"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:04:44 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

Hmmm. Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? If I were a
bettin' man, I know where I'd put my money.

Like help-bog, Taylor Kingston also make my point for me - that these KGs
are unusual stratagems considering all the games in the player's career.
While should I 'back-off' about such a commentary? Are these even 1% of
the
players games against GMs? and inserted as surprise openings?

Turning Phil loose with statistics is like letting a baby play in the
bathtub. BTW, Phil, in what percentage of Fischer's games as Black
did he essay the Gruenfeld? Think he didn't consider it viable?

Usual straw-man diversion from Murray. The [laugh] coterie of geniuses can't
understand why Spassky did not use the KG even at the peak of his carear,
and now don't answer what percentage of his opening repetoire it was, and
instead divert to Fischer. Typical!

and will Mike Murray still think this is ignurunt?

Yup, Mike Murray still thinks Phil's proclamation was ignorant.

Said our Phil earlier:

"Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a career -
since indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at
2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilized it much more."

So Spassky played the King's Gambit against Averbakh, Bronstein
(twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,
Matanovic, Krogius and others, and Phil says with a straight face, "if
Spassky HAD felt it was a viable [!!] opening at the 2600-2700 level,
he surely would have utilized it much more". Uh, Phil, maybe he
saved it for certain situations.

Ugh! Maybe he did Mike? Ugh, like his last five outings with it scored
draws - though that's not what you meant is it?

I am so sick and tiried of nincompoops and dunderheads practicing their lies
and Ugh! comments here. There is no logic in them, and no chess either, and
they haven't read anything.

Whereas the USCF is about to either explode or implode, and I mean new news
not yet released publicly, that will do one or the other - the effect will
be much the same. The End!

It seems hardly worth my time writing in this newsgroup, and I can
understand why other people, far more significant than me, would resign
their attention to evolving chess in this country. The only problem here is
that those who do so, don't really like to suffer the opinion of those who
did rather more, elsewhere.

Phil Innes
Vermont


Mike Murray knows where he will put his money, and so do we, nowhere at
all.

I'd have trouble getting anyone to take my bet.

The between times Fischer conflict sees Spassky drawing with Bronstein
after
a 4-year lay-off of the KG, and then after drawing with Ornstein après
Fischer. Considering this was Spassky's peak, will Murray think this is
such
a terrible weapon, since Spassky's last five outings with it were all
draws
with him as White?

But we weren't talking about whether Murray thinks the King's Gambit
is "such a terrible weapon". We were discussing whether Spassky felt
it was a viable opening at the 2600-2700 level.

What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
than the usual?

No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
something else.