On Mar 27, 9:06 am, "Chess One" wrote:

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?

Perhaps the nearly-a-loon IM has not been paying
attention; the claim has been made here *repeatedly*
that nowhere does GM Adorjan specify what database
he used, and this one-word query is the first hint of any
challenge whatever. (Note: I don't have -- or want -- the
book in question.)

which apparently is of highly questionable merit.

Apparently?

Yes, apparently. I do not assume that TK's claim
is beyond question, though I will note that it was
shouted down from the tower quite confidently. :D


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'.


In which book? I was discussing the book by
GM Adorjan. Besides, nobody reads books by
mere NMs, because they are such hopeless duffers,
you understand.


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...'.


My bad. I constructed a false dichotomy. It is very
possible to both discuss the real issue of Black being
OK (or not) AND beat up on Phil Innes! (What was I
thinking?)


What Kennedy will chose to do is up to him and for his own reasons. shrug

He *could* rewrite GM Adorjan's entire book,
making use of some quality database and
eradicating any bias -- but nobody would read it.
First, you got to get the GM thingy in front of
your name.



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.


Right. This is why it is clearly better to actually
address issues head-on, instead of the Innesian
approach of "questioning" without questioning,
attacking without any weaponry, dismissing w/o
adding anything. In sum, a quite vacuous activity
consisting of many words... signifying nothing.

-- help bot