On Mar 23, 3:17 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message

oups.com...

On Mar 22, 9:56 pm, "help bot" wrote:

The way I see it this: not only did his IMness get
GM Adorjan's statistics all screwed up,

Innes' latest excuse, that he never said the stats represented _all_
W Ch games,

Kingston - it was yYOUR 'excuse' to attack that YOU inserted all - and as I
wrote - you will insist on your own DUMBTH. That's all there is to it - and
you have fallen out with everyone on the same basis. You were so predictable
that we had bets on how you would present yourself )))

and that therefore they should have been understood to
represent only *_some_* world championship games, is worse than his
original error.
The stats he gave in fact _do_ represent *_ALL_* games ever played
in ALL world championship matches 1886-1990, *_plus_* ALL THE OTHER
GAMES those world champions ever played, insofar as they were included
on Adorjan's unnamed database. This is very clearly stated by Adorjan,
but apparently misunderstood by Innes, as happens so often.

"Apparently" another suppostion like 'all'. Is there no end to the the
fruitcase reviewer who after 20+ messages to clarify whatever his
understanding is with anyone else, can still offer 'apparently'. ))

So, what is your point Kingston? Does it have to do with your understanding,
with my representation of Adorjan, or with Adorjan's representation. Surely
to God you can't continue to be vague so long? Do you actually have a point
you can state in a few sentences? ROFL

What the hell is it?

(sigh) Phil, everyone else reading this already knows my point. You,
however, rarely if ever understand a point even when it's a foot long,
sharp as a tack, and you sit right on it.