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

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.

ipso facto!

Hlboyes has contracted Breuunism - he directly demonstrates what is denied,
all in one handy sentence.


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...

Holubsye can't recognise that he asks for what I wrote in the first place -
20 questions relating to chess history, to which he has contributed nothing
at all. Instead he makes more demands of what I think central.

This is a Blairism - to have completely eliminated the thing now demanded,
since the original material IS literally central to chess, in that it asked
about how a great range of chess firsts were initiated.

Instead these nincompoops **** all over it - since that is all they are able
to do. Then they cry and ask why? Tell me more.

Merry-Morons!

Phil Innes

Mark Houlsby

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

"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.


Evasion noted.

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.


Evasion compounded by disingenuousness noted. This may be why the USCF
has banned you from posting. Prove me wrong, and post there. Then I'll
look dumb. At the moment, I'm not worried.


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,

Not so. If I were not interested, I should not take the trouble to
write in the thread. Quod erat demonstrandum.

I conclude you are not
actually interested.


Evasion compounded by disingenuousness compounded by insult noted.

Pretty typical of your writing, Phil. Still, the triple whammy is
relatively rare.

This is why you have been banned from writing in the USCF's fora. Prove
me wrong, and write there.

MH

PI

Chess One wrote:

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

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.

ipso facto!


Huh? Demonstrate this.

Hlboyes has contracted Breuunism - he directly demonstrates what is denied,

How so?

all in one handy sentence.


Be specific.


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...

Holubsye can't recognise that he asks for what I wrote in the first place -
20 questions relating to chess history, to which he has contributed nothing
at all. Instead he makes more demands of what I think central.


Well, YOU raised the issue, Mr. nearly-an-IM. Therefore, ONCE AGAIN,
you placed an obligation upon yourself to demonstrate:

a) what is central to chess.

and

b) that I, and others, are strangers to it.

This is a Blairism - to have completely eliminated the thing now demanded,
since the original material IS literally central to chess, in that it asked
about how a great range of chess firsts were initiated.


Where has Dr. Blair done this? Point to a specific example, instead of
making groundless accusations, and then refusing to apolgise when he
asks you so to do.


Instead these nincompoops **** all over it - since that is all they are able
to do.

Demonstrate that this is all that we are able to do.


Then they cry and ask why? Tell me more.


Who's crying? You keep placing obligations upon yourself and then
cheerfully ignoring the fact of your having done this.

You need to see a really good psychiatrist.

Merry-Morons!


A really, really good psychiatrist.

Mark Houlsby

Phil Innes

Mark Houlsby

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

"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


Evasion noted.

MH

On Dec 23, 9:07 am, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
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....

Correct, Mark. Phil and I beat this matter to a pulp several months
ago.
Phil suddenly had a wild hair to belittle Lasker, and it somehow
became a critical point in his mind to insist that Lasker had finished
8th at Nottingham 1936, when in fact he tied with Flohr for =7th-8th.
Along the way Phil spouted various nonsense such as that Lasker placed
last, that the tournament had a field of 8 (instead of the actual 15),
and that it was Hastings instead of Nottingham. He also baselessly
speculated that tie-breaks were used, but the tournament book (which
afaik Phil does not have) says no such thing.

Ahem - If you ask your friend Taylor what it says in the same encyclopedia
about Lasker being 8th, he won't tell you.

On the contrary, I will quote it. From Sunnucks' "The Encyclopaedia
of Chess" (St. Martin's Press, 1970), pages 275-276, the entry on
Lasker, written by David Hooper: "In 1933 [Lasker] and his wife left
Germany. Their property confiscated, he had to begin all over again.
For a time he lived in England, where W.H. Watts published two small
books for him. He entered more tournaments, coming 5th at Zurich 1934;
3rd, half a point behind the winners, at Moscow 1935; 6th at Moscow
1936; and 8th at Nottingham 1936."

He will instead argue the
/merits/ of what the encyclopedia says,

Indeed I will. The last result Hooper gave there is incorrect. Lasker
tied with Flohr for 7th and 8th places. A minor but definite
difference.

but he will accuse you of making it
up.

No, I have never said that Innes "made up" Hooper's entry on Lasker.
However, I have called Phil negligent not to check any of the many
other sources that contradict it about Nottingham 1936, and silly to
insist that it is right and all the others (including the tournament
book) wrong.

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."

...- 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?

Mark, this is one of Phil's recurring delusions and defamatory
tropes. He, Sloan, and Parr cooked up the claims that (A) there was/is
"book-banning" at ChessCafe.com and USCFsales.com, and (B) I was/am
somehow the evil mastermind behind it.
By (A) what they really meant was that they considered certain of
their buddies, specifically Eric Schiller, Larry Evans, and Raymond
Keene, to be under-represented in the catalog. That many of their works
are of poor quality seemed irrelevant to Innes et al.
As for (B), I have no say, and never have had any say, in what books
are carried by ChessCafe and/or USCF Sales. My advice on what to stock
or not to stock has never been solicited nor offered.
I do write book reviews, but out of the 120 or so reviews I have
written for ChessCafe, only two have dealt with any books by these
writers. One, of Keene's book on Nimzovitch, was positive, the other,
of a Schiller book, gave it the panning it richly deserved. I have
never reviewed any book by Evans.

This matter was also beaten to a pulp quite some time ago.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Dec 23, 9:07 am, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
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....

Correct, Mark. Phil and I beat this matter to a pulp several months
ago.
Phil suddenly had a wild hair to belittle Lasker, and it somehow
became a critical point in his mind to insist that Lasker had finished
8th at Nottingham 1936, when in fact he tied with Flohr for =7th-8th.
Along the way Phil spouted various nonsense such as that Lasker placed
last, that the tournament had a field of 8 (instead of the actual 15),
and that it was Hastings instead of Nottingham. He also baselessly
speculated that tie-breaks were used, but the tournament book (which
afaik Phil does not have) says no such thing.

Ahem - If you ask your friend Taylor what it says in the same encyclopedia
about Lasker being 8th, he won't tell you.

On the contrary, I will quote it. From Sunnucks' "The Encyclopaedia
of Chess" (St. Martin's Press, 1970), pages 275-276, the entry on
Lasker, written by David Hooper: "In 1933 [Lasker] and his wife left
Germany. Their property confiscated, he had to begin all over again.
For a time he lived in England, where W.H. Watts published two small
books for him. He entered more tournaments, coming 5th at Zurich 1934;
3rd, half a point behind the winners, at Moscow 1935; 6th at Moscow
1936; and 8th at Nottingham 1936."

He will instead argue the
/merits/ of what the encyclopedia says,

Indeed I will. The last result Hooper gave there is incorrect. Lasker
tied with Flohr for 7th and 8th places. A minor but definite
difference.

but he will accuse you of making it
up.

No, I have never said that Innes "made up" Hooper's entry on Lasker.
However, I have called Phil negligent not to check any of the many
other sources that contradict it about Nottingham 1936, and silly to
insist that it is right and all the others (including the tournament
book) wrong.

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."

...- 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?

Mark, this is one of Phil's recurring delusions and defamatory
tropes. He, Sloan, and Parr cooked up the claims that (A) there was/is
"book-banning" at ChessCafe.com and USCFsales.com, and (B) I was/am
somehow the evil mastermind behind it.
By (A) what they really meant was that they considered certain of
their buddies, specifically Eric Schiller, Larry Evans, and Raymond
Keene, to be under-represented in the catalog. That many of their works
are of poor quality seemed irrelevant to Innes et al.
As for (B), I have no say, and never have had any say, in what books
are carried by ChessCafe and/or USCF Sales. My advice on what to stock
or not to stock has never been solicited nor offered.
I do write book reviews, but out of the 120 or so reviews I have
written for ChessCafe, only two have dealt with any books by these
writers. One, of Keene's book on Nimzovitch, was positive, the other,
of a Schiller book, gave it the panning it richly deserved. I have
never reviewed any book by Evans.

This matter was also beaten to a pulp quite some time ago.

Many thanks, Taylor.

Phil... you appear to have been blown out of the water... again. Time
to hit the resign button.

Mark

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


On Dec 23, 9:07 am, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:
Chess One wrote:
"Mark Houlsby" wrote in message
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....

Correct, Mark. Phil and I beat this matter to a pulp several months
ago.
Phil suddenly had a wild hair to belittle Lasker,

Kinston - you are such a massive liar. Those are your words not mine. Take
them back or it is you who are the liar!

I reported what Hooper had written, which was not to belittle the player at
all - it was a simple cold fact in an encyclopedia - the same one you have!

and it somehow

Right! Kingston will not admit what hooper wrote - and instead of his denial
now continues his invented antagonism...

became a critical point in his mind to insist that Lasker had finished
8th at Nottingham 1936, when in fact he tied with Flohr for =7th-8th.
Along the way Phil spouted various nonsense such as that Lasker placed
last, that the tournament had a field of 8 (instead of the actual 15),
and that it was Hastings instead of Nottingham. He also baselessly
speculated that tie-breaks were used, but the tournament book (which
afaik Phil does not have) says no such thing.

In other words, the same book which Kingston did not have at the time was
his own source. Neither of us knew why Hooper had written as he did, but
according to Kingston only my suggestion of the possibility of tie-breaks is
'baseless', whereas I actually wrote that their scores placements were due
their scores against other players in the table.


Ahem - If you ask your friend Taylor what it says in the same
encyclopedia
about Lasker being 8th, he won't tell you.

On the contrary, I will quote it. From Sunnucks' "The Encyclopaedia
of Chess" (St. Martin's Press, 1970), pages 275-276, the entry on
Lasker, written by David Hooper: "In 1933 [Lasker] and his wife left
Germany. Their property confiscated, he had to begin all over again.
For a time he lived in England, where W.H. Watts published two small
books for him. He entered more tournaments, coming 5th at Zurich 1934;
3rd, half a point behind the winners, at Moscow 1935; 6th at Moscow
1936; and 8th at Nottingham 1936."

Ah!

He will instead argue the
/merits/ of what the encyclopedia says,

Indeed I will. The last result Hooper gave there is incorrect. Lasker
tied with Flohr for 7th and 8th places. A minor but definite
difference.

Ah! But Kingston's claim is itself baseless. He does not explain why he
insists on it, since as he admits the tournament book does not address it!

but he will accuse you of making it
up.

No, I have never said that Innes "made up" Hooper's entry on Lasker.

You have said it was baseless - even though there it is in the encyclopedia.
Is this like *nothing* to do with book-banning, a special understanding of
'made up'. The only difference is that Kingston now changes his terms so
that its not 'made up' its 'baseless'.

However, I have called Phil negligent not to check any of the many
other sources that contradict it about Nottingham 1936, and silly to
insist that it is right and all the others (including the tournament
book) wrong.

Kingston probably thinks that if 10 1000 players play a 2000 player, they
are more likely right in their chess choices. There is in fact no providence
for any amount of these reports which would explain the situation either
way, it could be Hooper's mistake, or it may be no mistake at all.

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."

...- 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?

SHALL I POST YOUR own WORDS ON THIS SUBJECT - SINCE THOSE ARE THE only ONES
YOU CAN UNDERSTAND?

ROFL. Kingston can't understand the Question! Bull**** - he pretends he
doesn't understand. He also does not permit himself to be asked the
question! - but immediately jumps in to intercept it, and to suggest why he
should not answer it.

Kingston pretend he never wrote that authors should not have any right of
reply to critics of their books at Chesscafe. --The Issue


Mark, this is one of Phil's recurring delusions and defamatory
tropes. He, Sloan, and Parr cooked up the claims that (A) there was/is
"book-banning" at ChessCafe.com and USCFsales.com, and (B) I was/am
somehow the evil mastermind behind it.

You words not mine. Your role was much simpler! You will not be accused by
me of being a mastermidn for the most evident reasons. By exaggerating what
others say Kingston hopes to dissapear what he actually did, and alsoavoid
any responsibility for it.

By (A) what they really meant was

What they wrote - not what you wrote!

Of course, Holsbey wont ask Kinston if he favoured banning authors from
defending their own books, and Kingston won't directly answer that question
no matter who asks it.

He would prefer to invent other questions which he can dismiss or suggest do
not need answers.

That is the level of honest here DEMONSTRATED concerning Taylor Kingston -
who BTW will not authorise me to publish his e-mail on this topic, nor will
he even say if his attitude is to allow authors right of reply at the place
where he did his reviews of authors not carried - though not by evidence of
their commercial worth, since other vendors did not seem to object to
selling them.

Phil Innes

that they considered certain of
their buddies, specifically Eric Schiller, Larry Evans, and Raymond
Keene, to be under-represented in the catalog. That many of their works
are of poor quality seemed irrelevant to Innes et al.
As for (B), I have no say, and never have had any say, in what books
are carried by ChessCafe and/or USCF Sales. My advice on what to stock
or not to stock has never been solicited nor offered.
I do write book reviews, but out of the 120 or so reviews I have
written for ChessCafe, only two have dealt with any books by these
writers. One, of Keene's book on Nimzovitch, was positive, the other,
of a Schiller book, gave it the panning it richly deserved. I have
never reviewed any book by Evans.

This matter was also beaten to a pulp quite some time ago.

Mark Houlsby wrote:

Chess One wrote:

(nothing worth quoting)

Evasion noted.

Evasion compounded by disingenuousness noted.

Evasion compounded by disingenuousness compounded by insult noted.

Pretty typical of your writing, Phil. Still, the triple whammy is
relatively rare.

You have to admit, Phil has a huge steaming pile of ego! The whole
song-and-dance of writing vague questions and then insulting those
who give correct answers or who ask for clarification is classic
internet trollery.

What if we all just stopped responding to him?

Engineer wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:

Chess One wrote:

(nothing worth quoting)

Evasion noted.

Evasion compounded by disingenuousness noted.

Evasion compounded by disingenuousness compounded by insult noted.

Pretty typical of your writing, Phil. Still, the triple whammy is
relatively rare.

You have to admit, Phil has a huge steaming pile of ego! The whole
song-and-dance of writing vague questions and then insulting those
who give correct answers or who ask for clarification is classic
internet trollery.

What if we all just stopped responding to him?

Look up the "Innes Pledge" in this newsgroup.

Chess One wrote:

Kinston - you are such a massive liar. Those are your words
not mine. Take them back or it is you who are the liar!

You accused me of the same thing. Then I provided the subject,
date, Message-ID and google archive URL showing that, your
accusations notwitstanding, you did indeed write what I said
you wrote.