Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Dec 22, 10:48 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote:
d) None of the above, depending on how Innes chooses to define the
words "match" and "first." His question, to judge from his answers,
should read "What was the date and the names of the participants of the
earliest known intercity correspondence chess match?"

Kingston can't infer if its "inter-city" though the answers a

a) Berlin : Budapest, 1812
b) London : Edinburgh, 1824 & 1826
c) New Orleans : Boston Massachusetts, 1888

Its still thought worthwhile to question the nature of the question!

Especially when the question is phrased inappropriately. Or Phil
continues to demonstrate his verbal ineptitude. The fact that his
answers are all limited to inter-city matches does not correct the poor
phrasing of the question, which was: "When was the *_first_* chess
correspondence match?"

He's so eager to stick the word "first" into his questions that he
makes "a nonsense" of them. Take, and oh please take, his "saint"
question.

The way Innes has posed the question is like asking:

Who was the first pilot to fly faster than the speed of sound:

a) John Glenn
b) Gordon Cooper
c) Jim Lovell

None of these are the correct answer. While all did make supersonic
flights, Chuck Yeager did so before them. Similarly, there were
correspondence chess matches before London-Edinburgh 1824.

the answer
could well be Von Mauvillon - N.N., 1804, the oldest known
correspondence game, last I checked.

ROFL! This really should get a prize!!

Can our laughing Phil produce a full game score from an earlier date?
I'm sure there were earlier games, but 1804 is the oldest surviving
score, afaik.

Correspondence chess is known to have been
played as far back as the thirteenth century,
between noblemen at king's courts.
The moves were delivered by travelling troubadours.
In 1650 a Venetian merchant used his business
correspondance to conduct a game against a
colleague in Slovenia. //A. S.

Innes refutes his own argument. Obviously if he knows of CC being
played as far back as the 1200s, none of the 19th-century matches he
lists can be *_"the first"_* (his own words).

The very funny thing is that Taylor Kingston has the very same enclycolpedia
I quote from,

You derived your question from the Sunnucks encyclopedia? Earlier you
said Horowitz. If you copied Sunnucks, you did not do it correctly. I
cite the entry on correspondence chess, page 91:

"The first correspondence chess matches between teams on record were
those between the Dutch clubs V.A.S. and Rotterdam, between 1824 and
1826, and London and Edinburgh Chess Clubs between 1824 and 1828."

In his question Phil not only gets the London-Edinburgh ending date
wrong, but omits the Dutch match, which appears to antedate the British
one.

The UK match, I believe, was prior by a whopping four days. The Dutch
match ended before the UK one, however. See Harding's MegaCorr
databases, quoting from the work of Pagni.

the same as said Lasker came 8th [ --taboo mention], but if
he has read it, he hasn't understood what it says, not on this nor that.
Neither will he. Instead he is like to snip these references about his own,
er, innovative understanding of things, and continue regardless.

Our Phil regards any knowledge of actual facts or correct citation of
sources as "innovative" when they happen to differ from his own
opinions or flawed understandings.

For a more carefully worded and more challenging quiz, not to mention
one where actual prizes of considerable value can be won, I refer
readers to:

http://www.chesscafe.com/skittles/skittles.htm

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


On Dec 22, 10:48 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote:
d) None of the above, depending on how Innes chooses to define the
words "match" and "first." His question, to judge from his answers,
should read "What was the date and the names of the participants of
the
earliest known intercity correspondence chess match?"

Kingston can't infer if its "inter-city" though the answers a

a) Berlin : Budapest, 1812
b) London : Edinburgh, 1824 & 1826
c) New Orleans : Boston Massachusetts, 1888

Its still thought worthwhile to question the nature of the question!

Especially when the question is phrased inappropriately.

Or beyond the wit of the questioner to infer that its an inter-city match.

Or Phil
continues to demonstrate his verbal ineptitude.

Klingon does understand its an intercity match, but can't bring himself to
say so - this question is simply too hard for him!

The fact that his
answers are all limited to inter-city matches does not correct the poor
phrasing of the question, which was: "When was the *_first_* chess
correspondence match?"

Sorry - your own suggest was about the first correspondance /game/, not
/match/. Pay closer attention to the question and consider if your own
understanding is possibly at fault.


The way Innes has posed the question is like asking:

Who was the first pilot to fly faster than the speed of sound:

a) John Glenn
b) Gordon Cooper
c) Jim Lovell

None of these are the correct answer. While all did make supersonic
flights, Chuck Yeager did so before them. Similarly, there were
correspondence chess matches before London-Edinburgh 1824.

By all means, tell us about such matches... Horowitz may be wrong, but not
apparantly so - we would need less vague assertion to contradict him - so
how come no specific matches are mentioned? Can it be that Taylor and the
Klingons forgot it was match chess, and not just a correspondance game? I
think so, don't you?

the answer
could well be Von Mauvillon - N.N., 1804, the oldest known
correspondence game, last I checked.

ROFL! This really should get a prize!!

Can our laughing Phil produce a full game score from an earlier date?

Why does a game score need to be produced? What is the point of this
diversion on a diversion? The Klingon tribe have recently attacked Hooper on
Lasker, misunderstood Horowitz to the extent of mixing up game and match,
and now doubt Anne Sunnucks.

I'm sure there were earlier games, but 1804 is the oldest surviving
score, afaik.

It may well be the earliest whole game score - but I note that this is quite
different from the first correspondance game, which is what Kingston
proposed above - and now admits there may be earlier...

Correspondence chess is known to have been
played as far back as the thirteenth century,
between noblemen at king's courts.
The moves were delivered by travelling troubadours.
In 1650 a Venetian merchant used his business
correspondance to conduct a game against a
colleague in Slovenia. //A. S.

Innes refutes his own argument. Obviously if he knows of CC being
played as far back as the 1200s, none of the 19th-century matches he
lists can be *_"the first"_* (his own words).

Klingon keeps getting it confused because his ego can't admit he has now
made 2 mistakes:

a) a game of chess is not normally called a match, and the question uses the
term match, and
b) his counter-example is based on the first correspondance game, but what
he now says in his own awkward way is that he meant first game score

hoist by his own petard, no?

The very funny thing is that Taylor Kingston has the very same
enclycolpedia
I quote from,

You derived your question from the Sunnucks encyclopedia? Earlier you
said Horowitz. If you copied Sunnucks, you did not do it correctly. I
cite the entry on correspondence chess, page 91:

My questions come form Horowitz - the answer to your reply came from
Sunnucks. Because you introduced these new and unwarranted factors not
indicated by the question.

"The first correspondence chess matches between teams on record were
those between the Dutch clubs V.A.S. and Rotterdam, between 1824 and
1826, and London and Edinburgh Chess Clubs between 1824 and 1828."

In his question Phil not only gets the London-Edinburgh ending date
wrong, but omits the Dutch match, which appears to antedate the British
one.

I am tempted to post a third encyclopedia reference which does not accord
with either - but lets keep it simple, since Klingon is already wrong twice,
even to his original challenge.

the same as said Lasker came 8th [ --taboo mention], but if
he has read it, he hasn't understood what it says, not on this nor that.
Neither will he. Instead he is like to snip these references about his
own,
er, innovative understanding of things, and continue regardless.

Our Phil regards any knowledge of actual facts or correct citation of
sources as "innovative" when they happen to differ from his own
opinions or flawed understandings.

In other words, Klingon does not want to say that all along he had Hooper's
reference to Nottingham, that these are not inventions - instread he
suggests I am lying - and he won't tell you what the same encyclopedia he
mentions above says because he can't understand why Hooper said it.

Instead he says my understanding of Hooper's plain statement is 'an opinion'
and also 'flawed'.

Essentially, a simple reading of the question reveals that it said match,
not game,


BUT - here we have the famous KINGSTONITE argument - you CUT the original
wuestion, then argue against what it plainly says. The reader will note that
the original question has been dissapeared! )

For anyone still awake after all this nonsense, here it is

3) When was the first chess correspondence match?

and the rest of this stuff is gratuitous nonsense and an excuse to chuck
even more abuse at other writers, which is the completely usual practice of
those who do so. Klingon is joined by Brenniun who does nothing else, and by
Boleysh who is here just to write about Kramnik, he says.

What is fascinating about the tribe's abuse is that they can be shown to be
wrong in their own initial understanding, but by selection of some detail of
their own understanding to quibble over which they say is important enough
to discuss, they infer the most remarkable things about the remaining
material and those who wrote it.

Kingston has personally done this with me, and indeed, with everyone he has
fallen out with - rather like his hero Winter's quibbles over completely
trivial points, while ignoring the self-same trivial errors in his own
writing. Its not so much as if this trivia is right or wrong - as much as it
is very largely irrelevant, and prosecuting trivia has blinded these writers
to what is central to chess.

Phil Innes

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...

The very funny thing is that Taylor Kingston has the very same
enclycolpedia
I quote from, the same as said Lasker came 8th [ --taboo mention], but
if
he has read it, he hasn't understood what it says, not on this nor that.

IIRC he has pointed out that you mistakenly stated that Lasker was 8th
and LAST, when in fact he was somewhere around mid-table.

YOU made the mistake, Phil, not Taylor....

Ahem - If you ask your friend Taylor what it says in the same encyclopedia
about Lasker being 8th, he won't tell you. He will instead argue the
/merits/ of what the encyclopedia says, but he will accuse you of making it
up. He certainly did that to me over a space of 20 messages.

Alternately he won't do anything and will duck the question

If you don't believe this, try it.

He also denies that he didn't want to permit authors the right of reply at
chesscafe's forum - ask him if that's true - and if that's the same as
having *nothing* to do with their books being banned from the same site.

When you have exerted yourself to this level of inquiry you will have your
own answers and won't need to /believe/ anything, and can proceed directly
to writing about Kramnik which is why you said you are here.

In terms of this thread, please note it says match, not game, and figure out
who's mistake that is all by yourself.



Phil

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

In his question Phil not only gets the London-Edinburgh ending date
wrong, but omits the Dutch match, which appears to antedate the British
one.

The UK match, I believe, was prior by a whopping four days. The Dutch
match ended before the UK one, however. See Harding's MegaCorr
databases, quoting from the work of Pagni.

Well, thank you. In other words Kingston is wrong, again. But this is not so
much the point as that different encyclopedias vary in their reporting. But
this is insufficient excuse to write rubbish about anyone.

It is mean to do so - and I am not talking about me, or whether the start or
end of the match qualifies it as first - to write so astringently about the
issue is mean! Mean to any investigation of chess history.

PI

Chess One wrote:

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

In his question Phil not only gets the London-Edinburgh ending date
wrong, but omits the Dutch match, which appears to antedate the British
one.

The UK match, I believe, was prior by a whopping four days. The Dutch
match ended before the UK one, however. See Harding's MegaCorr
databases, quoting from the work of Pagni.

Well, thank you. In other words Kingston is wrong, again. But this is not so
much the point as that different encyclopedias vary in their reporting. But
this is insufficient excuse to write rubbish about anyone.


What would you describe as sufficient excuse to write rubbish, Phil?

It is mean to do so - and I am not talking about me, or whether the start or
end of the match qualifies it as first - to write so astringently about the
issue is mean! Mean to any investigation of chess history.


Mean, eh? I'll bet that any self-respecting investigation (as opposed
to the investigator) is quite put out by such things...

MH

PI

Chess One wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...

The very funny thing is that Taylor Kingston has the very same
enclycolpedia
I quote from, the same as said Lasker came 8th [ --taboo mention], but
if
he has read it, he hasn't understood what it says, not on this nor that.

IIRC he has pointed out that you mistakenly stated that Lasker was 8th
and LAST, when in fact he was somewhere around mid-table.

YOU made the mistake, Phil, not Taylor....

Ahem - If you ask your friend Taylor what it says in the same encyclopedia
about Lasker being 8th, he won't tell you. He will instead argue the
/merits/ of what the encyclopedia says, but he will accuse you of making it
up. He certainly did that to me over a space of 20 messages.


Which messages? Shall we deconstruct them with the purpose of
establishing the truth?

Alternately he won't do anything and will duck the question


Well, his engaging in a discourse of 20 messages suggests the
opposite....

If you don't believe this, try it.


Ok, I'm your Huckleberry, Phil... take me through this, systematically,
so that even a moron such as I am can understand it.

Put up, or shut up.


He also denies that he didn't want to permit authors the right of reply at
chesscafe's forum - ask him if that's true

Ok. Is that true?


- and if that's the same as
having *nothing* to do with their books being banned from the same site.


"...- and if that's the same as having *nothing* to do with their
books' being banned from the same site..." what? That last part is
clearly incomplete. You're a very unclear writer.

In plain English, what are you trying to convey?

When you have exerted yourself to this level of inquiry you will have your
own answers and won't need to /believe/ anything,

I used the term out of politeness to you. I'm *certain* that you were
wrong. If you are serious about engaging in a dialogue, the onus is
upon *you* to demonstrate otherwise.


and can proceed directly
to writing about Kramnik which is why you said you are here.


No, that's not at all what I said. I said that I *came back* to *read*
what other people thought about Kramnik-DF. What I think about it is
neither here nor there.


In terms of this thread, please note it says match, not game, and figure out
who's mistake that is all by yourself.


Ok.

I await your response.

Mark



Phil

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Chess One wrote:

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

In his question Phil not only gets the London-Edinburgh ending date
wrong, but omits the Dutch match, which appears to antedate the British
one.

The UK match, I believe, was prior by a whopping four days. The Dutch
match ended before the UK one, however. See Harding's MegaCorr
databases, quoting from the work of Pagni.

Well, thank you. In other words Kingston is wrong, again. But this is not so
much the point as that different encyclopedias vary in their reporting. But
this is insufficient excuse to write rubbish about anyone.


What would you describe as sufficient excuse to write rubbish, Phil?

Philsy's usual excuse is that he owns a computer with a connection to
the Internet.

Chess One wrote:

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


On Dec 22, 10:48 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote:
d) None of the above, depending on how Innes chooses to define the
words "match" and "first." His question, to judge from his answers,
should read "What was the date and the names of the participants of
the
earliest known intercity correspondence chess match?"

Kingston can't infer if its "inter-city" though the answers a

a) Berlin : Budapest, 1812
b) London : Edinburgh, 1824 & 1826
c) New Orleans : Boston Massachusetts, 1888

Its still thought worthwhile to question the nature of the question!

Especially when the question is phrased inappropriately.

Or beyond the wit of the questioner to infer that its an inter-city match.

Or Phil
continues to demonstrate his verbal ineptitude.

Klingon does understand its an intercity match, but can't bring himself to
say so - this question is simply too hard for him!


No. You really don't get this, do you? The QUESTION is dumb.

The fact that his
answers are all limited to inter-city matches does not correct the poor
phrasing of the question, which was: "When was the *_first_* chess
correspondence match?"

Sorry - your own suggest was about the first correspondance /game/, not
/match/. Pay closer attention to the question and consider if your own
understanding is possibly at fault.


Ok, I've considered it. It isn't. The QUESTION is at fault.


The way Innes has posed the question is like asking:

Who was the first pilot to fly faster than the speed of sound:

a) John Glenn
b) Gordon Cooper
c) Jim Lovell

None of these are the correct answer. While all did make supersonic
flights, Chuck Yeager did so before them. Similarly, there were
correspondence chess matches before London-Edinburgh 1824.

By all means, tell us about such matches... Horowitz may be wrong, but not
apparantly so - we would need less vague assertion to contradict him - so
how come no specific matches are mentioned?

Horowitz may or may not be wrong. The QUESTION, in this case,
definitely is.

Can it be that Taylor and the
Klingons forgot it was match chess, and not just a correspondance game? I
think so, don't you?


No, I don't, since you ask. I think that the QUIZ COMPILER is a MERRY
MORON.

the answer
could well be Von Mauvillon - N.N., 1804, the oldest known
correspondence game, last I checked.

ROFL! This really should get a prize!!

Can our laughing Phil produce a full game score from an earlier date?

Why does a game score need to be produced?

Absent the production of such a score, the QUIZ COMPILER *looks like* a
MERRY MORON.

DUH!


What is the point of this
diversion on a diversion?

The point is to establish the truth.

The Klingon tribe have recently attacked Hooper on
Lasker, misunderstood Horowitz to the extent of mixing up game and match,

Wrong. The QUIZ COMPILER misunderstood Horowitz to the extent of
including a DUMB QUESTION in the quiz.

and now doubt Anne Sunnucks.


Huh?

I'm sure there were earlier games, but 1804 is the oldest surviving
score, afaik.

It may well be the earliest whole game score - but I note that this is quite
different from the first correspondance game, which is what Kingston
proposed above - and now admits there may be earlier...


Not a question of "...now admits..."... that there may be earlier is a
given. Like there may be earlier specimens of homo erectus bones which
simply have not been discovered.

Correspondence chess is known to have been
played as far back as the thirteenth century,
between noblemen at king's courts.
The moves were delivered by travelling troubadours.
In 1650 a Venetian merchant used his business
correspondance to conduct a game against a
colleague in Slovenia. //A. S.

Innes refutes his own argument. Obviously if he knows of CC being
played as far back as the 1200s, none of the 19th-century matches he
lists can be *_"the first"_* (his own words).

Klingon keeps getting it confused because his ego can't admit he has now
made 2 mistakes:

a) a game of chess is not normally called a match, and the question uses the
term match, and
b) his counter-example is based on the first correspondance game, but what
he now says in his own awkward way is that he meant first game score

hoist by his own petard, no?


No. The QUESTION is still wrong, in essence.

The very funny thing is that Taylor Kingston has the very same
enclycolpedia
I quote from,

You derived your question from the Sunnucks encyclopedia? Earlier you
said Horowitz. If you copied Sunnucks, you did not do it correctly. I
cite the entry on correspondence chess, page 91:

My questions come form Horowitz - the answer to your reply came from
Sunnucks. Because you introduced these new and unwarranted factors not
indicated by the question.


It was their not being indicated that IS the problem. DUH!

"The first correspondence chess matches between teams on record were
those between the Dutch clubs V.A.S. and Rotterdam, between 1824 and
1826, and London and Edinburgh Chess Clubs between 1824 and 1828."

In his question Phil not only gets the London-Edinburgh ending date
wrong, but omits the Dutch match, which appears to antedate the British
one.

I am tempted to post a third encyclopedia reference which does not accord
with either - but lets keep it simple, since Klingon is already wrong twice,
even to his original challenge.

the same as said Lasker came 8th [ --taboo mention], but if
he has read it, he hasn't understood what it says, not on this nor that.
Neither will he. Instead he is like to snip these references about his
own,
er, innovative understanding of things, and continue regardless.

Our Phil regards any knowledge of actual facts or correct citation of
sources as "innovative" when they happen to differ from his own
opinions or flawed understandings.

In other words, Klingon does not want to say that all along he had Hooper's
reference to Nottingham, that these are not inventions - instread he
suggests I am lying - and he won't tell you what the same encyclopedia he
mentions above says because he can't understand why Hooper said it.

Instead he says my understanding of Hooper's plain statement is 'an opinion'
and also 'flawed'.


He said no such thing. Learn to read.

Essentially, a simple reading of the question reveals that it said match,
not game,


Right, but it didn't say: Inter-city, so it's a dumb question.


BUT - here we have the famous KINGSTONITE argument - you CUT the original
wuestion, then argue against what it plainly says. The reader will note that
the original question has been dissapeared! )

For anyone still awake after all this nonsense, here it is

3) When was the first chess correspondence match?

and the rest of this stuff is gratuitous nonsense and an excuse to chuck
even more abuse at other writers, which is the completely usual practice of
those who do so. Klingon is joined by Brenniun who does nothing else, and by
Boleysh who is here just to write about Kramnik, he says.


I say no such thing you illiterate ****. Learn to read.

What is fascinating about the tribe's abuse is that they can be shown to be
wrong in their own initial understanding, but by selection of some detail of
their own understanding to quibble over which they say is important enough
to discuss, they infer the most remarkable things about the remaining
material and those who wrote it.


Once again: the question is dumb. The QUIZ COMPILER is a MERRY MORON.
This gives rise to confusion.

Kingston has personally done this with me, and indeed, with everyone he has
fallen out with - rather like his hero Winter's quibbles over completely
trivial points,

Demonstrate that he has done this with *everyone* with whom he has
fallen out. Or shut the **** up.

In order to demonstrate that he has done this with *everyone* with whom
he has fallen out you must:

1) *CLEARLY* establish that he has, in fact, fallen out with this
person (these persons).

2) *CLEARLY* demonstrate his having exhibited the behaviour of which
you accuse him *in every single case of 1)*.

Off you go...


while ignoring the self-same trivial errors in his own
writing. Its not so much as if this trivia is right or wrong - as much as it
is very largely irrelevant, and prosecuting trivia has blinded these writers
to what is central to chess.


Oh, really? Do enlighten us about "what is central to chess", Mr.
nearly-an-IM. While you're about it, you can demonstrate what there is
of "what is central to chess" which is of relevance this to the present
discussion.

Off you go...

Mark Houlsby

Phil Innes

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chess One wrote:

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

In his question Phil not only gets the London-Edinburgh ending date
wrong, but omits the Dutch match, which appears to antedate the
British
one.

The UK match, I believe, was prior by a whopping four days. The Dutch
match ended before the UK one, however. See Harding's MegaCorr
databases, quoting from the work of Pagni.

Well, thank you. In other words Kingston is wrong, again. But this is not
so
much the point as that different encyclopedias vary in their reporting.
But
this is insufficient excuse to write rubbish about anyone.


What would you describe as sufficient excuse to write rubbish, Phil?

I wrote 20 Questions here about some things I found quite fascinating about
chess history - as indeed did Horowitz.

I would say that none of these things are 'rubbish' as you term them. What
you clowns are doing is to rubbish the entire subject, with no discussion of
any of it! - especially on the surprising dates, both early and late, when
many 'firsts' occur.

In arguing a point [and Kingston being thrice wrong as well!] based on one
questions, the rest are suggested to be worthless. That is your contribution
bucko, supported by other lazy incurious twits who cannot be said to love
the game by virture of what they demonstrate here.

You even think your questions deserve answers - but they are not even
questions in the normal sense of the word, they are means to excuse yourself
from writing about chess, and a predeliction on your part to instead write
about those who do attempt a chess topic.

If you are not interested in any of these things, then stop demanding what
others should do Lord Holbsey, since you are in some danger of appearing to
be a trivialising twit, whose range of expressivity extends to the word
'****', but that in terms of your contribution to people's interest in chess
could be characterised as '****-all'.

PI


It is mean to do so - and I am not talking about me, or whether the start
or
end of the match qualifies it as first - to write so astringently about
the
issue is mean! Mean to any investigation of chess history.


Mean, eh? I'll bet that any self-respecting investigation (as opposed
to the investigator) is quite put out by such things...

MH

PI

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chess One wrote:

"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
ups.com...

The very funny thing is that Taylor Kingston has the very same
enclycolpedia
I quote from, the same as said Lasker came 8th [ --taboo mention],
but
if
he has read it, he hasn't understood what it says, not on this nor
that.

IIRC he has pointed out that you mistakenly stated that Lasker was 8th
and LAST, when in fact he was somewhere around mid-table.

YOU made the mistake, Phil, not Taylor....

Ahem - If you ask your friend Taylor what it says in the same
encyclopedia
about Lasker being 8th, he won't tell you. He will instead argue the
/merits/ of what the encyclopedia says, but he will accuse you of making
it
up. He certainly did that to me over a space of 20 messages.


Which messages? Shall we deconstruct them with the purpose of
establishing the truth?

Hobleys! Ask him, or go away and cease trolling even more diversions. That
is the only offer.

If you want to keep trolling this thread without contributing any
information to any subject - and merely ask more and more questions - you
will perhaps succeed in attracting attention from others like yourself, too
lazy to do what is indicated.

If you don't understand what I wrote above about asking Kingston, as you
don't since you change the subject to ask even more questions about 'the
messages' but don't ask about the encyclopedia, I conclude you are not
actually interested.

PI