| |
Main
Date: 15 Apr 2008 09:59:21
From: Chess One
Subject: Unusual King's Gambit
|
After talking around the subject here a few weeks ago, I thought I'd play a
few KG's at correspondence, so booked up on Kieseritzky and Fischer Defence,
so naturally I got this:-
1. e4 e5
2. f4 exf4
3. Nf3 Be7
4. Bc4
Ah! I know Be2 is the Cunningham, but that was originally a gambit line
combined with a subsequent g3, and I don't think its very good, so played
this thing which I don't know the name thereof.
4... Bh4 +
The question being, is that a good move, because now black's King N has
troubling developing itself.
5. Kf1 c6
The guy I am playing is 2465, and I think that is an innovation - anyone see
it before? I was expecting d6.
6. Nc3 Be7
We have played a few more moves - but finding something new at 5 is always
interesting and worth a look, is it anomalous? [if you found it, please
don't show subsequent moves, although I have almost certainly deviated from
any book already
A choice for White in this position is where to move the d pawn - d4 allows
the K Kt to sit defended on e5, but d3 allows the Q N to reside on e4.
Phil Innes
|
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2008 04:25:33
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 28, 2:43 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Or was it simply an anomalous result????? :)
>
> If you don't understand English then you rather expose yourself, as with
> your lack of chess
Ahem. Dr. Dowd is also NM Dowd. So not only is he better educated than
you, he's also a better chessplayer. That he's a better man we can
take as a given.
and choice of correspondent. If you are truly well, get
> out more. If not, read books, if you can stand the shock of them!
>
> As I have said to others, try to write about chess in a technical chess
> thread. If you can't do it, shut up! I mean SHUT UP already!
>
> :) Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 23:28:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 28, 3:43 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> If you don't understand English then you rather expose yourself, as with
> your lack of chess and choice of correspondent. If you are truly well, get
> out more. If not, read books, if you can stand the shock of them!
>
> As I have said to others, try to write about chess in a technical chess
> thread. If you can't do it, shut up! I mean SHUT UP already!
I wish nearly-IMnes would follow his own advice.
If there is one poster here who can't understand
English and who spends all his time trashing other
chess players, it's the 2450 GM-norm dude himself.
Maybe if a few of the *idiots* would go away, the
focus could then turn from ridiculing their many
gaffes, to constructive postings free from abusenik
harassment. Of course, this is mere speculation
on my part, and we will never know... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 21:26:15
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 28, 10:22 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As to his "grandmaster" norm, I assumed that was just something on
> > that candyass email server he plays on that he received by beating
> > up on RM 100 times in a row.
>
> > Or was it simply an anomalous result????? :)
>
> Well, there's no word for it! *rimshot*
Perhaps it's part of that German language which P Innes insists is
purely verbal, with no writing.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 07:52:09
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 28, 9:12 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 28, 8:30 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > P Innes goes from low to low, doesn't he? He mocks my obesity, and
> > former obesity, he mocks your health.... Doesn't this remind you of
> > the Fake Sam Sloan?
>
> Phil has enough trouble keeping up his own twisted persona, I cannot
> imagine him having enough imagination to be FSS.
No, you are correct, he's not bright enough.
He can't leave the
> fat jokes behind though, you are correct, just more of his playground
> discourse.
I've known young folks on playgrounds who were smarter, and more
polite, than P Innes. But then, who hasn't?
> I assumed the "ill" comments were some sort of mental health
> comment... his usual stance being that all who disagree with his
> nonsense are crazy... but yes, you are right, he would go that
> low.....
>
> As to his "grandmaster" norm, I assumed that was just something on
> that candyass email server he plays on that he received by beating up
> on RM 100 times in a row.
My guess as well.
> Or was it simply an anomalous result????? :)
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 07:12:52
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 28, 8:30 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> P Innes goes from low to low, doesn't he? He mocks my obesity, and
> former obesity, he mocks your health.... Doesn't this remind you of
> the Fake Sam Sloan?
Phil has enough trouble keeping up his own twisted persona, I cannot
imagine him having enough imagination to be FSS. He can't leave the
fat jokes behind though, you are correct, just more of his playground
discourse.
I assumed the "ill" comments were some sort of mental health
comment... his usual stance being that all who disagree with his
nonsense are crazy... but yes, you are right, he would go that
low.....
As to his "grandmaster" norm, I assumed that was just something on
that candyass email server he plays on that he received by beating up
on RM 100 times in a row.
Or was it simply an anomalous result????? :)
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 15:43:14
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:2c4e241d-9c40-4a8f-a152-d3c65fc9ec0e@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 28, 8:30 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> P Innes goes from low to low, doesn't he? He mocks my obesity, and
>> former obesity, he mocks your health.... Doesn't this remind you of
>> the Fake Sam Sloan?
>
> Phil has enough trouble keeping up his own twisted persona, I cannot
> imagine him having enough imagination to be FSS. He can't leave the
> fat jokes behind though, you are correct, just more of his playground
> discourse.
>
> I assumed the "ill" comments were some sort of mental health
> comment... his usual stance being that all who disagree with his
> nonsense are crazy... but yes, you are right, he would go that
> low.....
>
> As to his "grandmaster" norm, I assumed that was just something on
> that candyass email server he plays on that he received by beating up
> on RM 100 times in a row.
Do you 'assume' everything Steven? It is YOUR mind which assumes all, right?
And it is always negative about other people. You demonstrate you cannot
discuss chess, and here you go with yet another mocking post about actual
chess achievement. Look at you all, jerking each other off! <right? >
I mean, its okay I suppose, and we are all broad minded these days, but
let's call it what it is. ;)
You know, Europeans say Americans whine too much. You guys whine //all// the
time!
You write with someone who only whines, as if in sympathy of his
'condition' - better he spent more time away from his keyboard and on his
bike, then he wouldn't be so fatuous!
You support the views of an established stalker and abuser who likes to play
on names of others, and speculate with him on who the FSS is? Who
'researches' other people, then suggests to vulnerable people like yourself
that you should adopt a cynical, anti-like posture too. You are not sick,
you say?
ROFL
Yet you advertise your speculations as something creditable in your estimate
of other people's worth.
> Or was it simply an anomalous result????? :)
If you don't understand English then you rather expose yourself, as with
your lack of chess and choice of correspondent. If you are truly well, get
out more. If not, read books, if you can stand the shock of them!
As I have said to others, try to write about chess in a technical chess
thread. If you can't do it, shut up! I mean SHUT UP already!
:) Phil Innes
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 16:22:13
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> As to his "grandmaster" norm, I assumed that was just something on
> that candyass email server he plays on that he received by beating
> up on RM 100 times in a row.
>
> Or was it simply an anomalous result????? :)
Well, there's no word for it! *rimshot*
Dave.
--
David Richerby Poetic Psychotic Sushi (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a raw fish but it wants to kill you
and it's in verse!
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 06:30:21
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 28, 8:03 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 27, 5:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You got this issue completely wrong from start to finish, and all you want
> > to do in a chess thread is CUT the chess out, in order to exercise your
> > sickness.
>
> > You want sympathy for being ill [and you are //very// ill, no?] - look to
> > your own condition, man! I am not your enemy. I am a person asked after the
> > name of variation in the KG.
>
> Wow this tirade is amazing. It's one thing to be stubborn, Phil, and
> another to be stupid, but this combination you exhibit, of being
> stubbornly stupid, cannot work out well for you.
P Innes goes from low to low, doesn't he? He mocks my obesity, and
former obesity, he mocks your health.... Doesn't this remind you of
the Fake Sam Sloan?
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 06:03:15
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 27, 5:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> You got this issue completely wrong from start to finish, and all you want
> to do in a chess thread is CUT the chess out, in order to exercise your
> sickness.
>
> You want sympathy for being ill [and you are //very// ill, no?] - look to
> your own condition, man! I am not your enemy. I am a person asked after the
> name of variation in the KG.
Wow this tirade is amazing. It's one thing to be stubborn, Phil, and
another to be stupid, but this combination you exhibit, of being
stubbornly stupid, cannot work out well for you.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 03:14:56
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 27, 11:11 am, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 27, 9:40 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In the meantime various people who do not write about chess have written in
> > to declare that they do not understand the word anamalous, have never heard
> > it mentioned in the natural sciences as context, and can't think why a word
> > which means not-named could apply to a not-named opening variation in chess.
>
> A word that means "not-named" could be used similarly in chess.
>
> Unfortunately, anamalous (?) and anomalous both do not fit that
> definition.
>
> It's that simple. You can dance around all you want, and claim that C-
> A-T actually spells dog, for all I care. You're still wrong, and you
> know it. If you don't, you just plain stupid, Mr. 2300, uh Mr. 2450
> (what bogus rating DO you claim this week?).
A couple of weeks ago he claimed a GM norm in correspondence play.
ICCF doesn't list him as a member.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 03:12:41
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 19, 4:17 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 4:08 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Yes - your appreciation defines you. WAIT! = but not about chess, since you
> > and Dr Null never got to that, and maybe are dull in that respect too? The
> > evidence is against you.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> Sure. We're chess dullards because we wouldn't give you advice on one
> of your ongoing postal games. What a total jackass you are, Mr. 2300.
I guess his chess engine is broken.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 03:10:53
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 19, 1:40 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 4:37 pm, SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > you can't talk chess with them blokes, and not even with me, a genuine 2300!
>
> > This is my favorite part of his fantasy.
>
> I believe it's called "averaging down". In the
> investment world, you buy more shares of a
> stock you already own, thus lowering the
> average price you paid for all shares in that
> stock. In nearly-IMnes' case, you attempt to
> lower to original boast from 2450 to 2300,
> and pray no one will remember the original
> figure.
>
> The averaging-down method is of little use
> where people have decent memories, of
> course. My recommendation to nearly-
> IMnes would be to take some lessons, so
> he can average up.
>
> -- help bot
Perhaps these ratings come from the online playing site P Innes
frequents. You recall the one on which more than half of his games
were played against Rob Mitchell, a far weaker player?
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 15:45:22
From:
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 27, 6:30=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:056b1c51-be83-44bc-ba73-f7dcbfcf506a@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 9:40 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> In the meantime various people who do not write about chess have writte=
n
> >> in
> >> to declare that they do not understand the word anamalous, have never
> >> heard
> >> it mentioned in the natural sciences as context, and can't think why a
> >> word
> >> which means not-named could apply to a not-named opening variation in
> >> chess.
>
> > A word that means "not-named" could be used similarly in chess.
>
> > Unfortunately, anamalous (?) and anomalous both do not fit that
> > definition.
>
> > It's that simple. You can dance around all you want, and claim that C-
> > A-T actually spells dog, for all I care.
>
> Steven, what is going on in your mind? If you do not know the word used fo=
r
> un-named critters and such in natural science, that is merely ignornance o=
n
> your part. If you cannot understand a term after it is explained to you,
> then I submit that is a matter of your intelligence, not mine.
>
> > You're still wrong, and you
> > know it. If you don't, you just plain stupid, Mr. 2300, uh Mr. 2450
> > (what bogus rating DO you claim this week?).
>
> I never claimed any 'bogus' rating. Only a fatuous intelligence could admi=
t
> I ever did anything else - that is, a non-playing abusenik who you care to=
> report.
>
> How come you cut my post? Since I also put a question to you about LYING -=
> about YOU STEVEN DOWD. YOU lied, then were called on it, then cut it, then=
> continued with your skepticism - as if people should think you sincere.
>
> You did lie - right Steven? You completely inverted what I wrote in this
> thread about my reason for starting it, and you childishly said I was aski=
ng
> for advice when I specifically asked for no game scores - just a name. Tha=
t
> was your plain lie. And you CUT my reference to your lie and to your
> 'objective opinion' as a medico. Why indeed you do you write to me still
> since I indicate a certain psychological orientation? A co-incidence? I
> don't think so!
>
> You lied Steven - you lied in public in your previous post, and now you
> excise the reference. pfft! =A0 :)))
>
> Are more 'questions' sufficient cover? =A0 :)) =A0I don't think so. If you=
> wanted to play chess I invited you here, and you even lie about that. If y=
ou
> needed to talk about life and so on, I invited you here - do you deny I di=
d
> that? If you did not want to talk about anything whatever, I still invited=
> you here without condition, for a week or so, and without charge, do you
> deny that too?
>
> Who the fucking hell do you think you are fooling, Dowd? Mouth off to the
> boys here, if th8at brings momentary relief, but really...
>
> You got this issue completely wrong from start to finish, and all you want=
> to do in a chess thread is CUT the chess out, in order to exercise your
> sickness.
>
> You want sympathy for being ill [and you are //very// ill, no?] - look to
> your own condition, man! I am not your enemy. I am a person asked after th=
e
> name of variation in the KG.
>
> Phil Innes
Phil, cut your losses and get off this jag. You're doing the Andean
thing all over again, only worse.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2008 08:52:38
From: Chess One
Subject: Kingston's Perversion Inclusions
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1637adde-e4eb-4f97-87df-fc007440c22c@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 27, 6:30 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
Phil, cut your losses and get off this jag. You're doing the Andean
thing all over again, only worse.
===
**KINGSTON - you reprobate - //your// Andean thing!
I have no idea what the likes of Brennan and Help-Guts understand, if
anything. But they do think you said something worth repeating, though on
being challenged you couldn't actually address the subject, but you continue
to feed the abuseniks here by writing some nonsense in chess threads.
If you want to 'cut' anything, how about your continuous trashing of people?
You immediately got onto this thread and did the exact opposite of what I
requested from //chess-players// then you cut my complaint of your abuse,
and return to even earlier abuse which you generated.
If you can't talk chess, go away! I don't want your idiotic 'advice', but we
see who does want it, non-chess players who abuse anyone writing about chess
here. All the chess writing in chess.misc has gone away, pace the attention
of such as Brennan and Kennedy, with the support of such as yourself who,
tacitly do not reprove them, but encourage a sort of loutish indecent
speculation.
So stop posing around the campus, and write about chess if you can.
Otherwise you are just as idiotic and wasteful as the abuseniks.
If you want to write about Andean languages go ahead, there are 5 of them in
Equatorial regions, and 10 Azteco-Tanoan languages. But don't write about
them mockingly, since of the southern versions, the people were exterminated
for speaking, recording or even reading them, and there is no reason anyone
wants to joke about a genocide, is there?
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 09:11:28
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 27, 9:40 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> In the meantime various people who do not write about chess have written in
> to declare that they do not understand the word anamalous, have never heard
> it mentioned in the natural sciences as context, and can't think why a word
> which means not-named could apply to a not-named opening variation in chess.
A word that means "not-named" could be used similarly in chess.
Unfortunately, anamalous (?) and anomalous both do not fit that
definition.
It's that simple. You can dance around all you want, and claim that C-
A-T actually spells dog, for all I care. You're still wrong, and you
know it. If you don't, you just plain stupid, Mr. 2300, uh Mr. 2450
(what bogus rating DO you claim this week?).
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 18:30:40
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:056b1c51-be83-44bc-ba73-f7dcbfcf506a@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 27, 9:40 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> In the meantime various people who do not write about chess have written
>> in
>> to declare that they do not understand the word anamalous, have never
>> heard
>> it mentioned in the natural sciences as context, and can't think why a
>> word
>> which means not-named could apply to a not-named opening variation in
>> chess.
>
> A word that means "not-named" could be used similarly in chess.
>
> Unfortunately, anamalous (?) and anomalous both do not fit that
> definition.
>
> It's that simple. You can dance around all you want, and claim that C-
> A-T actually spells dog, for all I care.
Steven, what is going on in your mind? If you do not know the word used for
un-named critters and such in natural science, that is merely ignornance on
your part. If you cannot understand a term after it is explained to you,
then I submit that is a matter of your intelligence, not mine.
> You're still wrong, and you
> know it. If you don't, you just plain stupid, Mr. 2300, uh Mr. 2450
> (what bogus rating DO you claim this week?).
I never claimed any 'bogus' rating. Only a fatuous intelligence could admit
I ever did anything else - that is, a non-playing abusenik who you care to
report.
How come you cut my post? Since I also put a question to you about LYING -
about YOU STEVEN DOWD. YOU lied, then were called on it, then cut it, then
continued with your skepticism - as if people should think you sincere.
You did lie - right Steven? You completely inverted what I wrote in this
thread about my reason for starting it, and you childishly said I was asking
for advice when I specifically asked for no game scores - just a name. That
was your plain lie. And you CUT my reference to your lie and to your
'objective opinion' as a medico. Why indeed you do you write to me still
since I indicate a certain psychological orientation? A co-incidence? I
don't think so!
You lied Steven - you lied in public in your previous post, and now you
excise the reference. pfft! :)))
Are more 'questions' sufficient cover? :)) I don't think so. If you
wanted to play chess I invited you here, and you even lie about that. If you
needed to talk about life and so on, I invited you here - do you deny I did
that? If you did not want to talk about anything whatever, I still invited
you here without condition, for a week or so, and without charge, do you
deny that too?
Who the fucking hell do you think you are fooling, Dowd? Mouth off to the
boys here, if th8at brings momentary relief, but really...
You got this issue completely wrong from start to finish, and all you want
to do in a chess thread is CUT the chess out, in order to exercise your
sickness.
You want sympathy for being ill [and you are //very// ill, no?] - look to
your own condition, man! I am not your enemy. I am a person asked after the
name of variation in the KG.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 17:17:08
From:
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 19, 8:06=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 6:54 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 19, 7:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:KOf*[email protected]...
>
> > > > Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> > > >> I don't think that the verbal construct "Innes is right" has
> > > >> any actual meaning. =A0It's like talking about dry wetness.
>
> > > > Works just fine if the wetness is white wine. :-P
>
> > > hey dave, that is very funny - but now, anything on topic to do with t=
he KG?
> > > or are you really a pretty sort of bloke fitting into the crowd, that =
is,
> > > someone who likes to bitch a bit abstractly with the other 'guys'
>
> > > =A0;)
>
> > > if you can't do chess in a chess ng -- sod off, don't mouth off
>
> > =A0 Isn't it interesting how:
>
> > =A0 (1) our Phil makes a sweeping and glaringly wrong pronouncement on a=
> > non-chess topic, i.e. the etymology of "anomalous," then when everyone
> > calls him on it,
>
> > =A0 (2) he complains that people are posting on non-chess topics.
>
> > =A0 Our Phil is not only a dreadful lexicographer, but a glaring
> > hypocrite as well. Not to mention a hanged man twisting in a noose of
> > his own design, a prisoner impaled on a spear of his own manufacture.
>
> Hoist with his own petard.
Yes, that phrase occurred to me, Neil, but I was trying to come up
with something on my own, or at least not that well-worn bit of
Shakespeare.
Heck, with Phil it might be more fitting to say he's been
disemboweled with his own nose-hair trimmer.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 10:24:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Apr 19, 8:06 pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 6:54 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > if you can't do chess in a chess ng -- sod off, don't mouth off
>
> > Isn't it interesting how:
>
> > (1) our Phil makes a sweeping and glaringly wrong pronouncement on a
> > non-chess topic, i.e. the etymology of "anomalous," then when everyone
> > calls him on it,
>
> > (2) he complains that people are posting on non-chess topics.
>
> > Our Phil is not only a dreadful lexicographer, but a glaring
> > hypocrite as well. Not to mention a hanged man twisting in a noose of
> > his own design, a prisoner impaled on a spear of his own manufacture.
>
> Hoist with his own petard.
Yes, that phrase occurred to me, Neil, but I was trying to come up
with something on my own, or at least not that well-worn bit of
Shakespeare.
Heck, with Phil it might be more fitting to say he's been
disemboweled with his own nose-hair trimmer.
**Kingston, you write trash about others to the chief abusenik in a
newsgroup, and you do it consistently. If you can't write about chess, sod
off!
**If you can't understand things I write, like, 'don't tell us what's in
your database' then maybe the trouble is not my writing, but your
understanding of what actual chess players are talking about?
**If you then continue to trash people without referencing chess, then there
isn't any doubt about your own 'orientation' to chess - its an non-existent
as 'Neil's'.
**Anyone actually interested in the KG can read a new chess blog by GM Boris
Alterman which includes a few notes on the Cunningham-propre, which is the
line I avoided in the initial post. http://chesslessons.wordpress.com:80/.
**People not interested in chess should not look, and not report any typo's
he made, or whine for whining's sake.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 17:06:31
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 19, 6:54 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 19, 7:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:KOf*[email protected]...
>
> > > Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> > >> I don't think that the verbal construct "Innes is right" has
> > >> any actual meaning. It's like talking about dry wetness.
>
> > > Works just fine if the wetness is white wine. :-P
>
> > hey dave, that is very funny - but now, anything on topic to do with the KG?
> > or are you really a pretty sort of bloke fitting into the crowd, that is,
> > someone who likes to bitch a bit abstractly with the other 'guys'
>
> > ;)
>
> > if you can't do chess in a chess ng -- sod off, don't mouth off
>
> Isn't it interesting how:
>
> (1) our Phil makes a sweeping and glaringly wrong pronouncement on a
> non-chess topic, i.e. the etymology of "anomalous," then when everyone
> calls him on it,
>
> (2) he complains that people are posting on non-chess topics.
>
> Our Phil is not only a dreadful lexicographer, but a glaring
> hypocrite as well. Not to mention a hanged man twisting in a noose of
> his own design, a prisoner impaled on a spear of his own manufacture.
Hoist with his own petard.
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 16:54:48
From:
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 19, 7:27=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "David Richerby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:KOf*[email protected]...
>
> > Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
> >> I don't think that the verbal construct "Innes is right" has
> >> any actual meaning. =A0It's like talking about dry wetness.
>
> > Works just fine if the wetness is white wine. :-P
>
> hey dave, that is very funny - but now, anything on topic to do with the K=
G?
> or are you really a pretty sort of bloke fitting into the crowd, that is,
> someone who likes to bitch a bit abstractly with the other 'guys'
>
> =A0;)
>
> if you can't do chess in a chess ng -- sod off, don't mouth off
>
Isn't it interesting how:
(1) our Phil makes a sweeping and glaringly wrong pronouncement on a
non-chess topic, i.e. the etymology of "anomalous," then when everyone
calls him on it,
(2) he complains that people are posting on non-chess topics.
Our Phil is not only a dreadful lexicographer, but a glaring
hypocrite as well. Not to mention a hanged man twisting in a noose of
his own design, a prisoner impaled on a spear of his own manufacture.
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 14:24:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 19, 5:08 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >>>> In some alternate universe, the usage may have EVOLVED to mean
> >>>> "without a name",
>
> And usage, in language, is King! Since the very words you use are based on
> usage.
>
> >>>> but it didn't do that in ours.
>
> LOL! Well, what world is 'ours' ?
>
> >>>> Unless, of
> >>>> course, the OED is wrong and Innes is correct, and that would
> >>>> indeed be anomalous.
>
> The OED is wrong hundreds of times. It was compiled by amateur contribution,
> is partial, not always finding origins, in fact rarely so, and is not a
> bible! It is a comprehensive record to be quoted as if always right and a
> standard - neither was it intended to be so.
>
> >>> Anomalous in the sense that there's no name for that kind of
> >>> situation in which Innes is right and the OED is wrong? ;-)
>
> >> Check the accepted etymology. "anomaly" has *nothing* to do with
> >> "names".
>
> Accepted by whom? The OED would no doubt assert that 'sentence' requires
> subject, verb, object.
>
> The [laugh] massive use of anomalous by biologists for biological items not
> known by any name, and for the past 250 years, may not be known to computer
> geeks - and if that is the sense of what is 'accepted' then let them take
> notice - or inform themselves - that is, if they care to, otherwise let them
> display their ignorance.
>
> The last big barny I had with a computer geek was over the term Turing
> Engine, which he inisisted was Turing Machine, despite 100,000 googled
> references to 'Engine', despite Babbage, despite the idea of the idea not
> being the same as any instance of its manifestation.
>
> zzz
>
> Thus, my correspondent was dull, lazy, a pedant, not interested in what
> 100,000 other people said, especially those who were more formal than he,
> and not aware of Idea as a factor independent of it implementation. So...
> not any scientist, but a mechanic.
>
> > That was precisely the point I was making.
>
> Yes - your appreciation defines you. WAIT! = but not about chess, since you
> and Dr Null never got to that, and maybe are dull in that respect too? The
> evidence is against you.
>
> Phil Innes
I think maybe Dr. IMnes missed the fact that *his*
post contained absolutely ZERO chess content as
well. It seems to me that if the nearly-an-IM is
going to stand up an yell "I've got the moral high
ground-- yipee!", he ought to at least remember to
include some reference to chess when bashing
others for not doing so.
Now, as for the "hundreds" of alleged errors in the
OED, I have yet to find more than say, 98 of them;
obviously, Dr. IMnes needs to step up and show
us a comprehensive listing, numbering, as he
stated, in the hundreds. (Maybe the great 2450
nearly-an-IM got the OED confused with BCE?)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I just went through an entire Web site's online
catalog of sale items-- hundreds of them. Not one
had to do with the King's Gambit! Incredible. Oh,
they had just about every other opening on the face
of this planet (that would be Earth, Mr. Innes), but
nada on the Cunningham, Kaiseritsky, etc., etc.
I think the Sicilian Defense may have "killed" the
KG; you get all the winning chances, with none of
the sticky mess... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 14:17:23
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 19, 4:08 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Yes - your appreciation defines you. WAIT! = but not about chess, since you
> and Dr Null never got to that, and maybe are dull in that respect too? The
> evidence is against you.
>
> Phil Innes
>
Sure. We're chess dullards because we wouldn't give you advice on one
of your ongoing postal games. What a total jackass you are, Mr. 2300.
|
| | |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 10:40:02
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:8c170ab4-2e9d-4691-a4e5-d964037a747f@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 19, 4:08 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Yes - your appreciation defines you. WAIT! = but not about chess, since
>> you
>> and Dr Null never got to that, and maybe are dull in that respect too?
>> The
>> evidence is against you.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>
>
> Sure. We're chess dullards because we wouldn't give you advice on one
> of your ongoing postal games. What a total jackass you are, Mr. 2300.
Hey DOWD! I ASKED for NO advice. I specifically SAID do NOT post the games
score past this point. OKAY? I mean, do you understand that?
Even help-bot noticed that. Kingston wrote out of his database //in spite//
of what I asked.
I hope you don't practice medicine anymore - its must be embarassing to do
the wrong procedure on the wrong patient no? Or do you get used to it?
I asked if anyone could identify a move [c6] instead of the more usual [d6],
since I had never seen the c6 move before, or knew its name. That is all I
asked.
In the meantime various people who do not write about chess have written in
to declare that they do not understand the word anamalous, have never heard
it mentioned in the natural sciences as context, and can't think why a word
which means not-named could apply to a not-named opening variation in chess.
And this has caused them so much personal intellectual anguish that they
resent not only the term, but the coiner of the term.
You decided to join that party, and while getting off on your abuse you
forgot yourself to completely invert what I initially said.
That is a lesson to abuseniks, and to medico's, since all you have all done
is indulge in a pathetic group whine.
That YOU should, having got everything wrong, and after no chess comment at
all, feel JUSTIFIED in continued group public abuse is an occassion for
handing out the brown shirts, which is only one stage short of the white
jackets with the ties at the back ;))
Phil Innes
The Hippocampus, Vermont
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Apr 2008 10:05:36
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
Chess One wrote:
>
> In the meantime various people who do not write about chess have written in
> to declare that they do not understand the word anamalous,
I must confess that I don't know this worde.
--
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: 18 Apr 2008 23:40:11
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 18, 4:37 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > you can't talk chess with them blokes, and not even with me, a genuine 2300!
>
> This is my favorite part of his fantasy.
I believe it's called "averaging down". In the
investment world, you buy more shares of a
stock you already own, thus lowering the
average price you paid for all shares in that
stock. In nearly-IMnes' case, you attempt to
lower to original boast from 2450 to 2300,
and pray no one will remember the original
figure.
The averaging-down method is of little use
where people have decent memories, of
course. My recommendation to nearly-
IMnes would be to take some lessons, so
he can average up.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 20:26:38
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 17, 12:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Apr 17, 1:49 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:55:27 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > Innes: Anomalous means 'without a name'.
>
> > Dowd: No it doesn't. [cites dictionary definition]
>
> > And now, something typical from our Phil:
>
> > >** Come on Dr. D! What is 'to nominate', to 'denominate'? Surely the root~
> > >is Greek, which means 'same', and then adoption into its Latinate form uses
> > >that a~ prefix, which indicates it is /not/ same, irregular, deviant, not of
> > >a general rule.
> > >**And its //use// in English is, and always has been in natural philosophy,
>
> > [Besides getting the meaning wrong,, Innes is also incorrect in this
> > -- natural philosophy is just ONE of the word's applications.]
>
> > >to describe new and un-named species of things, which are not-same to what
> > >we already named! Would you like to argue that point? Try it on a botanist
> > >or two, eg. Let us know what they say.
> > >**How odd that an MD should find the term confusing! You see below where
> > >your own markings exist, and where you successfully recorded 'of uncertain
> > >nature or classification'? I suggest to you that this is a clue.
>
> > Caught flat-footed defining a word incorrectly, Innes does his usual
> > dance of ignorance, confusing etymology with free-association: "well,
> > err, uh, if you have something 'uneven of quality, irregular', then we
> > don't know what to call it, and therefore anomalous MEANS 'without a
> > name'.
>
> > In some alternate universe, the usage may have EVOLVED to mean
> > "without a name", but it didn't do that in ours. Unless, of course,
> > the OED is wrong and Innes is correct, and that would indeed be
> > anomalous.
>
> This is just like the Andean flap, differing only in minor details.
> Our Phil never learns.
alt.history.british has a fascinating thread in which P Innes is
fighting with everybody. The title is "What do people think Phil Innes
has been smoking?"
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 17:15:01
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
I took a few days off and on returning see that numbskulls still can't talk
chess, and can't talk about language either.
Its the usual bollocks where those inclined to do so fuck with those who can
talk any topic. Here we got the author of 'Old English is Dead' responding
to Vaguer on 'Andean' topics of which he knows nothing whatever, ably
supported by 'some' Murray
I tell you, it is like the more vocal people in ward 6 :)
Anyone actually talk chess here the past few days, or did the pretty boys
just do their usual to ensure it didn't happen?
PI
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:7ca44270-5bcf-4454-b26c-8dd8e9f8660e@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 17, 12:57 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 1:49 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:55:27 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > Innes: Anomalous means 'without a name'.
>>
>> > Dowd: No it doesn't. [cites dictionary definition]
>>
>> > And now, something typical from our Phil:
>>
>> > >** Come on Dr. D! What is 'to nominate', to 'denominate'? Surely the
>> > >root~
>> > >is Greek, which means 'same', and then adoption into its Latinate form
>> > >uses
>> > >that a~ prefix, which indicates it is /not/ same, irregular, deviant,
>> > >not of
>> > >a general rule.
>> > >**And its //use// in English is, and always has been in natural
>> > >philosophy,
>>
>> > [Besides getting the meaning wrong,, Innes is also incorrect in this
>> > -- natural philosophy is just ONE of the word's applications.]
>>
>> > >to describe new and un-named species of things, which are not-same to
>> > >what
>> > >we already named! Would you like to argue that point? Try it on a
>> > >botanist
>> > >or two, eg. Let us know what they say.
>> > >**How odd that an MD should find the term confusing! You see below
>> > >where
>> > >your own markings exist, and where you successfully recorded 'of
>> > >uncertain
>> > >nature or classification'? I suggest to you that this is a clue.
>>
>> > Caught flat-footed defining a word incorrectly, Innes does his usual
>> > dance of ignorance, confusing etymology with free-association: "well,
>> > err, uh, if you have something 'uneven of quality, irregular', then we
>> > don't know what to call it, and therefore anomalous MEANS 'without a
>> > name'.
>>
>> > In some alternate universe, the usage may have EVOLVED to mean
>> > "without a name", but it didn't do that in ours. Unless, of course,
>> > the OED is wrong and Innes is correct, and that would indeed be
>> > anomalous.
>>
>> This is just like the Andean flap, differing only in minor details.
>> Our Phil never learns.
>
> alt.history.british has a fascinating thread in which P Innes is
> fighting with everybody. The title is "What do people think Phil Innes
> has been smoking?"
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 20:24:24
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 18, 3:37 pm, SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > you can't talk chess with them blokes, and not even with me, a genuine 2300!
>
> This is my favorite part of his fantasy.
I see age has reduced his 2450 rating....
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 13:37:54
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> you can't talk chess with them blokes, and not even with me, a genuine 2300!
This is my favorite part of his fantasy.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 08:04:09
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 17, 1:15 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:57:44 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
> > This is just like the Andean flap, differing only in minor details.
> >Our Phil never learns.
>
> And, in all seriousness, I DON'T understand it. Does he possibly
> think he won't get called on stuff like this? Does he take some
> perverted satisfaction in the attention he gets from being
> intellectually dope-slapped? All I can conclude is this kind of stuff
> must have worked at least marginally back before the Internet...
He's just an attention whore. Did you note he confessed he posted
recently about some historical matter in the hopes I'd respond? I
believe that's called trolling.
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 08:00:01
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 17, 8:33 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:06 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "Babble fish" Innes loses the thread:
>
> > > If you're only looking to move five, you could
> > > try a free online openings database-- I have
> > I don't cheat. I don't use computers, and I don't use books. Others might,
> > but what's the fun in that?
>
> As far as I know, it is perfectly acceptable to use
> opening books in correspondence games-- even
> online ones.
Yes, it is. And databases are fair game as well. P Innes has an
interesting set of chess ethics - posting under other names is OK,
giving yourself a phony chess title is OK, but using an opening book
in a correspondence game isn't?
> In addition, nearly-an-IMnes seemed to be talking
> about what had already passed in one such game,
> so how are you going to "cheat" by looking up what
> is now in the past? Take back several moves?!!
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 13:42:34
From:
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 17, 2:15=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:57:44 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
> > =A0This is just like the Andean flap, differing only in minor details.
> >Our Phil never learns.
>
> And, in all seriousness, =A0I DON'T understand it. =A0Does he possibly
> think he won't get called on stuff like this? =A0Does he take some
> perverted satisfaction in the attention he gets from being
> intellectually dope-slapped? =A0All I can conclude is this kind of stuff
> must have worked at least marginally back before the Internet...
Mike, like you, I find Phil's behavior incomprehensible. In trying
to justify or excuse his minor mistakes, he repeatedly commits major
gaffes far worse. He does far more damage to himself than any of his
critics do. He 's like a man who amputates his arm rather than admit
he has a hangnail, and then insists his arm is still attached. It just
defies all reason.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 16:12:48
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b19a8f6c-2aa5-426f-9893-856cb85478d1@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 17, 2:15 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:57:44 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
> > This is just like the Andean flap, differing only in minor details.
> >Our Phil never learns.
>
> And, in all seriousness, I DON'T understand it. Does he possibly
> think he won't get called on stuff like this? Does he take some
> perverted satisfaction in the attention he gets from being
> intellectually dope-slapped? All I can conclude is this kind of stuff
> must have worked at least marginally back before the Internet...
Mike, like you, I find Phil's behavior incomprehensible. In trying
to justify or excuse his minor mistakes, he repeatedly commits major
gaffes far worse. He does far more damage to himself than any of his
critics do. He 's like a man who amputates his arm rather than admit
he has a hangnail, and then insists his arm is still attached. It just
defies all reason.
**Taylor, my dear boy! Which fucking bitch is it to which you now whine to
nice Mike? Or is that not to your style here to be specific and you are
content to be known as Vaguer Kingston, since being 'pretty' negatively
abstract is more you taste in presenting yourself to nice Mike, and the
usual general and negative abstractions will do in a thread I began to do
with the KG.
**No wonder you fell out with Evans and Keene, since despite your 2300+ ELO
you can't talk chess with them blokes, and not even with me, a genuine 2300!
So, you do what you do, which is to not talk chess with Mike, and you both
fuck with those who can, and you do it for giggles, no?
**You yourself now take part in not only subverting what I wrote which was
//pure// chess, and ignoring my request for information on the name of a
line, and also that you should NOT post things you found in your database,
by your writing in and volunteering no name at all, which was the request,
and then supplying from your db 4 games. Shit! Even Help-dork thought that
was pathetic, and he even understood and talked about the position.
**A non chess player could do what you did. Have you no chess in you or is
it your intention to triumph with nice Mike on suppressing actual chess, Mr.
pretty-in-public bollocks?
:)
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 12:50:43
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 17, 7:37 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> it is rather wonderful to be corrected this way, by assertion of what is
> perceived philologically inelastic, by a correspondent who neither admits
> popular use of a word nor its scientific one!
>
> i even once heard some medico talking of anomalous lesions, meaning that he
> did not yet know what to call them - but perhaps we mix in different
> circles - those in which i revolve require more than anti-intuitive
> assertion to both cant and catholic use to remain credible
No Phil anomalous is used in medicine to mean deviating from the norm.
For example, situs inversus is an anomaly - deviating from what is
normal - but it has a name.
You simply don't know what you are talking about. No wonder no one
takes you seriously.
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 10:57:44
From:
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 17, 1:49=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:55:27 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Innes: =A0Anomalous means 'without a name'.
>
> Dowd: =A0No it doesn't. =A0[cites dictionary definition]
>
> And now, something typical from our Phil:
>
> >** Come on Dr. D! What is 'to nominate', to 'denominate'? Surely the root=
~
> >is Greek, which means 'same', and then adoption into its Latinate form us=
es
> >that a~ prefix, which indicates it is /not/ same, irregular, deviant, not=
of
> >a general rule.
> >**And its //use// in English is, and always has been in natural philosoph=
y,
>
> [Besides getting the meaning wrong,, Innes is also incorrect in this
> -- natural philosophy is just ONE of the word's applications.]
>
> >to describe new and un-named species of things, which are not-same to wha=
t
> >we already named! Would you like to argue that point? Try it on a botanis=
t
> >or two, eg. Let us know what they say.
> >**How odd that an MD should find the term confusing! You see below where
> >your own markings exist, and where you successfully recorded 'of uncertai=
n
> >nature or classification'? I suggest to you that this is a clue.
>
> Caught flat-footed defining a word incorrectly, Innes does his usual
> dance of ignorance, confusing etymology with free-association: =A0"well,
> err, uh, if you have something 'uneven of quality, irregular', then we
> don't know what to call it, and therefore anomalous MEANS 'without a
> name'. =A0
>
> In some alternate universe, the usage may have EVOLVED to mean
> "without a name", but it didn't do that in ours. =A0Unless, of course,
> the OED is wrong and Innes is correct, and that would indeed be
> anomalous.
This is just like the Andean flap, differing only in minor details.
Our Phil never learns.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 11:15:31
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:57:44 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
> This is just like the Andean flap, differing only in minor details.
>Our Phil never learns.
And, in all seriousness, I DON'T understand it. Does he possibly
think he won't get called on stuff like this? Does he take some
perverted satisfaction in the attention he gets from being
intellectually dope-slapped? All I can conclude is this kind of stuff
must have worked at least marginally back before the Internet...
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 06:33:24
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 16, 9:06 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
"Babble fish" Innes loses the thread:
> > If you're only looking to move five, you could
> > try a free online openings database-- I have
> I don't cheat. I don't use computers, and I don't use books. Others might,
> but what's the fun in that?
As far as I know, it is perfectly acceptable to use
opening books in correspondence games-- even
online ones.
In addition, nearly-an-IMnes seemed to be talking
about what had already passed in one such game,
so how are you going to "cheat" by looking up what
is now in the past? Take back several moves?!!
> And pretty soon chess morons will invade and kill another thread since they
> are stumped, Schtumped! at evaluating chess moves after 10 plies. The
> diversions they energetically perform is usually in inverse proportion to
> their 'knowledge' of what is going on in the game.
Truth be told, chess morons can be stumped
well before then; I have found more than a few who
are "stumped", as you say, on move one! Some
prepare for 1. e4 and 1. d4, but upon meeting
with almost any other move, lose their way, like
Hansel and Gretel did. Oddly enough, you can
often tell when the titled players go out of their
"huge" openings book by the blunder which
so often marks the exact spot of departure... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 05:09:28
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 17, 6:55 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> **Meanwhile, I note that your choice in a chess thread is to answer the
> first part of the question you cite above, "Anomalous means 'without a
> name'. I don't know if 5. ... c6 even has an E number." rather than attempt
> anything on the second, which is perhaps just as well!
I think that even - and perhaps especially in chess, naming things
correctly and being accurate in the use of language is important. Your
usage is simply incorrect, no matter how you try to stretch the truth.
The recent book True Lies in Chess has some interesting things to say
about that subject. Your weak chess play might have something to do
with the fact that you seem to have trouble with using the correct
names for things. Usually that signifies a lack of understanding.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 08:37:43
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:9ccbb1eb-a6f4-4262-b432-1587e85a4e25@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 17, 6:55 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> **Meanwhile, I note that your choice in a chess thread is to answer the
>> first part of the question you cite above, "Anomalous means 'without a
>> name'. I don't know if 5. ... c6 even has an E number." rather than
>> attempt
>> anything on the second, which is perhaps just as well!
>
> I think that even - and perhaps especially in chess, naming things
> correctly
as in their 'nomenclature' :)
> and being accurate in the use of language is important.
Quite! And that indeed was my question, what is this opening 'nominated'?
What do we elect to call it? What, using the same stem, do we call things we
don't know the categories and names thereof? What did Karl von Linn�
[Linnaeus] have to say of nomenclature in his Systema naturae [1735] ?
> Your
> usage is simply incorrect, no matter how you try to stretch the truth.
nomina stultorum parietibus haerent
it is rather wonderful to be corrected this way, by assertion of what is
perceived philologically inelastic, by a correspondent who neither admits
popular use of a word nor its scientific one!
i even once heard some medico talking of anomalous lesions, meaning that he
did not yet know what to call them - but perhaps we mix in different
circles - those in which i revolve require more than anti-intuitive
assertion to both cant and catholic use to remain credible
> The recent book True Lies in Chess has some interesting things to say
> about that subject. Your weak chess play might have something to do
> with the fact that you seem to have trouble with using the correct
> names for things. Usually that signifies a lack of understanding.
how lovely and abstract, but unfortunately playing the game is different
than posing about it - as indeed are specific facts on any issue.
the danger doctor dowd omits to denote is that the nitwit may be in the
observer's eye. that sometimes happens when you compulsively ignore what can
be looked at, and consult only the devil within, which you then think you
observe out there, by the process known as projection, but ... how can you
now tell, having abandoned all normative attempts to discern phantasm from
fact, what is real and what is not?
Phil Innes
The Hippocampus
Vermont
|
| |
Date: 16 Apr 2008 15:52:19
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 16, 8:06 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Anomalous means 'without a name'. I don't know if 5. ... c6 even has an E
> number.
No it doesn't. From Merriam's:
Etymology:
Late Latin anomalus, from Greek an=F4malos, literally, uneven, from
a- + homalos even, from homos same -- more at same
Date:
1655
1: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or
expected : irregular, unusual 2 a: of uncertain nature or
classification b: marked by incongruity or contradiction : paradoxical
Or perhaps anomalous is Andean? Or some form of Plattdeutsch??
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 07:55:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
"SBD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:985afc1d-4a5e-484c-804d-33aaebc7e43b@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 16, 8:06 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Anomalous means 'without a name'. I don't know if 5. ... c6 even has an E
> number.
No it doesn't. From Merriam's:
Etymology:
Late Latin anomalus, from Greek an�malos, literally, uneven, from
a- + homalos even, from homos same -- more at same
Date:
1655
** Come on Dr. D! What is 'to nominate', to 'denominate'? Surely the root~
is Greek, which means 'same', and then adoption into its Latinate form uses
that a~ prefix, which indicates it is /not/ same, irregular, deviant, not of
a general rule.
**And its //use// in English is, and always has been in natural philosophy,
to describe new and un-named species of things, which are not-same to what
we already named! Would you like to argue that point? Try it on a botanist
or two, eg. Let us know what they say.
**How odd that an MD should find the term confusing! You see below where
your own markings exist, and where you successfully recorded 'of uncertain
nature or classification'? I suggest to you that this is a clue.
**While your jests on other languages are here to amuse the herd, let you
all guffaw together therefore, while I will permit myself this private
smile.
**Meanwhile, I note that your choice in a chess thread is to answer the
first part of the question you cite above, "Anomalous means 'without a
name'. I don't know if 5. ... c6 even has an E number." rather than attempt
anything on the second, which is perhaps just as well!
** Phil Innes
1: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or
expected : irregular, unusual 2 a: of uncertain nature or
classification b: marked by incongruity or contradiction : paradoxical
Or perhaps anomalous is Andean? Or some form of Plattdeutsch??
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 13:26:51
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
Chess One <[email protected] > wrote:
> "SBD" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Anomalous means 'without a name'.
>>
>> No it doesn't. From Merriam's:
>>
>> Etymology:
>> Late Latin anomalus, from Greek an�malos, literally, uneven,
>> from a- + homalos even, from homos same -- more at same
>> Date:
>> 1655
>
> Come on Dr. D! What is 'to nominate', to 'denominate'?
What is `nomadic'?
> Surely the root~ is Greek, which means 'same', and then adoption
> into its Latinate form uses that a~ prefix, which indicates it is
> /not/ same, irregular, deviant, not of a general rule.
I think you mean one of the following. Please tick the relevant box
or boxes.
[ ] I had a brain-fart and confused "anomalous" and "anonymous".
Sorry for the confusion.
[ ] I've just bought a shiny new spade and I thought it would be fun
to dig myself into a really deep hole.
[ ] I've just bought a shiny new mechanical excavator and I thought it
would be fun to dig myself into a *really* deep hole.
[ ] I've struck
[ ] oil!
[ ] gold!
[ ] myself on the head!
[ ] I have difficulty admitting that I made a mistake.
[ ] I live in an alternative reality.
[ ] I'm a jerk.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Expensive Fluorescent Composer
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ (TM): it's like a pupil of Beethoven
but it'll hurt your eyes and break
the bank!
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 10:49:09
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:55:27 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
Innes: Anomalous means 'without a name'.
Dowd: No it doesn't. [cites dictionary definition]
And now, something typical from our Phil:
>** Come on Dr. D! What is 'to nominate', to 'denominate'? Surely the root~
>is Greek, which means 'same', and then adoption into its Latinate form uses
>that a~ prefix, which indicates it is /not/ same, irregular, deviant, not of
>a general rule.
>**And its //use// in English is, and always has been in natural philosophy,
[Besides getting the meaning wrong,, Innes is also incorrect in this
-- natural philosophy is just ONE of the word's applications.]
>to describe new and un-named species of things, which are not-same to what
>we already named! Would you like to argue that point? Try it on a botanist
>or two, eg. Let us know what they say.
>**How odd that an MD should find the term confusing! You see below where
>your own markings exist, and where you successfully recorded 'of uncertain
>nature or classification'? I suggest to you that this is a clue.
Caught flat-footed defining a word incorrectly, Innes does his usual
dance of ignorance, confusing etymology with free-association: "well,
err, uh, if you have something 'uneven of quality, irregular', then we
don't know what to call it, and therefore anomalous MEANS 'without a
name'.
In some alternate universe, the usage may have EVOLVED to mean
"without a name", but it didn't do that in ours. Unless, of course,
the OED is wrong and Innes is correct, and that would indeed be
anomalous.
|
| | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 12:54:45
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> In some alternate universe, the usage may have EVOLVED to mean
> "without a name", but it didn't do that in ours. Unless, of course,
> the OED is wrong and Innes is correct, and that would indeed be
> anomalous.
Anomalous in the sense that there's no name for that kind of situation
in which Innes is right and the OED is wrong? ;-)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Crystal Simple Soap (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ personal hygiene product but it has
no moving parts and it's completely
transparent!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 23:35:36
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In some alternate universe, the usage may have EVOLVED to mean
>> "without a name", but it didn't do that in ours. Unless, of course,
>> the OED is wrong and Innes is correct, and that would indeed be
>> anomalous.
>
> Anomalous in the sense that there's no name for that kind of situation
> in which Innes is right and the OED is wrong? ;-)
>
>
> Dave.
>
Check the accepted etymology. "anomaly" has *nothing* to do with "names".
--
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 Apr 2008 19:17:37
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>David Richerby wrote:
>> Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In some alternate universe, the usage may have EVOLVED to mean
>>> "without a name", but it didn't do that in ours. Unless, of
>>> course, the OED is wrong and Innes is correct, and that would
>>> indeed be anomalous.
>>
>> Anomalous in the sense that there's no name for that kind of
>> situation in which Innes is right and the OED is wrong? ;-)
>
> Check the accepted etymology. "anomaly" has *nothing* to do with
> "names".
That was precisely the point I was making...
Dave.
--
David Richerby Fluorescent Flower (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ flower but it'll hurt your eyes!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 17:08:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:H9j*[email protected]...
> Kenneth Sloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>David Richerby wrote:
>>> Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> In some alternate universe, the usage may have EVOLVED to mean
>>>> "without a name",
And usage, in language, is King! Since the very words you use are based on
usage.
>>>> but it didn't do that in ours.
LOL! Well, what world is 'ours' ?
>>>> Unless, of
>>>> course, the OED is wrong and Innes is correct, and that would
>>>> indeed be anomalous.
The OED is wrong hundreds of times. It was compiled by amateur contribution,
is partial, not always finding origins, in fact rarely so, and is not a
bible! It is a comprehensive record to be quoted as if always right and a
standard - neither was it intended to be so.
>>> Anomalous in the sense that there's no name for that kind of
>>> situation in which Innes is right and the OED is wrong? ;-)
>>
>> Check the accepted etymology. "anomaly" has *nothing* to do with
>> "names".
Accepted by whom? The OED would no doubt assert that 'sentence' requires
subject, verb, object.
The [laugh] massive use of anomalous by biologists for biological items not
known by any name, and for the past 250 years, may not be known to computer
geeks - and if that is the sense of what is 'accepted' then let them take
notice - or inform themselves - that is, if they care to, otherwise let them
display their ignorance.
The last big barny I had with a computer geek was over the term Turing
Engine, which he inisisted was Turing Machine, despite 100,000 googled
references to 'Engine', despite Babbage, despite the idea of the idea not
being the same as any instance of its manifestation.
zzz
Thus, my correspondent was dull, lazy, a pedant, not interested in what
100,000 other people said, especially those who were more formal than he,
and not aware of Idea as a factor independent of it implementation. So...
not any scientist, but a mechanic.
> That was precisely the point I was making.
Yes - your appreciation defines you. WAIT! = but not about chess, since you
and Dr Null never got to that, and maybe are dull in that respect too? The
evidence is against you.
Phil Innes
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Fluorescent Flower (TM): it's
> like a
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ flower but it'll hurt your eyes!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 16:05:21
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:08:03 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>>>>> Unless, of
>>>>> course, the OED is wrong and Innes is correct, and that would
>>>>> indeed be anomalous.
>The OED is wrong hundreds of times. It was compiled by amateur contribution,
>is partial, not always finding origins, in fact rarely so, and is not a
>bible! It is a comprehensive record to be quoted as if always right and a
>standard - neither was it intended to be so.
OK. The OED is unreliable in Innes-land.
So, Phil, cite some authoritative sources which define "anomalous"
your way.
>The [laugh] massive use of anomalous by biologists for biological items not
>known by any name, and for the past 250 years, may not be known to computer
>geeks - and if that is the sense of what is 'accepted' then let them take
>notice - or inform themselves - that is, if they care to, otherwise let them
>display their ignorance.
So the primary users of the OED are computer geeks? Phil, you just
keep digging yourself in deeper.
Cite some respected BIOLOGICAL reference works which define
"anomalous" as meaning "without a name". You'll forgive us if we
don't simply accept your pronouncement that this is how official,
real, honest-go-goodness biologists use the word.
On which alternate reference works did you rely when you said,
"anomalous means 'without a name'" ??
Come on, Phil, 'fess up. You're just fabricating this as you go
along, aren't you?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 21:56:59
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:35:36 -0500, Kenneth Sloan
<[email protected] > wrote:
>David Richerby wrote:
>> Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> In some alternate universe, the usage may have EVOLVED to mean
>>> "without a name", but it didn't do that in ours. Unless, of course,
>>> the OED is wrong and Innes is correct, and that would indeed be
>>> anomalous.
>>
>> Anomalous in the sense that there's no name for that kind of situation
>> in which Innes is right and the OED is wrong? ;-)
>>
>>
>> Dave.
>>
>
>Check the accepted etymology. "anomaly" has *nothing* to do with "names".
Whsssssssssst. There went the joke.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 17:28:30
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
David Richerby wrote:
>
>Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In some alternate universe, the usage may have EVOLVED to mean
>> "without a name", but it didn't do that in ours. Unless, of course,
>> the OED is wrong and Innes is correct, and that would indeed be
>> anomalous.
>
>Anomalous in the sense that there's no name for that kind of situation
>in which Innes is right and the OED is wrong? ;-)
I don't think that the verbal construct "Innes is right" has
any actual meaning. It's like talking about dry wetness.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 15:39:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> David Richerby wrote:
>>
>>Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In some alternate universe, the usage may have EVOLVED to mean
>>> "without a name", but it didn't do that in ours. Unless, of course,
>>> the OED is wrong and Innes is correct, and that would indeed be
>>> anomalous.
>>
>>Anomalous in the sense that there's no name for that kind of situation
>>in which Innes is right and the OED is wrong? ;-)
>
> I don't think that the verbal construct "Innes is right" has
> any actual meaning. It's like talking about dry wetness.
But not about talking chess in a chess newsgroup, and not of the King's
gambit. Instead two wankers do their usual thing, which is to jerk each
other off :))
Its more like visiting a home for the looney you don't want in your own home
any more, [hello grandma!] and witnessing the distrait ramblings of the dear
old fogeys, who argue with each other and the Emperor of Morocco, often
gamboling Texas and the entire Louissiana Purchase on the turn of a card.
If people do not understand a term, then based on their ignorance, plus
recent application to some resource of their choice, they then declare it
null - whereas, they ignore both origin and contemporary use - and they do
this /despite/ understanding the intent of the writer, sine their pedantry
is of the self-indulgent kind as witnessed by any rentier-reviewer.
Should we commit such people, perforce, or even by force? Should they be
allowed to vote, drive cars, write on the internet?
Hey! Loosen up and welcome to America! Where many people are bitter, but
bitterness is best buried! Lest people are encouraged to understand each
other's condition directly from each other, which is at least honest.
Otherwise you just get people who whine all the time, mostly about others.
pfft!
Cordially, Phil Obama
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 16:25:04
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:39:23 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>If people do not understand a term,
Phil, it was *you* that misunderstood the term; it was you who
defined the word "anomalous" incorrectly. Remember this statement,
Phil: "Anomalous means 'without a name'. ? We can look it up for you
if you've forgotten.
> then based on their ignorance, plus
>recent application to some resource of their choice, they then declare it
>null - whereas, they ignore both origin and contemporary use
How can you say this when we *corrected* your improper claims about
the word's origin and contemporary use? Shall we cite chapter and
verse in an authoritative source (O.E.D. good enough fer ya?) so you
can see how full of crap you are?
> - and they do
>this /despite/ understanding the intent of the writer,
Sure, we understood what you "meant*, in the same way as when we see
an old duffer with gravy stains all over his shirt, we understand he
*meant* to put it in his mouth with the mashed potatoes. And then we
hand him a wet towel with which to clean himself (Free lesson: do ya
get the ANALOGY?).
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 20:29:32
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> I don't think that the verbal construct "Innes is right" has
> any actual meaning. It's like talking about dry wetness.
Works just fine if the wetness is white wine. :-P
Dave.
--
David Richerby Impossible Game (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ family board game but it can't exist!
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 19:27:45
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
"David Richerby" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:KOf*[email protected]...
> Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>> I don't think that the verbal construct "Innes is right" has
>> any actual meaning. It's like talking about dry wetness.
>
> Works just fine if the wetness is white wine. :-P
hey dave, that is very funny - but now, anything on topic to do with the KG?
or are you really a pretty sort of bloke fitting into the crowd, that is,
someone who likes to bitch a bit abstractly with the other 'guys'
;)
if you can't do chess in a chess ng -- sod off, don't mouth off
pi
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> David Richerby Impossible Game (TM): it's like a
> www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ family board game but it can't
> exist!
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2008 22:54:52
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 15, 8:33=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> =A0 For the record, is that Elo, "ELO", FIDE, USCF,
> or perhaps Andean? =A0Wait; I know-- it's a Chess-
> World online rating.
Have you seen GetClub Ratings lately.
Now I have increased the Ratings for Higher Level.
Easy: 1500
Normal: 1800
Master: 2200
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
So if you win against higher levels you can improve your ratings
quickly.
By winning Easy : +10 rating
By winning Normal : +20 rating
By winning Master : +40 rating
So now quickly play with Higher Levels, Else Zebediah will again come
and bring each rating to 400 as he did earlier.
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
I think Ratings of Higher level will be adjusted every month to.
Easy: 1500
Normal: 1800
Master: 2200
So that good players can win Higher Levels and get +20, +40 rating
quickly without playing many games.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2008 08:33:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
Chess One wrote:
> After talking around the subject here a few weeks ago, I thought I'd play a
> few KG's at correspondence
In all my twenty-six years of reading rgc, that is
the first time Dr. IMnes managed to spell the word
correctly. I have long grown accustomed to the
phrase "Correspon dance", which I assumed was
some Irish jig in which the men wear kilts and
bounce up and down off their heels.
> so booked up on Kieseritzky and Fischer Defence,
> so naturally I got this:-
>
> 1. e4 e5
> 2. f4 exf4
> 3. Nf3 Be7
> 4. Bc4
>
> Ah! I know Be2 is the Cunningham, but that was originally a gambit line
> combined with a subsequent g3, and I don't think its very good, so played
> this thing which I don't know the name thereof.
>
> 4... Bh4 +
Patzer sees a check, patzer plays a check.
> The question being, is that a good move, because now black's King N has
> troubling developing itself.
>
> 5. Kf1 c6
>
> The guy I am playing is 2465
For the record, is that Elo, "ELO", FIDE, USCF,
or perhaps Andean? Wait; I know-- it's a Chess-
World online rating.
> and I think that is an innovation - anyone see
> it before?
I rarely see the King's Gambit anymore. Maybe
the young people these days are scared to play a
line where neither side can handle the tactics.
> I was expecting d6.
>
> 6. Nc3 Be7
>
> We have played a few more moves - but finding something new at 5 is always
> interesting and worth a look, is it anomalous?
Certainly not. A lot of weak players will just
"develop normally" as White has done, while
now and then, somebody on the Black side
will try ...c6, as Black has done.
What really matters is not if those exact
moves have been tried before, but what is the
idea behind the moves? Does Black plan to
toss up ...b5 and then ...b4, to weaken his own
Queen-side pawns? Is White going to get his
King off of f1 anytime soon? Where is the
Black KN going, if anywhere? How about the
White KR?
> [if you found it, please don't show subsequent
> moves
Sorry, but TK cannot read plain English. You
may have better luck if you write the instructions
in Polish; he will then contact you ("Babble fish",
right?) for the translation.
> although I have almost certainly deviated from
> any book already.
If you're only looking to move five, you could
try a free online openings database-- I have
forgotten the name of the site. It usually does
well for several moves, then tries to get you to
purchase a membership, if you want to look
deeper in the moves-tree.
> A choice for White in this position is where to move the d pawn - d4 allows
> the K Kt to sit defended on e5, but d3 allows the Q N to reside on e4.
Tactics, my boy: after Ne4?? Black can reply
...d5!, forking two pieces. Looks like you need
to practice a bit. Just log on to GetClub, and
pretty soon you'll learn how all these traps and
zaps work. (Of course, I knew you intended to
retreat the Bishop to b3 and only then play Ne4
-- just as I knew that whales are in fact just over-
grown dolphins.)
The King's Gambit is not for the faint of heart!
I tried it, shredded my Cunningham Gambit
book, and then fainted when I saw I was busted
right in the authors' main line! Naw-- it's back to
my trusty Queen's Gambit opening from now on.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 16 Apr 2008 09:06:29
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
>> After talking around the subject here a few weeks ago, I thought I'd play
>> a
>> few KG's at correspondence
>
>
> In all my twenty-six years of reading rgc, that is
> the first time Dr. IMnes managed to spell the word
> correctly. I have long grown accustomed to the
> phrase "Correspon dance", which I assumed was
> some Irish jig in which the men wear kilts and
> bounce up and down off their heels.
>
>
>> so booked up on Kieseritzky and Fischer Defence,
>> so naturally I got this:-
>>
>> 1. e4 e5
>> 2. f4 exf4
>> 3. Nf3 Be7
>> 4. Bc4
>>
>> Ah! I know Be2 is the Cunningham, but that was originally a gambit line
>> combined with a subsequent g3, and I don't think its very good, so played
>> this thing which I don't know the name thereof.
>>
>> 4... Bh4 +
>
>
> Patzer sees a check, patzer plays a check.
>
>
>> The question being, is that a good move, because now black's King N has
>> troubling developing itself.
>>
>> 5. Kf1 c6
>>
>> The guy I am playing is 2465
>
>
> For the record, is that Elo, "ELO", FIDE, USCF,
> or perhaps Andean? Wait; I know-- it's a Chess-
> World online rating.
Actually, his handle says 2750 - but his cc is 2465. This are not
Sanny-ratings.
>> and I think that is an innovation - anyone see
>> it before?
>
>
> I rarely see the King's Gambit anymore. Maybe
> the young people these days are scared to play a
> line where neither side can handle the tactics.
>
>
>> I was expecting d6.
>>
>> 6. Nc3 Be7
>>
>> We have played a few more moves - but finding something new at 5 is
>> always
>> interesting and worth a look, is it anomalous?
>
>
> Certainly not. A lot of weak players will just
> "develop normally" as White has done, while
> now and then, somebody on the Black side
> will try ...c6, as Black has done.
Anomalous means 'without a name'. I don't know if 5. ... c6 even has an E
number.
> What really matters is not if those exact
> moves have been tried before, but what is the
> idea behind the moves? Does Black plan to
> toss up ...b5 and then ...b4, to weaken his own
> Queen-side pawns?
Obviously, there is no other reason to block the QN than to sacrifice its
development in favor of the QB, so he can also get in Ba6 after the pawn
advances, looking at the K on f1.
> Is White going to get his
> King off of f1 anytime soon? Where is the
> Black KN going, if anywhere? How about the
> White KR?
You had to see all this several moves ago - which is what I am indicating
above! The point is that the White QN goes to e2. The game is poised on one
tempo, and if black allows Bxf4 then g6 allows the White King to move to g2.
If not, h4 is in the picture, with Kieseritzsky features.
>
>> [if you found it, please don't show subsequent
>> moves
>
>
> Sorry, but TK cannot read plain English. You
Not in chess, nor in Andean. He is not a player, he is a curator-type who
can't read.
A player would engage another player in trying to understand the moves, not
worship what is in the book! But Kingston is not naive, and posted the games
anyway. Soon he will accuse me of something or other to do with 'what I
wrote'. Perhaps he will state that it is both his right and his intention to
mess up chess threads, because like many others, he doesn't understand
playing the game, and resents those who do?
It seems so stupid to worship the book and not attempt to understand the
merits of the position - indeed, why it is so rare.
> may have better luck if you write the instructions
> in Polish; he will then contact you ("Babble fish",
> right?) for the translation.
>
>
>> although I have almost certainly deviated from
>> any book already.
>
>
> If you're only looking to move five, you could
> try a free online openings database-- I have
I don't cheat. I don't use computers, and I don't use books. Others might,
but what's the fun in that?
> forgotten the name of the site. It usually does
> well for several moves, then tries to get you to
> purchase a membership, if you want to look
> deeper in the moves-tree.
>
>
>> A choice for White in this position is where to move the d pawn - d4
>> allows
>> the K Kt to sit defended on e5, but d3 allows the Q N to reside on e4.
>
>
> Tactics, my boy: after Ne4?? Black can reply
> ...d5!, forking two pieces. Looks like you need
> to practice a bit. Just log on to GetClub, and
> pretty soon you'll learn how all these traps and
And pretty soon chess morons will invade and kill another thread since they
are stumped, Schtumped! at evaluating chess moves after 10 plies. The
diversions they energetically perform is usually in inverse proportion to
their 'knowledge' of what is going on in the game.
Phil Innes
> zaps work. (Of course, I knew you intended to
> retreat the Bishop to b3 and only then play Ne4
> -- just as I knew that whales are in fact just over-
> grown dolphins.)
>
> The King's Gambit is not for the faint of heart!
> I tried it, shredded my Cunningham Gambit
> book, and then fainted when I saw I was busted
> right in the authors' main line! Naw-- it's back to
> my trusty Queen's Gambit opening from now on.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
|
| |
Date: 15 Apr 2008 07:16:41
From:
Subject: Re: Unusual King's Gambit
|
On Apr 15, 9:59=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> After talking around the subject here a few weeks ago, I thought I'd play =
a
> few KG's at correspondence, so booked up on Kieseritzky and Fischer Defenc=
e,
> so naturally I got this:-
>
> 1. =A0e4 e5
> 2. =A0f4 exf4
> 3. =A0Nf3 Be7
> 4. =A0Bc4
>
> Ah! I know Be2 is the Cunningham, but that was originally a gambit line
> combined with a subsequent g3, and I don't think its very good, so played
> this thing which I don't know the name thereof.
>
> 4... Bh4 +
>
> The question being, is that a good move, because now black's King N has
> troubling developing itself.
>
> 5. =A0Kf1 c6
>
> The guy I am playing is 2465, and I think that is an innovation - anyone s=
ee
> it before? I was expecting d6.
CB's MegaDatabase 2005 gives four games that reach this position,
none earlier than 1993. So it would seem to be a fairly recent TN. I
don't think any of the games CB gives involve high-ranking players, in
fact the players in the 4th game are said to be rated only 1497 and
1600. But here they are anyway:
[Event "CalChess Season opener"]
[Site "California"]
[Date "1993.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Schleunes, Kurt"]
[Black "Rich, Fred"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C35"]
[PlyCount "124"]
[EventDate "1993.??.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "6"]
[EventCountry "USA"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2000.11.22"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Bc4 Bh4+ 5. Kf1 c6 6. Nc3 b5 7. Bb3
b4 8. Ne2
a5 9. a3 Ba6 10. d3 Qb6 11. Nxh4 Nf6 12. h3 O-O 13. Nf3 d5 14. exd5
cxd5 15.
Bxf4 Nbd7 16. Bg3 Rfe8 17. Bf2 Nc5 18. Qd2 Re7 19. axb4 axb4 20. Re1
Rae8 21.
Bxc5 Qxc5 22. g3 h6 23. Kg2 Bb7 24. Nf4 d4 25. Rxe7 Rxe7 26. Re1 g5
27. Rxe7
Qxe7 28. Ng6 Bxf3+ 29. Kxf3 Qb7+ 30. Ke2 Qg2+ 31. Kd1 Qxh3 32. Qxb4
Qh5+ 33.
Kc1 Qxg6 34. Qxd4 g4 35. c4 h5 36. c5 h4 37. gxh4 g3 38. Bd1 g2 39.
Qg1 Qg3 40.
c6 Nd5 41. Bh5 Qf4+ 42. Kc2 Qf1 43. Qd4 g1=3DQ 44. Qxd5 Qfg2+ 45. Qxg2+
Qxg2+ 46.
Kb3 Qd5+ 47. Kb4 Qxc6 48. Bd1 Qd6+ 49. Kc3 Qf6+ 50. Kb3 Qxh4 51. Bc2
f5 52. Kc3
f4 53. d4 f3 54. Bd3 Qe1+ 55. Kc4 Kf8 56. b4 f2 57. b5 f1=3DQ 58. Bxf1
Qxf1+ 59.
Kc5 Ke7 60. Kc6 Kd8 61. d5 Qc4+ 62. Kb6 Qxd5 0-1
[Event "RUS-sf"]
[Site "Yaroslavl"]
[Date "1995.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Kozak, Vadim"]
[Black "Ukhanov, Alexandr"]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C35"]
[WhiteElo "2245"]
[PlyCount "51"]
[EventDate "1995.??.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "RUS"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2004.01.01"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Be7 4. Nf3 Bh4+ 5. Kf1 c6 6. Nc3 b5 7. Bb3
Nh6 8. d3
d6 9. Bxf4 Bf6 10. h3 Be6 11. g4 g5 12. Be3 a5 13. Bxe6 fxe6 14. e5
dxe5 15.
Ne4 Nf7 16. Qd2 h6 17. Qc3 Bg7 18. Kg2 a4 19. Rhf1 Qc7 20. Ng3 Nd7 21.
Nh5 Bf8
22. a3 Ra6 23. Nd2 Qa5 24. Qxa5 Rxa5 25. Ne4 Ra6 26. Rf3 *
[Event "Schleswig Holstein-ch cand-A 51st"]
[Site "Osterroenfeld"]
[Date "1996.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Freter, Anke"]
[Black "Plackmeyer, Jan Henrik"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C35"]
[PlyCount "81"]
[EventDate "1996.??.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "GER"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2001.11.25"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Bc4 Bh4+ 5. Kf1 c6 6. Nc3 b5 7. Bb3
b4 8. Ne2
d6 9. Nxf4 Nd7 10. g3 Bf6 11. d4 h5 12. e5 dxe5 13. dxe5 Ba6+ 14. Kg2
Nxe5 15.
Qxd8+ Kxd8 16. Nxe5 Bxe5 17. Bxf7 Ne7 18. Re1 Bd6 19. Be3 Kc7 20. Ne6+
Kc8 21.
Rad1 Nd5 22. Bc5 Bxc5 23. Nxc5 Bb5 24. Bxd5 cxd5 25. Re7 g5 26. Rde1
h4 27.
gxh4 Rxh4 28. Rg7 Rc4 29. Ree7 Rxc2+ 30. Kg3 Bd7 31. Nxd7 Kc7 32. Nf6+
Kd6 33.
Ne8+ Kc5 34. Rc7+ Kd4 35. Rxc2 Rxe8 36. Rxg5 Kd3 37. Rc7 d4 38. Rxa7
Kd2 39.
Rb7 d3 40. Rxb4 Rd8 41. Rgg4 1-0
[Event "Hohenloher op 10th"]
[Site "Forchtenberg"]
[Date "2003.06.20"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Rupprecht, Juergen"]
[Black "Boschmann, Werner"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C35"]
[WhiteElo "1497"]
[BlackElo "1600"]
[PlyCount "40"]
[EventDate "2003.06.19"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "7"]
[EventCountry "GER"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "2003.11.25"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Bc4 Bh4+ 5. Kf1 c6 6. Ne5 d5 7. exd5
cxd5 8.
Bb5+ Bd7 9. Qh5 g6 10. Bxd7+ Nxd7 11. Nxg6 fxg6 12. Qxd5 Qe7 13. g3
fxg3 14.
hxg3 Bxg3 15. Kg2 Ngf6 16. Qxb7 Rb8 17. Qxa7 O-O 18. Kxg3 Ne4+ 19. Kg2
Qg5+ 20.
Kh2 Qg3# 0-1
> 6. =A0Nc3 Be7
>
> We have played a few more moves - but finding something new at 5 is always=
> interesting and worth a look, is it anomalous? [if you found it, please
> don't show subsequent moves, although I have almost certainly deviated fro=
m
> any book already
>
> A choice for White in this position is where to move the d pawn - d4 allow=
s
> the K Kt to sit defended on e5, but d3 allows the Q N to reside on e4.
>
> Phil Innes
|
|
