"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...

Taylor, the Nearly an IM 2450 is, to borrow a phrase from Edward
Winter, a historical analphabet. He doesn't even think there is
"evidence" Cambridge Springs 1904 took place.

Stop lying Brennan. Stop contorting and lying about everything in public.
Brennan knows exactly what I wrote about Cambridge Springs, which I visited
twice, and here he lies about it in public. This is utterly disgraceful.

It is only amazing that a compulsive liar and abuser is accepted by Vaguer
as supporter and understander, while Kingston says he himself had *nothing*
to do with ... and so it goes. Nevermind what is yet unexposed in Kingston's
e-mails from 4 years ago, he won't even engage in public conversation NOW
about author's having a fair say in the chesscafe forum about their books
being banned at Chesscafe!

Why do you insist on
presenting pearls to such swine as Innes? Your original statement was
perfectly comprehensible.

Brennan understands Kingston perfectly! Although the 'it' this time turns
out to be an analogy, unless the 'it' refers to the dates Kingston admitted
getting wrong, or 'it' may be something much vaguer. On even slight
questioning of their understanding, both these clowns fade away emitting
clouds of abuse to hide their trail.

Neither character can operate in the light of day, except by means of
idiotic mutual support, but when the sun comes up and the smoke clears, it
reveals more *nothing*.

PI

On Nov 11, 12:52 am, "help bot" wrote:
One more thing I would like to know: why is Euwe
listed as among the best "hypermodern" players? I
have not studied many of his games, but the few I've
seen were nothing unusual, just rock-solid chess. I
think I would sooner list Alekhine among them before
Euwe.

In support of my inclusion of Euwe, I offer this quote from R.N.
Coles' "Dynamic Chess" (1956), page 38:

"It came almost as a shock to the Hypermodern masters to find that
the novel opening systems which they had evolved over the years and
finally with much labor brought to the hard test of competitive play
were immediately adopted by a still younger generation who played them
as to the manner born."

The above introduces the game Euwe-Loman, Rotterdam 1924, which
opened in definite hypermodern fashion, 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 g6 4.Bb2
Bg7 5.Na3 e5 6.Nc2 (eventually 1-0, 17).

If I was hesitant about any of those I named as hypermoderns, it was
actually Alekhine. Coles again, pages 73-81:

"To a player like Alekhin, whose imagination found itself parched
amid the arid deserts of the Classical style, the Hypermodern
revolution appeared like an oasis of fresh water, even though it was to
become as far as he was concerned largely a mirage ... For a time
Alekhin threw himself wholeheartedly into the Hypermodern movement ...
But it was in his more orthodox methods of building a dynamic position
that Alekhin signposted the way for others to follow ... Where Alekhin
parted company with the Hypermoderns was that while he appreciated and
understood their new views on the centre, he did not necessarily place
the same emphasis on the advantages of withholding central pawn
advances; there were in his view many occasions where the old classical
method of advancing a central pawn early could do more to increase
dynamic opportunities."

On Nov 10, 10:48 am, "Chess One" wrote:
ON LASKER

I do not mean to say anything /against/ another great player as much as
frame the time of his main influence which was pre-WW1.

It seems our Phil reserves the right to reinterpret not only
statements by others, but his own quotes as well. What he first said
was:

"Lasker was a creature of the late C19th, and while being the epitome
of the post-Morphy late Classical tradition, was not the sort of person
to be able to span such a huge development in chess [as
Hypermodernism]."

With Phil one can never be sure if he says what he really means, but
to me this indicated clearly that Phil thought Lasker couldn't hack it
once the Hypermodern movement got going. If Phil meant only that Lasker
himself did not adopt a hypermodern style, I would certainly agree, but
whatever style he employed seemed to work just fine against the leading
hypermoderns (and pretty much everyone else), as the career records I
cited earlier show. To cite a more authoritative opinion than mine:

"Lasker's re-entry into serious competition at Mährisch-Ostrau
[1923] aroused curiosity and speculation throughout the chess world.
Was the old man through? ... How would Lasker play against the
Hypermoderns? ... [By 1919] Hypermodernism was a vaguely defined but
very real trend in master chess ... So Lasker had a double task -- to
show that he was still the old Lasker, and that he could beat the
brilliant young [Hypermoderns]. He succeed superlatively well in both
tasks ...
"Strangely enough, Lasker had little respect for the Hypermoderns. He
viewed their style as a passing phase, and he was right ...
"The following year, 1924, Lasker fulfilled the promise of his
comeback by winning the formidable New York International Tournament
.... with a mastery that was unbelieveable in a man of fifty-six.
Alekhine, the brilliant Russian, tried one of his impetuous attacks,
but Lasker made him look like a little boy with his hand in the cookie
jar. Against Réti, the high priest of Hypermodernism ... Lasker, with
a whole series of supermoves, simply dwarfed his adversary." -- Fred
Reinfeld, "The Human Side of Chess" (1951), pp. 134-136

Lasker was virtually retired from chess by 1925, and seriously took up
Bridge and Go instead.

Ah, then the Lasker who finished 2nd at Moscow 1925 (behind
Bogolyubov but ahead of Capablanca, Marshall, Tartakower, Torre, Réti
and 14 others), 5th at Zurich 1934 (behind Alekhine, Euwe, Flohr and
Bogolybov but ahead of Nimzovitch, Bernstein, Stahlberg and 8 others),
and 3rd at Moscow 1935 (½-point behind Flohr and Botvinnik but ahead
of Capablanca, Spielmann, Kan, Levenfish, Lillienthal, Ragozin and 11
others), and who also played at Moscow 1936 and Nottingham 1936, must
have been Edward Lasker, not Emanuel?

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...


On Nov 10, 10:48 am, "Chess One" wrote:
ON LASKER

I do not mean to say anything /against/ another great player as much as
frame the time of his main influence which was pre-WW1.

It seems our Phil reserves the right to reinterpret not only
statements by others, but his own quotes as well. What he first said
was:

"Lasker was a creature of the late C19th, and while being the epitome
of the post-Morphy late Classical tradition, was not the sort of person
to be able to span such a huge development in chess [as
Hypermodernism]."

With Phil one can never be sure if he says what he really means,

** Kingston has no business writing 'one', since he can't even own his own
words. Kingston cut what I wrote [without indicating any cut, as usual] in
order to quote an apparent contradiction from an encyclopeaedia. shrug He
even cut a very famous chess player's opinion of Lasker [Kingston's opinion
is so superior we don't want these sorts of people commenting - see Kingston
Files] who based Lasker's style squarely on Steinitz.


but
to me this indicated clearly that Phil thought Lasker couldn't hack it
once the Hypermodern movement got going. If Phil meant only that Lasker
himself did not adopt a hypermodern style, I would certainly agree, but
whatever style he employed seemed to work just fine against the leading
hypermoderns (and pretty much everyone else), as the career records I
cited earlier show. To cite a more authoritative opinion than mine:

"Lasker's re-entry into serious competition at Mährisch-Ostrau
[1923] aroused curiosity and speculation throughout the chess world.
Was the old man through? ... How would Lasker play against the
Hypermoderns? ... [By 1919] Hypermodernism was a vaguely defined but
very real trend in master chess ... So Lasker had a double task -- to
show that he was still the old Lasker, and that he could beat the
brilliant young [Hypermoderns]. He succeed superlatively well in both
tasks ...
"Strangely enough, Lasker had little respect for the Hypermoderns. He
viewed their style as a passing phase, and he was right ...
"The following year, 1924, Lasker fulfilled the promise of his
comeback by winning the formidable New York International Tournament
.... with a mastery that was unbelieveable in a man of fifty-six.
Alekhine, the brilliant Russian, tried one of his impetuous attacks,
but Lasker made him look like a little boy with his hand in the cookie
jar. Against Réti, the high priest of Hypermodernism ... Lasker, with
a whole series of supermoves, simply dwarfed his adversary." -- Fred
Reinfeld, "The Human Side of Chess" (1951), pp. 134-136

Lasker was virtually retired from chess by 1925, and seriously took up
Bridge and Go instead.

Ah, then the Lasker who finished 2nd at Moscow 1925 (behind
Bogolyubov but ahead of Capablanca, Marshall, Tartakower, Torre, Réti
and 14 others), 5th at Zurich 1934 (behind Alekhine, Euwe, Flohr and
Bogolybov but ahead of Nimzovitch, Bernstein, Stahlberg and 8 others),
and 3rd at Moscow 1935 (½-point behind Flohr and Botvinnik but ahead
of Capablanca, Spielmann, Kan, Levenfish, Lillienthal, Ragozin and 11
others), and who also played at Moscow 1936 and Nottingham 1936, must
have been Edward Lasker, not Emanuel?

**what is this contention that Kingston has? He negatively protrayed the
emigree Russian Alekhine, who was WORLD CHAMPION and //dominated// the Euro
scene 1923-39, to effect this report, but also CUT my notice that Lasker
came 8th at Hastings in 1935, and that he played little 1925-1936. Should I
write who came above Lasker in that year?

**So far, Kingston has 'refuted' W CH Euwe and Enjcyclopedists Horrocks, but
not of course by engaging what they say! He doesn't swing that way. He is
just fightin mad, and covering his Alekhine comment.

**I can see why Kingston falls out with more considered views - he lack the
courage to even repeat them, and carries on regardless. But pretend that
nothing has been said.

**He can't even agree that authors have any right to reply to critics at the
outfit who publishes the cirticism Its so much easier to just snip that
annoying stuff, and pretend that really strong chess players, historians,
and authors do not exist.

People with such strange public private views will inevitably become
discovered. This person's understanding does not exceed uncritical worship -
or hatred!

Phil Innes

Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:19:10 GMT):

7 ... so pfft! [Taylor Kingston] probably wrote me 20,000 words
7 on the weather, not on why certain people's books should not
7 be available to a public ...

_
"... Of course you haven't written [emails] 'about' book
banning, and I have never said you have written them
'about book banning' ..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 04 Nov 2006
00:15:14 GMT)
_
"... At the time of the quote in question, ChessCafe
had no B&E contract with USCF, and would not for
about another two years. ..." - Taylor Kingston
(6 Nov 2006 11:09:24 -0800)

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:00:31 GMT):

7 ... There is no doubt that Kingston cannot speak without
7 resorting to analogy and not for any evident reason, save
7 reason itself is not to hand, that if he sent me 20 derogatory
7 e-mails about chess writers, while reviewing for the very
7 same outfit who banned them, these too were presumably
7 all 'analogy'. ...

_
"... [3/17/2002 (the date given by Phil Innes for
one of the email quotes that he has already
posted)] was about two years before the
outsourcing to Chess Cafe of USCF's book and
equipment business." - Louis Blair (4 Aug 2006
16:17:26 -0700)

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:36:02 GMT):

7 ... [Kingston] won't even engage in public conversation
7 NOW about author's having a fair say in the chesscafe
7 forum about their books being banned at Chesscafe! ...

_
"... [3/17/2002 (the date given by Phil Innes for
one of the email quotes that he has already
posted)] was about two years before the
outsourcing to Chess Cafe of USCF's book and
equipment business." - Louis Blair (4 Aug 2006
16:17:26 -0700)
_
"... Of course you haven't written [emails] 'about' book
banning, and I have never said you have written them
'about book banning' ..." - Phil Innes (to Taylor
Kingston) (Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:15:14 GMT)
_
By the way, Chesscafe does not have a forum "NOW".

Larry Parr wrote (10 Nov 2006 21:41:27 -0800):

7 MORE KRAP FROM KINGSTON
7
7 Arthur Dake and Arnold Denker spoke to the
7 question of Alekhine's natural talent in the Denker-Parr
7 book, "The Bobby Fischer I Knew and Other Stories."

_
Would Larry Parr care to specifically identify the
"KRAP" that he has in mind? Here is the quote
to which Phil Innes seemed to object:
_
"While Alekhine did have strong natural
talent, it was probably not nearly as great
as Capablanca's or Reshevsky's, probably
also below that of Lasker, maybe even
below that of Marshall, Janowski, Keres,
Fine and a few other of his contemporaries.
What distinguished Alekhine was his
memory, his great capacity for work and
study, and his unflagging obsession with
chess. He could no more stop thinking
about it than he could stop breathing. If a
world champion was 'made, not born,'
that champion was Alekhine." - Taylor
Kingston (9 Nov 2006 11:28:22 -0800)
_
Does Larry Parr maintain that any of the above is
contradicted by what LP quotes below?

_
Larry Parr wrote (10 Nov 2006 21:41:27 -0800):

7 Arthur Dake and Arnold Denker spoke to the
7 question of Alekhine's natural talent in the Denker-Parr
7 book, "The Bobby Fischer I Knew and Other Stories."
7
7 Denker partnered Alekhine in a couple of consultation
7 games: "I learned a lot about how the world champion
7 analyzed chess positions. Alekhine taught me to sit
7 on my hands and not to play the first move that came
7 to mind, no matter how good it looked. He examined
7 everything, whipping through an astonishing number of
7 variations. When I offered a suggestion, he took it
7 seriously and ran it through the wringer of detailed
7 analysis. And if my idea survived this logic
7 crunching, he cheerfully adopted it.
7
7 "'Analyze, analyze, analyze!' was Alekhine's
7 motto. Moreover, he did not confine himself to
7 logical moves. Any move, no matter how silly it
7 appeared, merited attention. And not infrequently, he
7 discovered sparkling ideas at the end of seemingly
7 awful continuations.
7
7 "My dear friend Arthur Dake, a great American
7 master of the 1930s, was quite chummy with Alekhine
7 even though Arthur nailed him repeatedly in rapid
7 transit play. Arthur believes that Alekhine's
7 distrust of intuitive moves and his penchant for
7 analyzing positions to death accounted for his
7 relative weakness in speed games. That makes sense
7 because otherwise there is no explanation for how the
7 vastly talented Alekhine could perform so poorly in
7 this variety of chess."
7
7 Most players bring a different frame of mind to
7 the chess board when playing fast chess as opposed to
7 the slower game. Denker and Dake, who played with
7 Alekhine and socialized with him, testify that he used
7 the same methods when playing rapid transit that he
7 did when analyzing during a tournament game. Of
7 course, Alekhine played more quickly in rapid transit;
7 but he was still trying to analyze something other
7 than obvious moves, which is a big no-no in speed play.
7
7 You don't analyze fantasy variations in five-minute
7 or rapid-transit and expect to achieve consistent
7 results. A world champion can play some fine speed
7 games this way, but he will also lose more than he ought.
7
7 As for Kingston-Brennan, their stuff is peeee-ti-full.
7
7
7 Chess One wrote:
7 "Taylor Kingston" wrote in
7 message news:1163199930.767520.310940
7 @b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
7
7
7 On Nov 10, 5:19 pm, "Chess One"
7 wrote:
7 "Taylor Kingston" wrote in
7
7 One recurring problem in discussing almost anything
7 with Phil Innes is his habit of distortion and
7 misrepresentation. In this case we see him changing
7 my notion of "natural talent" for chess into an absurd
7 idea of "chess genes," something I never said.
7
7 11/9/06 which is just yesterday Taylor Kingston wrote
7
7 "Since natural talent by definition is inborn, it goes
7 without saying that the "why" lies mainly in the genes."
7
7 Which quote has nothing in it about a "chess gene."
7
7 Not another *nothing* - like book banning *nothing*?
7
7 Phil seems unable
7 to understand the difference between (A) the quite
7 reasonable idea that a specific skill may be affected by
7 genetic factors related to it and other similar skills,
7
7 And neither has medical science - the lat time I
7 encountered this argument was for a math-gene, not only
7 that but an Asian math-gene. All sociological arguments
7 being rejected.
7
7 So besides what Kingston thinks Phil 'does not
7 understand' what is his own understanding of these
7 fascinating ideas?
7
7 and (B) the implausible idea of a gene coded for
7 that exact specific skill.
7
7 Or any specific skill? Let's here more eugenic argument,
7 then we will see if I am as unable to understand as
7 biologists.
7
7 To repeat my analogy,
7
7 ah! It was an analogy!
7
7 there is no doubt that height is affected by genetic
7 factors, and that height has considerable bearing on
7 basketball skills.
7
7 There is also no doubt that height is effected by diet, and
7 Anglo Saxons eg, were the same height as we were.
7 Sugar also effects health. Only losuy diet in the
7 too-crowded middle-ages reduced the same people's
7 height by over 6 inches.
7
7 That is not at all the same thing as claiming there is a
7 "basketball gene."
7
7 That's true - its a sociological factor to do with slavery,
7 mainly of black people, who were bred in a eugenics
7 program to breed and be big
7
7 To make another analogy,
7
7 But not for my benefit! I don't need Beach Boys
7 analogies to talk about Alekhine or Lasker, or medical
7 science. Kingston does, lacking what we call
7 any facts at all.
7
7 flying an airplane requires good eyesight, quick
7 reactions, eye-hand coordination, and other skills that
7 can be strongly affected by genetic factors. But again,
7 this is hardly claiming the existence of an
7 airplane-flying gene.
7 Likewise, I have not claimed the existence of any
7 "chess gene."
7
7 There is no such thing as a "chess gene," any
7 more than there is a gene for playing the piano,
7 solving complex mathematical theorems,
7
7 I know that! Which is why your previous statement
7 of a chess gene is so very curious.
7
7 It seems our Phil wants to argue only with a false
7 version of my position. Perhaps he lacks any genes
7 for honesty.
7
7 REALLY ALL ANALOGY
7
7 Vaguer Kingston decided his chess-gene 'position' was
7 really an analogy! or what is he saying is not false about
7 it? A direct inquiry brought abuse - so this form of closer
7 questioning is necessary to uncover his thought.
7
7 And perhaps Kingston's -natural talent- which, as the
7 attentive reader will note, has become decoupled from
7 the analogy, was also an analogy?
7
7 While KIingston now assures us that height is
7 gene-coded [ROFL] but not chess, -natural talent- is
7 reserved for another day of revelations. At least in all
7 these analogies he is saved from commenting on
7 Alekhine's lack of natural talent [ROFL].
7
7 There is no doubt that Kingston cannot speak without
7 resorting to analogy and not for any evident reason,
7 save reason itself is not to hand, that if he sent me 20
7 derogatory e-mails about chess writers, while reviewing
7 for the very same outfit who banned them, these too
7 were presumably all 'analogy'.
7
7 Kingston is utilising some 2nd rate aspect of his intellect,
7 and cannot own his own opinions, except by means of
7 reactively disqualifying those of others - he is different
7 than Brennan only in that he is vaguer but more sure of
7 himself.
7
7 What a doozy.
7
7 Phil Innes

_
Here is the 10 Nov 2006 15:05:30 -0800 Taylor Kingston
note to which Phil Innes was responding:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Taylor Kingston"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Chess Genes - Taylor Kingston's Theorum
Date: 10 Nov 2006 15:05:30 -0800

On Nov 10, 5:19 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in

One recurring problem in discussing almost anything
with Phil Innes is his habit of distortion and
misrepresentation. In this case we see him changing my
notion of "natural talent" for chess into an absurd idea of
"chess genes," something I never said.

11/9/06 which is just yesterday Taylor Kingston wrote

"Since natural talent by definition is inborn, it goes without saying that
the "why" lies mainly in the genes."

Which quote has nothing in it about a "chess gene." Phil
seems unable to understand the difference between (A) the
quite reasonable idea that a specific skill may be affected by
genetic factors related to it and other similar skills, and (B)
the implausible idea of a gene coded for that exact specific
skill.
To repeat my analogy, there is no doubt that height is
affected by genetic factors, and that height has considerable
bearing on basketball skills. That is not at all the same thing
as claiming there is a "basketball gene." To make another
analogy, flying an airplane requires good eyesight, quick
reactions, eye-hand coordination, and other skills that can
be strongly affected by genetic factors. But again, this is
hardly claiming the existence of an airplane-flying gene.
Likewise, I have not claimed the existence of any "chess
gene."

There is no such thing as a "chess gene," any more
than there is a gene for playing the piano, solving
complex mathematical theorems,

I know that! Which is why your previous statement of a
chess gene is so very curious.

It seems our Phil wants to argue only with a false version
of my position. Perhaps he lacks any genes for honesty.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
Here is a note that I posted in response to the Sat,
11 Nov 2006 00:00:31 GMT note of Phil Innes:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Louis Blair"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Chess Genes - Taylor Kingston's Theorum
Date: 11 Nov 2006 14:06:12 -0800

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:00:31 GMT):

7 ... There is no doubt that Kingston cannot speak without
7 resorting to analogy and not for any evident reason, save
7 reason itself is not to hand, that if he sent me 20 derogatory
7 e-mails about chess writers, while reviewing for the very
7 same outfit who banned them, these too were presumably
7 all 'analogy'. ...

_
"... [3/17/2002 (the date given by Phil Innes for
one of the email quotes that he has already
posted)] was about two years before the
outsourcing to Chess Cafe of USCF's book and
equipment business." - Louis Blair (4 Aug 2006
16:17:26 -0700)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 10, 7:00 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

That's true - its a sociological factor to do with slavery, mainly of black
people, who were bred in a eugenics program to breed and be big

Hmm, our Phil seems eager to share Jimmy the Greek's fate. Well, I
leave him to it.

Philsy must be Cornwall's answer to Borat. The only difference is that
Innes, sadly, is as real as his racism.

On Nov 11, 4:36 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
**what is this contention that Kingston has? He negatively protrayed [sic] the
emigree [sic] Russian Alekhine,

Our Phil hallucinates again. My comments about Alekhine in this
thread have been quite positive, in fact I called him probably my
all-time favorite player. Innes apparently considers it "negative" to
hold the opinion that Alekhine had less natural talent than Capablanca,
but a stronger work ethic. I consider this no more negative than it is
to note that Bill Russell was shorter than Wilt Chamberlain, yet he won
more NBA titles.
And in the opinion of most chess historians, it is no more
controversial than contending the sun rises in the east.

who was WORLD CHAMPION and //dominated// the Euro
scene 1923-39, to effect this report, but also CUT my notice that Lasker
came 8th at Hastings in 1935,

Another Innes historical fiasco and/or fabrication. Lasker never
finished sole 8th in any tournament ever. The only time he played in
any Hastings tournament was in 1895. His one 1935 tournament was in
Moscow, where he finished 3rd, as I posted here earlier, quite
outstanding for a man of 66. 8th place in the 1934-35 Hastings Congress
actually went to Vera Menchik, behind Thomas, Euwe, Flohr, Capablanca,
Botvinnik, Lilienthal and Michell. 8th place in the 1935-36 Congress
went to R.P. Michell.

and that he played little 1925-1936.

Actually Whyld's "Collected Games of Emanuel Lasker" lists hundreds
of games for those years.

Should I
write who came above Lasker in that year?

In 1935? Only Botvinnik and Flohr, and that by a mere half-point.
None of which has any bearing on the original question, which was
Alekhine's level of natural talent compared to Capablanca, Lasker and
others.

**So far, Kingston has 'refuted' W CH Euwe and Enjcyclopedists Horrocks

[sic -- our Phil means Sunnucks],

but not of course by engaging what they say!

I did not address their comments because they were not relevant to
the issue I was discussing, which *_again_* was Alekhine's level of
natural chess talent. The Euwe quote, for example, described Alekhine's
chess artistry, but said nothing about what it was based on. To say
"The Nile empties into the Mediterranean" does not locate its source.
(Another analogy Phil won't like or understand.)

He doesn't swing that way. He is
just fightin mad, and covering his Alekhine comment.

I'm not mad at all, I'm just pointing out our Phil's frequent
historical errors and inability to discuss an issue in an intelligent
manner. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me in the least what Phil thinks
about the question of innate chess talent and who had more or less of
it, but he ought to be able to discuss the issue in a reasonable way.