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?

Good question.

http://masl.to/?X29A25B6E

Chess One wrote:

"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


Face it, Phil. The only people who respond to you are those who are
prepared to point out how full of **** you are.

You have been banned from the USCF's fora BECAUSE YOU ARE A DERANGED
TROLL.

Unfortunately, nobody can ban you from writing here.

We can, however, point out that you're full of ****.

You give us new opportunities so to do, almost every day.

Mark Houlsby

Engineer wrote:
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.

Betcha a nickel that Innes claims "Engineer" is another one of my
aliases.

Mark Houlsby wrote:

You have been banned from the USCF's fora BECAUSE YOU ARE A DERANGED
TROLL.

Has Mr. Innes been banned from the USCF "fora?" It was my understanding
that the rules had been changed to prevent posting by non-USCF members.
That's not quite the same.

I do agree that Innes is a deranged troll.

Unfortunately, nobody can ban you from writing here.

We can, however, point out that you're full of ****.

You give us new opportunities so to do, almost every day.

Mark Houlsby

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 23 Dec 2006 14:51:43 GMT):

7 ... This is a Blairism - to have completely eliminated the
7 thing now demanded, ...

_
No specifics about me, of course.

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:14:36 GMT):

7 ... If you ask your friend Taylor what it says in the same
7 encyclopedia about Lasker being 8th, he won't tell you. He
7 will instead argue the /merits/ of what the encyclopedia
7 says, but he will accuse you of making it up. He certainly
7 did that to me over a space of 20 messages.
7
7 Alternately he won't do anything and will duck the question
7
7 If you don't believe this, try it. ...


_
"... [The encyclopedia] does say Lasker was
'8th at Nottingham 1936,' but that is inaccurate.
He was =7-8th, a minor yet definite difference.
The entry contains other errors as well. At least
it does not make Innes' error about Hastings
1935, nor claim, like he did, that Nottingham
1936 had a field of 8 instead of its actual 15.
...
... David Hooper wrote the entry on Lasker.
Uncharacteristic of him to make such an error.
..." - Taylor Kingston (15 Nov 2006 08:11:50 -0800)

Taylor Kingston wrote (23 Dec 2006 07:34:44 -0800):
7 ... Phil suddenly had a wild hair to belittle Lasker, ...

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:15:16 GMT):

7 ... Kinston - you are such a massive liar. Those are your
7 words not mine. Take them back or it is you who are the liar!
7
7 I reported what Hooper had written, ...

_
Phil Innes did somewhat more than that.
_
"... And here is the [Nottingham 1936] cross table
for the tournament. Seems like Lasker did not only
come 8th, but came last! ..." - Phil Innes (Mon,
13 Nov 2006 21:28:46 GMT)
_
"... You present only about half of [the Nottingham
1936 crosstable]. Nottingham 1936 had a field of 15,
not 8. You have completely omitted Vidmar,
Tartakower, Bogolyubov, Tylor, Alexander, Thomas,
and Winter. ... Lasker did not finish last. He had a
plus score, 8½-5½, only 1½ points behind the
winners. ..." - Taylor Kingston (13 Nov 2006
14:53:31 -0800)
_
"... lasker was bust in 1936 and hadn't played
seriously for a dozen years ... i wrote over and over
that i am not trying to do the guy brown, just not
turn him into the superman of the late twenties or
thirties who confronted the hypermoderns as
alekhine did, when lasker had all but retired in 1925.
..." - Phil Innes (Tue, 14 Nov 2006 02:25:28 GMT)
_
"... Just prior to Nottingham 1936, Lasker had
played in top-level tournaments in 1934 (Zurich),
1935 (Moscow), and 1936 (Moscow). Those are
all well under 'a dozen years' from 1936. ..."
- Taylor Kingston (15 Nov 2006 11:23:28 -0800)
_
"... His combined record in those [four] events
was +24 -12 =30. ... In his best performance
during that time, Moscow 1935, Lasker went
undefeated, +6 -0 =13, finishing a mere half-point
behind co-winners Botvinnik and Flohr ..." - Taylor
Kingston (17 Nov 2006 14:31:44 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:15:16 GMT):

7 ... [Lasker finishing 8th at Nottingham 1936] could be Hooper's
7 mistake, or it may be no mistake at all. ...

_
After working on the Encyclopedia, David Hooper went
on to collaborate with Ken Whyld on the Oxford Companion
to Chess.
_
"... looking at their entry on Lasker, I see:
_
'... and at Nottingham 1936 [he scored]
(+6 =5 -3) to share seventh place.'
_
It's right there in the Lasker entry on page 218, ..."
- Taylor Kingston (24 Nov 2006 06:25:06 -0800)

_
Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:15:16 GMT):

7 ...
7 In plain English, what are you trying to convey?
7
7 SHALL I POST YOUR own WORDS ON THIS SUBJECT - SINCE
7 THOSE ARE THE only ONES YOU CAN UNDERSTAND?
7
7 ROFL. Kingston can't understand the Question! Bull**** - he
7 pretends he doesn't understand. ...

_
Is Phil Innes aware that he is, in fact, reacting, at this point, to a
23 Dec 2006 06:07:10 -0800 question of Mark Houlsby?

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Chess One wrote:

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

The Historian wrote:

Chess One wrote:
Famous 20 Questions Christmas Quiz - not that readers here will need to
check anything! - but if you wish, score your own by looking at the 20
Answers which appear at

http://www.chessville.com:80/Editori...istmasQuiz.htm

Phil

3) When was the first chess correspondence match?

a) Berlin : Budapest, 1812

b) London : Edinburgh, 1824 & 1826

c) New Orleans : Boston Massachusetts, 1888

d) None of the above, depending on how Innes chooses to define the
words "match" and "first."

Too late to tell Horowitz! But some measure of intelligence is necessary to
understand questions, which should not run to Blairian length of 25,000
words each or order to delineate themselves.

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?"

Right, Neil, Chessville looks to be on the ball again....er...

In other words, these folks can't infer the right answer to the question,
and thought they'd tell us just that

Correct.

- and as usual, from this infer they
know sumpin.


Correct - that is, at least Neil did, I didn't know until he pointed it
out. Evidently, this was more than the quiz compiler knew...

I doubt the quiz compiler is smart enough to tie his shoes unaided.

Mark Houlsby wrote:

Right, Neil, Chessville looks to be on the ball again....er...

Hey! Wait a second!

OK, here's another question:

19) Which saint made the first reference to chess playing[?}

What I think Innes was trying to say was "Which saint wrote about chess
playing?" But since that simple sentence lacks the overheated quality
the Nearly an IM 2450 brings to his 'writing', Innes decided to throw
in a "first", not realizing that it changed the question. But if he
wants to believe that no one made a "reference" to chess playing before
St. Teresa, who am I to argue with the Nearly an IM?

Incidentally, Mark, does anyone at Chessville proofread? This question
from the Nearly an IM 2450's quiz appears on the website sans question
mark. The question, Mark, is why Chessville allows such stuff to appear
on their site. And this is hardly the worst of Philsy's clunkers.
Witness the following, posted a year ago:

"What do you think of mostly men who say that they would object to the
book becoming part of a high school studies course, not because of the
history between the covers, but because of the word "Bitch" in the
title."

Mark, do you know what a "mostly men" is? I don't.

The Historian wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:

You have been banned from the USCF's fora BECAUSE YOU ARE A DERANGED
TROLL.

Has Mr. Innes been banned from the USCF "fora?" It was my understanding
that the rules had been changed to prevent posting by non-USCF members.
That's not quite the same.


Oh, right. Thanks for the heads-up. So Phil is complaining about an
organisation of which he is not a member.

I do agree that Innes is a deranged troll.


It's difficult to doubt, I find.

Thanks, Neil.

Mark