On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:19:49 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

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.

Phil confuses analogy with diversion. He's had that problem before.
The point he misses: Fischer's percentage of games with the Gruenfeld
was very small compared with, say, the King's Indian, but he utilized
the former on some very important occasions and evidently considered
it fully viable. The analogy with Spassky and the King's Gambit seems
clear enough.

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!

You can't infer his opinion about the viability of an opening from the
percentage of time he played it. Many other factors are involved: the
respective styles of the players, tournament and match context, the
committing nature of the play, etc.

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?

You mean like when his strength had declined somewhat? You mean that
because he only drew the last five games, he didn't consider the
opening viable? What in Hell did you mean, Phil??

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.

So are we Phil. That's why we've been trying our best to improve the
quality of your postings (and your thinking -- keep working on
analogy, you'll be glad you did).

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!

And who opened with a complaint about "diversions" ?

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.

He played it again, Sam.