Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:43:12 GMT):

7 Taylor I said I DID become confused about Hastings - but
7 was initially right about Nottingham. I also said why I was
7 confused. ...

_
Here is the explanation that I saw Phil Innes post:
_
"... I clearly wrote nottingham the first time, then
you changed it, and i suppose i followed that
without much notice, since your posts don't
contain much of facts as such. ..." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 14 Nov 2006 02:25:28 GMT)
_
Taylor Kingston understandably disputed the Phil Innes
explanation:
_
"... The subject of Hastings 1935 was not
introduced in this thread until Phil Innes posted
'Lasker came 8th at Hastings in 1935' on
11/11/2006. ..." - Taylor Kingston (15 Nov 2006
08:11:50 -0800)
_
An inspection of Google record shows Phil Innes changing
from Nottingham to Hastings and Taylor Kingston reacting
to the Phil Innes note with the change:
_
"... By 1936 Lasker only placed 8th at
Nottingham ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 10 Nov 2006
15:48:49 GMT)
_
"... [Kingston] CUT my notice that Lasker came
8th at Hastings in 1935, ..." - Phil Innes (Sat,
11 Nov 2006 21:36:57 GMT)
_
"... The only time [Lasker] played in any Hastings
tournament was in 1895. ..." - Taylor Kingston
(11 Nov 2006 16:54:25 -0800)

Phil Innes wrote (to helpbot)
(Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:10:44 GMT):

7 ... I did incorrectly indentify Hastings since I became bemused
7 or confused writing back and forth with Kingston, then foolishly
7 interacted with the pointless Blair - but what I wrote at the start
7 was Nottingham, and there was no intent to deceive anyone! ...

_
Phil Innes leaves out the detail that he attempted to explain
his mistake by claiming that he had "followed" a "change" by
Taylor Kingston:
_
"... I clearly wrote nottingham the first time, then
you changed it, and i suppose i followed that
without much notice, since your posts don't
contain much of facts as such. ..." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 14 Nov 2006 02:25:28 GMT)
_
Taylor Kingston understandably disputed the Phil Innes
explanation:
_
"... The subject of Hastings 1935 was not
introduced in this thread until Phil Innes posted
'Lasker came 8th at Hastings in 1935' on
11/11/2006. ..." - Taylor Kingston (15 Nov 2006
08:11:50 -0800)
_
An inspection of Google records shows Phil Innes changing
from Nottingham to Hastings and Taylor Kingston reacting
to the Phil Innes note with the change:
_
"... By 1936 Lasker only placed 8th at
Nottingham ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 10 Nov 2006
15:48:49 GMT)
_
"... [Kingston] CUT my notice that Lasker came
8th at Hastings in 1935, ..." - Phil Innes (Sat,
11 Nov 2006 21:36:57 GMT)
_
"... The only time [Lasker] played in any Hastings
tournament was in 1895. ..." - Taylor Kingston
(11 Nov 2006 16:54:25 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (to helpbot)
(Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:10:44 GMT):

7 ... I was personally miffed at Mr. Parr for not noting that I
7 started with Nottingham - and always thought Nottingham,
7 and indeed ended there. ...

_
"Always"?
_
"... [Kingston] CUT my notice that Lasker came
8th at Hastings in 1935, ..." - Phil Innes (Sat,
11 Nov 2006 21:36:57 GMT)

Louis Blair wrote:
Phil Innes wrote (to helpbot)
(Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:10:44 GMT):

7 ... I did incorrectly indentify Hastings since I became bemused
7 or confused writing back and forth with Kingston, then foolishly
7 interacted with the pointless Blair - but what I wrote at the start
7 was Nottingham, and there was no intent to deceive anyone! ...

_
Phil Innes leaves out the detail that he attempted to explain
his mistake by claiming that he had "followed" a "change" by
Taylor Kingston:
_
"... I clearly wrote nottingham the first time, then
you changed it, and i suppose i followed that
without much notice, since your posts don't
contain much of facts as such. ..." - Phil Innes
(Tue, 14 Nov 2006 02:25:28 GMT)
_
Taylor Kingston understandably disputed the Phil Innes
explanation:
_
"... The subject of Hastings 1935 was not
introduced in this thread until Phil Innes posted
'Lasker came 8th at Hastings in 1935' on
11/11/2006. ..." - Taylor Kingston (15 Nov 2006
08:11:50 -0800)
_
An inspection of Google records shows Phil Innes changing
from Nottingham to Hastings and Taylor Kingston reacting
to the Phil Innes note with the change:
_
"... By 1936 Lasker only placed 8th at
Nottingham ..." - Phil Innes (Fri, 10 Nov 2006
15:48:49 GMT)
_
"... [Kingston] CUT my notice that Lasker came
8th at Hastings in 1935, ..." - Phil Innes (Sat,
11 Nov 2006 21:36:57 GMT)
_
"... The only time [Lasker] played in any Hastings
tournament was in 1895. ..." - Taylor Kingston
(11 Nov 2006 16:54:25 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (to helpbot)
(Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:10:44 GMT):

7 ... I was personally miffed at Mr. Parr for not noting that I
7 started with Nottingham - and always thought Nottingham,
7 and indeed ended there. ...

_
"Always"?
_
"... [Kingston] CUT my notice that Lasker came
8th at Hastings in 1935, ..." - Phil Innes (Sat,
11 Nov 2006 21:36:57 GMT)
Dr Blair.
I must say that while your posts attempt to clarify positions the often
have the opposite effect,at least for me. Perhaps if you could just say
what you mean it would be more effective?
Rob

Rob wrote:
help bot wrote:
Robtroll is right:
-- help bot

If you have a problem with me, feel free to write to me directly. I
don't hide who I am or how to contact me.

Rob sans troll


Sorry about that. Everyone seemed to be calling
you "Robtroll", and I just, unthinkingly, hopped on the
bandwagon. I should have known better, after all the
lectures I delivered to those who unthinkingly called
me someone else.

-- dumb bot

Chess One wrote:

Although Larry Parr seems completely unaware of it,
each and every time he mentions this "fake" rating
business, he skewers -- not his intended victim, Taylor
Kingston -- but his "friend", nearly-an-IM Phil Innes.

Who says its fake?

I do. Your claim to be rated 2450 and a near-IM
is fake, says me. And I can prove it! Go to GetClub
and you will see that your current rating pales in
comparison to my own. Admittedly, I am a "star" at
GetClub (or so said Sanny himself), so this sets the
bar at a very high level.
Mr. Innes, you are a fake, a fraud, a phony, a
pretender. I wonder if you are really any better than
the myriad 2000+'s I've known, with their all too
common delusions of grandeur.


Who exaggerates it, who pretends its something current,
and who hates stronger chess players and can't write about the game?

Everybody, I suppose. Being a "star" at GetClub
has its drawbacks, like envious, wannabe IMs who
attack me for my brilliant success. Yes, all great
bots have their detractors. It's the price of sucess.
:D


Kingston boosted his record 500 points without a blush. Maybe I should have
said I was playing near 2850? and that would pass without further comment?



Had Taylor Kingston been a *bullet-chess* 2300+, and had
he tried to claim he was a real 2300+ on this account, your
master, Larry Parr, would be excused for ridiculing him for
this. Unfortunately, the exact reverse is true! If anything,
a correspondence rating from many years ago -- before
the arrival of powerful chess computers -- can only be
called into question on the basis of cheating, and that
cheating could not have been so easy as it is today. My
take is that TK was a real 2250+ at postal chess, and
that makes him strong enough to comment on the value
of writing by chess authors like Ray Keene (who, you may
recall, is the real center of this ad hominem directed at
TK).


I did incorrectly indentify Hastings since I became bemused or confused
writing back and forth with Kingston, then foolishly interacted with the
pointless Blair

May I quote you on that?


- but what I wrote at the start was Nottingham, and there
was no intent to deceive anyone!


I buy that.


If this is a subject that warrants such attention as it has, you people
don't have enough work to do.


Stranded in the Malaysian jungle, Mr. Parr could
consider collecting coconuts to pass the time. As
for me, I could write a book on the phenomenon of
ad hominem in the chess newsgroups. A very fat
book.


The effect of these falsehoods is to reaffirm old
assessments of Mr. Parr as an inveterate liar, and
apparently, an incurable one at that. It would be
quite difficult to count the number of times it has
been established that Taylor Kingston was just shy
of the 2300+ mark he claimed, in sharp contrast
to the number "500" points above.

I see you made this claim before - OTB he seems to have been a steady 1800
player.


Steady? Are you saying that even when TK was
rated the equivalent of 2250+ at correspondence,
he concurrently had an OTB rating much lower?


And that's fine, but the tell-tale 2300 'ELO' is not so fine, since
who would actually take an ELO for a correspondance rating?

Anyone who does not assume "Elo rating" means
"OTB rating", I would imagine.



Of course, this
may not occur to Kennedy who thinks such things as mixing correspondance
with OTB play doesn't need any definition at all, but glossing 500 points
definitely seems strange to the rest of us.


I somehow doubt you "glossed" a full 500 points,
Mr. Innes. Probably no more than half that.


As a matter of logic, neither can correspondance rating really be converted
to OTB rating - since they are very different forms of chess. So why does
Kennedy want to muddle these issues all together?

I wasn't even aware that he did. And who cares what
that nincompoop thinks, anyhow?


In his writing here he
seems to absole Kingston of any deceit, while suggesting with reason why
other people suck. How boring!


I can't speak for others (unlike the rest of you), but
as for me, I do not absolve Mr. Kingston at all. I have
a vague feeling that he often tries underhanded,
backroom deals, as suggested -- but never
substantiated -- by IM Innes and other snipers. Just
recently, TK attempted to slip out of his own noose
by changing the subject from his selected quote of
an author named Coles, to something else entirely --
a bit snake-like, IMO.


"See Parr type. See Parr lie!"

Here is a perfect example of the sort of lie Mr.
Parr prefers; the subtlety gives him a thrill, I expect.

I was personally miffed at Mr. Parr for not noting that I started with
Nottingham - and always thought Nottingham, and indeed ended there.


You might find a bit smarter fellow for an "ally" than
Mr. Parr. He virtually assasinated you for one small
slip regarding Gilbert & Sullivan -- accidently, of course!


Error, as in ONE error? Nay, for Mr. Kingston was
crystal clear that there were *many* errors, and in
fact he tried to claim there was a pattern which
emerged from them (plural). My advice is to stick
to "Fun with Dick and Jane", a classic. Dull, perhaps.
But without lies and other bad stuff.

What juvenile recommendations, indeed.

You old fogie, you. I suppose you prefered
"See Spot Run!", or maybe the book about Jane
and Tom (she was a two-timer, you know).


This ties in with other incidents, such as the "I'm not your boy!"
post, where you disagreed with yourself, and the "It's not Spanish, it
is Andean" bit you later tried to deny ever posting. These are by no
means the only such incidents. Their frequency and severity seems to
have increased in recent years.

The common factor is an inability, or refusal, to recognize your own
words, and even to insist they belong to others.


I didn't write that stuff. It was Phil Innes -- I swear.
I'm not your boy!


Robtroll is right: if TK really posted this out of
"concern" for IM Innes' well-being, he could/would/
should have used email. Something's rotten in
Denmark.

Kingston simply abuses by another means and is transparently insincere, and
[laugh] yeah, e-mail is so much more deniable when abuse is the way you
conduct 'discussions'.

Perhaps I should take this more seriously if Kingston didn't apply it to
everyone who disagrees with Kingston.


Bingo! And TK is hardy the only one who has
this problem.

help bot wrote:
Rob wrote:
help bot wrote:
Robtroll is right:
-- help bot

If you have a problem with me, feel free to write to me directly. I
don't hide who I am or how to contact me.

Rob sans troll



Sorry about that. Everyone seemed to be calling
you "Robtroll", and I just, unthinkingly, hopped on the
bandwagon. I should have known better, after all the
lectures I delivered to those who unthinkingly called
me someone else.

-- dumb bot
Appology accepted.
Rob

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chess One wrote:

Although Larry Parr seems completely unaware of it,
each and every time he mentions this "fake" rating
business, he skewers -- not his intended victim, Taylor
Kingston -- but his "friend", nearly-an-IM Phil Innes.

Who says its fake?

I do. Your claim to be rated 2450

I don't claim that. Nah! I just bruised around with some Euro-trash playing
blitz, and since these blokes were 2100-2600 and I could hang with them as a
yuf made the mistake of saying so as an aside in a shakespeare thread

i don't think you can do it out of the hat - but if you get into it the
intensity of the thing boosts your play considerable

and a near-IM
is fake, says me. And I can prove it! Go to GetClub
and you will see that your current rating pales in
comparison to my own.

i am playing elsewhere at the moment with a lowly 2175 rating - but i did
bust the chops of a winner of a vermont tourney who brought back his trophy,
jsut to keep the youngster in his place

Admittedly, I am a "star" at
GetClub (or so said Sanny himself),

if i weren't famously paranoid, i would say straight out that i have
suspected you of being Sanny

so this sets the
bar at a very high level.
Mr. Innes, you are a fake, a fraud, a phony, a
pretender. I wonder if you are really any better than
the myriad 2000+'s I've known, with their all too
common delusions of grandeur.

As a strictly logic response, i have no idea if i am better than these
people, and frankly, don't worry too much about ratings and all

Who exaggerates it, who pretends its something current,
and who hates stronger chess players and can't write about the game?

Everybody, I suppose. Being a "star" at GetClub
has its drawbacks, like envious, wannabe IMs who
attack me for my brilliant success. Yes, all great
bots have their detractors. It's the price of sucess.
:D


Kingston boosted his record 500 points without a blush. Maybe I should
have
said I was playing near 2850? and that would pass without further
comment?



Had Taylor Kingston been a *bullet-chess* 2300+, and had
he tried to claim he was a real 2300+ on this account, your
master, Larry Parr, would be excused for ridiculing him for
this. Unfortunately, the exact reverse is true! If anything,
a correspondence rating from many years ago

I know you hate answering questions from we fakes, frauds, and fonies, but
(a) how many of a 100 best game collection would you think respectable to
play through in order to review the book, and (b) what is your inhibition on
replying, then (c) why do you think the reviewer does not reply, and finally
of all (d) if someone says 2300 /ELO/ do you think ocorrespondnace or OTB?

I only ask because my common delusions of ordinary questions have stalled
out - and without them, I cannot ascend to my usual grandeur much mentioned
by other /people/

I tried dumbing it down, but my a thru d above are just ordinary questions
for me, not grand ones - and still go over people's heads

-- before
the arrival of powerful chess computers -- can only be
called into question on the basis of cheating, and that
cheating could not have been so easy as it is today. My
take is that TK was a real 2250+ at postal chess, and
that makes him strong enough to comment on the value
of writing by chess authors like Ray Keene (who, you may
recall, is the real center of this ad hominem directed at
TK).

I wonder if you ever saw who competed at those levels at cc chess 'in the
old days' - Gerzadowicz's book is quite good on the subject, and it has an
index.

I did incorrectly indentify Hastings since I became bemused or confused
writing back and forth with Kingston, then foolishly interacted with the
pointless Blair

May I quote you on that?

Please.


- but what I wrote at the start was Nottingham, and there
was no intent to deceive anyone!


I buy that.

I have since changed my mind, but you can't quote me on that.

If this is a subject that warrants such attention as it has, you people
don't have enough work to do.


Stranded in the Malaysian jungle, Mr. Parr could
consider collecting coconuts to pass the time. As
for me, I could write a book on the phenomenon of
ad hominem in the chess newsgroups. A very fat
book.

Of the two options I'd rather collect coconuts in the jungle.

The effect of these falsehoods is to reaffirm old
assessments of Mr. Parr as an inveterate liar, and
apparently, an incurable one at that. It would be
quite difficult to count the number of times it has
been established that Taylor Kingston was just shy
of the 2300+ mark he claimed, in sharp contrast
to the number "500" points above.

I see you made this claim before - OTB he seems to have been a steady
1800
player.


Steady? Are you saying that even when TK was
rated the equivalent of 2250+ at correspondence,

Its not really an answerable question, since I don't buy 'equivalence'

he concurrently had an OTB rating much lower?

But I have pointed out, and YK has not, that he played in a tournament after
this anecdote surfaced, and did rather better than 1800 - a performance
rating of about 2000 in fact - would you like to know who he played? I have
the e-mails )) ROFL

And that's fine, but the tell-tale 2300 'ELO' is not so fine, since
who would actually take an ELO for a correspondance rating?

Anyone who does not assume "Elo rating" means
"OTB rating", I would imagine.

Oh Come come! 'Anyone'? What about you, citizen?

Of course, this
may not occur to Kennedy who thinks such things as mixing correspondance
with OTB play doesn't need any definition at all, but glossing 500 points
definitely seems strange to the rest of us.


I somehow doubt you "glossed" a full 500 points,
Mr. Innes. Probably no more than half that.

Well, keep telling everyone Mr. Kennedy, and tell them that was the maximum
achieved and 25 years ago, maybe I can sandbag some sucker yet?

As a matter of logic, neither can correspondance rating really be
converted
to OTB rating - since they are very different forms of chess. So why does
Kennedy want to muddle these issues all together?

I wasn't even aware that he did. And who cares what
that nincompoop thinks, anyhow?

I agree, but I did care what you thought.

In his writing here he
seems to absole Kingston of any deceit, while suggesting with reason why
other people suck. How boring!


I can't speak for others (unlike the rest of you), but
as for me, I do not absolve Mr. Kingston at all. I have
a vague feeling that he often tries underhanded,
backroom deals, as suggested -- but never
substantiated -- by IM Innes and other snipers.

That would make me a little too much like the behavior I don't like, no?
Therefore a preference is to attempt to talk openly about things - after
all, if you don't shrink from calling people mentally unbalanced, demonic,
like Mussolini, peyote-crazed, what's the matter with saying what you really
think about chess books?

Just
recently, TK attempted to slip out of his own noose
by changing the subject from his selected quote of
an author named Coles, to something else entirely --
a bit snake-like, IMO.

I didn't follow that very closely, but note the technique.

"See Parr type. See Parr lie!"

Here is a perfect example of the sort of lie Mr.
Parr prefers; the subtlety gives him a thrill, I expect.

I was personally miffed at Mr. Parr for not noting that I started with
Nottingham - and always thought Nottingham, and indeed ended there.


You might find a bit smarter fellow for an "ally" than
Mr. Parr. He virtually assasinated you for one small
slip regarding Gilbert & Sullivan -- accidently, of course!

But I never like anyone I like! If I can't argue with someone, what use are
they? Don't you just want to speak your mind pretty frankly with anyone you
would call a friend? Otherwise I think you are correct, its just cronyism,
and no sort of strength at all that people agree with you, but rather a
weakness that you can't stand two opinions of one subject to exist.

Error, as in ONE error? Nay, for Mr. Kingston was
crystal clear that there were *many* errors, and in
fact he tried to claim there was a pattern which
emerged from them (plural). My advice is to stick
to "Fun with Dick and Jane", a classic. Dull, perhaps.
But without lies and other bad stuff.

What juvenile recommendations, indeed.

You old fogie, you. I suppose you prefered
"See Spot Run!", or maybe the book about Jane
and Tom (she was a two-timer, you know).

Those are American books. British books featured the two-timer Andy-Pandy,
who cheated on Little Weed. [a term with another meaning in those days]

This ties in with other incidents, such as the "I'm not your boy!"
post, where you disagreed with yourself, and the "It's not Spanish,
it
is Andean" bit you later tried to deny ever posting. These are by no
means the only such incidents. Their frequency and severity seems to
have increased in recent years.

The common factor is an inability, or refusal, to recognize your
own
words, and even to insist they belong to others.


I didn't write that stuff. It was Phil Innes -- I swear.
I'm not your boy!

If you are still confused - it is the type of Spanish spoken on the
Alta-Plano. Should you ever go to Spain, I recommend in Barcelona not to
insist upon speaking Castillian Spanish either, or you'll get a plate of
Catalan spaghetti in your face.

Robtroll is right: if TK really posted this out of
"concern" for IM Innes' well-being, he could/would/
should have used email. Something's rotten in
Denmark.

Kingston simply abuses by another means and is transparently insincere,
and
[laugh] yeah, e-mail is so much more deniable when abuse is the way you
conduct 'discussions'.

Perhaps I should take this more seriously if Kingston didn't apply it to
everyone who disagrees with Kingston.


Bingo! And TK is hardy the only one who has
this problem.

True! But while justifying abuse because other people abuse you is entirely
understandable, it is hardly efficacious. Some people write here to complain
that the forum is boring - but they themselves don't provide anything
interesting about the chess scene - and while everyone loves a good
argument, when there is only argument its not so good!

Usenet is what we make it, and if we only want schaden-freud entertainments,
then we experience how stale that is, then complain about it. But I think
there is an interesting lesson in that.

Instead there are some, admittedly, little explored options, which at least
promise more, and sorry to conclude this message with a presumption of
agreement with you, but I think that would be far more interesting than
pointing out how dumb other guys are, and quite often not noticing that we
are looking in a mirror, darkly.

Not unlike life itself?

Phil Innes

Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:15:27 GMT):

7 I don't claim [to be rated 2450]. Nah! I just bruised around with
7 some Euro-trash playing blitz, and since these blokes were
7 2100-2600 and I could hang with them as a yuf made the
7 mistake of saying so as an aside in a shakespeare thread ...

_
"... 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

Louis Blair wrote:

I must have the last word,always
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:15:27 GMT):

7 I don't claim [to be rated 2450]. Nah! I just bruised around with
7 some Euro-trash playing blitz, and since these blokes were
7 2100-2600 and I could hang with them as a yuf made the
7 mistake of saying so as an aside in a shakespeare thread ...

_
"... 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



Dr. Blair,
it is counter productive to continue doing what you are doing. Before
you say it I will say it for you" I do not have to do what Rob Mitchell
tells me to do"
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

"Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...


This is the level of chess appreciation that I interupted.

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.


That's what I wrote about what I could see - that is the substantive aspect
of determining any chess in the picture. If anyone could say more about it
or discover why these early comments on the purported 'Jonson' conceding,
they are welcome to take a look. These opinions seem completely
unjustifiable as far as I can tell.

I don't know why there is any chessic question about the painting and
concluded:-

- 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