On Nov 3, 12:57 pm, The Historian wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:11 am, "Chess One" wrote:

For Gawds sake!

How many times will Brennan wholesale his lies? Playing strength of around
2400 for a couple of seasons over 25 years ago.

Again, that's not what you wrote:

***************
I must qualify what I have said therefo from the resolution of the
painitng on my monitor I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or
black,
but given the worst placements from white's perspective, I would still
hold
these views, [even though black is holding a piece in the air].

My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion - for example, Nil, who used to post here before splitting,
so to
speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
linear. This is not to say that Nil could not also resolve the
situation
over the board - but given the best imagined placements for black and
the
worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert "mate-in-
three" if
a board position cannot be resolved.

Phil
****************

If anyone is looking for a lying obsessive hate-mongering stalker, voila!
[but who is?]

Stop quoting your business cards, Philsy.


Anybody else notice that the nearly-an-IM made a
specific reference to ELO ratings? Not only did the
nearly-an-IM claim a 2450 rating, but he added that
the rating scale was not linear, and the kindest
interpretation of that comment might be that he
meant the rating curve is not linear, but bell shaped
(a very generous interpretation, IMO).


That being said, I agree with the nearly-an-IM-in-his
-own-mind that unless the position in the painting can
be "resolved", it is unwise to assert a mate-in-three...
unless that happened to be /the title/ of this painting.
(Thank Bot I have never had to play on such a hideous
set.)


-- help bot