"The Historian" wrote in message
ps.com...

help bot wrote:
The Historian wrote:


I don't know which comment is more pathetic, Parr's belief that
historical fiction is "something real", or Innes bleating about the
importance of some alleged Morphy relation's opinions "if
substantiated."

As for IM Innes' fascination with the opinions of living
relatives of Paul Morphy, my problem here is that, no
matter how much these people may know that isn't public
knowledge, they are of course biased (and fallible).

Yes, that's true. And they are a century and a half from the events in
question. But my point was that Innes has been campaigning for this
alleged Morphy relation for years now, and all that we know is that Mr.
Innes considers the information this relation provides 'important' and
he has no "substantiation" for any of it. Does that remind you of his
Nearly an IM 2450 title?

Mr Bennin should ask Dr. Blair about his own opportunity to verify the
material.

Though Brennyn continues to cast doubt on Dr. Hyde, who is IMO a very sober
and reliable reporter, not given to fancy - Brnnon at least can interrogate
Blair, that is, if Brenin had an /actual/ interest in the matter, rather
than an excuse to be miserable-as-eyeore this Christmas ;((

Poor Neil!

Should Branoun want to understand something about chess strength, he should
build up his own to such an extent that if I win I could earn 1 point.

Phil