves - I wrote to Arnold about this - or, actually, he wro= te > to me after I had mentioned post war London from my mother's experience > there, she who unlike Vera Menchik a few miles away, survived the blitz. > What he said was interesting about the sociology of the time and what any= one > actually cared for chess when they were still trying to care to feed > themselves and their families and stay alive. Anyway... > > I do note your text has many "maybes" in it' such as "Maybe Tartakower wa= s > more annoyed by the easy > unity of his colleagues, than forgiving Alekhine." and also "And maybe hi= s > collection for the pennyless Alekhine". > > This is thereby a self-admitted speculation on the part of the writer. > > The force of Tartakower issuing this sentiment from the relative safety o= f > London compared with Euwe's in occupied Europe is a marked difference. > > Phil Innes So you can't name a source?               Date: 29 Aug 2008 14:08:19 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Aug 28, 3:51 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:6cae4872-89de-4489-aec2-e6e4efdab48a@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 28, 9:41 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > The force of Tartakower issuing this sentiment from the relative safety of > London compared with Euwe's in occupied Europe is a marked difference. > > Phil Innes So you can't name a source? ** Certainly can't be bothering to look for 'a source' to satisfy someone who can't say why it is important that Tartakover rather than Euwe said anything at all, rather than the nature of the sentiment expressed. I assume by this current request [?] that Our Tinker Taylor /resents/ and challenges the anecdote - but what is that to me? When Tinker Taylor messed with Soviet-era materials he asked me for information, and at considerable expense of time and effort with hard-won contacts, I provided him it, and on receiving that material, Our Tinker Taylor did nothing - in fact, he did far more than nothing! He pretended it /was/ nothing. A pity some would say, especially those nothing persons ploughed under that regime. To anyone who does have a care for such stuff I simply don't remember the source - I don't remember it being Arnold, though we did talk a whole bunch about the post-war era - he seemed to have been in London then [but I never found out why, in the services or news reporting? Maybe Larry Parr knows?] Phil Innes             Date: 23 Aug 2008 12:56:59 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... On Aug 23, 11:09 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > > So why Alekhine > particularly? The Paris Zeitinger articles are barbed missifs. I presume you mean Pariser Zeitung. The Zeitung articles from Paris. Its same thing, you see. Unless ve insist on zer Chermun! > A careful > reading reveals the abstruce strategy Alekhine used in writing them, but > which remarkably escaped notice of the censors - they start with normal > racial depredations, but end with one-by-one exemptions of Jewish players, > being the players Alekhine knew. A back-hander to the up-front rascism. As > if to say, 'Jews suck, except the ones I know'. Phil, where do you see that? **See that? See what? Checking the English version of those articles in "The Personality of Chess" (the same text I gave you some years ago), I don't readily see any "exemptions of Jewish players." **Are you meaning to say you don't see the words you put in speech marks? I indicated a paraphrase by saying, "As if to say..." Rather, most of the Jewish masters Alekhine knew -- specifically Lasker, Janowski, Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, R�ti, Flohr, Fine, Botvinnik, Reshevsky, Mieses, Spielmann -- get some very derogatory, even insulting treatment. The main gist is "Jews suck, including the ones I know, and the ones I know suck for the following reasons." **This is confusing - you use speech or quotation marks, as if that was what Alekhine says, but offer a paraphrase. If there's any "back-handing" in evidence, I'd say it takes the form of criticisms so ridiculous that even casual chess fans would know not to take them seriously. **And we know that because...? **As for opinion, if you agree the text is 'so ridiculous', then do you think it is intentionally so? PI > And of French Communists? Naive to think they could have acted with > specific > instruction from Moscow about such a famous person, and especially since > there could have been little doubt of who would prevail between the > post-war > Alekhine and Botvinnik, which would have brought the world title 'home'. > > Soviets would have wanted to actually preserve candiate Alekhine, no? > > Of institutions - Germany was an up and coming chess force in the world > and > performed very well in South America, yet none of the players in Buenos > Aires in 1939 returned to Germany. German chess camps were 'spartan' with > communal beds of straw, and so on [Ree]. Even ideological motives to > defeat > 'entartete Kunst'or degenerate art [in chess] seem hardly sufficient to > post-war bump off AA. > > Of other candidates: > > the Japanese were the main spying agency in Portugal with their > 'listening' > stations - but what possible motive was there? > > the Americans would seem to have least motive, especially to fake up an > admittedly vague or in-training eye-witness so that he could volunteer to > Mr. Parr, Editor Chess Life that the coroner's opinion was correct - why > 'cover-up' something already dusty with time and where the general balance > of opinion is as it says in the chess histories? > > If Frank had survived he may have wanted to keep all the treasures he had > stored at Wewel Castle - spirit them off to South America, and eliminate > witnesses to it - but he didn't, and besides, there would have been too > many > witnesses. > > Therefore - motive for murder is obscure. And without motive, all else is > very 2nd place provenance. > > Phil Innes               Date: 24 Aug 2008 08:07:11 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) In early 2007 I found two pictures of Alekhine's grave. There was a discussion if the grave was vandalised, or was this the result of the terrible storm which swept over Europe just previously. http://www.chessville.com/Editorials/AlekhinesParrot/parrotpics2.htm I seem to have also found Capa's grave, and Howard Staunton's, finally Paul Morphy's. O! and there is also the little known "Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) first chess champion of Nevis" [if anyone has any of his chess scores... write!] I had to get off that subject - and it was hard - I see that I recorded of a correspondent:- I was thinking I should change the subject - but there has been a big mailbag about graves of famous chess players, including a note from the Treasurer of the Dutch Chesscollecters Society who writes of his own researches and publications, and perhaps we will see a Chessville article on the subject? In the event we didn't go there, but there are a lot of dead players out there and maybe some Dutch readers here know of these publications? Godd market is it? Further down the page are some curiosities, including the camel that the Inscrutable Leader gave Gata Kamsky. [picture of]. Since they were in Elista I wondered what happened to the camel, and also the sheep and baby lion [unsure of that, but the sheep was for real] awarded Judit Polgar? So wrote to Big Sis who to my surprise replied immediately with a joke! At the time I wrote:- The Parrot has contacted officials at the SPF and received a direct response from Susan Polgar herself, who denies any new building project in Queens, and instead spoke of her plans, quote: "We can try to house them in Lubbock, Texas, home of the Texas Tech University and SPICE :)" Then, encouraged by googling unusual combinations, like snakes and chess, and tattoos and chess - found a whole set of pieces on some guys arm. Any one out there ever seen a chess tattoo? Among other pictures: Here is mystery about a mystery [the US Board member mentioned was Tim Hanke] anyone solve it? I found an interesting site with ray-traced chess pictures, including this one: Which is a position from the chess novel "The Flanders Panel" where the intrigue turns on a retrograde analysis which reveals who killed the knight. Question: a USCF board member once told me that the retrograde analysis has a flaw. Does anyone know more? I found a picture of my old team captain, Peter Clarke of England: Taken in Leipzig 1960, playing Ivkov in the Sahovska Olympiad. Thank you for the puppy picture Nagesh Havanur and for Ivkov/Clarke, Dimitrije Bjelica. Finally, its absolutely impossible to find a tattoo of Alekhine's grave on some Alekhine fan - though if there was one, would the wrong birth and death dates be shown as a fascimile of the grave stone itself? Or would the right dates appear? You would think, wouldn't you, that an official Fide grave stone would be sufficient authority, but alas, you have to keep an open mind on these things. That's All Folks! Phil Innes                 Date: 24 Aug 2008 11:48:29 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:07:11 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >O! and there is also the little known "Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) first >chess champion of Nevis" I wonder if Hamilton ever played Franklin.                   Date: 26 Aug 2008 09:02:53 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) "Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:07:11 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>O! and there is also the little known "Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) >>first >>chess champion of Nevis" > > I wonder if Hamilton ever played Franklin. If you would like to wonder, the relations between Hamilton and the person who 'treated him like a son' are interesting. That person actually was in the Caribbean 9 months before Hamilton's birth. There is some ancient trivia for you! I think its Gore Vidal who makes the suggestion specifically. PI                     Date: 26 Aug 2008 08:02:05 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Alekhine's Death (was: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously) On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 09:02:53 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >>>O! and there is also the little known "Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) >>>first >>>chess champion of Nevis" >> I wonder if Hamilton ever played Franklin. >If you would like to wonder, the relations between Hamilton and the person >who 'treated him like a son' are interesting. That person actually was in >the Caribbean 9 months before Hamilton's birth. There is some ancient trivia >for you! I think its Gore Vidal who makes the suggestion specifically. PI While there's a fair amount of evidence that Hamilton was born in 1755, two years earlier than the commonly accepted date you mention above, that's still four years later than the time George Washington made his only known visit to the Caribbean. Hamilton was probably the biological son of a prosperous merchant named Thomas Stevens.           Date: 20 Aug 2008 08:37:12 From: Chess One Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously "help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:d8470a1c-a5bf-485e-a1ab-c6ac0b50e758@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > > Chess One wrote: > >> The score was level at Nottingham, the //places// were described as 7th >> and >> 8th by Hooper. I don't /know/ if its a mistake since I have no means of >> determining if it is. >> >> Its a LIE to say I insist on Hooper's comment being the Gospel Truth. A >> lie! >> I never said that! It is not a quotation, and Kinston Taylor made it up >> in >> order to speculate negatively on other people instead of mentioning any >> facts about his own understanding. He says this despite my unchanged >> message >> for 30 posts that I don't know, and I also don't know why he is so sure >> that >> he is right. > > > Normally, Mr. Kingston is certain he is > right because he has some book or other > in front of him, and even if he doesn't, he > will boldly admit he "can't find" any facts > which may contradict his opinions. I think Mr. Kingston has his enthusiasms, and these overwhelm other factors such as facts and methods. All I really wanted to know is the /basis/ for anyone's opinion, whether it is that of Mr. Kingston, Cafferty or Hooper - or that of the Oxford Encyc - doesn't matter. /How/ did they determine anything? That is called provenance. Its okay to say 'don't know' or even 'most likely' but to not know and be sure at the same time is not a happy combination. What we want is qualified information or qualified guesses. In other words, relative statements not absolute ones. Now, Mr. Kingston has become a bit hot on the subject so he has to change what I say in order to make it as absolute as his own statement. Whether he is content with this public deceit is up to him, or to his own standard. As such, it is not a discussion of how we know what we know - which is itself a scientific phrase to do with research. He, in fact, discusses nothing whatever. >> What can we think of Taylor's judgement on any subject when he will >> openly >> lie as he does here about what I said, and without presenting any >> evidence >> to continue to insist on his own sureties? > > > Maybe he just doesn't know about the > tiebreaks? If there were any? Otherwise placements can be decided by ratings of opponents [from wins or loses]. Taylor Kingston might turn out to be correct - but since all he can do is cite convenient references, while dismissing inconvenient ones based on who wrote them, I don't find that very convincing. Its as daft as continuing to write about Morphy's shoes or the Duras Teichman game. Even 'respectable authorities' simply repeated a mistake from book to book. It is not a crime, but it ain't true either, doesn't matter how many times its recorded or by whom. >> I just don't know if Hooper is right or wrong! > > > Who cares? You were already "busted at > hello", when you tried to get off the hook > with that silly comment about Mr. Chernev > being "translated" into English. Busted by > Taylor Kingston? I'm embarrassed for you. Chernev either had very good editors or he spoke English better than native Americans, despite his 4 formative Russian years and [likely] not-so-good-English from his parents? I have my suspicions which is more likely. But again, I don't actually know which is true - if anyone does, they could say why. Perhaps he was a true prodigy at language acquisition as well as chess? >> For this statement to which I have never varied, Taylor Kingston writes >> in >> public that he seriously questions my sanity. > > > Well, if you don't like having your sanity > questioned, then what on Earth are you > doing in here? Go outside, into the fresh > air. Smell the roses. Take the dog for a > walk. Teach your kids how to play ball. Laugh - I walk 5 miles a day, minimum, and one of my kids started her PhD this week. > Go on, be brave. Face the real world, and > leave this nearly-an-IM fantasy of yours > behind, once and for all. We're all sitting > here watching to see if it can be done. If > *you* can do it, then maybe there is hope > for the rest of us... . You are surely not still clinging vicariously to the lives of others? One alternative and mostly untested reality of usenet existance is to talk about what you yourself do, feel, like and dislike, then engage other people not to change their minds, but to compare experience - and so to objectify experience. This would a pleasant change to those hung up on ebing right or wrong via attempting to live the lives of others, via their heroes and 'authorities', by praising or disparaging the authority and achievements of other posters, of which they really do protest too much! Phil Innes > > -- help bot             Date: 20 Aug 2008 08:52:21 From: Chess One Subject: Re: K. Taylor on Everything, Seriously "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Chernev either had very good editors or he spoke English better than > native Americans, despite his 4 formative Russian years and [likely] > not-so-good-English from his parents? I have my suspicions which is more > likely. But again, I don't actually know which is true - if anyone does, > they could say why. Perhaps he was a true prodigy at language acquisition > as well as chess? One remarkable fact of language acquisition I just read about is from Hampton Sides, writing on Kit Carson. He says Carson had about 10 languages which he spoke /very/ well, but was an illiterate! He could hardly read in English. But he mastered 6 native languages, including the somewhat universal Navajo. Phil Innes         Date: 19 Aug 2008 07:09:15 From: Subject: Innes still doesn't get it. On Aug 19, 9:46=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:21:31 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] > > wrote: > > >>The plain fact is that Lasker tied with Flohr for 7th and 8th > >>places at Nottingham 1936. .... That you so irrationally cling to a > >>mistake and so > >>vociferously insist Hooper's slightly but plainly inaccurate statement > >>is Gospel Truth utterly dumbfounds me, and that you make a mountain > >>out of what is far less than a molehill just makes me (for the > >>umpteenth time) seriously question your sanity. > > Taylor Kingston always questions people's sanity, especially those who > disagree with him. In fact, he always does, supplemented by a couple of > variations on a theme. But does he 'seriously question anything' at all? > > The score was level at Nottingham, the //places// were described as 7th a= nd > 8th by Hooper. Good grief, Phil. You can't even quote correctly from a book you claim to have on hand. I quote, yet again, from the Emanuel Lasker entry in Sunnucks' encyclopaedia, page 276: "He [Lasker] entered more tournaments, coming 5th at Zurich 1934; 3rd, half a point behind the winners, at Moscow 1935; 6th at Moscow 1936; and 8th at Nottingham 1936." You see, Phil? Nothing about "7th and 8th" -- just "8th." And that is incorrect. > I don't /know/ if its a mistake since I have no means of > determining if it is. Then you have no business arguing about it, do you? I have mentioned many sources where you can get the accurate facts. For example, the Oxford Companion to Chess, co-authored by -- guess who? -- David Hooper, author of the Sunnucks entry you so prize. I quote from its entry on Lasker, page 218: "He [Lasker] played in five more tournaments: Moscow 1925, second (+10 =3D8 -2) after Bogoljubow, ahead of Capablanca; Zurich 1934, fifth (+9 =3D2 -4); Moscow 1935, third (+6 =3D13), after Botvinnik and Flohr, ahead of Capablanca; Moscow 1936, sixth; and Nottingham 1936 (+6 =3D5 -3) TO SHARE SEVENTH PLACE." (emphasis added) Do you see that, Phil? "TO SHARE SEVENTH PLACE." Very plain and easy to understand. Why can't you? > Then Kingston says /I/ make a mountain of a molehill, whereas it was HE w= ho > hissed for 20 posts then another 10 here, about how sure he is, without > presenting the slightest reason that Hooper was wrong except to mention t= hat > the encyclopedia is wrong elsewhere. Phil, why do you keep lying to the people? You know very well that I have presented conclusive evidence about the results of Nottingham 1936. From the tournament book, no less, plus various other sources, including the OC just now. You have presented nothing, except your own lies and absurd pseudo-logic, and you do it over and over, on this matter and many others.         Date: 16 Aug 2008 17:17:47 From: Subject: Re: Innes on Chernev (was: Man, Piece) On Aug 16, 8:00=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:21:31 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] > wrote: > > >The plain fact is that Lasker tied with Flohr for 7th and 8th > >places at Nottingham 1936. .... That you so irrationally cling to a mist= ake and so > >vociferously insist Hooper's slightly but plainly inaccurate statement > >is Gospel Truth utterly dumbfounds me, and that you make a mountain > >out of what is far less than a molehill just makes me (for the > >umpteenth time) seriously question your sanity. > > Not so much sanity as judgment, =A0IMO. That too, Mike.     Date: 14 Aug 2008 16:57:24 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Man, Piece <[email protected] > wrote in message news:d489810c-4126-453e-9bae-38057bb21b54@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 14, 3:52 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> <[email protected]> wrote in message >> >> > On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > **um, well, don't know who translated Chernev, >> >> Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to >> the USA at about age 4. >> >> **Well okay, so is his usage current? Is it unambigous - I am NOT hear me >> NOT writing an encyclopedia of every term ever used, however well, but >> want >> to know the mainstream American terms for simple things! > > And I told you the mainstream American usage of the term "piece" in > the context of "being up/down a piece," citing Chernev as an example > of a popular, widely read mainstream author who used it in that way. ** Please stop these protests! He may be widely read, but what is widely understood? Is it ONLY his definition? If not, its okay to say so. But 2 other people have written in to say they prefer to differentiate pieces and pawns - so lets say the evidence thus far is that widely read does not equal widely used in 2008. >> This is not >> esoteric, and the function of the course is to learn chess play, not >> chess >> esoterica or even chess history. > > No one ever said otherwise, least of all me. Yes you did - you /specifically/ diverted to older books saying you think students /should/ understand their terms. >> **Yes - get over it Taylor, you are starting to get pissy already at >> infered >> criticism. > > "Inferred" criticism?? Phil, I cite your own words: "one other thing > and a criticism of Taylor's editing". No inference needed -- you were > plainly and openly critical. But you fail to see that such 'criticism' is not the American sort, which is always about people - and I was AT PAINS to say that Chessville did no better. It is a criticism of absense of basic information, not of you personally. > You were also quite wrong. To fault > Heisman's book for not explaning "0-0" and "0-0-0" is like faulting a > recipe for not being a bus schedule. And you now insist on being criticised! Its a fault in the books glossary, and since you insist on it being personal - then it is also your fault for not noticing that some items are notated and seemingly at random others are not. If you want person cricism instead of critique then you have it. Happy now? But only a moron could go on about this when my context is -said 3 times this day!- to try to find a royalty free on-line annotation that Americans currently use. Any other context here is of your own contriving. >> You can't show game scores until you teach people notation, >> right? I said Dan's book is no better than Chessville for finding a good >> notation to use. > > Of course it's no good for teaching notation. Neither is a compass > any good as a raincoat. What? What is the intended meaning of thos esentences in response to what I wrote. YOU CANT DO GAME SCORES BEFORE YOU DO NOTATION - get it? SO IF YOU INCLUDE GAME SCORES PEOPLE CANT READ THEM. If you do not understand yet, please don;t reply. Please instead insist that I insult your intelligence, which in this instance, would be true. >> The glossary entry "Castle" is merely intended to explain the >> mechanics of the castling move, and to differentiate the verb from the >> noun, not to teach anything about notation. >> >> **Get off being defensive! > > I don't feel the least defensive toward you, Phil. Watching you try > to critique my work is like watching a fish try to ride a bicycle. O fuck off Taylor - you are the most precious and pissist twit writing here, who insists on being affronted, the sooner trhe better! >> Other entries /do/ have annotations, in fact many >> do. I think it is a draw-back in this book, but a wide-spread draw back >> to >> many books! Its nothing particular /only/ about Dan's book! > > Phil, you seem to be hallucinating again. There is not a single > annotation in "A Parent's Guide," unless one counts the "??" after > 3...Nf6 in the illustration of Scholar's Mate on page 76. I AM NOT NOT ONLY TALKING ABOUT DAN'S BOOK. I am saying this appears in many books, it IS a fault. It is not an hallucination. These are your emphatic insistances, and you can't even rember what teh hell I asked, and why I asked it, instead you get pissy. As usual. >> An online search for, say, "algebraic chess notation" will turn up >> dozens of sites. Take your pick. >> >> **Will it? > > Yes. Here is page one of the search results I got on MSN.com: But you cut my question!~ Which one do you like, since I have looked at dozens of them - Wikipedia's seemed quite inadequate. Now, if you wish to reply at all, you will answer just what I asked, and say why you like the source. If you want to answer a direct question that is. If you don't then you can do as you have done before, ignored what people say in order to consult databases, or become personally offended. Phil Innes > Web1-10 of 79,300 results$B!&(B Advanced > See also:Images, Video, News, Maps, More $B"'(BxRank > See all...Results Algebraic chess notation - > > Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > Algebraic chess notation is used to record and describe the moves in a > game of chess. It is now standard among all chess organizations and > most books, magazines, and newspapers. In English speaking countries, > it replaced the parallel system of descriptive chess notation, which > became common in the 19th century, and was sporadically used as > recently as the 1980s or 1990s. > Naming squares on the ... $B!&(B Naming the pieces $B!&(B Notation for moves $B!&(B > Example > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_chess_notation $B!&(B Cached page > Algebraic notation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia > ... infix notation, the practice of representing a binary operator and > operands with the operator between the two operands (as in "2 + 2") In > chess, algebraic chess notation, one of the ... > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_notation $B!&(B Cached page > Show more results from en.wikipedia.org > Chess Tutorial : Chess Notation (1/6) > Chess notation gives us the means to record and publish chess games. > The most commonly used notation is algebraic, but it's useful to know > the older descriptive notation. > > chess.about.com/od/beginners/ss/ble21brd.htm $B!&(B Cached page > Algebraic Chess Notation > Here is a partial game score showing the use of algebraic chess > notation. ... More from About.com. Work Hard, Travel Easy The best > tips for business travelers. > > chess.about.com/library/ble21zan.htm $B!&(B Cached page > Show more results from chess.about.com > Think You Know Algebraic Notation? - Chess.com > Note added on Jan 15, 2007: Max Wootton (mxdplay4 here on chess.com) > has discovered some errors in my calculations. We are corresponding on > this topic and when all corrections ... > > blog.chess.com/kurtgodden/think-you-know-algebraic-notation $B!&(B Cached > page > Algebraic Chess Notation - How to - ChessHouse.com > You're going to quickly learn everything you need to know about > reading and writing chess moves, called > > www.chesshouse.com/how_to_read_and_write_chess_notation_a/166.htm $B!&(B > Cached page > Duif's Place: Chess Notation > Duif's Place Chess Guide: How to Read Chess Notation. Duif's Place > includes information for fans and tournament players, as well as > special chess info for kids. ... Duif's Place > > www.jaderiver.com/chess/notate.html $B!&(B Cached page > ChessNotation.com --- Descriptive Chess Notation > ... location), and any resulting effect (capture, promotion, check, > checkmate, etc.). There are two main types of chess notation: > descriptive and algebraic. 'Chess notation' can ... > > www.chessnotation.com $B!&(B Cached page > Algebraic notation - WikiChess > Algebraic notation is a way to record chess games. Each square is > given a specific label. Starting at White's left hand, the files are > labeled from left to right with letters of ... > > chess.wikia.com/wiki/Algebraic_notation $B!&(B Cached page > Chessville - Misc. - Codes, etc. - Notation - Algebraic > If you have disabled Java for your browser, use the Site Map (linked > in the header and footer). > > www.chessville.com/misc/misc_codes_notation_algebraic.htm $B!&(B Cached > page > > 12345Next >       Date: 14 Aug 2008 18:01:39 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Man, Piece Let me just re-state the essential element of what I was looking for in terms of non-copyrighted notational instruction available on-line in [preferably] short algebraic for American kids. (1) Although Susan Polgar has a chess instructional course out there, free and on-line, which contains an explanation of notation, I have requested it 5 times but never received one, so I cannot use that. I really am wild enough [objective!] to "criticise" that, and also other materials, including Chessville's own, for the same presumtive fault. (2) The situation that you should imagine is that the young player can already play chess. The //likelihood// is that a male family member taught them it by explaining it directly and verbally; dad, uncle, or older cousin, and that the likelihood is that such players have never read a chess book! Therefore they can play, enjoy playing, and may even be good at it. But unable to read game scores. (3) Most chess notation is contained in beginner books, which the student will already have completed in the parents & children beginner course, if they initially knew nothing at all and took that course 0- which is the recommendation. But for those who were taught, ad hoc, by dad, mom, uncle auntie, etc, they will not be able to read a game score or even know what one is. It is for these people that I anticipate the worth of your recommendation to be valuable. Thank you once more for attending to these simple issues: simply is difficult. Ever was, will be. If you have some recommendation will you please say why you think your choice a good one? Cordially, Phil Innes   Date: 14 Aug 2008 12:04:19 From: Subject: Re: Man, Piece On Aug 14, 2:38=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:519f0063-5468-4f29-89b5-4c462694413c@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > As some people here know, I am designing an accredited chess course for > > initially home schooled students, then opened up as a distance learning > > course for all students. The age range is k-12, and there is a beginner= s > > course to acquaint players with basics, then an Intermediate course whi= ch > > should suffice players or any age to at least 1500 level play. For > > high-school students the 36 lesson Intermediate course gains a full > > academic > > credit. > > > The course draws on contributions from half a dozen or 10 authors, and = in > > several media, ie as books, hyper-texts, DVD and CD ROMS. > > > With Dan Heisman we are converting his book "A Parent's Guide to Chess"= to > > a > > hyper-text, and I would like to ask particularly American readers here = a > > couple of questions I have about Dan's Glossary entries. > > =A0 Since I edited that book, and wrote some of the glossary entries, I > may be able to answer. > > > TOPIC 1 > > > Dan makes some distinction between "Piece" and "Man", I give both his > > definitions below, then ask my questions: > > > MAN: Any chess piece, including pawns. > > From this small survey so far, a difference there from Mike's response > > > PIECE: > > (1) Any of the chess men, as in "Get all the pieces out of the bag." > > (2) A non-pawn, as in "You have to develop all your pieces." > > (3) A Bishop or a Knight, as in "I am up a piece." > > > My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use? > > =A0 Probably not used much by average chess players, but it's still > often seen in books. It's useful for a young student of chess to > understand terms he's going to see often in his studies. > > I think the boat is still out on that one too - people do say 'chess-men' > but doesn't sound like chess players do, and its a recent archaism? The man/piece distinction is one that beginners should learn, if only because they will encounter it in chess literature. It doesn't matter whether it comes up in conversation. > > If it is, is Dan's > > definition to your liking? > > =A0 That definition is correct. > > > My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions w= e > > have 3 contradictions! > > =A0 Not really; it depends on context. I think the glossary entry makes > clear the context for each of the three meanings of "piece." > > **They have internal contradictions. I doubt that few readers will agree. > I suppose what I would most like to do > is to talk of pawns distinct from other men, or pieces, as the main > emphasis. Feel free. > > These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss > > PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's > > limited sense of piece in #3? > > =A0 That meaning is seen very often in chess literature. I recall first > encountering it in Chernev's "Logical Chess" back in the mid-1960s, I > think. To "hang a piece," "win a piece," or "be up/down a piece," when > no specific piece is named, invariably refers to a minor piece, > > **um, well, don't know who translated Chernev, Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to the USA at about age 4. > but what do people understand > by the term now? I personally wouldn't 'invariably' think it was a minor > piece, but hey! you guys are the Yanks! =A0:) That's right. We saved your bacon in the war, so be appropriately grateful. > =A0a > bishop or knight only, in all chess literature I have ever read. If > it's a queen or rook, one always says queen or rook. > > **let's leave that one up the flag-pole and see if others agree. > > > Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS? > > =A0 Certainly one must distinquish between them as appropriate. > > > Elsewhere Dan provides normal definitions of minor-piece and major-piec= e, > > as > > in Bishop&Knight, and Rook&Queen resp. > > =A0 Yes, that is correct -- though among chess set collectors, "major > piece" is often used to mean everything but pawns. But that's a non- > standard usage within a small chess sub-culture, and so I did not > include it in the glossary. > > > TOPIC 2 > > > Dan defines ZWISCHENZUG normally, and states its meaning as "in-between > > move" which is uncontroversial. > > > Is that universally understood or do people also say INTERMEZZO? I have > > seen > > the Italian versions in print, but I suppose I want to know what word > > Americans actually use - and is this one worth adding? > > =A0 I have never seen "intermezzo" used in a chess context in any > English-language book or magazine, ever, nor have I ever heard any > English-speaking person use it in a chess context. > > **Sounds like you and Mike agree its not necessary, and that knowledge of > the German and English words are sufficient. > > To finish: one other thing and a criticism of Taylor's editing, which I = also > level at Chessville's efforts. Its to do with annotation. This particular > book sometimes illustrates the term by citing a move, but not always, as = in > Castling, it doesn't mention 0-0 or 0-0-0, or even if those are zeros or > capital 'o' s. ???? The relevance of this to "A Parent's Guide to Chess" is nil. That book does not attempt to teach one how to play chess, nor much of anything about chess notation, and certainly nothing about annotation. The one brief mention of notation is on pages 75-76, the gist of it being that one should learn algebraic notation, which is taught in almost any beginner's book. The glossary entry "Castle" is merely intended to explain the mechanics of the castling move, and to differentiate the verb from the noun, not to teach anything about notation. > > There was a slight embarrassement I discovered in a trial with 2 beginner= s > in the Bardwick books, so that Brad explains chess annotation in chapter = 3, Phil, I think you mean notation, not annotation. Annotation is the writing of explanatory and analytical notes to a game. > but uses it in Chapter one. Both trial student and trial teacher had to a= sk > me about it. > > I didn't like Chessville's effort because it was too skimpy. Is there an > on-line copyright free document which covers chess annotation [short > algebraic will do] that anyone knows? An online search for, say, "algebraic chess notation" will turn up dozens of sites. Take your pick.     Date: 14 Aug 2008 15:52:53 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Man, Piece <[email protected] > wrote in message news:86923b25-5ad0-4ae4-af56-fd3605cdd08d@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... On Aug 14, 2:38 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:519f0063-5468-4f29-89b5-4c462694413c@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think the boat is still out on that one too - people do say 'chess-men' > but doesn't sound like chess players do, and its a recent archaism? The man/piece distinction is one that beginners should learn, if only because they will encounter it in chess literature. It doesn't matter whether it comes up in conversation. **I note your opinion Taylor, yet perhaps you are in the minority here, and basically to include 'Man' would mean using patzer or even non-player terms for words no longer current? After all, the course-work should be self containing, and other possibilities in chess [the thousands of them] not particularly relevant to its play at this level. I [laugh] don't remember if Mickey Adams said this in an e-mail to me or in our interview, but he said he picked up a chess book [such and such] and "it was so old it was in descriptive notation". Man! Those were the /only/ books I ever got hold of. > > If it is, is Dan's > > definition to your liking? > > That definition is correct. > > > My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions we > > have 3 contradictions! > > Not really; it depends on context. I think the glossary entry makes > clear the context for each of the three meanings of "piece." > > **They have internal contradictions. I doubt that few readers will agree. **Pardon? You maybe used an extra word in your sentence, since I also doubt few readers will agree, and expect most to agree with me. But my task is to present to students a term I can use, and so can they, provided I give them a definition of it, not 3 definitions - if I say pieces, it can't mean just anything - can't mean pieces and pawns, can't mean pieces not pawns, and can't mean only minor pieces. I need to define one use of the word Pieces. From other writing here this would seem to refer to "not-pawns", and which is my own preference. > I suppose what I would most like to do > is to talk of pawns distinct from other men, or pieces, as the main > emphasis. Feel free. > > These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss > > PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's > > limited sense of piece in #3? > > That meaning is seen very often in chess literature. I recall first > encountering it in Chernev's "Logical Chess" back in the mid-1960s, I > think. To "hang a piece," "win a piece," or "be up/down a piece," when > no specific piece is named, invariably refers to a minor piece, > > **um, well, don't know who translated Chernev, Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to the USA at about age 4. **Well okay, so is his usage current? Is it unambigous - I am NOT hear me NOT writing an encyclopedia of every term ever used, however well, but want to know the mainstream American terms for simple things! This is not esoteric, and the function of the course is to learn chess play, not chess esoterica or even chess history. > but what do people understand > by the term now? I personally wouldn't 'invariably' think it was a minor > piece, but hey! you guys are the Yanks! :) That's right. We saved your bacon in the war, so be appropriately grateful. **You may have saved our bacon, saved it for yourselves, you Yankee devils, you! ---------- > To finish: one other thing and a criticism of Taylor's editing, which I > also > level at Chessville's efforts. Its to do with annotation. This particular > book sometimes illustrates the term by citing a move, but not always, as > in > Castling, it doesn't mention 0-0 or 0-0-0, or even if those are zeros or > capital 'o' s. ???? The relevance of this to "A Parent's Guide to Chess" is nil. That book does not attempt to teach one how to play chess, nor much of anything about chess notation, **Yes - get over it Taylor, you are starting to get pissy already at infered criticism. You can't show game scores until you teach people notation, right? I said Dan's book is no better than Chessville for finding a good notation to use. Brad's book is not in the Intermediate course, so I can't use that. So where is one? and certainly nothing about annotation. The one brief mention of notation is on pages 75-76, the gist of it being that one should learn algebraic notation, which is taught in almost any beginner's book. The glossary entry "Castle" is merely intended to explain the mechanics of the castling move, and to differentiate the verb from the noun, not to teach anything about notation. **Get off being defensive! Other entries /do/ have annotations, in fact many do. I think it is a draw-back in this book, but a wide-spread draw back to many books! Its nothing particular /only/ about Dan's book! That is not any emphasis I made. > > There was a slight embarrassement I discovered in a trial with 2 beginners > in the Bardwick books, so that Brad explains chess annotation in chapter > 3, Phil, I think you mean notation, not annotation. Annotation is the writing of explanatory and analytical notes to a game. **Yes - I think that is the American usage, maybe universal now, as noted to Mike. > but uses it in Chapter one. Both trial student and trial teacher had to > ask > me about it. > > I didn't like Chessville's effort because it was too skimpy. Is there an > on-line copyright free document which covers chess annotation [short > algebraic will do] that anyone knows? An online search for, say, "algebraic chess notation" will turn up dozens of sites. Take your pick. **Will it? I have looked. What I wanted to know from you Yanks is which of the dozens you think fit? I am not writing here in order to learn how to google, and I don't want answers which assert that any of 3 different 'definitions' are okay, unless of course, that is what players themselves do, indiscriminately use terms. Phil Innes   Date: 14 Aug 2008 11:47:38 From: Ken Blake Subject: Re: Man, Piece On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:49:07 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > As some people here know, I am designing an accredited chess course for > initially home schooled students, then opened up as a distance learning > course for all students. The age range is k-12, and there is a beginners > course to acquaint players with basics, then an Intermediate course which > should suffice players or any age to at least 1500 level play. For > high-school students the 36 lesson Intermediate course gains a full academic > credit. > > The course draws on contributions from half a dozen or 10 authors, and in > several media, ie as books, hyper-texts, DVD and CD ROMS. > > With Dan Heisman we are converting his book "A Parent's Guide to Chess" to a > hyper-text, and I would like to ask particularly American readers here a > couple of questions I have about Dan's Glossary entries. > > TOPIC 1 > > Dan makes some distinction between "Piece" and "Man", I give both his > definitions below, then ask my questions: I haven't been an active player since the late 1950s, but I'll answer your questions with the perspective I had back then, with a note that as far as I know, none of the answers have changed at all. > > MAN: Any chess piece, including pawns. > > PIECE: > (1) Any of the chess men, as in "Get all the pieces out of the bag." > (2) A non-pawn, as in "You have to develop all your pieces." > (3) A Bishop or a Knight, as in "I am up a piece." > > My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use? If it is, is Dan's > definition to your liking? It was never in common use, other than by children or beginners unfamiliar with the standard terminology. > My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions we > have 3 contradictions! These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss > PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's > limited sense of piece in #3? Yes. That usage is very common. In fact, all three usages are common. The context normally makes it very clear which definition you are using. > Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS? Yes. > Elsewhere Dan provides normal definitions of minor-piece and major-piece, as > in Bishop&Knight, and Rook&Queen resp. > > TOPIC 2 > > Dan defines ZWISCHENZUG normally, and states its meaning as "in-between > move" which is uncontroversial. > > Is that universally understood or do people also say INTERMEZZO? I have seen > the Italian versions in print, but I suppose I want to know what word > Americans actually use - and is this one worth adding? I have never seen or heard the word "intermezzo" used for this. It has always been "zwischenzug," in my experience. As a matter of fact, if I were to hear a zwischenzug described as an "intermezzo," I would likely take it as an attempt at humor. -- Ken Blake Please Reply to the Newsgroup   Date: 14 Aug 2008 10:48:04 From: Subject: Re: Man, Piece On Aug 14, 12:49=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > As some people here know, I am designing an accredited chess course for > initially home schooled students, then opened up as a distance learning > course for all students. The age range is k-12, and there is a beginners > course to acquaint players with basics, then an Intermediate course which > should suffice players or any age to at least 1500 level play. For > high-school students the 36 lesson Intermediate course gains a full acade= mic > credit. > > The course draws on contributions from half a dozen or 10 authors, and in > several media, ie as books, hyper-texts, DVD and CD ROMS. > > With Dan Heisman we are converting his book "A Parent's Guide to Chess" t= o a > hyper-text, and I would like to ask particularly American readers here a > couple of questions I have about Dan's Glossary entries. Since I edited that book, and wrote some of the glossary entries, I may be able to answer. > TOPIC 1 > > Dan makes some distinction between "Piece" and "Man", I give both his > definitions below, then ask my questions: > > MAN: Any chess piece, including pawns. > > PIECE: > (1) Any of the chess men, as in "Get all the pieces out of the bag." > (2) A non-pawn, as in "You have to develop all your pieces." > (3) A Bishop or a Knight, as in "I am up a piece." > > My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use? Probably not used much by average chess players, but it's still often seen in books. It's useful for a young student of chess to understand terms he's going to see often in his studies. > If it is, is Dan's > definition to your liking? That definition is correct. > My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions we > have 3 contradictions! Not really; it depends on context. I think the glossary entry makes clear the context for each of the three meanings of "piece." > These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss > PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's > limited sense of piece in #3? That meaning is seen very often in chess literature. I recall first encountering it in Chernev's "Logical Chess" back in the mid-1960s, I think. To "hang a piece," "win a piece," or "be up/down a piece," when no specific piece is named, invariably refers to a minor piece, a bishop or knight only, in all chess literature I have ever read. If it's a queen or rook, one always says queen or rook. > Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS? Certainly one must distinquish between them as appropriate. > Elsewhere Dan provides normal definitions of minor-piece and major-piece,= as > in Bishop&Knight, and Rook&Queen resp. Yes, that is correct -- though among chess set collectors, "major piece" is often used to mean everything but pawns. But that's a non- standard usage within a small chess sub-culture, and so I did not include it in the glossary. > TOPIC 2 > > Dan defines ZWISCHENZUG normally, and states its meaning as "in-between > move" which is uncontroversial. > > Is that universally understood or do people also say INTERMEZZO? I have s= een > the Italian versions in print, but I suppose I want to know what word > Americans actually use - and is this one worth adding? I have never seen "intermezzo" used in a chess context in any English-language book or magazine, ever, nor have I ever heard any English-speaking person use it in a chess context.     Date: 14 Aug 2008 14:38:54 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Man, Piece <[email protected] > wrote in message news:519f0063-5468-4f29-89b5-4c462694413c@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: > As some people here know, I am designing an accredited chess course for > initially home schooled students, then opened up as a distance learning > course for all students. The age range is k-12, and there is a beginners > course to acquaint players with basics, then an Intermediate course which > should suffice players or any age to at least 1500 level play. For > high-school students the 36 lesson Intermediate course gains a full > academic > credit. > > The course draws on contributions from half a dozen or 10 authors, and in > several media, ie as books, hyper-texts, DVD and CD ROMS. > > With Dan Heisman we are converting his book "A Parent's Guide to Chess" to > a > hyper-text, and I would like to ask particularly American readers here a > couple of questions I have about Dan's Glossary entries. Since I edited that book, and wrote some of the glossary entries, I may be able to answer. > TOPIC 1 > > Dan makes some distinction between "Piece" and "Man", I give both his > definitions below, then ask my questions: > > MAN: Any chess piece, including pawns. From this small survey so far, a difference there from Mike's response > PIECE: > (1) Any of the chess men, as in "Get all the pieces out of the bag." > (2) A non-pawn, as in "You have to develop all your pieces." > (3) A Bishop or a Knight, as in "I am up a piece." > > My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use? Probably not used much by average chess players, but it's still often seen in books. It's useful for a young student of chess to understand terms he's going to see often in his studies. I think the boat is still out on that one too - people do say 'chess-men' but doesn't sound like chess players do, and its a recent archaism? > If it is, is Dan's > definition to your liking? That definition is correct. > My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions we > have 3 contradictions! Not really; it depends on context. I think the glossary entry makes clear the context for each of the three meanings of "piece." **They have internal contradictions. I suppose what I would most like to do is to talk of pawns distinct from other men, or pieces, as the main emphasis. > These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss > PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's > limited sense of piece in #3? That meaning is seen very often in chess literature. I recall first encountering it in Chernev's "Logical Chess" back in the mid-1960s, I think. To "hang a piece," "win a piece," or "be up/down a piece," when no specific piece is named, invariably refers to a minor piece, **um, well, don't know who translated Chernev, but what do people understand by the term now? I personally wouldn't 'invariably' think it was a minor piece, but hey! you guys are the Yanks! :) a bishop or knight only, in all chess literature I have ever read. If it's a queen or rook, one always says queen or rook. **let's leave that one up the flag-pole and see if others agree. > Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS? Certainly one must distinquish between them as appropriate. > Elsewhere Dan provides normal definitions of minor-piece and major-piece, > as > in Bishop&Knight, and Rook&Queen resp. Yes, that is correct -- though among chess set collectors, "major piece" is often used to mean everything but pawns. But that's a non- standard usage within a small chess sub-culture, and so I did not include it in the glossary. > TOPIC 2 > > Dan defines ZWISCHENZUG normally, and states its meaning as "in-between > move" which is uncontroversial. > > Is that universally understood or do people also say INTERMEZZO? I have > seen > the Italian versions in print, but I suppose I want to know what word > Americans actually use - and is this one worth adding? I have never seen "intermezzo" used in a chess context in any English-language book or magazine, ever, nor have I ever heard any English-speaking person use it in a chess context. **Sounds like you and Mike agree its not necessary, and that knowledge of the German and English words are sufficient. To finish: one other thing and a criticism of Taylor's editing, which I also level at Chessville's efforts. Its to do with annotation. This particular book sometimes illustrates the term by citing a move, but not always, as in Castling, it doesn't mention 0-0 or 0-0-0, or even if those are zeros or capital 'o' s. There was a slight embarrassement I discovered in a trial with 2 beginners in the Bardwick books, so that Brad explains chess annotation in chapter 3, but uses it in Chapter one. Both trial student and trial teacher had to ask me about it. I didn't like Chessville's effort because it was too skimpy. Is there an on-line copyright free document which covers chess annotation [short algebraic will do] that anyone knows? Cordially, and thanks for info so far, Phil Innes       Date: 14 Aug 2008 12:00:46 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Man, Piece On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:38:54 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >To finish: one other thing and a criticism of Taylor's editing, which I also >level at Chessville's efforts. Its to do with annotation. This particular >book sometimes illustrates the term by citing a move, but not always, as in >Castling, it doesn't mention 0-0 or 0-0-0, or even if those are zeros or >capital 'o' s. >There was a slight embarrassement I discovered in a trial with 2 beginners >in the Bardwick books, so that Brad explains chess annotation in chapter 3, >but uses it in Chapter one. Both trial student and trial teacher had to ask >me about it. >I didn't like Chessville's effort because it was too skimpy. Is there an >on-line copyright free document which covers chess annotation [short >algebraic will do] that anyone knows? I've always distinguished between chess "notation" which describes the moves themselves and "annotation" which discusses the moves, strategy behind them, alternatives, etc. If you're referring to what I'm calling "notation", I think an appendix might be the appropriate place to define the various forms of chess notation, emphasizing which ever form you're using in your book, with a reference to that appendix fairly early in the body of the work.         Date: 14 Aug 2008 15:28:21 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Man, Piece "Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:38:54 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]> > wrote: >>I didn't like Chessville's effort because it was too skimpy. Is there an >>on-line copyright free document which covers chess annotation [short >>algebraic will do] that anyone knows? > > I've always distinguished between chess "notation" which describes the > moves themselves and "annotation" which discusses the moves, strategy > behind them, alternatives, etc. Yeah, I think that is also a US distinction. I should use it. After all, I write Chess notation, not chess annotation, yet one is merely a cod of the other. > If you're referring to what I'm calling "notation", I think an > appendix might be the appropriate place to define the various forms of > chess notation, emphasizing which ever form you're using in your book, > with a reference to that appendix fairly early in the body of the > work. Of the course material I am using, no such index entry is available. But the problem is greater because you cannot constantly ask the reader to consult an index merely in order to say 1. e4 d5 2. ed. Since sufficient annotation is not in the course books, I want to make a hyper-text document and still a source for it. Phil Innes           Date: 14 Aug 2008 12:39:20 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Man, Piece On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:28:21 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >Of the course material I am using, no such index entry is available. But the >problem is greater because you cannot constantly ask the reader to consult >an index merely in order to say 1. e4 d5 2. ed. When I learned chess long ago from an article in the Encyclopedia Americana, I believe they just supplied an 8X8 matrix or chart describing the names of the squares, along with a paragraph or two of explanation. They probably had one matrix for algebraic, one for descriptive, but I don't remember. Most of Reinfeld's books included a such a page. Anyway, it's not that hard to pick up. Might have taken me all of five minutes and I was in the sixth grade. And you could just add a parenthetical expression saying something like, "The moves are described by what we call 'chess notation'. If you're unfamiliar with it, refer to Appendix A". With hypertext, should be even simpler.   Date: 14 Aug 2008 10:33:12 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Man, Piece On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:49:07 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote: >My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use? If it is, is Dan's >definition to your liking? Sounds too checker-esque IMO. >Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS? Yes >Dan defines ZWISCHENZUG normally, and states its meaning as "in-between >move" which is uncontroversial. >Is that universally understood or do people also say INTERMEZZO? I have seen >the Italian versions in print, but I suppose I want to know what word >Americans actually use - and is this one worth adding? I don't think so. Everyone I know uses "zwischenzug". I can't remember anybody using "intermezzo", although most would probably understand it's usage.     Date: 16 Aug 2008 15:37:19 From: thumbody Subject: Re: Man, Piece Mike Murray wrote: . > >Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS? > > Yes Concur.. t.   Date: 14 Aug 2008 13:30:24 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Man, Piece To respond to an immediate e-mail, most of this business of answering questions about the course can be conducted in public, which saves me answering lots of individual e-mails. Yes - Dan's title is the one published by HR at Chesscafe, and Yes, Dan retains full copyright, and normal royalty structure for payment. The only changes to the book were that we [actually, Dan did all this] decided to first check all the hyper-links in the book to ensure they were still valid, and also added some new ones to the printed version of 5 years ago. [naturally, also changing USCF's physical address, telephone numbers, too] For other changes, and as supplements I will likely use a MOOGLE resource. About half of Dan's book centers around USCF, tournaments, ratings, membership categories esp for youth, arbitrators, spectator behavior, and essentially the 'official' side of chess. In initial discussions with Dan we compared his title to the only other known one to me in the English language, which is Survival Guide for Chess Parents, by Tania Jones, and I had to conclude with Dan that that title was a bit too skewed to Tania's son who was a prodigy, and also English rather than American oriented. Dan's book is a bit more down too earth and normal, besides, it is American-specific. To the remaining half dozen questions, plus I add some notes: a) The CD ROM is Advanced Chess School by Convekta, the people who publish Rybka. It is also handily bi-lingual English/Spanish. b) yes, I have been canvassing for future chess teachers who will , btw, need a minimum rating to qualify to teach both courses, as well as pass a background check! yes, re-imbursement for teaching will be 'normative', which varies state-to-state, but a fair average. c) initial mailing to about 10,000 home-schoolers, then 100,000. If 100 students sign up from the initial mailing I will be very pleased indeed! There were in 2001, 1,100,000 home schooled children in the USA. d) yes, if a student is enrolled in a US HS they can elect to take the course, and the law says that if they pass it, they get academic credit. e) for the beginner's course, I am using Todd Bardwick's material, which is strongly linked to a math curriculum by a useful rubric he has provided, and provides both a chess workbook for the student, and also a guide to teaching it for the parent. This is a bit complicated with very young children, since they can't yet necessarily read textbooks! Todd's approach seemed best to me - especially since he is at great pains to explain to the parent the pedagogical aspects of learning, and to be able to make a very strong academic comment; teach chess, measure in math. f) the main differences between beginner course and intermediate are that for beginner the parent or home-school teacher is the primary contact for the student, with chess teacher as back-up via e-mail, but for the intermediate the distance-learning teacher is prime contact, and a variety of media are used as well as appealing to normative VAK distributions. Phil Innes "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > As some people here know, I am designing an accredited chess course for > initially home schooled students, then opened up as a distance learning > course for all students. The age range is k-12, and there is a beginners > course to acquaint players with basics, then an Intermediate course which > should suffice players or any age to at least 1500 level play. For > high-school students the 36 lesson Intermediate course gains a full > academic credit. > > The course draws on contributions from half a dozen or 10 authors, and in > several media, ie as books, hyper-texts, DVD and CD ROMS. > > With Dan Heisman we are converting his book "A Parent's Guide to Chess" to > a hyper-text, and I would like to ask particularly American readers here a > couple of questions I have about Dan's Glossary entries. > > TOPIC 1 > > Dan makes some distinction between "Piece" and "Man", I give both his > definitions below, then ask my questions: > > MAN: Any chess piece, including pawns. > > PIECE: > (1) Any of the chess men, as in "Get all the pieces out of the bag." > (2) A non-pawn, as in "You have to develop all your pieces." > (3) A Bishop or a Knight, as in "I am up a piece." > > My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use? If it is, is > Dan's definition to your liking? > > My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions we > have 3 contradictions! These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss > PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's > limited sense of piece in #3? > > Do readers think it beneficial to refer to PIECES and PAWNS? > > Elsewhere Dan provides normal definitions of minor-piece and major-piece, > as in Bishop&Knight, and Rook&Queen resp. > > TOPIC 2 > > Dan defines ZWISCHENZUG normally, and states its meaning as "in-between > move" which is uncontroversial. > > Is that universally understood or do people also say INTERMEZZO? I have > seen the Italian versions in print, but I suppose I want to know what word > Americans actually use - and is this one worth adding? > > Thank you! > > Phil Innes >