The Historian wrote:
Rob wrote:
Neal,

The Historian wrote:
Rob wrote:
Neal,

Life is short. The choice on how to pursue it is one of personal taste.
If one continues to perpetuate evil and spitefulness, then the world is
more hateful and spiteful. Nothing in the original post was directed
at or about you yet you chose to attack.

I chose to criticize a weak piece of work. I seem to recall I still
have that right.

This is simply a LIE (sic) by you Neal (sic). In case you have already forgotten
what you posted here it is:

Nov 28, 6:36 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
From: "The Historian" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 28 Nov 2005 16:36:16 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 28 2005 6:36 pm
Subject: Current Historical Article Reviewed - Steinitz
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



Chess One wrote:
I am pleased to note that my Chessville colleague Prof. Nagesh Havanur has
reviewed an article in the very good Quarterly for Chess History, issue #3,
1999, editor Dr.Vlastimil Fiala.

Neal Wrote:

Chessvile has blacklisted Fiala, so it's odd to see a review of QFCH
there. But fortunately you can buy it at Chess Cafe:
http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=33&PID=768


-
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/QCH19993.htm

That was a comment on Chessvile's blacklisting of Fiala. If you weren't
Innes' lickspittle, I'd suggest you look up how many times he's made
silly accusations of blacklisting against a business rival. BTW, do you
agree with Philth's claims that Chess Cafe blacklists authors?


I shall not comment upon something I neither have no knowledge of nor
an interst in.

The in an immediate post afterwards to attempt to provoke an argument
Neal posts this:




3. The Historian
Dec 3, 10:14 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
From: "The Historian" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 3 Dec 2005 08:14:09 -0800
Local: Sat, Dec 3 2005 10:14 am
Subject: Current Historical Article Reviewed - Steinitz
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Chess One wrote:
I am pleased to note that my Chessville colleague Prof. Nagesh Havanur has
reviewed an article in the very good Quarterly for Chess History, issue #3,
1999, editor Dr.Vlastimil Fiala.

He makes interesting comments on editors generally, especially of their
technical limitations, but also offers the relevance to the game of factors
which do not appear in the game score. This issue of the Review was
principally on Steinitz, but also noted Laskers early, middle and late
attitude to the Old Chess.


Here he writes about Lasker's shock when confronted with the American genius
Harry Pillsbury - also providing a fully annotated game.


"What was most surprising to all was Pillsbury's extreme coolness.
During the first few moves his face seemed to express almost indifference to
his opponent's strength and he made his play with a languid, deliberate ease
that astonished the spectators."


He also offers a fully annotated Steinitz Lasker from Montreal 1894, the
complex 16th game.


Much credit is given to Dr. Fiala who unearthed quite a few unknown games of
Steinitz and Lasker - and also an explanation for other chess historians and
sleuths of how they were obtained.


http://www.chessville.com/reviews/QCH19993.htm


Phil Innes


Neal (sic) says:

The reviewer's comments on Fiala's article reminded me of a monkey
examining a watch. The kindest remark I can make about the review is
that it's just the sort of stuff that would fit next to the
semi-literate "Parrot" droppings Chessvile offers each week.

SO Neal (sic),

You neither attempted to refute or acclaim the quality of the work
being commented upon.


LOL! What part of "monkey examining a watch" don't you understand? In
fact, I rather like my use of the old line; since the monkey quip is
often attributed to Steinitz, using it to describe the cluelessness of
the 'review' author seems an admirable conceit. But of course, you
cannot read, so naturally it passed over your head.

Use of a well known quote without giving it's original source is not
well thought of in literary circles. Glad you finally corrected
yourself.

Noting you posted contributed to the advancement
or the appreciation of the game of chess.

You have a high opinion of newsgroup postings. Pity most people don't
share it.

It's your choice to either attempt to improve them or not Neal. And
yes, it is a pity that most people do not take a higher standard when
they post. The worth of a civilization and of the individuals that
comprise it will be judged by the record they leave to posterity. I
simply suggest that one should attempt to leave behind something that
will contribute well to how future readers and generations view their
contribution to the improvement of the human condition. I am sorry if
that honest suggestion offends you.

Happy Holidays,
Rob

Rob wrote:
The Historian wrote:
Rob wrote:
Neal,

The Historian wrote:
Rob wrote:
Neal,

Life is short. The choice on how to pursue it is one of personal taste.
If one continues to perpetuate evil and spitefulness, then the world is
more hateful and spiteful. Nothing in the original post was directed
at or about you yet you chose to attack.

I chose to criticize a weak piece of work. I seem to recall I still
have that right.

This is simply a LIE (sic) by you Neal (sic). In case you have already forgotten
what you posted here it is:

Nov 28, 6:36 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
From: "The Historian" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 28 Nov 2005 16:36:16 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 28 2005 6:36 pm
Subject: Current Historical Article Reviewed - Steinitz
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



Chess One wrote:
I am pleased to note that my Chessville colleague Prof. Nagesh Havanur has
reviewed an article in the very good Quarterly for Chess History, issue #3,
1999, editor Dr.Vlastimil Fiala.

Neal Wrote:

Chessvile has blacklisted Fiala, so it's odd to see a review of QFCH
there. But fortunately you can buy it at Chess Cafe:
http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=33&PID=768


-
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/QCH19993.htm

That was a comment on Chessvile's blacklisting of Fiala. If you weren't
Innes' lickspittle, I'd suggest you look up how many times he's made
silly accusations of blacklisting against a business rival. BTW, do you
agree with Philth's claims that Chess Cafe blacklists authors?


I shall not comment upon something I neither have no knowledge of nor
an interst in.

But you already have, by criticizing my posting.

The in an immediate post afterwards to attempt to provoke an argument
Neal posts this:




3. The Historian
Dec 3, 10:14 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
From: "The Historian" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 3 Dec 2005 08:14:09 -0800
Local: Sat, Dec 3 2005 10:14 am
Subject: Current Historical Article Reviewed - Steinitz
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Chess One wrote:
I am pleased to note that my Chessville colleague Prof. Nagesh Havanur has
reviewed an article in the very good Quarterly for Chess History, issue #3,
1999, editor Dr.Vlastimil Fiala.

He makes interesting comments on editors generally, especially of their
technical limitations, but also offers the relevance to the game of factors
which do not appear in the game score. This issue of the Review was
principally on Steinitz, but also noted Laskers early, middle and late
attitude to the Old Chess.


Here he writes about Lasker's shock when confronted with the American genius
Harry Pillsbury - also providing a fully annotated game.


"What was most surprising to all was Pillsbury's extreme coolness.
During the first few moves his face seemed to express almost indifference to
his opponent's strength and he made his play with a languid, deliberate ease
that astonished the spectators."


He also offers a fully annotated Steinitz Lasker from Montreal 1894, the
complex 16th game.


Much credit is given to Dr. Fiala who unearthed quite a few unknown games of
Steinitz and Lasker - and also an explanation for other chess historians and
sleuths of how they were obtained.


http://www.chessville.com/reviews/QCH19993.htm


Phil Innes


Neal (sic) says:

The reviewer's comments on Fiala's article reminded me of a monkey
examining a watch. The kindest remark I can make about the review is
that it's just the sort of stuff that would fit next to the
semi-literate "Parrot" droppings Chessvile offers each week.

SO Neal (sic),

You neither attempted to refute or acclaim the quality of the work
being commented upon.


LOL! What part of "monkey examining a watch" don't you understand? In
fact, I rather like my use of the old line; since the monkey quip is
often attributed to Steinitz, using it to describe the cluelessness of
the 'review' author seems an admirable conceit. But of course, you
cannot read, so naturally it passed over your head.

Use of a well known quote without giving it's original source is not
well thought of in literary circles.

I'm not aware the original source of the monkey quip has been traced.
And I think it's obvious to all how much knowledge you have of
"literary circles".

Neal,

That was a comment on Chessvile's blacklisting of Fiala. If you weren't
Innes' lickspittle, I'd suggest you look up how many times he's made
silly accusations of blacklisting against a business rival. BTW, do you
agree with Philth's claims that Chess Cafe blacklists authors?


I shall not comment upon something I neither have no knowledge of nor
an interst in.

But you already have, by criticizing my posting.


This comment was about the above mentioned question.

The in an immediate post afterwards to attempt to provoke an argument
Neal posts this:




3. The Historian
Dec 3, 10:14 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
From: "The Historian" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 3 Dec 2005 08:14:09 -0800
Local: Sat, Dec 3 2005 10:14 am
Subject: Current Historical Article Reviewed - Steinitz
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse


(sic)

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Chess One wrote:
I am pleased to note that my Chessville colleague Prof. Nagesh Havanur has
reviewed an article in the very good Quarterly for Chess History, issue #3,
1999, editor Dr.Vlastimil Fiala.

He makes interesting comments on editors generally, especially of their
technical limitations, but also offers the relevance to the game of factors
which do not appear in the game score. This issue of the Review was
principally on Steinitz, but also noted Laskers early, middle and late
attitude to the Old Chess.


Here he writes about Lasker's shock when confronted with the American genius
Harry Pillsbury - also providing a fully annotated game.


"What was most surprising to all was Pillsbury's extreme coolness.
During the first few moves his face seemed to express almost indifference to
his opponent's strength and he made his play with a languid, deliberate ease
that astonished the spectators."


He also offers a fully annotated Steinitz Lasker from Montreal 1894, the
complex 16th game.


Much credit is given to Dr. Fiala who unearthed quite a few unknown games of
Steinitz and Lasker - and also an explanation for other chess historians and
sleuths of how they were obtained.


http://www.chessville.com/reviews/QCH19993.htm


Phil Innes


Neal (sic) says:

The reviewer's comments on Fiala's article reminded me of a monkey
examining a watch. The kindest remark I can make about the review is
that it's just the sort of stuff that would fit next to the
semi-literate "Parrot" droppings Chessvile offers each week.

SO Neal (sic),

You neither attempted to refute or acclaim the quality of the work
being commented upon.

Neal Says:
LOL! What part of "monkey examining a watch" don't you understand? In
fact, I rather like my use of the old line; since the monkey quip is
often attributed to Steinitz, using it to describe the cluelessness of
the 'review' author seems an admirable conceit. But of course, you
cannot read, so naturally it passed over your head.

Use of a well known quote without giving it's original source is not
well thought of in literary circles.

Then Neal admits that he used a quote then says he knew where it came
from and then denies he knew where it came from.

I'm not aware the original source of the monkey quip has been traced.
And I think it's obvious to all how much knowledge you have of
"literary circles".

Neal, it appears I am not qualified to discuss a "dog chasing his
tail"... but it does qualify for a "circle" technically and literally.

Merry Christmas,
Rob

Rob ejaculated:

Part of my good works is the education of the feeble-minded. Rob is my
latest project.

You neither attempted to refute or acclaim the quality of the work
being commented upon.

Neal Says:
LOL! What part of "monkey examining a watch" don't you understand? In
fact, I rather like my use of the old line; since the monkey quip is
often attributed to Steinitz, using it to describe the cluelessness of
the 'review' author seems an admirable conceit. But of course, you
cannot read, so naturally it passed over your head.

Use of a well known quote without giving it's original source is not
well thought of in literary circles.

Then Neal admits that he used a quote then says he knew where it came
from and then denies he knew where it came from.

Sigh. No Rob, writing "often attributed to Steinitz" is not the same as
claiming I "knew where it came from."

I'm not aware the original source of the monkey quip has been traced.
And I think it's obvious to all how much knowledge you have of
"literary circles".

Neal, it appears I am not qualified to discuss a "dog chasing his
tail"... but it does qualify for a "circle" technically and literally.

Speaking of dogs, I am sorry Stan Booz saved your life by killing that
excrement-eating canine.

In case you didn't get the email I sent to you:
Neal If you wish to personalize your comments feel free to do so
directly to me. Don't do it for "audience effect" in public.
Rob

The Historian wrote:
Rob ejaculated:

Part of my good works is the education of the feeble-minded. Rob is my
latest project.

You neither attempted to refute or acclaim the quality of the work
being commented upon.

Neal Says:
LOL! What part of "monkey examining a watch" don't you understand? In
fact, I rather like my use of the old line; since the monkey quip is
often attributed to Steinitz, using it to describe the cluelessness of
the 'review' author seems an admirable conceit. But of course, you
cannot read, so naturally it passed over your head.

Use of a well known quote without giving it's original source is not
well thought of in literary circles.

Then Neal admits that he used a quote then says he knew where it came
from and then denies he knew where it came from.

Sigh. No Rob, writing "often attributed to Steinitz" is not the same as
claiming I "knew where it came from."

I'm not aware the original source of the monkey quip has been traced.
And I think it's obvious to all how much knowledge you have of
"literary circles".

Neal, it appears I am not qualified to discuss a "dog chasing his
tail"... but it does qualify for a "circle" technically and literally.

Speaking of dogs, I am sorry Stan Booz saved your life by killing that
excrement-eating canine.

Neil Brennen wrote (3 Dec 2005 08:14:09 -0800):

The reviewer's comments on Fiala's article
reminded me of a monkey examining a watch.

_
Rob wrote (4 Dec 2005 06:58:00 -0800):

Use of a well known quote without giving it's
original source is not well thought of in literary
circles.

_
"Just three paragraphs from the end of [New
Ideas in Chess] (the 1969 "new revised reprint"!)
I found ...:
_
Hypocrisy and error do not survive very long
on the chessboard: the merciless fact,
culminating in checkmate, contradicts the
hypocrite.
_
No quotation marks, no attribution, ...
Here's what Emanuel Lasker wrote on p. 235
of his Manual:
_
'On the Chess-board lies and hypocrisy do not
survive long. The creative combination lays bare
the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact,
culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the
hypocrite.'" - Montgomery Church (about four
years ago.)
_
By the way, if I remember correctly, the monkey-watch
thing was discussed in one of Edward Winter's books.
Again, if I remember correctly, the comment was in
a letter addressed TO Steinitz that appeared in the
chess magazine that Steinitz edited. Yes, I am aware
that there are books attributing the comment to
Steinitz himself, but, as far as I know, nobody has
produced a primary source for the claim that Steinitz
himself ever made such a comment.

Louis Blair wrote:
Neil Brennen wrote (3 Dec 2005 08:14:09 -0800):

The reviewer's comments on Fiala's article
reminded me of a monkey examining a watch.

_
Rob wrote (4 Dec 2005 06:58:00 -0800):

Use of a well known quote without giving it's
original source is not well thought of in literary
circles.

(Snip)

_
By the way, if I remember correctly, the monkey-watch
thing was discussed in one of Edward Winter's books.
Again, if I remember correctly, the comment was in
a letter addressed TO Steinitz that appeared in the
chess magazine that Steinitz edited. Yes, I am aware
that there are books attributing the comment to
Steinitz himself, but, as far as I know, nobody has
produced a primary source for the claim that Steinitz
himself ever made such a comment.

Thank you, Dr. Blair.