(Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) wrote:
Phony picky-nicky (Nick) wrote in message
om...
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote (2003-12-06 01:37:27 PST):
Karpov and the Soviet Federation did everything to avoid a match
with Fischer. So, he became the first "World Champion" who didn't
bother to play a championship match.

To this (Nick) replies in message
. com...
In 1948, Mikhail Botvinnik became the FIDE World Champion
without playing a championship *match*.

Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote:
That phony Nick Bourbaki is sooo stupid!

Nick wrote:
(snipped by Wlodzimierz Holsztynski)

Yes, a 'match' and a 'tournament' are two fundamentally different
forms of chess competition.

(My explanation was completely snipped by Wlodzimierz Holsztynski.
Please read it in my earlier post in this thread.)

Then Mr Holsztynski wrote:
"That phony Nick Bourbaki is sooo stupid!"

Yes, in the given context this is a triffle.

*If* it's a mere 'trifle' for Wlodzimierz Holsztynski to make *his error* by
overlooking or muddling the clear distinction between a 'match' and a
'tournament', then I submit that it was wrong for Mr Holsztynski to denounce
me as 'sooo stupid!' when he *mistakenly* concluded that I had made an error.

Let me try to get through your thick, muddy, obstinate, poor pretext for
a brain:

Here's what I wrote earlier (which Wlodzimierz Holsztynski snipped):
"It's well-accepted among strong players that there's a significant
difference between 'match strategy' and 'tournament strategy'."

For example, one could compare Tigran Petrosian and Bent Larsen in the 1960s.

Was it just a trivial difference that the 1948 FIDE World Championship
was decided by a single tournament rather than a series of matches?
Evidently, Bobby Fischer thought that the difference was significant.

"For a period of ten years--between 1946 and 1956--Reshevsky was probably
the best chess player in the world. I feel sure that had he played a match
with Botvinnik during that time, he would have won and been world champion."
--Bobby Fischer ('Chessworld', January-February 1964)

What would have happened if the 1948 FIDE Championship had been decided by,
say, playing the matches Botvinnik-Reshevsky and Keres-Smyslov, then playing
a match between their winners, and then playing a final match between that
winner and Euwe, the last living world champion? Of course, no one today
could ever know for certain. In my opinion, without necessarily agreeing
fully with Bobby Fischer about it, Samuel Reshevsky should have had a better
chance of becoming the world champion in 1948 if he had been playing matches
rather than in a tournament.

Botvinnik and every champion until Karpov won their champion titles over
the board. Karpov had it handed to him by a bunch of FIDE bureaucrats
(after having unfair advantages of Soviet support in candidate matches
against Spassky and Korchnoy). Karpov avoided "succesfully" a championship
match against Fischer.

Louis Blair and I have asked Wlodzimierz Holsztynski to clarify exactly what
he means (such as Karpov's not accepting Fischer's 'two point margin of
victory' condition?) by writing "Karpov avoided 'successfully' a championship
match against Fischer", but Mr Holsztynski has declined so far to do so.

Yes, you, phony Bourbaki, are trivial, and you have wasted bandwidth again.
You, phony Bourbaki are a trivial flat square, cubically stooooopid. Happy?
Wlod

When playing chess, occasionally I have felt about as *comparatively* stupid
as Wlodzimierz Holsztynski has alleged, such as when I recently played three
five-minute games against a former champion of Russia, a GM rated FIDE 2630,
and I lost every game. But I have rarely experienced such comparable moments
of stupidity when playing against someone (like Mr Holsztynski) at the level
of USCF 1711. :-)

Even *if* Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's 'advice' to me (above) is as 'profound'
as he seems to believe, it hardly could be described as original. Jason Repa
has been giving me about the same kind of 'advice', though in rather more
creatively striking terms in English than Mr Holsztynski's. :-)

In the interest of clarity, I am *not* comparing Wlodzimierz Holsztynski with
Jason Repa as *human beings in general*. Although Mr Holsztynski has made it
quite clear many times (e.g. "spitting virtually in his (my) cowardish face")
that he has absolute disrespect for me in every way as a human being (assuming
that he even regards me as one), I am a realist who believes that it's foolish
to discount the intelligence of one's enemies. Unlike Jason Repa, Wlodzimierz
Holsztynski can write intelligently on subjects such as 'Lattices with real
numbers as additive operators', and I can respect *some* of Mr Holsztynski's
writings even though I may still disagree with his expressed views.

But when Wlodzimierz Holsztynski writes his personal attacks against me--
someone about whom he knows hardly anything, personally or professionally--
he does sound all too close to being an abusive troll such as Jason Repa.

"My advice to you is: confine yourself to writing about subjects with respect
to which you are, undoubtedly, an expert. That way, you'll avoid *making
yourself look like a trolling idiot*, just as you've done in this thread,
again." (the asterisks were in the original text)
--Mark Houlsby (7 December 2003, 'Relevant details', writing to Mr Holsztynski)

That's sound advice, and I hope that Mr Wlodzimierz Holsztynski will heed it.

PS. Another trivia: that post-WWII, 1948, championship competition of five
players, each playing another four games, and won by Botvinnik, was and
perhaps still is called in Russian a match-tournament.

The common language of rec.games.chess.misc is English, not Russian.

--Nick