The Historian wrote:

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.

Neither do I, but something tells me I'd prefer not to meet one, in a
dark alley, late
at night....

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

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?

It was Christmas Eve and all through the 100-acre wood:-

KLINGON THINKON

Rather limited people were wondering if perhaps a bunch of rustics in Spain
somehow got together and all agreed to play chess against a bunch of other
rustics in Poland, who conceivable had also found each other through their
mutual liking of playing chess 'in the mails' yikes!.

Then these 2 rusticated groups somehow encountered each other and agree to
play a match.

Since this is the other possible scenario to the first correspondance match,
as suggested here by Taylor Klingon - but naturally without describing who
these rusticated correspondance players were, or how they conspired to meet,
or where and when they did it - he thought it necessary to distinguish HIS
idea from what is actually known, that people in cities played people in
other cities first.

He stumbled over the question to demand that it should say inter-city, as if
this distinguished it from something earlier he knew of, but known to him
alone. He insisted on this distinction!

Of course, he is not called Vaguer Klingon for nothing! And has not
presented his own information about this earlier match or why he insists on
'inter-city' which would be to distinguish it from his rustic players - not
yet! But he and friends have only had 40 attempts at it, far too little
rumination for them to come to any point.

What he has done /instead/ is refer us to the origin of a correspondance
chess game, not match, but made a small mistake in doing so [which, to
mention a minor quibble, was only off by 500 years].

He then told everyone in a further 'clarifying-diversion' this was simply
the first game-score that was known, not the first correspondance game as he
had written before, but continued to ask about previous game-scores [for no
stated reason].

Upon these vague miscomprehensions of 7 words of plain English he and his
group remain puzzled. This is the fault of others, they exclaim angrily.

This was Klinon's dastardly idea; to take one selected question to
illustrate the worthlessness of all 20 items on the origins of chess, which
had no appeal to them, and to resent that these appear here in rgcm to the
extent of cutting them out [!] instead of commenting on them, but to refer
the reader to something available elsewhere.

Fiends and Familiars have now demanded 'definitions' of 'first match', since
those 7 simple words in the question are proving too hard for them, too! At
least, this is how I understand their current 'demand'.

It should be no wonder at all that they conclude as they often do about
other people's understanding when this very slim grasp on chess subjects is
paralleled by their grasp of even the plainest English. At least, this seems
to be their basis of operation together - as if, really, they pretend to be
as thick as 2 planks.

The only wonder is the wisdom of continuing to voice their anger at anyone
presuming to write about chess in chess newsgroups. One of them has even
come to compulsively demand several times a day why chess politics should be
written about in a chess politics newsgroup.

Klingon is more modest in his demands - he just declares things of no worth,
and since he already said so, that is enough for him. And of course so that
Burnien will do his Merry-Eyeore impressions which do so amuse the others.

BOVINE STEROIDS?

Their joint contributions have been of no chessic worth, but vastly amusing
noises - as if from the hundred acre wood, a convincing imitation of bovines
on steroids?

So convincing in fact that its hard to think they are not joking about their
wit's worth.

Phil Innes



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.

Chess One wrote:



It was Christmas Eve and all through the 100-acre wood:-

KLINGON THINKON

Rather limited people were wondering if perhaps a bunch of rustics in Spain
somehow got together and all agreed to play chess against a bunch of other
rustics in Poland, who conceivable had also found each other through their
mutual liking of playing chess 'in the mails' yikes!.

Then these 2 rusticated groups somehow encountered each other and agree to
play a match.

Since this is the other possible scenario to the first correspondance match,
as suggested here by Taylor Klingon - but naturally without describing who
these rusticated correspondance players were, or how they conspired to meet,
or where and when they did it - he thought it necessary to distinguish HIS
idea from what is actually known, that people in cities played people in
other cities first.

He stumbled over the question to demand that it should say inter-city, as if
this distinguished it from something earlier he knew of, but known to him
alone. He insisted on this distinction!

Of course, he is not called Vaguer Klingon for nothing! And has not
presented his own information about this earlier match or why he insists on
'inter-city' which would be to distinguish it from his rustic players - not
yet! But he and friends have only had 40 attempts at it, far too little
rumination for them to come to any point.

What he has done /instead/ is refer us to the origin of a correspondance
chess game, not match, but made a small mistake in doing so [which, to
mention a minor quibble, was only off by 500 years].

He then told everyone in a further 'clarifying-diversion' this was simply
the first game-score that was known, not the first correspondance game as he
had written before, but continued to ask about previous game-scores [for no
stated reason].

Upon these vague miscomprehensions of 7 words of plain English he and his
group remain puzzled. This is the fault of others, they exclaim angrily.

This was Klinon's dastardly idea; to take one selected question to
illustrate the worthlessness of all 20 items on the origins of chess, which
had no appeal to them, and to resent that these appear here in rgcm to the
extent of cutting them out [!] instead of commenting on them, but to refer
the reader to something available elsewhere.

Fiends and Familiars have now demanded 'definitions' of 'first match', since
those 7 simple words in the question are proving too hard for them, too! At
least, this is how I understand their current 'demand'.

It should be no wonder at all that they conclude as they often do about
other people's understanding when this very slim grasp on chess subjects is
paralleled by their grasp of even the plainest English. At least, this seems
to be their basis of operation together - as if, really, they pretend to be
as thick as 2 planks.

The only wonder is the wisdom of continuing to voice their anger at anyone
presuming to write about chess in chess newsgroups. One of them has even
come to compulsively demand several times a day why chess politics should be
written about in a chess politics newsgroup.

Klingon is more modest in his demands - he just declares things of no worth,
and since he already said so, that is enough for him. And of course so that
Burnien will do his Merry-Eyeore impressions which do so amuse the others.

BOVINE STEROIDS?

Their joint contributions have been of no chessic worth, but vastly amusing
noises - as if from the hundred acre wood, a convincing imitation of bovines
on steroids?

So convincing in fact that its hard to think they are not joking about their
wit's worth.

Phil Innes


Evasion noted.

Mark Houlsby

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

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?"

POST OF THE YEAR!

O dear! Having muffed the other challenged question, it is now necessary a
new one in order to dispute it. There may be several saints who wrote of
chess playing; which which of 'em did it first is the very difficult
question.

Perhaps to re-arrange Horowitz's syntax for fellow Murcans it is necessary
to ask, Which saint first referenced chess playing? which I now do, to aide
those people who struggle with the difficult 9-worded sentence above.

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.

Such stupendous logic! Swami Brennen has decided that the question is
changed by asking about 'firsts' not perhaps noticing by question 19 that
most of the other questions also were about firsts.

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?

Exactly! But who are you to argue that you can understand anything? Don't
tell me, show me! Since your question is about 'anyone', but if you peer
closely at it, my question mentions 'saint'.

Did, BTW, you know of some previous saint who referenced chess? This is,
after all, a chess newsgroup, and this is a quiz about chess history. Its
not just for jokes. I hope you have considered these factors, as well as the
need to actually know things, rather than mooo out loud at what seems
unfamiliar to you.

BEST JOKE OF THE YEAR

Of course, you did make the best self-deprecating joke of the year! You
declared 'Old English is dead', which is one of the funniest things I EVER
read, and it must have taken you some time and considerable knowledge to
'refute' the idea by using 4 Old English words!

ha ha ha! What do you call this verbal device? In your honor I named it
Brennunization, and I suggest you spare us any false modesty, since you are
so profoundly good at it.

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,

Look-it! It another joke, heavily signalled to Mark, whose modem rarely
exceeds 14.4

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:

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.

Exactly - another hilarious joke. The writer declares that he doesn't
understand that it is men mostly who quibble over Chess Bitch, and asks his
fren Mark if he knows what "mostly men" is [sic.]

I have to hand it to you, and thank you so much for this yule-merriment! I
can hardly wait for Mark to f****** reply.

Ho Ho Ho! Cordially, Santa

Chess One wrote:

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

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?"

POST OF THE YEAR!

O dear! Having muffed the other challenged question, it is now necessary a
new one in order to dispute it. There may be several saints who wrote of
chess playing; which which of 'em did it first is the very difficult
question.

Perhaps to re-arrange Horowitz's syntax for fellow Murcans it is necessary
to ask, Which saint first referenced chess playing? which I now do, to aide
those people who struggle with the difficult 9-worded sentence above.

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.

Such stupendous logic! Swami Brennen has decided that the question is
changed by asking about 'firsts' not perhaps noticing by question 19 that
most of the other questions also were about firsts.

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?

Exactly! But who are you to argue that you can understand anything? Don't
tell me, show me! Since your question is about 'anyone', but if you peer
closely at it, my question mentions 'saint'.

Did, BTW, you know of some previous saint who referenced chess? This is,
after all, a chess newsgroup, and this is a quiz about chess history. Its
not just for jokes. I hope you have considered these factors, as well as the
need to actually know things, rather than mooo out loud at what seems
unfamiliar to you.

BEST JOKE OF THE YEAR

Of course, you did make the best self-deprecating joke of the year! You
declared 'Old English is dead', which is one of the funniest things I EVER
read, and it must have taken you some time and considerable knowledge to
'refute' the idea by using 4 Old English words!


....surely you mean: "... Olde Englishe words!".

ha ha ha! What do you call this verbal device? In your honor I named it
Brennunization, and I suggest you spare us any false modesty, since you are
so profoundly good at it.


Has your word caught on anywhere?

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,

Look-it! It another joke, heavily signalled to Mark, whose modem rarely
exceeds 14.4


Yeah, Houlsby must be dumb on account of his modem...

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:

A year ago!


Yes! 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.

Exactly - another hilarious joke. The writer declares that he doesn't
understand that it is men mostly who quibble over Chess Bitch, and asks his
fren Mark if he knows what "mostly men" is [sic.]


sic, indeed. His point being that you often exhibit difficulty in
constructing a proper sentence.

You always exhibit difficulty in constructing one which can be
understood by those of us who don't inhabit Planet Innes....

I have to hand it to you, and thank you so much for this yule-merriment! I
can hardly wait for Mark to f****** reply.

Ho Ho Ho! Cordially, Santa

Ahem... I *never* split an infinitive with an expletive.

O! O! O!

Yours in a white wine sauce,

MH

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.


Neil, a question just occurred to me: if he's not a member of the USCF,
how can he access the fora in the first instance?

His having been banned may still be the most logical explanation. Folks
still talk about him there, but never kindly, AFAICT.

Mark Houlsby wrote:
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.


Neil, a question just occurred to me: if he's not a member of the USCF,
how can he access the fora in the first instance?

The fora had been up and running for a while before they required
registration with a USCF ID number. Non-members can still read there, I
understand. But they cannot post.

His having been banned may still be the most logical explanation. Folks
still talk about him there, but never kindly, AFAICT.

The Innes postings there were only slightly more readable than his rgcp
crap. The subject matter was his usual drone that no one but him cares
about chess, and that he, as a non-USCF member, should dictate USCF
policy.

The Historian wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
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.


Neil, a question just occurred to me: if he's not a member of the USCF,
how can he access the fora in the first instance?

The fora had been up and running for a while before they required
registration with a USCF ID number. Non-members can still read there, I
understand. But they cannot post.


I couldn't even read the fora before I acquired a USCF ID and PIN. It's
quite possible, I suppose, that Philsy can still read the boards with
his old ID and PIN, even if his membership has lapsed...

His having been banned may still be the most logical explanation. Folks
still talk about him there, but never kindly, AFAICT.

The Innes postings there were only slightly more readable than his rgcp
crap. The subject matter was his usual drone that no one but him cares
about chess, and that he, as a non-USCF member, should dictate USCF
policy.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Many thanks,

Mark

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Chess One wrote:

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

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?"

POST OF THE YEAR!

O dear! Having muffed the other challenged question, it is now necessary a
new one in order to dispute it. There may be several saints who wrote of
chess playing; which which of 'em did it first is the very difficult
question.

Perhaps to re-arrange Horowitz's syntax for fellow Murcans it is necessary
to ask, Which saint first referenced chess playing? which I now do, to aide
those people who struggle with the difficult 9-worded sentence above.

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.

Such stupendous logic! Swami Brennen has decided that the question is
changed by asking about 'firsts' not perhaps noticing by question 19 that
most of the other questions also were about firsts.

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?

Exactly! But who are you to argue that you can understand anything? Don't
tell me, show me! Since your question is about 'anyone', but if you peer
closely at it, my question mentions 'saint'.

Did, BTW, you know of some previous saint who referenced chess? This is,
after all, a chess newsgroup, and this is a quiz about chess history. Its
not just for jokes. I hope you have considered these factors, as well as the
need to actually know things, rather than mooo out loud at what seems
unfamiliar to you.

BEST JOKE OF THE YEAR

Of course, you did make the best self-deprecating joke of the year! You
declared 'Old English is dead', which is one of the funniest things I EVER
read, and it must have taken you some time and considerable knowledge to
'refute' the idea by using 4 Old English words!


...surely you mean: "... Olde Englishe words!".

Yes, it's one of the more amusing of Philsy's many, many idiocies. He
can't understand that a langauge is not the same as its stock of words,
or lexicon. So he believes that Neil Armstong spoke Old English on the
moon, and Winston Churchill spoke Anglo Saxon in his wartime
broadcasts.

My favorite moment in that thread was when the Nearly an IM 2450
claimed to have inside knowledge of 'greats':

***************
After he looks this up, he might want to examine
the entries on "loanword", "borrowing", and, if he really wants his
heart broken, "Old English" and "History of English." The last states
..."within a century of the Norman Conquest of 1066 [Old English] was
dead."

I wonder then how it is explained that the 100 most used of our words
are A.
Sax.? Indeed, the Oxford Companion would be be news to Chaucer, Gower
and
William Shakespeare, Prof.s Tolkien and Lewis, all of whom utilised
that
language, innovated upon it, as we still do.
****************

ha ha ha! What do you call this verbal device? In your honor I named it
Brennunization, and I suggest you spare us any false modesty, since you are
so profoundly good at it.


Has your word caught on anywhere?

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,

Look-it! It another joke, heavily signalled to Mark, whose modem rarely
exceeds 14.4


Yeah, Houlsby must be dumb on account of his modem...

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:

A year ago!


Yes! 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.

Exactly - another hilarious joke. The writer declares that he doesn't
understand that it is men mostly who quibble over Chess Bitch, and asks his
fren Mark if he knows what "mostly men" is [sic.]


sic, indeed. His point being that you often exhibit difficulty in
constructing a proper sentence.

As in his "saint" question.

Mark Houlsby wrote:

The Historian wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:

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.

Neither do I, but something tells me I'd prefer not to meet one, in a
dark alley, late
at night....

I say we send all those mostly men back to mostly where they came from!

Prediction: Phil will now claim that "Yurpians" all write as he
does and that it is the "Murkins" who are ignorant for not knowing
that.