On Dec 21, 9:39 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Together these two factors Kinstonitism and B-Mudification combine to form
Neue Hystree, which is to understanding the past via Brennunisation, and
provide what Eubonics is to present speech, and bones are to science in
Alabam.

Our Phil continues to struggle with basic spelling and semantics.
Leaving aside for the moment the identities of the mysterious "Kinston"
and "Brennun," and the meaning of "Mudification," pray tell us, O
Cornish Sage, what in the world is "Eubonics"?
Perhaps it is the Andean form of Ebonics?

The Historian wrote:


I don't know which comment is more pathetic, Parr's belief that
historical fiction is "something real", or Innes bleating about the
importance of some alleged Morphy relation's opinions "if
substantiated."

I too thought the story was fictional. In particular, the
part where Howard Staunton discusses his options with
an employee left me skeptical as to just how much of
this play is based on fact, and how much pure invention.

As for IM Innes' fascination with the opinions of living
relatives of Paul Morphy, my problem here is that, no
matter how much these people may know that isn't public
knowledge, they are of course biased (and fallible).

But back to the play. I got the impression that the writer
wanted to convince readers that Paul Morphy was unlike
any other chess player; that he alone did not have dreams
about chess; that he alone caused opponents to become
"ill"; that he alone was able to give multi-game simuls, etc.
Balderdash. This guy falls into the trap of believing the
Morphy myth, wholesale. He even went so far as to show
that Paul Morphy was plainly insane, having him babble
on about $100K++ not being enough money for him to
get by on. (Ever heard of inflation? That ought to come to
sixty billion US dollars and 47 cents, by my calculations.)

On the whole, I think the play would give those unfamiliar
with chess history some clues as to the obsessive natures
of many of our world champions, but certainly not a "fair
and balanced" recounting of Mr. Morphy's adventures.

-- help bot

Chess One wrote:

Of course, the rest of the message above is a miscomprehension called in the
north, Kingstonite Syndrome,

That should be "Kingston's Syndrome", as the addition
of "nite" at the end appears to denote a rock.

and in the North-Middle Wilderness,
Blair-Muddying, by which you cut the reference then ask questions doubting

Of course, Mr. Innes has no quote of Dr. Blair doing any
such thing. (IMO, it is better to refrain from wild assaults
such as this, restricting oneself to proven facts, such as
Dr. Blair's decided tendency to quote *selectively* in order
to morph things his own peculiar way.)

it - but without the cut, the question would be seen as, new Term,
Brennunisation - something idiotic on its face.

I have noticed that many posters seem to have grave
difficulty in spelling Mr. Brennen's last name correctly.

In this case it is Bill Hyde who interviewed the family-member who is
disparaged, denied, rejected and excised.

Actually, the family member is merely doubted as to
precisely what it is he/she can add of substance that
can be independently verified.

Together these two factors Kinstonitism and B-Mudification combine to form
Neue Hystree, which is to understanding the past via Brennunisation, and
provide what Eubonics is to present speech, and bones are to science in
Alabam.

Good point (assuming there was one). But again, you have
misspelled "Alabama", among many others.

If you got bones, shake 'em! I say. What else can ya do? Maybe throw them at
the monolithy, see what happens?

In "2001, A Space Odyssey", I fell asleep before finding
out what happens.

In "History of the World, Part I" by Mel Brooks, you are
simply better off not knowing.

MORPHY MORPHED BACK IN TIME

What is interestering

One can only wonder -- what is?

about the Morphy presentation is to contrast his life
with those around him, so that while he may seem somewhat eccentric as a
character, those around him form the real comparison, and which indeed is
the only way to properly examine historical characters, lest we fall into
the trap of retro-fitting the mores of our own time onto them.

Yeah, like, how come Mr. Morphy never played the
Sicilian Defense? That's a deal-breaker, for me.

Certainly the populariser of modern chess to ordinary working class people
in England was quite equally 'eccentric', and without significant or marked
contribution to our knowledge of the Bard, shucked chess to become a
Shakespeare researcher.

Well, one thing on his side is that Mr. Shakespeare was
more interesting than any of the psycho-freaks who populate
the chess world. Besides -- chess is only a board game,
and thus unworthy of devotion to serious study.

Meanwhile, all around Morphy, in the North and in the South, highly
repectable and 'sane' people were deciding why and how they should prosecute
a war to kill as many of their fellow-countrymen as possible in order to win
a war of ideas, which only allowed for one idea to exist in the entire
nation - factory-slaves in the North or Plantation life via bond-slaves in
the south, as primary means of economic activity.

Supposedly, the one man with the most say in this matter
didn't care a whit whether slavery or factory-bondage prevailed;
his obstinately pigheaded idea was to preserve the Union, by
any means necessary. Those who rightly believed in their
"God-given right" to succeed happened to be the slaveholders,
and I might add, not all of them wanted to "kill as many of the"
Northerners "as possible" (they were no longer "fellow
countrymen", as the South had in fact succeeded, whether
you damned Yankees like it or not).

Personally, I don't believe that particular war was a good
example of making a "smooth transition" to an industrialized
way of life (but that's just my opinion).

-----------

One thing this play sorely lacked was even a single game
by Paul Morphy. I think it could have been incorporated in
such a way as to not entirely overwhelm those unfamiliar with
the game. Oh, well. Maybe he hadn't any decent games
worth telling about.

-- help bot

help bot wrote:
The Historian wrote:


I don't know which comment is more pathetic, Parr's belief that
historical fiction is "something real", or Innes bleating about the
importance of some alleged Morphy relation's opinions "if
substantiated."

As for IM Innes' fascination with the opinions of living
relatives of Paul Morphy, my problem here is that, no
matter how much these people may know that isn't public
knowledge, they are of course biased (and fallible).

Yes, that's true. And they are a century and a half from the events in
question. But my point was that Innes has been campaigning for this
alleged Morphy relation for years now, and all that we know is that Mr.
Innes considers the information this relation provides 'important' and
he has no "substantiation" for any of it. Does that remind you of his
Nearly an IM 2450 title?

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:39:56 GMT):

7 ... Blair-Muddying, by which you cut the reference then ask
7 questions doubting it - but without the cut, the question
7 would be seen as, new Term, Brennunisation - something
7 idiotic on its face. ...

_
Phil Innes, of course, identifies no specific examples of me
doing this.

Blair of course always cuts all specific references of himself doing this
and without ever indicating he has cut anything. But then again, that is to
define Blair-Muddying!

These 3 terms are quite distinct ways of cheating and require some more
definition:

Example: Kingstonite cuts material from post such as 'bastions of free
expression' but then demands where the information is, and runs away when
challenged about why he should care about the subject, since he neither
confirms or denies his own attitude to banning --even authors-- at
chesscafe's forum, which he terms a *nothing*.

Blair Muddying does not run away! It continues to ask for what you already
posted, UNTIL you actually re-post it, when it is re-cut. The technique
employed to demand information is essentially to examine a paragraph of
choice and say there are no references to the offence in it, therefore it
isn't true.

Example: Even after reviewing the material at Nolandland, Blair writes a
paragraph of his choice from Goichberg, and asks where is any mention of
Sloan? Ignoring taanstafls multiple and long messages which admit they were
over the top, and it was indeed Marinello's post that originated things, and
Sloan did not even name names.

This is completely different from Brennunization, which is not so
obscure, as I wrote, but is absurd on its face but the absurdity is unknown
to the writer.

Example: to refute the extent of Anglo Saxon speech extant in modern
English, Brennun quotes an unknown authority to say "Old English is dead".
Brennun does not know that all 4 words of "Old English is dead" ARE Old
English.

None of the above has anything to do with Morphy, which Louis Blair has cut,
to continue his /apparent/ interest in this thread about his own activities.
The odd thing is that Louis Blair is thought to be a Morphy-scholar, and
could have called the Morphy family member on the telephone to interview
him - in fact at the behest of a publisher, editor and myself acting as
liaison - and he didn't do so! No phone call or even an e-mail.

So it is to be seen that generically these 'inquiries' are less to do with
any interest in chess as such, as endlessly regretting that other people
conduct it.

I shall certainly not be contact Louis Blair for the major motion-picture on
Morphy, now being canvassed.

Phil Innes

On Dec 22, 12:57 am, "help bot" wrote:

But back to the play. I got the impression that the writer
wanted to convince readers that Paul Morphy was unlike
any other chess player; that he alone did not have dreams
about chess; that he alone caused opponents to become
"ill"; that he alone was able to give multi-game simuls, etc.
Balderdash. This guy falls into the trap of believing the
Morphy myth, wholesale. He even went so far as to show
that Paul Morphy was plainly insane, having him babble
on about $100K++ not being enough money for him to
get by on. (Ever heard of inflation? That ought to come to
sixty billion US dollars and 47 cents, by my calculations.)

A tad much perhaps, Greg. According to a table published by Oregon
State University (
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/cv2006.pdf ), a 2006 US
dollar is worth about 4 to 4½ cents compared to a dollar in the time
Morphy was active in chess (late 1850s). That would make Morphy's $100K
inheritance worth at most about $2,500,000 today.

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

Chess One wrote:

Of course, the rest of the message above is a miscomprehension called in
the
north, Kingstonite Syndrome,

That should be "Kingston's Syndrome", as the addition
of "nite" at the end appears to denote a rock.

The addition is ~ite, and invokes Superman's weakness.

and in the North-Middle Wilderness,
Blair-Muddying, by which you cut the reference then ask questions
doubting

Of course, Mr. Innes has no quote of Dr. Blair doing any
such thing.

Of course not - it is not possible to quote anyone if they have not admitted
it. Neither did I say it was a quote, but an action, a behavior.

(IMO, it is better to refrain from wild assaults
such as this, restricting oneself to proven facts, such as
Dr. Blair's decided tendency to quote *selectively* in order
to morph things his own peculiar way.)

I see you actually wrote something intelligible about Morphy - that you
thought it perpetuated what you termed:

"fair
and balanced" recounting of Mr. Morphy's adventures.

This was indeed my question to Mr. Parr. The extent to which the matter was
interrogated in the play - now I understand a reluctance to answer that
directly, since after all, finding out something by supporting the
production by actually going to see it, or reading/purchasing its script,
reqards those who made the effort to present it.

I was particualrly interested in the degree that it followed Fine, who, IMO,
had true insights into Morphy, but unfortunately more into Morphy than
himself! To whatever degree there is some public misunderstanding of Morphy,
so many references cite or otherwise follow Fine that this would be the
matter to address.

The best interrogation of all would be to contrast it, as Bill said after
his phone call, with the contra-view, and as a drama the reader might be
allowed to make their own assessment between battling points of view - not
an unknown method of presentation where certainty is difficult or even
impossible to declare otherwise.

it - but without the cut, the question would be seen as, new Term,
Brennunisation - something idiotic on its face.

I have noticed that many posters seem to have grave
difficulty in spelling Mr. Brennen's last name correctly.

Quite possibly that is because he does not remind us of its correct
spelling, or even possibly that it is not memorable by virtue of his
writing? Or even more possibly because his screen names always mock other
people's names?

In this case it is Bill Hyde who interviewed the family-member who is
disparaged, denied, rejected and excised.

Actually, the family member is merely doubted as to
precisely what it is he/she can add of substance that
can be independently verified.

I didn't read that from Bennnnin, merely mockery that any such contact had
taken place. Your paragraph above is a fair paraphrase of what Bill said in
conclusion - with an emphasis on 'independtly verified'. Though I think this
alone is too austere a measure, since we contrast it with other writing
which we have swallowed wholesale, without such austere invigilation.

Together these two factors Kinstonitism and B-Mudification combine to
form
Neue Hystree, which is to understanding the past via Brennunisation, and
provide what Eubonics is to present speech, and bones are to science in
Alabam.

Good point (assuming there was one). But again, you have
misspelled "Alabama", among many others.

I'm sorry, and so is Neil Young. Perhaps it is correct to say 'O Alabam'?

If you got bones, shake 'em! I say. What else can ya do? Maybe throw them
at
the monolithy, see what happens?

In "2001, A Space Odyssey", I fell asleep before finding
out what happens.

The bones morphed into silver spinning things, and the ape-man to a
space-man, who fell asleep in the lunar-taxi, and seemed far less alert than
his great predessor, [who invented 1.b4!] as well as being generally less
expressive.

In "History of the World, Part I" by Mel Brooks, you are
simply better off not knowing.

MORPHY MORPHED BACK IN TIME

What is interestering

One can only wonder -- what is?

about the Morphy presentation is to contrast his life
with those around him, so that while he may seem somewhat eccentric as a
character, those around him form the real comparison, and which indeed is
the only way to properly examine historical characters, lest we fall into
the trap of retro-fitting the mores of our own time onto them.

Yeah, like, how come Mr. Morphy never played the
Sicilian Defense? That's a deal-breaker, for me.

He would have eschewed anything called a 'defence', as they spelled it then.
But you illustrate the point well.

Certainly the populariser of modern chess to ordinary working class
people
in England was quite equally 'eccentric', and without significant or
marked
contribution to our knowledge of the Bard, shucked chess to become a
Shakespeare researcher.

Well, one thing on his side is that Mr. Shakespeare was
more interesting than any of the psycho-freaks who populate
the chess world. Besides -- chess is only a board game,
and thus unworthy of devotion to serious study.

What's in a name? Another point of view is that if you can't talk about
'only a board game', what can you talk about? I thought you didn't like
Kasparov?

Meanwhile, all around Morphy, in the North and in the South, highly
repectable and 'sane' people were deciding why and how they should
prosecute
a war to kill as many of their fellow-countrymen as possible in order to
win
a war of ideas, which only allowed for one idea to exist in the entire
nation - factory-slaves in the North or Plantation life via bond-slaves
in
the south, as primary means of economic activity.

Supposedly, the one man with the most say in this matter
didn't care a whit whether slavery or factory-bondage prevailed;
his obstinately pigheaded idea was to preserve the Union, by
any means necessary.

You mean Polk? He came later and observed those means to comnmit genocide
against the Navajo.

Those who rightly believed in their
"God-given right" to succeed happened to be the slaveholders,
and I might add, not all of them wanted to "kill as many of the"
Northerners "as possible" (they were no longer "fellow
countrymen", as the South had in fact succeeded, whether
you damned Yankees like it or not).

Thank you for the appelation, though in the escalation of things you don't
quite have it. There are Yankees, and there are Damned Yankees, and there
are Vermonters.

Personally, I don't believe that particular war was a good
example of making a "smooth transition" to an industrialized
way of life (but that's just my opinion).

I think the experiment is still being conducted - at least when even shrinks
can still ask about 'race' on their forms, you know they are not viewing
their clients as of the human-race, the only real distinction known to
medical science.

And if industrialisation coupled with thoughtless and irresponsible
consumption is the other measure of things, your ex-President, Mr. Gore, has
pointed out that the rest of the world is not exactly in agreement on that
either.

Perhaps the civil war is still continued, by other means?

-----------

One thing this play sorely lacked was even a single game
by Paul Morphy. I think it could have been incorporated in
such a way as to not entirely overwhelm those unfamiliar with
the game. Oh, well. Maybe he hadn't any decent games
worth telling about.

Its a fair point. People are interested in both what they know, but also
ascribe values to what they do not - so even non-chess players can
appreciate the mystery of this iconic and sculptural interaction between
people. In some cultures the idea of ritual-conflict is maintained as
absolute and necessary cultural component, since it does so tend to obviate
actual conflicts - and when it is not present there is no check between
aggressive tension and sending the bombers.

Have a Kool Yule, whatever your name is.

Phil Innes

-- help bot

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

help bot wrote:
The Historian wrote:


I don't know which comment is more pathetic, Parr's belief that
historical fiction is "something real", or Innes bleating about the
importance of some alleged Morphy relation's opinions "if
substantiated."

As for IM Innes' fascination with the opinions of living
relatives of Paul Morphy, my problem here is that, no
matter how much these people may know that isn't public
knowledge, they are of course biased (and fallible).

Yes, that's true. And they are a century and a half from the events in
question. But my point was that Innes has been campaigning for this
alleged Morphy relation for years now, and all that we know is that Mr.
Innes considers the information this relation provides 'important' and
he has no "substantiation" for any of it. Does that remind you of his
Nearly an IM 2450 title?

Mr Bennin should ask Dr. Blair about his own opportunity to verify the
material.

Though Brennyn continues to cast doubt on Dr. Hyde, who is IMO a very sober
and reliable reporter, not given to fancy - Brnnon at least can interrogate
Blair, that is, if Brenin had an /actual/ interest in the matter, rather
than an excuse to be miserable-as-eyeore this Christmas ;((

Poor Neil!

Should Branoun want to understand something about chess strength, he should
build up his own to such an extent that if I win I could earn 1 point.

Phil

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Dec 22, 12:57 am, "help bot" wrote:

But back to the play. I got the impression that the writer
wanted to convince readers that Paul Morphy was unlike
any other chess player; that he alone did not have dreams
about chess; that he alone caused opponents to become
"ill"; that he alone was able to give multi-game simuls, etc.
Balderdash. This guy falls into the trap of believing the
Morphy myth, wholesale. He even went so far as to show
that Paul Morphy was plainly insane, having him babble
on about $100K++ not being enough money for him to
get by on. (Ever heard of inflation? That ought to come to
sixty billion US dollars and 47 cents, by my calculations.)

A tad much perhaps, Greg. According to a table published by Oregon
State University (
http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/cv2006.pdf ), a 2006 US
dollar is worth about 4 to 4½ cents compared to a dollar in the time
Morphy was active in chess (late 1850s). That would make Morphy's $100K
inheritance worth at most about $2,500,000 today.

Perhaps helpbot was using a Turing Machine to calculate it? Or a Turing
Engine?

help bot wrote:
I have noticed that many posters seem to have grave
difficulty in spelling Mr. Brennen's last name correctly.

I thought that help bot knows a lot already, but then again, maybe
not. Of course Brennen is the correct spelling. However, if you want
The Historian to put on tilt, simply call him Brennan.