"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 26, 9:42 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Three! Three pages in the book! Four! Four pages in the book!

my statistics seem to be at odds with people's understanding of them,
rather
than the book from which they are drawn - which short of quoting
verbatim...
i am sure this subject could be continued, forever! pfft!~ [see Rage of
the
Librarians, from last year]

pi

Well, personal attacks on IM Innes aside, I still
think it is silly to discuss the issue of Black being
OK from the perspective of an unspecified database

Unspecified?

which apparently is of highly questionable merit.

Apparently?

A thoughtful discussion might begin with some
well (and honestly) annotated games, focusing on
how certain top players' results have fared with
either color. Or you could start out with a quality
database, and consider various players' results to
see if they were "OK" or not from a purely objective
standpoint.

Not understandable. Mr. Kennedy might conduct an example of his own idea,
and tell us more about his 'purely objective standpoint'.

Alternatively, we could brush the whole issue aside
and just beat up on Phil Innes, which might prove to
be a lot more fun. It's a tough choice... .

Issues of personality attacks 'aside' [for 3 paragraphs already!]; this
forum exists for people who /can/ discuss chess AND as Kennedy suggests to
'just beat up...'.

What Kennedy will chose to do is up to him and for his own reasons. shrug
But I think trying to talk chess - even if the talk is not good and needs
clarification is superior to so much fantasy based on suppositions and
'apparently' by people to whom very little seems apparent at any time.

Phil Innes

-- help bot