On Feb 26, 12:35 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Even a master such as myself.....

ROFL!!

Innes, you senile jackass, how can you keep telling lies like this when
everyone knows that you are nowhere near being a master. You never were
one. And you're no longer worth the 2044 rating you used to have 12 years
ago.

Its all true.

My real Name is Horace Uralz Hussein Gandalf Innes, my rating has never
exceeded 1333 [provisional], I slept out of the ship, kept false musters,
and fell asleep during the second dog.

-------------

What is the term master, but a general descriptor suggesting
a certain (limited) "mastery" of the game -- at least such as may
be achieved by we lowly humans?
The real challenge is in refuting the other charges, those of
senility
and being a jackass, IMO. Ho, ho!

Suppose one were to look to the official record of the creature
itself, of Jason Rowe? Would the record, I wonder, indicate a
skill so vast as the creature has laid claim, or some, perhaps small
disappointment? Is there truth in numbers? What about all those
blitz tourneys in which I partook, netting quarters and sometimes
a few dollars here and there, but leaving behind no record whatsoever
-- do these not count, because they were never recorded for posterity?
And what if I happened to invest the proceeds wisely, and the sum
grew and grew until it eventually reached the moon? Should this
fact be ignored, on account of ignorance of whence the capital had
originated? Would I therefore be labeled a thief or a charlatan,
whose
vast wealth could not be fully retraced back to its original square?

The thoughts on chess strength and skill, as considered by children
whose own abilities lie in quickness of hand and rapidity of tactical
execution, is a shallow pool, betraying the inherent lack of depth
and subtlety evinced by the true master of the royal game. But alas
--
I was once young and quick-of-hand and sharp of sight! I, too, was
once adept at movement to and fro, up and down the board with haste
and clumsy -- yet very effective -- threats. Though my heyday came
before the advent of "bullet" and joystick and mouse, it nevertheless
overlapped at the end to some small degree.

But what point is there in denigrating the aged, the slothful, the
more
*mature* chess player who may now lack brute speed, clever tricks,
and a certain skill with the mouse button? It can only serve to show
up the weaknesses of youth, the compensatory lack of depth and
subtlety which almost invariably plagues their games, and this is a
high price for bragging. No, better to remain silent, or to
respectfully
allow the ratings to paint a more general picture of the scene,
without
much specific detail, without finely-drawn crows feet, furrowed
brows,
or blissful, rosy-pink cheeks of youth and inexperience.

But, lest I be accused of being one of the ratings-mongers, I will
allow
for a different approach; one more befitting the character of our
informal
players and their less-than-stellar official numbers. Indeed, I am
all for
a careful analysis of a player's actual games in attempting to assess
their true strength -- especially my own! For I am convinced that
when
all is properly accounted for (and you computer-cheaters know what I
am talking about), my games will shine all the more, even beyond the
limits of my amazingly high ratings and near-perfect results. But
enough about me -- [blushes].

What is the verdict as to the actual play of IM Innes, or Jason
Repa,
or anyone here for that matter? Has anyone undertaken a serious
attempt at analysis, or is childish chiding and insults to remain the
standard of the day? It wouldn't surprise me -- not one iota.

-- help bot