"Skeptic" wrote in message
oups.com...

mr skeptic quotes viktor korchnoi-i answered korchnoi in depth in my book
massacre in merano still in print with hardinge simpole

Yes, you sure did. But just because you answered him in depth hardly
means he was wrong, or that your lenghty answer is more correct than
Korchnoi's diagnosis. Length does not equate with truth.

But attention to chess analysis is the point. Did it, or did it not address
Korchnoi's point in chesic terms? Why dodge the issue?


-------

But you are not - you can't even write your name.

Huh? I DIDN'T write my name in these posts AT ALL, correctly or
incorrectly spelled. Please tell me where I misspelled my name.

I wonder if this is the level of interest of this poster? I say he can't
write his name to his comments, and he doesn't understand it - he agrees,
but choses to divert as if what I wrote indicated a misspelling, rather than
cowardice.

Quick question, come to think of it: what *is* my name? How *should* it
be spelled, in your opinion?

?

What is derisory is that anyone can pick up a book and immediately know as
much as its author - especially if they are a strong player. If the
publisher indicates that this is possible on their book covers - then
strong
rebuke is necessary - and if non masters write of how to do it, but cannot
prove that they themselves ever did it - Hoohah!- I suggest similar
scepticism.

This paragraph isn't in English.

Yes it is. You are as unable to understand compound sentences in English as
complex variations in chess. Neither fact inhibits your criticism, and you
ignore mistakes made by your 'paragons'.

We are not looking for saints and sinners here, just a human understanding
of what it is to write a chess book compared to what it is to comment on
one.

Phil Innes