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! ...
_
I wrote (11 Nov 2006 14:18:20 -0800):
7 "... [3/17/2002 (the date given by Phil Innes for
7 one of the email quotes that he has already
7 posted)] was about two years before the
7 outsourcing to Chess Cafe of USCF's book and
7 equipment business." - Louis Blair (4 Aug 2006
7 16:17:26 -0700)
7
7 "... Of course you haven't written [emails] 'about' book
7 banning, and I have never said you have written them
7 'about book banning' ..." - Phil Innes (to Taylor
7 Kingston) (Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:15:14 GMT)
7
7 By the way, Chesscafe does not have a forum "NOW".

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:59:56 GMT):

7 I wonder why that happened?
7
7 And Louis Blair points out that chesscafe had not yet
7 represented USCF's B&E market when Kingston's e-mails
7 were circulated [Louis has pointed this out 30 times, which
7 is to say, if there were some standing prejudice, it is with
7 chesscafe not uscf] but does not say if the two items are
7 related in his mind, otherwise he might have been able in
7 one those 30 messages to indicate why he wrote about
7 them.

_
I think chronology is worth keeping in mind. Who, other
than Phil Innes, believes that there was book banning in
the first half of 2003? For that matter, does Phil Innes
himself really believe it? In one of his notes, he referred
to "subsequent" book banning:
_
"... [Kingston] plays victim, and says 'prove
it' placing himself as the poor abused while
inventing horrendous charges made against
him, rather than admit his private prejudices
have *nothing* to do with subsequent book
banning. ..." - Phil Innes (Mon, 06 Nov 2006
23:13:19 GMT)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:59:56 GMT):

7 [Louis] would have mentioned if the authors and
7 publishers were banned at the time of Kingston's
7 writing. But Louis does not mention these subjects
7 as if to say they are unrelated items.

_
It is Phil Innes, not me, who is making the claims that
"book banning" has taken place. It is up to him to be
specific about whether or not he claims early 2003 as
part of the "book banning" and identify his evidence, if
indeed he is making such a claim. Phil Innes wouldn't
want us to think he was being deliberately vague would
he?

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:59:56 GMT):

7 The impression Louis wants to generate is an existing
7 prejudice by chesscafe not uscf who chose chesscafe,

_
Nonsense.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:59:56 GMT):

7 and of course, Louis will not feel 'compelled' to answer,
7 only to propose without any evidence.

_
I see no reason why I should feel compelled to produce
evidence for ideas that are the product of the mind of Phil
Innes. Let him find evidence for his own ideas (or admit
that he has no evidence).

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:59:56 GMT):

7 He will also write his opinions in thread to do with
7 Kingston's eugenics 'analogy', rather than where they
7 are proposed, just to confuse issues as much as
7 possible.

_
The Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:36:02 GMT Phil Innes comment
about "books being banned" (quoted at the beginning of
this note) was posted by Phil Innes as part of note he
contributed to the Chess Genes - Taylor Kingston's
Theorum thread. I made my response in the same
thread.
_
By the way, as far as I can tell, it was Phil Innes who
brought "eugenics" into the discussion.
_
"What's this now? The other guys had a
Chess gene? ) ..." - Phil Innes (Fri,
10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT)
_
"... 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.' ..."
- Taylor Kingston (10 Nov 2006 15:05:30 -0800)
_
"... 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
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:00:31 GMT)
_
"Hmm, our Phil seems eager to share Jimmy
the Greek's fate. Well, I leave him to it." - Taylor
Kingston (10 Nov 2006 16:24:27 -0800)

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:45:40 GMT):

7 ... Kingston's eugenics thread. ...


_
As far as I can tell, it was Phil Innes who brought "eugenics"
into the discussion.
_
"What's this now? The other guys had a
Chess gene? ) ..." - Phil Innes (Fri,
10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT)
_
"... 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.' ..."
- Taylor Kingston (10 Nov 2006 15:05:30 -0800)
_
"... 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
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:00:31 GMT)
_
"Hmm, our Phil seems eager to share Jimmy
the Greek's fate. Well, I leave him to it." - Taylor
Kingston (10 Nov 2006 16:24:27 -0800)

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:36:57 GMT):
7 ... [Kingston] negatively protrayed the emigree Russian
7 Alekhine, ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (11 Nov 2006 16:54:25 -0800):
7 Our Phil hallucinates again. My comments about Alekhine
7 in this thread have been quite positive, in fact I called him
7 probably my all-time favorite player. Innes apparently
7 considers it "negative" to hold the opinion that Alekhine
7 had less natural talent than Capablanca, but a stronger
7 work ethic. I consider this no more negative than it is to
7 note that Bill Russell was shorter than Wilt Chamberlain,
7 yet he won more NBA titles.
7 And in the opinion of most chess historians, it is no
7 more controversial than contending the sun rises in the
7 east.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:28:23 GMT):

7 ... Is ["negative"] a quototation? Or an invention by
7 Kingston? ...

_
See the Phil Innes quote at the beginning above.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:28:23 GMT):

7 ... Kingston say his idea of a chess gene is ...

_
"... 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.' ..."
- Taylor Kingston (10 Nov 2006 15:05:30 -0800)

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:36:33 GMT):

7 ... I never said I was an IM, only close to it for a few seasons
7 a quarter century ago. ...

_
"... My qualifications for saying so is that
I was nearly an international master, with
a rating of 2450, ..." - Phil Innes (Tue,
21 Sep 2004 22:13:37 GMT)
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Chess One"
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Subject: Chess Portrait by Karel van Mander
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:13:37 GMT

Dear Art,

to address only the chess portrait:-

For my money this is the most authentic of
all
the possible paintings. Jonson is clearly the man on the left, at 286
pounds
and towering over other Elizabethans, his features are unmistakable. He
is
conceding the game three moves before mate. The man on the our right
(Shakespeare?) is holding the board or stage with his left hand and
moving
a
knight with his right. Behind them are the initials SS, two ink horns,
one
of which has a pen in it and a crumpled paper beside it. A third man,
likely a player, because of the course red outfit, watches. Jonson has
taken four of the winner's pawns...a type of game generally called a
"pawn
sacrifice."

**The final comment is a nonsense, and would not make sense to a
chessplayer. Where a player sacrifices material, [pawns or pieces], the
player is said to /gambit/ the material.

**It is also not at all clear that 'Jonson' is conceding the game, and
from
what I can determine from the board, there is no mate-in-three that I
can
discern and why that claim should be made is not clear to me, in fact
White
has considerably more material at hand, and, other things being equal,
apparently could defend against current threats to the extent of
continuing
to win the game.

Dear Phil -
There was a lot of discussion 5 years ago about the "Chess Portrait"
but you are the first (that I recall) to analysis the actual chess
play.

I must qualify what I have said therefo from the resolution of the
painitng on my monitor I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or
black,
but given the worst placements from white's perspective, I would still
hold
these views, [even though black is holding a piece in the air].

My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion - for example, Nil, who used to post here before splitting,
so to
speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
linear. This is not to say that Nil could not also resolve the
situation
over the board - but given the best imagined placements for black and
the
worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert
"mate-in-three" if
a board position cannot be resolved.

Phil

-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:01:24 GMT):

7 ... Brennan says Kingston's idea of eugenics was 'clearly
7 expressed'. ...

_
Some of what Neil Brennen actually wrote:
_
"Taylor, ... Your original statement was perfectly
comprehensible." - Neil Brennen (10 Nov 2006
20:24:56 -0800)
_
"... I wrote ... that Kingston's point was clearly
expressed. ..." - Neil Brennen (11 Nov 2006
18:23:37 -0800)
_
As far as I can tell, it was Phil Innes who brought "eugenics"
into the discussion.
_
"What's this now? The other guys had a
Chess gene? ) ..." - Phil Innes (Fri,
10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT)
_
"... 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.' ..."
- Taylor Kingston (10 Nov 2006 15:05:30 -0800)
_
"... 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
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:00:31 GMT)
_
"Hmm, our Phil seems eager to share Jimmy
the Greek's fate. Well, I leave him to it." - Taylor
Kingston (10 Nov 2006 16:24:27 -0800)

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:58:28 GMT):
7 ... [Kingston's], own words, chess gene ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (12 Nov 2006 17:18:02 -0800):
7 Phil Innes introduced the idea of a "chess gene" to this
7 thread, yet he keeps trying to attribute it to me. Bizarre,
7 and completely dishonest, yet typical for Phil.

_
Some of what actually happened:
_
"... 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, ..." - Taylor Kingston
(9 Nov 2006 11:28:22 -0800)
_
"'Probably not nearly as great' but without
saying why? ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
09 Nov 2006 21:38:15 GMT)
_
"Since natural talent by definition is inborn,
it goes without saying that the 'why' lies
mainly in the genes. ..." - Taylor Kingston
(9 Nov 2006 14:22:23 -0800)
_
"What's this now? The other guys had a
Chess gene? ) ..." - Phil Innes (Fri,
10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT)
_
"There is no such thing as a 'chess gene,'
any more than there is a gene for playing
the piano, solving complex mathematical
theorems, reading printed English, firing a
rifle, playing basketball, or any number of
other human skills, both mental and physical.
However, a person's genetic endowment
_can_ have a definite effect on these and
other skills." - Taylor Kingston (10 Nov 2006
13:01:10 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:58:28 GMT):
7 ... Kingston should read de Groot or Gardner or Ornstien.
7 Then he would discover that without the need for eugenic
7 ideas, ...

_
As far as I can tell, it was Phil Innes who brought "eugenics"
into the discussion.
_
"... 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.' ..."
- Taylor Kingston (10 Nov 2006 15:05:30 -0800)
_
"... 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
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:00:31 GMT)
_
"Hmm, our Phil seems eager to share Jimmy
the Greek's fate. Well, I leave him to it." - Taylor
Kingston (10 Nov 2006 16:24:27 -0800)

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:58:28 GMT):
7 ... [Kingston's], own words, chess gene ...
_
Taylor Kingston wrote (12 Nov 2006 17:18:02 -0800):
7 Phil Innes introduced the idea of a "chess gene" to this
7 thread, yet he keeps trying to attribute it to me. Bizarre,
7 and completely dishonest, yet typical for Phil.

_
Some of what actually happened:
_
"... 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, ..." - Taylor Kingston
(9 Nov 2006 11:28:22 -0800)
_
"'Probably not nearly as great' but without
saying why? ..." - Phil Innes (Thu,
09 Nov 2006 21:38:15 GMT)
_
"Since natural talent by definition is inborn,
it goes without saying that the 'why' lies
mainly in the genes. ..." - Taylor Kingston
(9 Nov 2006 14:22:23 -0800)
_
"What's this now? The other guys had a
Chess gene? ) ..." - Phil Innes (Fri,
10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT)
_
"... There is no such thing as a 'chess gene,'
any more than there is a gene for playing
the piano, solving complex mathematical
theorems, reading printed English, firing a
rifle, playing basketball, or any number of
other human skills, both mental and physical.
However, a person's genetic endowment
_can_ have a definite effect on these and
other skills. ..." - Taylor Kingston
(10 Nov 2006 13:01:10 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:58:28 GMT):
7 ... Kingston should read de Groot or Gardner or Ornstien.
7 Then he would discover that without the need for eugenic
7 ideas, ...

_
As far as I can tell, it was Phil Innes who brought "eugenics"
into the discussion.
_
"... 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.' ..."
- Taylor Kingston (10 Nov 2006 15:05:30 -0800)
_
"... 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
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:00:31 GMT)
_
"Hmm, our Phil seems eager to share Jimmy
the Greek's fate. Well, I leave him to it." - Taylor
Kingston (10 Nov 2006 16:24:27 -0800)

Taylor Kingston wrote:

What about *the majority* of Euwe's games -- are they
classical, or hypermodern style?

Perhaps you would like to undertake a statistical analysis of Euwe's
opening repertoire, and report the results here. I am quite open to
contrary data.


In that case you would do well to look for it elsewhere;
I do not have any database of grandmaster games, nor
Chessbase or any of its rivals. I find it interesting that
you like to quote other writers, but are unwilling to back
up their claims with anything substantive. This falls right
in with insane-Innes' ad hom. regarding an inability to "own"
one's own words (though he tosses this one out at random,
selectively excluding ratpackers like Jr).


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."

GM Alekhine mastered and combined both the classical
and hypermodern ideas -- no need for bloviating.

I do not consider Coles to be bloviating in the above passage, nor in
anything I've ever read from him.


I do. For example, the comment at the beginning about
being in a "parched desert" is nonsense. Alekhine has been
described as just the opposite: a man who can take what
to *others* may well be a desert, and turn it into an oasis
of new and original ideas. This description included all types
of positions, not merely hypermodern, and I find it to be
accurate from having studied his many games. In sum, I
find the idea that Alekhine was bereft of ideas in classical
positions to be laughable, and Mr. Coles, here, a bloviating
windbag. :D


In particular,
his frequent adoption of the Queen's Indian Defense as Black
shows the hole in any attempt to exclude him, unless you
disqualify all those who were not fanatical about it.

Again, Coles may be wrong. He was not infallible, for example he
claimed that Alekhine played Alekhine's Defense (1.e4 Nf6) only once,
when actually he played it several dozen times. So he may also be wrong
about Euwe's and/or Alekhine's hypermodernism or lack thereof -- but it
would seem to require some statistical analysis to refute him with any
degree of certainty.

Right. This is why one (i.e. you) ought not to blindly
quote such claims, unless you support them. Without
such support, the fact that you chose to quote this
particular passage makes you look like a John Kerry,
a waffle-flipper busy tending grill at Waffle House.
(At least that's how he appeared in a funny video I
downloaded a couple years ago. Mr. Bush was
caricatured as a reckless, wild, ignorant cowboy.)


Even so, one would have first have to establish just what would prove
a player was or was not a hypermodern. Doing a quick check on CB's
MegaBase 2005 of the games of Richard Réti, considered one of the
foremost Hypermoderns, I found him as White playing the Queen's Gambit
31 times and the Ruy López 37 times, but his own Réti System only 22
times. So does that make him a Classicist?

Albert Einstein liked to claim that many things were
relative, and in that light I would have to say that the
above "selected" statistics only demonstrate that we
need more facts. For example, what were Reti's stats
as Black? And what were the stats of, say, Nimzowitch?
By comparing these stats and others we might get a far
more *objective* idea of who was hypermodern, and who
was classical in style. (But only regarding their opening
play.)

In the most important match of his chess career, Dr.
Euwe chose to defend as Black with the Slav -- a
classical line, I believe. But I don't recall much about
his games, for the horrid magazine, Chess Lies -- ah,
sorry -- Chess Life, was slanted toward an overabundance
of Fischer, and paltry little about Max Euwe and other
"boring" players. The same goes for many of the other
sources I had, and yes, even this newsgroup today!

Repeat the mantra with me: Fisch-er, Fisch-er, Fischer!
Facing East toward Mecca, bow as you repeat the
mantra a thousand times, focusing on a deep hatred
of Soviet players and in particular, Anatoly Karpov.
Now you are assimilated. You are one of us, one of the
mindless drones! Fill your mind with nothingness, and
you will achieve Nirvana. The same nothingness which
has allowed Grand Dragon Larry Parr to ascend our
hyerarchy to sit at the right-hand side of Grand Inquisitor
Larry Evans. This complete emptiness of mind will allow
you to finally accept and even welcome brother Innes,
an honorary near-Dragon. Gens unna summus idioci:
"together, we are one without knowledge".

-- brother bot

On Nov 13, 12:18 am, "help bot" wrote:
What about *the majority* of Euwe's games -- are they
classical, or hypermodern style?

TK: Perhaps you would like to undertake a statistical analysis of Euwe's
opening repertoire, and report the results here. I am quite open to
contrary data.

Help bot: I find it interesting that
you like to quote other writers, but are unwilling to back
up their claims with anything substantive.
I do not have any database of grandmaster games, nor
Chessbase or any of its rivals.

So then what sources of evidence *do* you have, Greg? You don't seem
to have any books, and now you don't have any databases. At best you
seem to have just dim memories of having read something somewhere.
You claim that quotes from respected historians are not "anything
substantive," yet you offer no alternative. Merely to denigrate my
sources while offering none in return is no better than John Cleese's
automatic gainsaying in the Monty Python "Argument Clinic" sketch.
You have an unfortunate history of making claims based on nothing. I
have not forgotten the time you blared that I had slagged all of Edward
Lasker's books. I never did.
Your heart generally seems to be in the right place here -- you don't
buy much of Parr's, Innes', or Sloan's nonsense. But your head is not
always in your arguments.

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

Or to what degree this putative gene or -natural factor- is causal
compared
with environmental factors or other psychological factors - or even
opportunity, which is a sociology.

"_A_ sociology"? Hmmm, when I got my degree in sociology, we just
referred to it as "sociology," with no preceding article, indefinite or
otherwise.

Did we? How utterly fascinating. Did you in your course always have to write
'sociological factor'?

I see you called me a liar for /asking you/ about your chess gene, as if you
never mentioned the subject. Did the same 'we' not need to make clear what
is analogous or actual science? California Univ, was it?


And while "opportunity" was definitely a factor to be
considered in certain sociological situations, it did not itself
constitute "a sociology."

I think Phil knows as much about sociology as he does about Spanish,
or "Andean" as he calls it.

You don't think at all - you are content to spread lies in public to the
same degree as private. I would say for much the same reasons - a remote
comprehension of others and a boisterous ego.

---------

Kingston should read de Groot or Gardner or Ornstien. Then he would
discover
that without the need for eugenic ideas,

Phil, no one but you has used the word "eugenic" in this thread.

Taylor, no one but you doesn't understand the name given to gene studies.
See the '~gen~' in there?

If you really meant your comment of genes was analogy, what actually have
you studied to promote your opinions so strongly here in public? So strong
that you abuse others for not understanding their vague nature thus far,
while deciding that you don't need either information or any discussion to
continue what is out and out specualtion?

a) de Groot's material was pioneering, and very important for chess, and
comprised both psychological and sociological appreciations.

b) Gardner's was a pioneering study in cognitive psychology, now well
accepted by the mainstream, and who utilised chess to illustrate an
important aspect of intelligence and memory.

c) Robt. Ornstein is a neuroscientist who has written particularly well
about hemispheric factors in the brain

Have you even heard of these people? When I suggest their names to you it is
with the idea of having a discussion, rather than a public fantasy based on
B movies or borrowed [and scurrilous] scientific missaprehensions.

Your response is to continue with no real information, but lots of abuse as
usual.

there is differentiation among
chess players. Then he should offer his opinions, but not to why - just
that
he knows there is a difference! And what other professional
people-observers
already studied, and what they concluded, is yet unknown to him well
enough
to argue in public, but some reference point for his views.

Greg, do you still have that Innes-speak translator you were using a
few months back? Can you make any sense of this?

a) It means you don't know ****, and don't even need to in order to ****
with people who do know.
b) It means the people I mentioned above are all //famous and available
commentators// on chess and intelligence - and you never even heard of 'em,
nevermind read 'em.
c) It means you have abandoned the idea of discussing anything factual at
all, in order to come to your opinions.

So what's new?

Phil Innes