"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
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.

Well Look! I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him. I am
reporting that he did not use it very successfully at the top levels, and
his last five uses of it were all draws against players much lower ranked
than him.

That seems hardly any analog of Fischer and the KID. Murray's problem which
he alwas has, is that he can't figure out what he is arguing against.



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 know what a tautalogical sentence is? Eg: is this cause or effect?

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 didn't write that. I wrote lots of context before, and why should I suffer
your malicious understanding? He used it rarely against top opposition - and
that IS the record. OKAY? Understand Murray? You want to argue it is not the
record, knock yourself out!

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).

"we" you prat! You don't even know what you are disagreeing with - but have
to write **** about other people. If you could talk chess then you would,
but you can't can't do it.

unless by "we" you mean a bunch of net-nancy-nazi's ?

1) Look at the name of the thread
2) Daft isn't it?
3) If I misrepresented Spassky's use of the KG, where?

Phil Innes



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.