"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:16:48 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

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

We weren't arguing about what Spassky's trainers did or did not tell
him.

'We'?

I ****in was. Who the hell is 'we'?

We were arguing about whether Spassky considered the KG viable
against top-level players.

You were arguing this?

Spassky's advisors told him to press for a forfeit and go back to the
USSR in the first match against Fischer -- would Phil argue this
implies the match was terminated? Oh, analogy again. See, Phil, you
can't avoid it.

?

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 seem to imply the King's Gambit accelerates the aging process.

Actually, its your point.

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!

Ahhh, Phil, your words come back to haunt you. Let us recapitulate
to help you capitulate. You first said:

"..people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating
opinions. It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players".

Then, when the Bot pointed out that Spassky used it not only against
2500-2600 players, but used it to beat Fischer, you retorted,

"I am sorry, but any singular instance does not comprise any
'whatever' statement. Spassky's trainers told him it wouldn't work at
the top level. And it doesn't, otherwise we would see a KG at 2700
level, and we do not."

When the Bot found a few more games, you sniffed,

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

At this point, Taylor Kingston, inconveniently for you, discovered
Spassky had essayed the KG in twenty-eight games (and the Bot remarked
there were probably a few others that didn't make Kingston's database)
and, more importantly, that this list included names like Averbakh,
Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov,
Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius and others.

28 games against in his entire carear - is Mike Murray's point. Point? What
is his point?

How would Phil respond, with his face being rubbed in his own
falsehoods and non sequiturs? We waited and suffered no
disappointment.

That way!

You try " I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him."

Phil, what Spassky's trainers told him wasn't in dispute. We were
talking about what that stubborn fellow Spassky believed and
practiced.

28 games in his carear - right or wrong?

Then, you have the gall to proclaim, "I am reporting that he did not
use it very successfully at the top levels". This despite Taylor
Kingston showing Spassky DID use it repeated against top players
(Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan,
Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius) and, more importantly, without
loss of a game!

But importantly he, at the time of Fischer, as the great Soviet Champion
could only draw with it, before Rejavik, and also immediately after. And not
against anyone the calibre of Fischer.

So Mike Murray argues these 28 games are somehow significant in a way I
failed to mention. What way?

And last, but not least, you add lamely, " and his last five uses of
it were all draws against players much lower ranked than him."

Really? The last five uses were draws against lower ranked players?
Well, one of these five was Korchnoi, but we'll ignore this for a
moment. We'll also ignore the fact that Spassky was OLDER then and
inclined to be a bit more peaceful.

Mike thinks Korchnoi is older than Sapssky, and what of the other 4 outings
? Nothing...

What's really fun is to go back
to your FIRST statement, to wit, "It certainly served him against
2500-2600 players". Looks like you once again came full circle and
are arguing against yourself!!

Does it look like that to whom? But what is Murray really agrueing with,
rather than fussing over... see below [I challenged Murray with 3 topical
comments - let's see how honest he is]

If you could talk chess then you would,
but you can't can't do it.

Spassky's use of the King's Gambit seems at least to touch upon the
subject of chess. And correcting some of your writings about same is
at least on topic at a meta-level.


3) If I misrepresented Spassky's use of the KG, where?

ah! There is something Murray does not care to answer, since he has cut 2
items from what I said, and not responded to the third. What an arse!

What a bloody numbskull rubbishing sort of bloke is Mike Murray! He cut the
very thing I re-iterated was the point of this discussion.

Murray - you are a coward and a cheat! Stop pretending you care anything for
chess or conversation about it. You would rather rubbish people, by such
obvious evasions that your opinion is bent any possibility of civil
discourse.

What a coward! He CUT the very issue AGAIN~ and Murray has the gall to
attack others and pretend he has some objective interest.

Put it back Murray, and answer it. Otherwise 'we' all see what you do and
you become as ignorable to content as help-****. This is, technically
speaking, a pure chess thread. It is about the title [see above] and you
Murray obscure what others say about chess, the KG, without mentioning any
chess because you Murray are as sick as help--bog. You can't help yourself,
right? Its like a red gfalg to you, actual chess comment?

And then you don't have the balls to reply to any response like a man.

Phil Innes


Hopefully, this has clarified things a bit.

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.