Rob wrote:
help bot wrote:
Rob wrote:


Dear bot,
You attributed a quote which was not mine. Just want to alert you to
this situation so you may attribute it to the proper author.
Rob


Sorry. I often snip out irrelevant parts of a post,
and in the process, I somehow left your name in,
where of course it was IM Innes doing the writing.

In this case, it would have been better for me to
go back and review everything before clicking "send",
but usually that would be a waste of time, since I
hardly ever err. ;D

-- misquote bot

Ah, the matter of polical correctness; indeed, I used
the word "race" because that is the impression I got
reading IM Innes' comments about Robin Hood and
the sheriff of Nottingham. Now we are informed that
their true differences lay in "culture" and "language", to
which I say-- rubbish!

In the movie I saw, both men spoke precisely the same
language (English). Now, as for culture, what can I say?
The sheriff was there to play the evil villain, and maybe
he was wealthier than most -- I don't recall. The important
thing was that he was evil, and powerful, yet a good man
(that's Robin Hood!) could take him on, by the common
folk working together -- a class struggle movie? I don't
really know. The media is severley limited by time
restrictions.

But it seems to me you have simply used this as a
tool to get in the politically-correct position statement,
that there is no race other than the human race. I say
that is an over-reaction to such nasty things as happenned
in WWII. There obviously are differences, as can easily
be verified in the medical field, where for instance, a man
who is of African decent is subject to certain diseases
which afflict mainly Africans. Such "racial" differences
are routined mentioned in articles dealing with human
health matters, but if it makes you feel more comfortable,
feel free to come up with a different term. As I see it, the
phrase "human race" makes no sense. Humans are a
*species*, not a race.

-------------------

I see the subject of this thread's title has been dropped.
No doubt, Mr. Kingston is unwilling to try and support
his quote of Mr. Coles suggesting that Alekhine was
braindead, except in hypermodern openings. That he
was practically comatose, until magically revived by Dr.s
Nimzowitch and Reti. That his creativity grave had already
been dug... but he was resuscitated at the last moment,
with help from Dr. Frankenstien, et al. :D

-- help bot

Rob wrote:

Errol Flyn was a sailor par excellance. He was also a tennis player and
an excellent archer. He also was known to dabble in the "manly" game of
chess. It is a sad thing that he was not a better steward of himself.

So what happenned to him? I dont recall ever
seeing his name mentioned among chessplaying
actors before. Did he come to a sad end after
losing to one of the extras on the set, losing his
temper, and "running him through"? :D

-- help bot

help bot wrote:
Rob wrote:

Errol Flyn was a sailor par excellance. He was also a tennis player and
an excellent archer. He also was known to dabble in the "manly" game of
chess. It is a sad thing that he was not a better steward of himself.

So what happenned to him? I dont recall ever
seeing his name mentioned among chessplaying
actors before. Did he come to a sad end after
losing to one of the extras on the set, losing his
temper, and "running him through"? :D

-- help bot

http://www.chessville.com/BillWall/C...esandChess.htm

On Nov 18, 3:02 am, "help bot" wrote:
Rob wrote:
Errol Flyn was a sailor par excellance. He was also a tennis player and
an excellent archer. He also was known to dabble in the "manly" game of
chess. It is a sad thing that he was not a better steward of himself.

So what happenned to him?

He died in 1959, at age 50. His demise was accelerated by his
immoderate lifestyle -- he indulged heavily in alcohol, cocaine, and
other drugs. In his last halfway decent movie, "The Roots of Heaven,"
he was right in character playing an alcoholic. On the other hand, he
probably packed more living into his 50 years than most people could in
500. To see his filmography, go he
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001224/.

I dont recall ever
seeing his name mentioned among chessplaying
actors before.

Flynn is mentioned very briefly in the Steiner chapter of "The Bobby
Fischer I Knew and Other Stories" by Denker and Parr, and more
extensively in Edward Winter's "Kings, Commoners and Knaves," which
also shows a picture of Flynn playing chess with Olivia de Havilland on
the set of "They Died with Their Boots On" (1942).

Did he come to a sad end after
losing to one of the extras on the set, losing his
temper, and "running him through"? :D

He died of a heart attack on 14 October 1959, in Vancouver, Canada.

On Nov 18, 2:57 am, "help bot" wrote:

I see the subject of this thread's title has been dropped.
No doubt, Mr. Kingston is unwilling to try and support
his quote of Mr. Coles suggesting that Alekhine was
braindead, except in hypermodern openings. That he
was practically comatose, until magically revived by Dr.s
Nimzowitch and Reti. That his creativity grave had already
been dug... but he was resuscitated at the last moment,
with help from Dr. Frankenstien, et al.

Since I know of no quote by Coles (or anyone!) to that effect, my
unwillingness to defend such a position is, I think, understandable.
That you disagree with the Coles quotes I did give neither surprises
nor concerns me, and I have no interest in pursuing the matter. We can
agree to differ, OK? Contrary to what Phil Innes says, I don't mind
disagreement, as long as it's honest.
BTW, Greg, speaking of supporting quotes, you asked me for a link to
your 2001 nonsense about Edward Lasker. I provided it, but you have not
responded. Here it is again:

http://tinyurl.com/yel2ek

Is this you, or not?

Rob wrote:
Nick wrote:
Rob wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
Tell me this: why did the Sherrif of Nottingham lose
to Robin Hood when all the latter did was split the'shaft
of the Sherrif's bullseye arrow? I call that a tie.

There is a bit more to Ol' Rob'n than Hollywood. He is a bit of a mythic
fellow under various dresses of disguise, and crops up now and again in
animistic legends of yore. A tie is what people still wear on the east coast
for business, these guys just split the point.

Indeed, TK has fallen back to the trenches, like a
sniveling coward! I challenged him to *support* his
quote of Mr. Coles, but he chooses instead to lash
out at the messenger (among others), like an Evans
Ratpacker.

Disgustable! Not exactly a shrinking violet, but a lashing violet?

To me, this indicates a complete inability
to think for himself; he must rely upon quotes of
authority figures, but when the quotes are shown to
be naught but hot air, all is lost.

Experts are not necessarily even pretending to speak the whole truth, and
sometimes are merely advocates for one or another perspective or
interpretation. A problem with quoting experts at all is as you indicate,
they are second or third sources to the subject matter, and its not them as
much as your own orientation which is problematic:

If it all goes to the expert, and none to the subject, how do you even
understand the expert other than a liking for ideas or presentation of
ideas, which is a very different thing than to verify what they say from
your own experience, or to assess the quality of their approach against your
own sense, since you have none?

I agree! I have found that certain "intellectual types" can retain and
recite by rote the ideas and findings of others but never have an
original thought themselves.

Western culture developed the wheel. A great invention with
made travel and the exchange of ideas and trade easier.

"Western culture developed the wheel. A great invention..."
--Rob Mitchell

That assertion seems misleading, at best.

It may be unclear. .

As far as I know, the earliest known evidence of the
wheel comes from ancient Mesopotamia (modern Iraq).
It seems tendentious, at best, to argue that the
culture of Sumer represents 'Western culture',
which usually is construed as 'European culture'.

I will concede this point but also add that Greece, long held
by many as the cradle of Western Civilization is very close
to being in the near East.

As I understand it, there's some dispute about the extent
to which the cultures of ancient Mesopotamia had any influence
on the later cultures of ancient Greece. It should be noted
that the cultures of ancient Mesopotamia evidently had
at least as much influence on the cultures of some other
peoples as they did toward the ancient Greek cultures.

It is also a point of some discussion as to if the wheel was
developed independantly or mearly spread in the course of
human migration and trade.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C00420.../science02.htm

Archeologist hold that the first wheel was developed
in Asia 8000 years ago.

Yes, I know that Rob Mitchell wrote, 'Western
culture *developed* the wheel', and it's true
that Europeans did develop the wheel.
But the Chinese, the Indians, and other peoples
also developed the wheel, independently of
the Europeans. And surely the Chinese
and the Indians cannot be considered
representatives of 'Western culture'.

It would have been more accurate (and less misleading)
for Rob Mitchell to have written that the wheel was
developed by diverse civilisations outside of North
America and South America rather than to have
written: 'Western culture developed the wheel.'

My previous post was intended to note only that
Rob Mitchell was careless in his choice of expression.
I did not intend any stronger criticism of Rob Mitchell
on that point.

--Nick

The real point of my discussion is the quote below:

The cultures of the Americas did not have this advantage. They
a marvelous civilization and the Incas had a highway system that
rivaled that of Rome. They also had a different defination of wealth
than Western civilization.

It is often said that one should" not reinvent the wheel". I think that
had the Americas done just that that history may have been entirely
different. When it come to chess, often times there is a tendency to
dismiss the ideas and opinions of those who are "less read". While
these individuals may be "less booked" it should not diminish there our
self discovery of the game. Had a young man developed the hypermodern
system entirely on his own without opening a book I believe the chess
community would not recognize this as anything special.""

What I was trying to arrive at, and did it most clumisly, was that IMO
there are individuals who give voice to a group of opinions that by
nature excludes and discount individual thought and recognizes genius
if it only comes in easily recognizable forms and from predictible
sources of origin.

Roy "Futureman" Wooten of Bela Fleck and the Flecktones is currently
bringing back the music of "The Black Mozart"
This tribute to the great black composer Le Chevalier de Saint-George
(1745-1799) is as innovative in its form as Saint- George was in his
life. The child of an African slave, Saint-George left his native
Guadeloupe, lived in Haiti and then moved to France where he became a
celebrated composer, fencer and soldier. In 2001 the Paris City Council
voted to name the Rue du Chevalier de Saint-George in his honor.

http://www.rondiane.org/

video diary of the multimedia event is here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RXXOGHEd60

Roy is a great guy and I am happy to have met him and had him open my
eyes and ears!

Rob

In our times experts are proving less than useful in predicting anything,
nevermind solving anything, if they merely extrapolate trends based on the
past - but as Einstein said, you can't resolve the problem at the same level
[of thinking] that created it.

It would be truer to say that you could create rather than plan the future,
but to create means to be something more than a passive analyst of the work
of others.

That's why Robin Hood beat Gy de Gisbonne, he demonstrated his Saxon
orientation as superior to the more limited Norman one by including greater
context, and by not becoming excessively greasy at meals, especially if
attractive females were present.

Were I a Blairbot (instead of a help bot), I might
bombard him with quotes from authorities on high
praising Alekhine's amazing ability to come up with
creative ideas in classical positions. But alas --
there is only one Blairbot, and I am not he.

One need not be compelled to praise Akekhine, but to learn something from
this moral history and from Hollywood, one should avoid becoming excessively
greasy at posting to the internet, and stick to the point if you can
discover your own point, or you'll never get the girl!

I haven't been to Nottingham for 35 years - actually camped in Sherwood.

PI

-- help bot

Nick wrote:
Rob wrote:
Nick wrote:
Rob wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
Tell me this: why did the Sherrif of Nottingham lose
to Robin Hood when all the latter did was split the'shaft
of the Sherrif's bullseye arrow? I call that a tie.

There is a bit more to Ol' Rob'n than Hollywood. He is a bit of a mythic
fellow under various dresses of disguise, and crops up now and again in
animistic legends of yore. A tie is what people still wear on the east coast
for business, these guys just split the point.

Indeed, TK has fallen back to the trenches, like a
sniveling coward! I challenged him to *support* his
quote of Mr. Coles, but he chooses instead to lash
out at the messenger (among others), like an Evans
Ratpacker.

Disgustable! Not exactly a shrinking violet, but a lashing violet?

To me, this indicates a complete inability
to think for himself; he must rely upon quotes of
authority figures, but when the quotes are shown to
be naught but hot air, all is lost.

Experts are not necessarily even pretending to speak the whole truth, and
sometimes are merely advocates for one or another perspective or
interpretation. A problem with quoting experts at all is as you indicate,
they are second or third sources to the subject matter, and its not them as
much as your own orientation which is problematic:

If it all goes to the expert, and none to the subject, how do you even
understand the expert other than a liking for ideas or presentation of
ideas, which is a very different thing than to verify what they say from
your own experience, or to assess the quality of their approach against your
own sense, since you have none?

I agree! I have found that certain "intellectual types" can retain and
recite by rote the ideas and findings of others but never have an
original thought themselves.

Western culture developed the wheel. A great invention with
made travel and the exchange of ideas and trade easier.

"Western culture developed the wheel. A great invention..."
--Rob Mitchell

That assertion seems misleading, at best.

It may be unclear. .

As far as I know, the earliest known evidence of the
wheel comes from ancient Mesopotamia (modern Iraq).
It seems tendentious, at best, to argue that the
culture of Sumer represents 'Western culture',
which usually is construed as 'European culture'.

I will concede this point but also add that Greece, long held
by many as the cradle of Western Civilization is very close
to being in the near East.

As I understand it, there's some dispute about the extent
to which the cultures of ancient Mesopotamia had any influence
on the later cultures of ancient Greece. It should be noted
that the cultures of ancient Mesopotamia evidently had
at least as much influence on the cultures of some other
peoples as they did toward the ancient Greek cultures.

It is also a point of some discussion as to if the wheel was
developed independantly or mearly spread in the course of
human migration and trade.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C00420.../science02.htm

Archeologist hold that the first wheel was developed
in Asia 8000 years ago.

Yes, I know that Rob Mitchell wrote, 'Western
culture *developed* the wheel', and it's true
that Europeans did develop the wheel.
But the Chinese, the Indians, and other peoples
also developed the wheel, independently of
the Europeans. And surely the Chinese
and the Indians cannot be considered
representatives of 'Western culture'.

It would have been more accurate (and less misleading)
for Rob Mitchell to have written that the wheel was
developed by diverse civilisations outside of North
America and South America rather than to have
written: 'Western culture developed the wheel.'

My previous post was intended to note only that
Rob Mitchell was careless in his choice of expression.
I did not intend any stronger criticism of Rob Mitchell
on that point.

--Nick


no offense taken. :-)

The real point of my discussion is the quote below:

The cultures of the Americas did not have this advantage. They
a marvelous civilization and the Incas had a highway system that
rivaled that of Rome. They also had a different defination of wealth
than Western civilization.

It is often said that one should" not reinvent the wheel". I think that
had the Americas done just that that history may have been entirely
different. When it come to chess, often times there is a tendency to
dismiss the ideas and opinions of those who are "less read". While
these individuals may be "less booked" it should not diminish there our
self discovery of the game. Had a young man developed the hypermodern
system entirely on his own without opening a book I believe the chess
community would not recognize this as anything special.""

What I was trying to arrive at, and did it most clumisly, was that IMO
there are individuals who give voice to a group of opinions that by
nature excludes and discount individual thought and recognizes genius
if it only comes in easily recognizable forms and from predictible
sources of origin.

Roy "Futureman" Wooten of Bela Fleck and the Flecktones is currently
bringing back the music of "The Black Mozart"
This tribute to the great black composer Le Chevalier de Saint-George
(1745-1799) is as innovative in its form as Saint- George was in his
life. The child of an African slave, Saint-George left his native
Guadeloupe, lived in Haiti and then moved to France where he became a
celebrated composer, fencer and soldier. In 2001 the Paris City Council
voted to name the Rue du Chevalier de Saint-George in his honor.

http://www.rondiane.org/

video diary of the multimedia event is here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RXXOGHEd60

Roy is a great guy and I am happy to have met him and had him open my
eyes and ears!

Rob

In our times experts are proving less than useful in predicting anything,
nevermind solving anything, if they merely extrapolate trends based on the
past - but as Einstein said, you can't resolve the problem at the same level
[of thinking] that created it.

It would be truer to say that you could create rather than plan the future,
but to create means to be something more than a passive analyst of the work
of others.

That's why Robin Hood beat Gy de Gisbonne, he demonstrated his Saxon
orientation as superior to the more limited Norman one by including greater
context, and by not becoming excessively greasy at meals, especially if
attractive females were present.

Were I a Blairbot (instead of a help bot), I might
bombard him with quotes from authorities on high
praising Alekhine's amazing ability to come up with
creative ideas in classical positions. But alas --
there is only one Blairbot, and I am not he.

One need not be compelled to praise Akekhine, but to learn something from
this moral history and from Hollywood, one should avoid becoming excessively
greasy at posting to the internet, and stick to the point if you can
discover your own point, or you'll never get the girl!

I haven't been to Nottingham for 35 years - actually camped in Sherwood.

PI

-- help bot

Taylor Kingston wrote:

I see the subject of this thread's title has been dropped.
No doubt, Mr. Kingston is unwilling to try and support
his quote of Mr. Coles suggesting that Alekhine was
braindead, except in hypermodern openings. That he
was practically comatose, until magically revived by Dr.s
Nimzowitch and Reti. That his creativity grave had already
been dug... but he was resuscitated at the last moment,
with help from Dr. Frankenstien, et al.

Since I know of no quote by Coles (or anyone!) to that effect, my
unwillingness to defend such a position is, I think, understandable.


Indeed, I "understand" your position quite well. Cut and
run, eh? Change the subject, eh? Coward!


That you disagree with the Coles quotes I did give neither surprises
nor concerns me, and I have no interest in pursuing the matter.

Ditto. I couldn't care less what a dimwit like that
wrote, for Alekhine's brilliance -- in all types of chess
positions -- speaks for itself. Nothing anyone writes
to the contrary can negate that simple fact.


We can agree to differ, OK?

Okie dokie.

Contrary to what Phil Innes says, I don't mind
disagreement, as long as it's honest.

FWIW, I think you have gotten a bum rap from the evil
Evans ratpackers. IMO, your postal rating simply places
you head-and-shoulders above all of them, apart from GM
Evans, of course. In an ideal world, everyone else would
simply dismiss these nasty critters and move on to other
"issues", but instead, we become mired in, like a German
tank in mud season. What those ratpackers lack in terms
of intellect, they make up for in numbers.


BTW, Greg, speaking of supporting quotes, you asked me for a link to
your 2001 nonsense about Edward Lasker. I provided it, but you have not
responded. Here it is again:

Is that what really happenned? I thought that what
happenned was you gave up on your selected quote
of Mr. Coles, and tried to *change the subject* to
something you say happenned years ago. This
conveniently lets you "slip the hook", and try and get
out of supporting your position regarding Alekhine.


http://tinyurl.com/yel2ek

If this is the same link as before, it brought up a
whole slew of postings -- an entire thread in fact.
Without trying to wade through it, I got the impression
that this Greg Kennedy mistook you (TK) for some
other poster, and claimed that your Web page had
some comment about all of Edward Lasker's stuff
being bad. I think you have already denied this, and
since there is no way I know of to text-search every-
thing you have written, that is good enough for me.

Is this you, or not?

No, I'm an imposter!

-- fake bot

On Nov 18, 10:23 pm, "help bot" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
BTW, Greg, speaking of supporting quotes, you asked me for a link to
your 2001 nonsense about Edward Lasker.

Is that what really happenned? I thought that what
happenned was you gave up on your selected quote
of Mr. Coles, and tried to *change the subject* to
something you say happened years ago.

No, I mentioned the 2001 post in connection with your tendency to
make unsupported claims, relying on an often quite fallible memory that
vaguely remembers "reading something somewhere." You insist that anyone
who disagrees with you must produce reams of supporting documentation,
but you seldom provide any yourself. And when you do, there's a good
chance it's false, like the Ed Lasker stuff.

This
conveniently lets you "slip the hook", and try and get
out of supporting your position regarding Alekhine.

Which position is that? I have several on Alekhine, depending on what
aspect is under discussion.

Here it is again:
http://tinyurl.com/yel2ek

Is this you, or not?

No, I'm an imposter!

So you are on record as saying Greg Kennedy is not NoMoreChess nor
HelpBot?