On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:06:33 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:
We weren't arguing about what Spassky's trainers did or did not tell
him.
I ****in was. Who the hell is 'we'?
You *asserted* that. Who disputed your assertion about what his
trainers said? Nobody. So, there WAS no argument, unless you were
arguing with yourself.
We were arguing about whether Spassky considered the KG viable
against top-level players.
You were arguing this?
You argued that he DIDN'T when you said "if Spassky HAD felt that it
was a viable opening at 2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilised
it much more." Remember saying that, Phil?
I disagreed and argued that since he played it against Averbakh,
Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov,
Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius and others, he must have considered it
viable.
You lost that one, Phil, and it makes you look the fool. Deal with
it.
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?
Murray's point is that when the 28 games included opponents like
Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan,
Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius, and others, Spassky must have
considered the KG a viable tool against super-GMs.
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 mean, of course, the way of bluster, fuming, denial, insult.
Sure. it's your standard modus operandi. No surprises there.
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?
Games against Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi,
Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius, and others -- 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?
They included super-GMs such as Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer,
Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius, and
others
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... 
I said nothing about Spassky's age versus Korchnoi's.
Spassky was older when he played the last five games than he was when
he played the other 23. Surely, Phil, even someone as defective in
logic as you cannot argue with that. I mean, you *did* use the word
"tautology" earlier.
But even mo how does the fact that he drew the games imply that he
didn't consider the opening viable? Phil, can you spell non sequitur?
Can you use it in a sentence?
3) If I misrepresented Spassky's use of the KG, where?
Well, one example is when you said, "Let you not get overexcited about
half a dozen games in a career". Last time I checked, a half dozen is
six, somewhat less than 28.
But I was mostly arguing the implausibility of your assertions about
what Spassky's opinion must have been when you said (remember this?),
"if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at 2600-2700 level,
he surely would have utilised it much more." In light of his
employing it against super-GMs such as Averbakh, Bronstein (twice),
Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic,
Krogius, and others, your comment reveals astonishing ignorance on
your part.
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!
I wasn't responding to the first two items. It's standard convention
to snip the non-essentials (no, no, Phil, put down the scissors and
don't hurt yourself -- I didn't mean it *that* way)
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
when caught saying something dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the
subject and pretends he said something else.
He just played it again, Sam.