On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 13:21:54 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 09:27:26 +0200, Jürgen R. wrote:

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:01:30 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

On 31 Aug 2005 06:22:52 -0700, "Liam Too"
wrote:

You really did not know that I am a Shakespearian scholar? Take a look
at:

http://www.samsloan.com/shakespe.htm

LOL. Scholar, eh?

I only read the first sentence of your scholarly contribution:

"On one point everybody agrees: The works of William Shakespeare are
the greatest works ever written in the history of the English
language."

and that is already quite wrong. For an interesting opinion on S.'s
qualities read Tolstoi's essay. You will never again be able to watch
Lear without laughing.

I see. A German tells us that a Russian translator was a better writer
of English than Shakespeare ever was.

That immediately shows that you, the Shakespeare scholar, have never
read Tolstoy's essay, which I assume has been translated into one of
the 27 languages that you claim to speak.

Tolstoy begins by explaining in which languages he had read
Shakespeare. The original is one of them, the Schlegel/Tieck
translation another.

An amusing test for an admirer of Shakespea Choose any one of the
"Great Speeches", for which everybody knows the first line, and
summarize the content beyond the second line. Not one of these
speeches contains anything but drivel.

Jurgen wrote:

An amusing test for an admirer of Shakespea Choose any one of the
"Great Speeches", for which everybody knows the first line, and
summarize the content beyond the second line. Not one of these
speeches contains anything but drivel.

I don't want to get in a Shakespeare debate in a chess politics group,
but I cannot let such a statement pass without expressing my emphatic
disagreement. I'm not sure what your definition of "drivel" is,
Jurgen, but it clearly is not even close to mine. I suspect the vast
majority of people who are knowledgeable about English literature would
also strongly disagree with you on this.

On a related but different topic, my feeling is that people who claim
to dislike Shakespeare often do so because (i) they don't understand or
aren't sufficiently familiar his work, and they dislike what they don't
understand or aren't familiar with;(ii) it is part of the kind of
pseudo-intellectual posturing you normally associate with young college
undergraduates, who make statements like "Oh, Shakepeare wasn't that
good" or "Chaucer is greatly overrated" in an attempt to show
intellectual sophistication; or (iii) a traumatic experience in high
school English trying to understand Shakespeare's somewhat archaic
English has permanently prejudiced them against his work.

In my opinion (and many others, of course), Shakespeare wasn't merely
good, he was perhaps the greatest single writer in the history of the
English language. His work explores the human spirit, his language is
often supremely beautiful, his sentiments ennobling. Characterizing
his work as popular drivel is simply wrong.

My two bits.

- Geof Strayer

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 09:24:28 +0200, Jürgen R. wrote:


An amusing test for an admirer of Shakespea Choose any one of the
"Great Speeches", for which everybody knows the first line, and
summarize the content beyond the second line. Not one of these
speeches contains anything but drivel.

"The evil that men do"

"but Brutus is an honorable man."

Marc Anthony is being sarcastic, repeatedly saying that Brutus is
honorable but he really means that Brutus is dishonorable.

wrote:
Jurgen wrote:

An amusing test for an admirer of Shakespea Choose any one of the
"Great Speeches", for which everybody knows the first line, and
summarize the content beyond the second line. Not one of these
speeches contains anything but drivel.

I don't want to get in a Shakespeare debate in a chess politics group,

You may wish to visit humanities.literature.authors.shakespeare
instead.

but I cannot let such a statement pass without expressing my emphatic
disagreement. I'm not sure what your definition of "drivel" is,
Jurgen, but it clearly is not even close to mine. I suspect the vast
majority of people who are knowledgeable about English literature would
also strongly disagree with you on this.

On a related but different topic, my feeling is that people who claim
to dislike Shakespeare often do so because (i) they don't understand or
aren't sufficiently familiar his work, and they dislike what they don't
understand or aren't familiar with;(ii) it is part of the kind of
pseudo-intellectual posturing you normally associate with young college
undergraduates, who make statements like "Oh, Shakepeare wasn't that
good" or "Chaucer is greatly overrated" in an attempt to show
intellectual sophistication; or (iii) a traumatic experience in high
school English trying to understand Shakespeare's somewhat archaic
English has permanently prejudiced them against his work.

In my opinion (and many others, of course), Shakespeare wasn't merely
good, he was perhaps the greatest single writer in the history of the
English language. His work explores the human spirit, his language is
often supremely beautiful, his sentiments ennobling.

Many writers share those traits, Geof. It's no knock on Shakespeare to
recognize that fact. Just say NO to Bardolatry!

Characterizing
his work as popular drivel is simply wrong.

Agreed.

My two bits.

- Geof Strayer

This had to be something like 10 years ago, in 1995, right? I believe
that was when Schiller's book on the Ryder Gambit (that's what 5 Qxf3
is called) came out.

On 3 Sep 2005 21:02:31 -0700, "longlivedemocracy"
wrote:

This had to be something like 10 years ago, in 1995, right? I believe
that was when Schiller's book on the Ryder Gambit (that's what 5 Qxf3
is called) came out.

Yes. Right. He made that remark in 1995 when I was helping him with
the tournament bulletins during the 1995 US Open Chess Championship in
Concord, California.

I am surprised that there is such an opening. I cannot understand why
somebody would just not take the d-pawn.

Sam Sloan

x-no-archives:yes

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

He said, "The moves are 1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. f3 exf3 4. Qxf3"

I said, "You can't write a book about that. That just looses."

His reply was, "Not if your opponent is a 1500 player, it doesn't
lose."

Sam Sloan

(Puzzled look)

So, the book's real title should be, "Play an Inferior Opening Variation
that Might not Lose Against Patzers"? I might as well write a book on 1.f3
e5 2.g4; that, too, loses--but not if you're playing a 900 player. I think.

Okay, I'm being unfair. What Schiller means is, obviously, to teach an
opening that a). has tactical possiblities, and b). takes you out of most
1500 players' "book". This way you can score many tactical victories, as
your opponent needs to rely on their own tactical ability instead of on
their knowledge of openings. That's fair enough, but why do so this way--by
playing an opening that is objectively bad? Why not do so the right
way--playing, say, the Alekhine, Dutch, or English openings--"tactical"
openings that are also outside most 1500 players' "book" and have the
additional merit of not being objectively inferior?

In article ,
"Skeptic" wrote:

x-no-archives:yes

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

He said, "The moves are 1. d4 d5 2. e4 dxe4 3. f3 exf3 4. Qxf3"

I said, "You can't write a book about that. That just looses."

His reply was, "Not if your opponent is a 1500 player, it doesn't
lose."


You said "looses"? Did you maybe mean "loses"?

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson