help bot wrote (21 Dec 2006 22:44:19 -0800):

7 ... Dr. Blair's decided tendency to quote *selectively* in
7 order to morph things his own peculiar way. ...

_
No specifics, of course.

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. ...
_
I wrote (21 Dec 2006 16:06:05 -0800):
7 Phil Innes, of course, identifies no specific examples of
7 me doing this.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:47:51 GMT):

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

_
Again, no specific examples to justify this nonsense.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:39:56 GMT):

7 ... Blair Muddying does not run away! It continues to ask
7 for what you already posted, UNTIL you actually re-post
7 it, when it is re-cut.

_
Again, no specific examples to justify this nonsense.

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:39:56 GMT):

7 The technique employed to demand information is
7 essentially to examine a paragraph of choice and say
7 there are no references to the offence in it, therefore it
7 isn't true.
7
7 Example: Even after reviewing the material at
7 Nolandland, Blair writes a paragraph of his choice
7 from Goichberg, and asks where is any mention of
7 Sloan? Ignoring taanstafls multiple and long messages
7 which admit they were over the top,

_
Phil Innes appears to forget that he wrote:
_
"... then Sam Sloan was 'blamed' for, even
by BILL GOICHBERG ...
...
The issues again:
...
In the fund raising instance, blaming Sloan
with the more than apparent encouragement
of GOICHBERG, for Marinello's revelations"
- Phil Innes (Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:09:44 GMT)
(Emphasis added.)
_
Phil Innes made claims about BILL GOICHBERG.
What quotes does Phil Innes have of BILL
GOICHBERG blaming Sam Sloan for the "award"?
What quotes does Phil Innes have of BILL
GOICHBERG apparently encouraging others to
blame Sam Sloan "for Marinello's revelations"?
_
For that matter, who blamed Sam Sloan "for
Marinello's revelations"? Herbert Vaughn
(tanstaafl), for example, seemed to me to write
positively about Beatriz Marinello's Sun
Dec 10, 2006 11:49 am note:
_
"... Now that Beatriz has been forthcoming
with the real information, we can discuss
the matter and reach our individual
conclusions. I'm not a big fan of Beatriz on
several matters, but she was right to bring
the information forward and shine a little
light on the situation!" - Herbert Vaughn
(Sun Dec 10, 2006 1:19 pm)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:39:56 GMT):

7 ... None of the above has anything to do with
7 Morphy, which Louis Blair has cut, to continue
7 his /apparent/ interest in this thread about his
7 own activities. ...

_
It was Phil Innes who decided to bring up the subject
of my "activities" in this thread. See his Thu,
21 Dec 2006 14:39:56 GMT note partially quoted
above.

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 ... something idiotic on its face. ...
_
helpbot wrote (21 Dec 2006 22:44:19 -0800):
7 ... Of course, Mr. Innes has no quote of Dr. Blair doing any
7 such thing. ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:35:13 GMT):

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

_
If there really were such behavior, Phil Innes could quote
the "reference" and identify its specific location, as well as
identify the specific note by me that cut the "reference"
and asked the supposedly "idiotic" question. Phil Innes,
of course, does not do this.

LiamToo wrote:
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.

Unfortunately, sometimes trolls confuse my pointing out their
cluelessness with anger. Take Liam Too, for example.

The Historian wrote:

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?

A century and a half! Thus, IM Innes would need to
come up with documents or artifacts which show how
these living relatives can refute all (we think) we know
about Paul Morphy.

Now the thing about IM Innes' title is that it only exists
in his own mind, while Paul Morphy's living relatives
actually inhabit the *real world*! Yet I don't expect any
"substantiation" from the great near-IM in my lifetime.

I strongly suspect his "offhand" remarks are intended
to lend the impression that Mr. Innes is important, an
insider who has connections way up high -- lots of them.
But who knows -- maybe he is just a muddled thinker,
who really does try all the things he says, but never
follows through such as to be able to provide any
substantiation of the things he sets out to do, because
he never actually finishes them.

But enough about IM Innes. This thread is about
another great player, about Paul Morphy. I would
like to say that I really like Mr. Morphy's style of play.
There are many famous players whose styles I
dislike. For example, Aron Nimzowitch, who lulls
me to sleep with his incessant fiddling about. "Get
to the point, man! Are you going to shuffle wood all
day and all night, or is there some inkling of how to
actually make progress hidden deep in your muddled
brain?", I scream silently, when replaying many of
his games. Yet this is never the case with the games
of Paul Morphy. I'm not quite sure where IM Innes'
style fits in; there are so many possible handles at
GetClub, most with perfect scores, and who can say
which one(s) is/are the great nearly-an-IM? Here are
a few of those I think could potentially be Mr. Innes:

Philling Station

Fake IM

Ivana Pulluoff

Silent But Violent

Mr Phil
--------------------

-- help bot

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.

First of all, although the precise dollar-and-cents amount
was mentioned repeatedly in the play, I did not recall what
it was, and so decided to use "100K+" to indicate whatever
amount it was. In fact, I seem to recall that the critical first
three digits were something like 160K (plus). So, even if we
were to (very naively) use this table, the amount would be
well in excess of $2.5 million.

Secondly, it is rather naive to utilize the government's
standard CPI in trying to estimate the true value of a
deflated dollar. The politicians who issue and control
these numbers have a vested interest in trying to make
things appear not so bad as they really are, in order, for
one thing, to keep their elected offices. Here is one
example: suppose that in 1985 I were to buy a computer
in order to waste my time playing chess. I shell out
1,000 (1985) dollars and get a slow, miserable DOS
machine, which can barely play. But in 1995 I decide
I need a replacement. It turns out that I can now buy
a vastly superior machine for the same 1,000 (1995)
dollars, and it will easily kick my behind at chess.
Guess what? According to the US government, the
computer I buy in 1995 is *not* comparable to the
one I bought in 1985, and thus a big "adjustment" will
be made on account of the fact that computers are
now much better than they used to be. Well duh! Yet
the computer I purchased in 1985 is no longer being sold,
anywhere. In essence, the politicians have created an
escape-hatch, whereby they can get out of taking
responsibility for runaway inflation, by utilizing a
multitude of similar "exceptions". The CPI numbers
we see are always going to reflect the improvements
in technology as though they were "exceptions", and
not a fact of life. In this way, politicians can make
themselves *appear* as though they are doing a fine job,
when in fact the US dollar is crumbling. Our currency
has taken a nosedive relative to all the other major
currencies of the world (which is not a good thing).

Lastly, I have no doubt whatever that no matter which
table or method is used to convert Paul Morphy's
inheritance, it was more than enough to get by on today.
In fact, today there are far more ways of squandering
money quickly than there was back then. I might buy
a 150' yacht, for example. Or a mansion in Beverly Hills.
Were Mr. Morphy to have bought a mansion, at least it
would come with a large chunk of *land*. Bah-- just send
me the money, and I'll prove to you I can live off of it easily.
:D

-- help bot

Chess One wrote:

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


I was thinking maybe Brad Pitt or Matt Damon for the part.
Why? Well... why do I need to give a reason here, after all,
these guys get nearly *all* the good parts these days. The
key is to try and make the Paul Morphy story interesting,
and hence, Louis Blair was a poor choice to begin with.
What do you say we let him play a duffer in New Orleans
who falls victim to a scholar's mate when Paul is but a
small child? Yes, that would work.

-- help bot

Chess One wrote:

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.


I don't know how the two of you would fare with the
USCF, but at GetClub I strongly suspect IM Innes
could gain more than a single rating point per game
in defeating Mr. Brennen. (OTOH, the easiest way
to gain points there is to play that vastly over-rated
putz, nomorechess.)

In all likelihood, Mr. Brennen is not obsessed with
chess ratings, as are the many who quite mistakenly
envision themselves as great players. Something
about a 1400 rating lends one a goodly dose of
humility.

-- help bot

The Historian wrote:

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?

No. The closest I ever came to owning a touring
machine was my old Honda 750, which I hardly
ever rode.

Anyone who actually read the Morphy play should
know that the actual amount was far in excess of
100,000 dollars. OTOH, not many are aware of the
"issues" with our government's CPI and the rampant
worldwide deflation in the real value of the dollar.

Actually, the tool I used is called a help bot rough
guesstimator. This is not unlike the tool used by
Mr. Kingston in selecting the "late 1850's", when of
course he might have looked up the exact date of
Alonzo Morphy's premature demise at the "hands" of
a murderous hat.

-- help bot

Louis Blair wrote:
help bot wrote (21 Dec 2006 22:44:19 -0800):

7 ... Dr. Blair's decided tendency to quote *selectively* in
7 order to morph things his own peculiar way. ...

_
No specifics, of course.

Is this supposed to be "interpreted" as a denial of
some sort? Or merely an observation of my merciful
brevity?

I'm sure someone with the time could easily locate
a direct quote of Dr. Blair himself asserting that he
does not quote *everything*, but only those things
he wants to quote. My point is simply that in so
doing, the subject is tilted to suit his own peculiar
version of "the way it is", and this is the result of a
style which purports to give a "fair and balanced"
overview, when in fact it cannot. (No, I am not
talking about the FOX news channel, why do you
ask?)

I really have no particular problems with Louis Blair's
opinions themselves, but I must note that this pretense
of objectivity is somewhat annoying given his strong
bias to either side shown on various matters. I would
much prefer an honest disagreement, to this peculiar
style of posting.

-- help bot