"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chess One wrote:

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

In his question Phil not only gets the London-Edinburgh ending date
wrong, but omits the Dutch match, which appears to antedate the
British
one.

The UK match, I believe, was prior by a whopping four days. The Dutch
match ended before the UK one, however. See Harding's MegaCorr
databases, quoting from the work of Pagni.

Well, thank you. In other words Kingston is wrong, again. But this is not
so
much the point as that different encyclopedias vary in their reporting.
But
this is insufficient excuse to write rubbish about anyone.


What would you describe as sufficient excuse to write rubbish, Phil?

I wrote 20 Questions here about some things I found quite fascinating about
chess history - as indeed did Horowitz.

I would say that none of these things are 'rubbish' as you term them. What
you clowns are doing is to rubbish the entire subject, with no discussion of
any of it! - especially on the surprising dates, both early and late, when
many 'firsts' occur.

In arguing a point [and Kingston being thrice wrong as well!] based on one
questions, the rest are suggested to be worthless. That is your contribution
bucko, supported by other lazy incurious twits who cannot be said to love
the game by virture of what they demonstrate here.

You even think your questions deserve answers - but they are not even
questions in the normal sense of the word, they are means to excuse yourself
from writing about chess, and a predeliction on your part to instead write
about those who do attempt a chess topic.

If you are not interested in any of these things, then stop demanding what
others should do Lord Holbsey, since you are in some danger of appearing to
be a trivialising twit, whose range of expressivity extends to the word
'****', but that in terms of your contribution to people's interest in chess
could be characterised as '****-all'.

PI


It is mean to do so - and I am not talking about me, or whether the start
or
end of the match qualifies it as first - to write so astringently about
the
issue is mean! Mean to any investigation of chess history.


Mean, eh? I'll bet that any self-respecting investigation (as opposed
to the investigator) is quite put out by such things...

MH

PI