On Jan 19, 5:24 am, "help bot" wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jan 15, 6:31 am, "Rob" wrote:
3) "Frank Marshall's fighting style and sense of fair play made
his games exciting to watch."

While a sense of fair play can make one
an honorable person, it has no bearing on whether one's games are
exciting to watch. Any move allowed by the rules is fair.

Regarding this last point, I think they may have been talking about
the problem relating to those players who abused any lack of strict
time controls back then.

By the time Marshall broke into the upper ranks of chess (late 1890s
- early 1900s), the use of clocks had been standard practice in major
tournaments for twenty or thirty years.

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

Taylor, I will also be blunt. you have a particularly annoying tendancy
to become obtuse and abrasive over small points of syntax.

That's "tendency", you nitwit.

Since this is pulling-your-leg week, I suggest 'tendoncy'.

And who are you calling abrasive,
muddlehead? Look, TK has this stack of books, writ by experts.
Now who are you gonna believe, them, or some guy who can't
remember who played in what tourney, or who conquered all the
greats? I say it's obvious.

Snot! 'Seni ful no. Even if'n you have stuff, do you /know/ stuff, and if'n
you know stuff, do you /understand/ stuff? (See my game against Duras). But
that's not the real point, or blunt, which is that one perspective solves
all - and as a visual metaphor this is absurd. Imagine looking at a certain
person's legs under the table, eg, and you ask one person what they see, and
they answer;

"Patela."

Then you ask 'nother person who is crouching behind the person being looked
at, what they see, and they reply:-

"Back of her knee, init?"

Which is true? Philosophically in logic, chosing only one answer is called
'the pathetic fallacy', which has a long name in German, longer than the
Eiger Tunnelll, and which you Murcans call 'doh!' a termed originally coined
by a sausage-smelling bloke from old Yurp, who once dropped his bread from
the table and when going to pick it up noticed these knees, intrigued, he
then crawled unobserved under the table to see what was on the other side.

It was amazing he had to mention it at all, but people had pretended there
was only one side to things - just to keep it simple, anticipating one of
the poorer Australian contributions to ideas world culture.

They seemed to say that if you walked around to the other side it would be
just the same as the side you had just looked at. As if they thought people
had two kneecaps! When asked how they 'know' that, they said it was obvious,
you nitwit!

The true answer is not a, and not b, but at least a and b. You may have
noticed how old Yurp had some considerable difficulties in enculturating
this idea, causing millions of lives to be spent and misspent, absent a
necessary admission of plurality. You know, blokes get into power, confuse
that with wisdom, fairness, and a liking for chili-dogs, and send off the
gunboats. Other people say this is marvellous as long as we are winning!
Some Italian bloke named Da Macky Velcro wrote it up like it was the gear to
do and princes went right ahead and did done it. -- extract from; Histry of
Yurp part deux, copyright 2012

And this is why John Adams wrote of an empire of laws, not an empire of men,
and this was the very great significance of the declaration of independence,
since for the founders it wassna just creating another country, but a
country founded on another basis entirely. It was the world's country.

But I digress.

Why not actually write something for Vignettes, and 'get a leg up' on other
people who say they could, but don't. Why 'carp' at home when you could go
real fishin'?

Not necessary to choose Alekhine who is a tad complicated and needs serial
treatment [idea!] but how about a very neglected subject of attention, the
chessic auteur Koltanowski? BTW, I have his 'Practical Play of the Max
Lange' and have been waiting 200 games to play it, but opponents are proving
difficult, and I am forced into better positions.

Anyway, don't cry for me, Netbotina.

You take Sam Remo, for instance.

Any relation to Sam Spade, he also got took, falcons wunnit?

In
1930 -- right after the end of WWII -- he went and took clear first
at the Alekhine tourney,

I think you may be in error and have inadvertently referred to the
boar-waugh, as we Yurps say. There is a famous movie about it with a chess
position as central feature. The defence of Rook's Drift, with Mikul Kaine!
Who almost singlehandedly fights off 17,000 Zulu. -- extract from; Histry
of non-Yurp part twa, copyright 2013

ahead of Nesmowitch.

In Yurp we say 'Neumannwich', w. mstd, hld mayo, + side of fries.

Everybody knows
this -- it's kids stuff. Just give it up -- you're beaten, Mr.
Michell.

Another small error, I believe it is now spelled 'Mitchelll'. I hope we are
not witnessing more 'l' envy, by people with no l's in their name? There was
an English bloke who had it so strong but couldn't speak up for himself
everyone thought he was suffering from cowardice.

No el, coward! They shouted at him in the street.

I always gnue that me an' Edward Winter wood win out in the end.
But I never expected TK to be their two.

You befell Spectationism as mentioned by Vergel and stolen by Tacitus, who,
when he wasn't hanging out in the 'dirty-quarter' of the old city, which
wasn't very often, he would put on a clean sheet to go up to the forum to
declaim on the wisdom of those who only look.

"Veni", he would begin, then "willi nili Vichi" [while singing a few lines
from the gallic-song, La Mayoneaise], and finally of all, Vincit Amor Vine,
which altogether has a meaning, "Lookit, will you! Never mind drinking this
maiden's water, let's all get skunked!"

This is real histrionic research, the quality of vich ve hold to be or not
to be self-evident!

Cardigans, Philll Innes.

-- expert bot

small suggestions, 'blot', 'blotto' ?

Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history may

enjoy.

http://www.chessville.com/misc/Histo...ttes/index.htm

Check it out. It is unique in that it is reader driven.
Is there a new one coming?

Taylor Kingston wrote:

3) "Frank Marshall's fighting style and sense of fair play made
his games exciting to watch."

While a sense of fair play can make one
an honorable person, it has no bearing on whether one's games are
exciting to watch. Any move allowed by the rules is fair.

Regarding this last point, I think they may have been talking about
the problem relating to those players who abused any lack of strict
time controls back then.

By the time Marshall broke into the upper ranks of chess (late 1890s
- early 1900s), the use of clocks had been standard practice in major
tournaments for twenty or thirty years.

What part of "made his games exciting to watch" in any way implies
*only* his tournament games? Silly TK; the vast majority of chess
games played back then were not part of official tournaments, but what
would now be called skittles.

Even today, it could be considered insulting to insist on use of a
clock
for such games; the (albeit vague) implication being that the opponent
cannot be trusted to act like a gentleman should -- moving within a
reasonable period of time.
IMO, what the writer likely meant was that Frank Marshall's games
progressed at a reasonable pace, and just as important from the
perspective of spectators, they were not dull, lifeless affairs like
say,
many of Nimzowitch's 100+-movers.
Years ago, Gary Kasparov published a book of his own games --
before his gigantic ego went mad as a hatter. The title was "Fighting
Chess, my games and career", or something similar. He prided himself
on having a "fighting" style, and why is this particular style so
desired?
It must be on account of its peculiar effect on the spectators, for
otherwise a dull technical affair scores the same as a spectacular
slugfest. Add to this the common knowledge that many -- if not most --
of these slugfests are seriously flawed, while a dry technical
exploitation
of some minute advantage may well be superior, from the perspective of
the connoisseur.

-- help bot

help bot wrote:
Taylor Kingston wrote:

3) "Frank Marshall's fighting style and sense of fair play made
his games exciting to watch."

While a sense of fair play can make one
an honorable person, it has no bearing on whether one's games are
exciting to watch. Any move allowed by the rules is fair.

Regarding this last point, I think they may have been talking about
the problem relating to those players who abused any lack of strict
time controls back then.

By the time Marshall broke into the upper ranks of chess (late 1890s
- early 1900s), the use of clocks had been standard practice in major
tournaments for twenty or thirty years.

What part of "made his games exciting to watch" in any way implies
*only* his tournament games? Silly TK; the vast majority of chess
games played back then were not part of official tournaments, but what
would now be called skittles.

Even today, it could be considered insulting to insist on use of a
clock
for such games; the (albeit vague) implication being that the opponent
cannot be trusted to act like a gentleman should -- moving within a
reasonable period of time.
IMO, what the writer likely meant was that Frank Marshall's games
progressed at a reasonable pace, and just as important from the
perspective of spectators, they were not dull, lifeless affairs like
say,
many of Nimzowitch's 100+-movers.
Years ago, Gary Kasparov published a book of his own games --
before his gigantic ego went mad as a hatter. The title was "Fighting
Chess, my games and career", or something similar. He prided himself
on having a "fighting" style, and why is this particular style so
desired?
It must be on account of its peculiar effect on the spectators, for
otherwise a dull technical affair scores the same as a spectacular
slugfest. Add to this the common knowledge that many -- if not most --
of these slugfests are seriously flawed, while a dry technical
exploitation
of some minute advantage may well be superior, from the perspective of
the connoisseur.

-- help bot

You may not call yourself "smart bot" :-)
Maybe bot will send in something to Vignettes as well? I am anxious to
read the next reader submission.
Rob

Rob wrote:

-- help bot

You may not call yourself "smart bot" :-)

Compared to Jason Repa, even a grapefruit might appear to be quite
smart!

Maybe bot will send in something to Vignettes as well?

Nah, here I am in agreement with Taylor Kingston that such material
is best left to the experts. For one thing, this way you are able to
save
a whole step in the process (the one where a multitude of factual
errors
are later corrected by people who actually have some real facts).
Saving
steps means less work, and I am all for that.

However, I would be willing to check over (as if Fritz could not do
this
a thousand times better) any chess analysis for obvious blunders, such
as the one in which GM Soltis -- after bragging that he took great care
in
compiling one book of chess games -- overlooked a simple capture of a
free Rook by the deeply hidden: "pxR -- duh!"

I get a lot of emails these days, and it seems to me that were I
given
just *five minutes* to look over any one of them, I could easily spot
most
of the errors and correct them before they are sent out to *thousands*
of
recipients. Yet it always seems to be the case that these writers have
LARGE egos, and cannot recognize the need for any improvement in their
wares whatever. In fact, many of these newsletters, as I shall call
them,
contradict one another as to the facts, or at the very least, take the
same
set of facts and from them draw opposing positions which their writers
cling to like a fish to water.

Hey, if Tinker Taylor gets to call himself smarter than the average
bear,
then why can't I call myself smart bot? Who's higher-rated at GetClub,
me or him? Who just made the egregious error (ooooh, it feels so good
to be able to use that word in this particular context) of wrongly
assuming
that a writer must have meant only Frank Marshall's *tournament* games?
Who "overlooked" pxR, me or him? Whose horrid oversight was spotted
by that obnoxious GM, Ray Keene? Who miscalculated his correspondence
rating as "2300+" -- missing by at least 2%, me or him? Obviously,
when
you can answer these questions, it will become cristal cleer which of
us to
has earned the right to call himself smartt.

-- help bot

Chess One wrote:

People may say just about anything given the audience they are playing
to. WHile in Fascist controled Madrid he may have determined the best
way to insure his safety would be to "play the part" for the benefit of
his safety.

Well, there really was no need for Alekhine -- or anyone else, for
that
matter -- to bash the Jews in chess. Just look at their results
objectively:
countless second places, third places, and often even lower. Yes, the
Jews really had no talent whatever for the game, and it is obvious that
the Aryan superiority lay in a superior, attacking style of play, in
contrast
to the horrid, defensive ugliness of say, a GM Lasker -- whose lame
results
speak for themselves. The same holds true half a century later, as can

be seen in the mediocre results of GM Fischer and GM Kasparov, for
instance. If anything, Alekhine should be criticized for being too
easy
on the Jews, too laid-back in his assessments of the myriad defects in
their play -- which time and space forbid me from delving into here.
Suffice it to say that any second-rate Aryan with the least experience
in chess would easily wipe GM Fischer off the board today -- were he
not
such a coward, afraid to even play. Deep Purple* -- the latest in a
long
line of superior, Aryan-programmed chess computers -- awaits any and
all Jewish challengers who may wish to make the mistake of going up
against the superior race.

-- Eine bot


Deep Purple's specs. --

1028 parallel processors, each of which has:

256 GB memory

2,000 GHz

All 7-man or less endgames stored in tablebases

A hot-phone direct line to GM Fischer in Iceland, if stumped

128 volume ECO accessible in 0.0008 milliseconds, avg. seek time

Remote control access to the room lights (and fire alarm, in case of
serious trouble)

Quadruple backup failsafe power supply, uninterruptable

Another direct line to President Bush, who is empowered to annul any
game where the program detects a mate-in-twenty coming via its
brute-force tactical "quick-check" feature. This feature, like many
others, was developed and perfected by the superior, Aryan race, and
as you might imagine, makes the program *very* difficult to beat by
circumventing checkmates for the inferior races, and only allowing
those by "true Aryans" as determined by a retinal scan, cross
referenced
to a massive database (and you thought GM Fischer's demands were
tough!).

-- smart bot

Hey, if Tinker Taylor gets to call himself smarter than the average
bear,
then why can't I call myself smart bot? Who's higher-rated at GetClub,
me or him? Who just made the egregious error (ooooh, it feels so good
to be able to use that word in this particular context) of wrongly
assuming


Taylor Kinston is afraid of playing as now the game plays much stronger
than earlier and he may loose a game with Normal Level

Recently game strength was again increased. Each level will play
stronger than before.

Strong players were asking for more strength in the game as they win
easily so it was descided to increase level of smaller levels to that
of higher level to satisfy strong players need. Weak player can play
with Beginner & Easy Level only and they will be beaten by them easily.
Strong players may test Normal & Master Level. I am sure they will give
good challenge to even strong players. But they will think a lot.

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Beginner will play as it used to in 10-20 seconds. (For average
players, Me and my Friends)

Easy will play like Normal Level 1-2 min/ move (for strong players like
Nomorechess, Bonsai, Richard etc)

Normal will play like Advance Level 5-10 min/move. (For tournament
Players like Taylor Kingston, Bob, Chrisf, Zebediah etc)

Master Level will play much deeper and think a lot 1/2 hr / move Only
for the Deranged and those who have lot of time.

Bye
Sanny


Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

People may say just about anything given the audience they are playing
to. WHile in Fascist controled Madrid he may have determined the best
way to insure his safety would be to "play the part" for the benefit of
his safety.

I didn't write that. And the rest of this is in poor taste. If you want
contemporary 2007-antisemitic material by current players I have a small
collection in 3 languages.

It ain't pretty, and its very much cruder than the jokey material below.

What is of general interest is the parano level of those who write it - what
I have also noticed is that the same is true for resentment of any 'other'
group, and a significant change in the writing takes place, from formerly
cogent or at least reasonable expression when talking directly about chess,
to distinctly strangled argument and crudity when the resented 'other' is
referenced.

Almost as if this were a different person - and shrinks do sometimes call
this stuff isolated-complex. Formerly you could be having a usual
conversation with that person, and pleased to cll them reasonable - but on
this subject - no! No reason can get a word in.

Even well-heeled smoothies who have never seemed to be nothing else than
reasonable, can switch to ranting tryants with material not susceptible to
any reason at all. You lose all common ground of discussion with such a
person, much as they have lost it in themselves.

While they rant about other people [typically dehumanising them] as devils,
etc - it is they who seemed to be possessed. But such people are as they are
since they will not look at their own relationship to these subjects - and
either deny they exist at all, or provide metaphysical 'reasons' which
exempt their own behaviors.

What seems missing in all these appreciations is that everyone here knows
what I am talking about from their own experience - even if the subject is
anodyne without social implication - such as not liking spinach, and always
getting emotional about it. Although most people here will acknowledge their
own part in raging, and that is the means of the remedy!

Phil Innes

Well, there really was no need for Alekhine -- or anyone else, for
that
matter -- to bash the Jews in chess. Just look at their results
objectively:
countless second places, third places, and often even lower. Yes, the
Jews really had no talent whatever for the game, and it is obvious that
the Aryan superiority lay in a superior, attacking style of play, in
contrast
to the horrid, defensive ugliness of say, a GM Lasker -- whose lame
results
speak for themselves. The same holds true half a century later, as can

be seen in the mediocre results of GM Fischer and GM Kasparov, for
instance. If anything, Alekhine should be criticized for being too
easy
on the Jews, too laid-back in his assessments of the myriad defects in
their play -- which time and space forbid me from delving into here.
Suffice it to say that any second-rate Aryan with the least experience
in chess would easily wipe GM Fischer off the board today -- were he
not
such a coward, afraid to even play. Deep Purple* -- the latest in a
long
line of superior, Aryan-programmed chess computers -- awaits any and
all Jewish challengers who may wish to make the mistake of going up
against the superior race.

-- Eine bot


Deep Purple's specs. --

1028 parallel processors, each of which has:

256 GB memory

2,000 GHz

All 7-man or less endgames stored in tablebases

A hot-phone direct line to GM Fischer in Iceland, if stumped

128 volume ECO accessible in 0.0008 milliseconds, avg. seek time

Remote control access to the room lights (and fire alarm, in case of
serious trouble)

Quadruple backup failsafe power supply, uninterruptable

Another direct line to President Bush, who is empowered to annul any
game where the program detects a mate-in-twenty coming via its
brute-force tactical "quick-check" feature. This feature, like many
others, was developed and perfected by the superior, Aryan race, and
as you might imagine, makes the program *very* difficult to beat by
circumventing checkmates for the inferior races, and only allowing
those by "true Aryans" as determined by a retinal scan, cross
referenced
to a massive database (and you thought GM Fischer's demands were
tough!).

-- smart bot

Chess One wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chess One wrote:

People may say just about anything given the audience they are playing
to. WHile in Fascist controled Madrid he may have determined the best
way to insure his safety would be to "play the part" for the benefit of
his safety.

I didn't write that.

Mush have been careless snipping on my part. I note that
"Chess One wrote:" had but one "", while what follows
clearly had two of them, so this was included "in" the post
to which I replied, though not written "by" Chess One himself.


And the rest of this is in poor taste.

Perhaps. I find it all irrelevant, and more than a bit obsessive,
myself. Where I live (unlike say, New York), there are no Jews
to speak of, or if there are, they *blend in* with everyone else. So
all this obsessing about Jews and persecution of them comes off
as leftover stew from WWII. By comparison, Nick Bourbaki's
obsessive ranting about discrimination against Blacks seems far
more to the point here, and one could add the more recent
resentment directed against Mexican immigrants, who come up
here and work side-by-side while not bothering to "blend in" by
learning English. Yet these groups, despite their much greater
size, are by comparison quite ignored, while the Jews steal all
the thunder. Note well how one handicapped man was shot
down when he tried in vain to point out that it was not only the
Jews who were victimized by the Nazis, but other groups as
well. To me, this is indicative of obsession, of a lack of balance.

If you want
contemporary 2007-antisemitic material by current players I have a small
collection in 3 languages.

I should prefer modern English, next the British English dialect, and
third, truly butchered English, for I know not any other languages with

any fluency.


It ain't pretty, and its very much cruder than the jokey material below.

Well, that puts you one-up on your old pal, Mr. Parr, who seems
to have difficulties in even recognizing the serious from the joking.

What is of general interest is the parano

An Italian pirrana, male.


level of those who write it - what
I have also noticed is that the same is true for resentment of any 'other'
group, and a significant change in the writing takes place, from formerly
cogent or at least reasonable expression when talking directly about chess,
to distinctly strangled argument and crudity when the resented 'other' is
referenced.


Almost as if this were a different person - and shrinks do sometimes call
this stuff isolated-complex. Formerly you could be having a usual
conversation with that person, and pleased to cll them reasonable - but on
this subject - no! No reason can get a word in.

That is precisely how many of us feel about the Evans ratpack!
Once these lunies get hold of an "idea", they cannot be reasoned
with, period.

Even well-heeled smoothies

So then, you've heard about my Capablanca-like exploits with
women? Actually, he was a bit timid, and I much prefer the
"attacking style" of a Don Juan.


who have never seemed to be nothing else than
reasonable, can switch to ranting tryants with material not susceptible to
any reason at all.

Ah, you must mean the two Larrys, Mr. Evans and Mr. Parr.


You lose all common ground of discussion with such a
person, much as they have lost it in themselves.

I couldn't agree more.


While they rant about other people [typically dehumanising them] as devils,

Er, no; from what I've seen, they prefer to characterize their
critics as bumbling idiots, not competent enough to rate as
devils, really.

etc - it is they who seemed to be possessed. But such people are as they are
since they will not look at their own relationship to these subjects

Great minds think alike! It's as though you were reading my very
thoughts.

- and
either deny they exist at all, or provide metaphysical 'reasons' which
exempt their own behaviors.

Errors "creep in", etc., etc. Spot on, Mr. Innes.


What seems missing in all these appreciations is that everyone here knows
what I am talking about from their own experience - even if the subject is
anodyne without social implication - such as not liking spinach,

Again, the perfect mind-reading!


and always
getting emotional about it. Although most people here will acknowledge their
own part in raging, and that is the means of the remedy!

The remedy, to me, would seem to be first recognizing the
facts, and then -- keeping a rational perspective without lapsing
into obsession about any one particular group of victims --
trying very hard to learn from the mistakes of the past, in order
not to repeat them.

--------

I watched part of a movie on TV last night with some relatives,
and after it ended they both wondered out loud about how those
nasty Middle Eastern countries (read: Muslims) had no respect
for the Geneva Convention, how they trampled its rules. I of
course was the only one out of three typical, ignorant Americans,
who was in the least aware of the fact that the USA has signed,
but not followed, these same rules. [The movie showed a few
of our spies doing a Rambo in Iraq, then getting captured and
tortured.] Despite a brief flare-up in the American press regarding
our own issues being fairly recent, for these two relatives of mine,
all our own sins were long forgotten, if indeed not dismissed out
of hand as anti-American propaganda, regardless of photographic
evidence and even admission.
As the song says, it's a very strange world that we live in, master
Jack.

-- help bot