Chess One wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

The reviewer's comments on Fiala's article reminded me of a monkey
examining a watch. The kindest remark I can make about the review is
that it's just the sort of stuff that would fit next to the
semi-literate "Parrot" droppings Chessvile offers each week.

A Parrot fan writes in! Even complete idiots read it!

Though what business such folks think they have writing their constant
nonsense in public is presumably a secret best known to them and the
mysterious poster Nylon-Quest.

I should doubt that Prof. Havanur will reply.

Phil Innes

Well, if Prof. Havanur wishes to reply, he is free to do so.
Unfortunately, his "review" of the GFCH #3 was a pale rehash of Fiala's
articles. Havanur's only original thought was his comment that Fiala
could have been more selective when quoting annotations. This is, of
course, often a matter of taste, and there's much to be said for being
inclusive instead of exclusive.