NEW PLAY ABOUT ALEKHINE

About his last days in Portugal.

See Evans On Chess

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....cle&sid= 1113



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. 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

wrote:
NEW PLAY ABOUT ALEKHINE

About his last days in Portugal.

See Evans On Chess

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....cle&sid= 1113




Larry,
Thanks for the link. It was excellent.
Rob

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.

On Jan 22, 12:45 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history
may enjoy.

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

Another mess, both lacking in real information and chock full of
misinformation. A few comments:

The article says "Pillsbury returned to America and was challenged
by the American Champion Showalter. They engaged in a chess match, and
Pillsbury won handily."
Pillsbury did win, but not handily. The match was for 10 games up.
Showalter was actually leading +6 -5 =2 after the first thirteen
games, and the score was tied +8 -8 =3 after nineteen. Pillsbury then
won the next two games to take the match, finally. Rather than a
"handy win," this was actually considered a relatively poor showing
for Pillsbury.

"[H]e received an invitation to the St. Petersburg, tournament of
1895."
Because this event began in December 1895 and went on into January
1896, it is properly referred to as St. Petersburg 1895-96. This is the
convention for any chess tournament that spans two years.

"In 1904, the last year that he played active chess, Pillsbury beat
Lasker, with the same opening, but with a different 7th move, at
Cambridge Springs, PA, USA."
A nonsensical sentence. The same as what? A 7th move different
compared to what? The article does not say. The other game it should
mention is Pillsbury-Lasker, St. Petersburg 1895-96, round 10, 4
January 1896.

The bulk of Pillsbury's career, pretty much everything between St.
Petersburg 1895-96 and Cambridge Springs 1904, is completely omitted.
Nothing about other major tournaments: Nuremberg 1896, Budapest 1896,
Vienna 1898, London 1899, Paris 1900, Munich 1900, Monte Carlo 1902,
Hanover 1902, Monte Carlo 1903. Nothing about his blindfold play and
other famous talents.

"Later that year [i.e. 1904] Frank Marshall was proclaimed U.S.
Chess Champion when Pillsbury declined to play due to serious
illness."
Eh? What is the unnamed author's source for this claim? Who did the
alleged "proclaiming"? There was no official authority comparable
to today's USCF that could issue such a decision. I know of no
reputable basis for this claim. It is not mentioned in Soltis' "The
United States Chess Championship, 1845-1996," nor in "Pillsbury's
Chess Career" by Sergeant and Watts.
In fact, Soltis says that the tournament book of the 7th American
Chess Congress, St. Louis 1904, specifically states that Marshall's
winning that event "has no reference whatever to the United States
Chess Championship held by Harry N. Pillsbury, whom Marshall
acknowledges as holder thereof." This seems a direct contradiction of
the article's claim.
And as for "Pillsbury [declining] to play due to serious illness,"
Soltis says that he "was never officially challenged" for the title.
One cannot decline to answer a challenge that is not made.
Soltis in fact says that after Pillsbury's death, "Showalter
[was] subsequently recognized as champion." Soltis does not date the
start of Marshall's reign until 1909, when he won a match with
Showalter.

The unnamed author of this article actually seems to know relatively
little about Pillsbury, and seems little better qualified to write
about him than Stevie Wonder is to discuss photography. Chessville
again shows itself unconcerned about historical accuracy or the
competence of its contributors.

On Jan 22, 5:42 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in glegroups.com...







On Jan 22, 12:45 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history
may enjoy.

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

Another mess, both lacking in real information and chock full of
misinformation. A few comments:

The article says "Pillsbury returned to America and was challenged
by the American Champion Showalter. They engaged in a chess match, and
Pillsbury won handily."
Pillsbury did win, but not handily. The match was for 10 games up.
Showalter was actually leading +6 -5 =2 after the first thirteen
games, and the score was tied +8 -8 =3 after nineteen. Pillsbury then
won the next two games to take the match, finally. Rather than a
"handy win," this was actually considered a relatively poor showing
for Pillsbury.

"[H]e received an invitation to the St. Petersburg, tournament of 1895."
Because this event began in December 1895 and went on into January
1896, it is properly referred to as St. Petersburg 1895-96. This is the
convention for any chess tournament that spans two years.

Innes: Kingston, who will not write such material himself,

Um, Phil, I've been writing such material for years, and for much
better publications than chessvile.com, including Chess Life, Inside
Chess, Kingpin, Chess Horizons, ChessCafe.com, JeremySilman.com, and
others.

Innes: ... critises [sic] publication by
Chessville's readers - so far based on the word 'handily' and secondly
complaining that the tournament spans two years -

No, Phil. Based on the fact that the article is junk.

Innes: ... in rejection of the a [sic]
preference to the fact that it started in December and ended January. This
is so far, we are assured, "chock-full of misinformation" say [sic] the guy who
does not raise the same scruples to detail where it is reported to Gulko was
'away from chess' [meaning he and his wife being beaten up by the KGB
because they were Jewish.]

No, Phil, that is not what that passage in the OC refers to, as has
been noted here several times, most notably by your friend Bill Hyde.

"In 1904, the last year that he played active chess, Pillsbury beat
Lasker, with the same opening, but with a different 7th move, at
Cambridge Springs, PA, USA."
A nonsensical sentence. The same as what?

Innes: Presumably the writer intends the same opening until the seventh move, when
there was a deviation.

Again one must ask: the same as what? To say "This move is the same"
is meaningless.

A 7th move different
compared to what? The article does not say.

Innes: Does it need to?

Um, yes, Phil. To say "This move is different" means nothing. One
must say "It is different from ..." and then give a specific example.

Innes: I suppose anyone actually interested in chess could
download several hundred Pillsbury games offered at the same site with the
article to discovery which var. was played. Of course, I would not suspect
because Lasker was beaten that this is the issue here - although issues
around Lasker have arisen before

The other game it should
mention is Pillsbury-Lasker, St. Petersburg 1895-96, round 10, 4
January 1896.

Notice that our Phil makes no comment on this, probably to conceal
his embarrassment at not knowing what the stem game was.

The bulk of Pillsbury's career, pretty much everything between St.
Petersburg 1895-96 and Cambridge Springs 1904, is completely omitted.
Nothing about other major tournaments: Nuremberg 1896, Budapest 1896,
Vienna 1898, London 1899, Paris 1900, Munich 1900, Monte Carlo 1902,
Hanover 1902, Monte Carlo 1903. Nothing about his blindfold play and
other famous talents.

Innes: Tinker Taylor should complain to the editor of the series, since in 500-700
words he would need to include his /suggested/ text, and if there were too
many words, suggest what may be excluded in their place. Rational, no?

You are saying that a website needs to worry about space? You really
worry about silly things, Phil.

"Later that year [i.e. 1904] Frank Marshall was proclaimed U.S.
Chess Champion when Pillsbury declined to play due to serious
illness."

Eh? What is the unnamed author's source for this claim? Who did the
alleged "proclaiming"? There was no official authority comparable
to today's USCF

Innes: Excuse me - ROFL - these records are in the rented wharehouse in boxes!
They ain't indexed, and its got business correspondance mixed with it plus one
ton of old Chess Life's. This is the comparison being made.

that could issue such a decision. I know of no
reputable basis for this claim.

Innes: How would you?

By being vastly more informed on chess history than a certain
Cornishman and the ignorami he defends.

Innes: You are surprised by so much, and content to issue your
surprise rather than ask.

Really? A few lines above, it clearly appears that I asked "What is
the unnamed author's source for this claim?" So far our Phil has not
answered.

It is not mentioned in Soltis' "The
United States Chess Championship, 1845-1996," nor in "Pillsbury's
Chess Career" by Sergeant and Watts.
In fact, Soltis says that the tournament book of the 7th American
Chess Congress, St. Louis 1904, specifically states that Marshall's
winning that event "has no reference whatever to the United States
Chess Championship held by Harry N. Pillsbury, whom Marshall
acknowledges as holder thereof." This seems a direct contradiction of
the article's claim.

Innes: Yes. And we wonder in turn how Soltis knows this? Since there is 'no
reference' - why is any assumption so secure? laugh

Innes: It reminds me of the Nottingham tournament book, where there was also /no
referernce/ to placement in regard to Lasker in the tournament book, and
Kingston decided that Hooper was therefore wrong based on literally, 'no
referrence.'

And as for "Pillsbury [declining] to play due to serious illness,"
Soltis says that he "was never officially challenged" for the title.

Innes: And is there an implication in that 'officially' that there was unofficial
challenge? Why mention it otherwise? Why not say, 'was not challenged', or
define what 'officially' meant to Soltis? Should not Kingston make his own
understanding of what was official and who would have decided it? Or
otherwise why include the word 'official'?

One cannot decline to answer a challenge that is not made.

Innes: One could say why the term 'officially' is included, and what that means,
and whose interpretation it is of what is official, and why the term is
included unless it has some purpose.

Isn't it remarkable, the extent to which Phil will go to defend crap?
I find it a major source of amusement.

Soltis in fact says that after Pillsbury's death, "Showalter
[was] subsequently recognized as champion." Soltis does not date the
start of Marshall's reign until 1909, when he won a match with
Showalter.

The unnamed author of this article actually seems to know relatively
little about Pillsbury, and seems little better qualified to write
about him than Stevie Wonder is to discuss photography.

As we see, our expert in Stevie Wonder wonders in public why his own vague
suggestions about chess should not take the place of issues which he
questions - which is as he did before.

Isn't it remarkable, the extent to which Phil will go to defend crap?
I find it a major source of amusement.

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 22:42:03 GMT, "Chess One"
wrote:


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


On Jan 22, 12:45 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history
may enjoy.

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

Another mess, both lacking in real information and chock full of
misinformation. A few comments:

The article says "Pillsbury returned to America and was challenged
by the American Champion Showalter. They engaged in a chess match, and
Pillsbury won handily."
Pillsbury did win, but not handily. The match was for 10 games up.
Showalter was actually leading +6 -5 =2 after the first thirteen
games, and the score was tied +8 -8 =3 after nineteen. Pillsbury then
won the next two games to take the match, finally. Rather than a
"handy win," this was actually considered a relatively poor showing
for Pillsbury.

"[H]e received an invitation to the St. Petersburg, tournament of
1895."
Because this event began in December 1895 and went on into January
1896, it is properly referred to as St. Petersburg 1895-96. This is the
convention for any chess tournament that spans two years.

Kingston, who will not write such material himself, critises publication by
Chessville's readers - so far based on the word 'handily' and secondly
complaining that the tournament spans two years - in rejection of the a
preference to the fact that it started in December and ended January. This
is so far, we are assured, "chock-full of misinformation" say the guy who
does not raise the same scruples to detail where it is reported to Gulko was
'away from chess' [meaning he and his wife being beaten up by the KGB
because they were Jewish.]

Why would you put in the word handily then? In the USA beating
someone handily is like "well" Florida over Ohio State in the NCAA
football championship. Showalter - Pillsbury match was a tough match.
Tarrasch beat Showalter handily. Lasker beat Tarrasch handily.

EZoto

Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Jan 22, 5:42 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Taylor Kingston" wrote in glegroups.com...







On Jan 22, 12:45 pm, "Rob" wrote:
Chessville has a new section that those interested in chess history
may enjoy.

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

Another mess, both lacking in real information and chock full of
misinformation. A few comments:

The article says "Pillsbury returned to America and was challenged
by the American Champion Showalter. They engaged in a chess match, and
Pillsbury won handily."
Pillsbury did win, but not handily. The match was for 10 games up.
Showalter was actually leading +6 -5 =2 after the first thirteen
games, and the score was tied +8 -8 =3 after nineteen. Pillsbury then
won the next two games to take the match, finally. Rather than a
"handy win," this was actually considered a relatively poor showing
for Pillsbury.

"[H]e received an invitation to the St. Petersburg, tournament of 1895."
Because this event began in December 1895 and went on into January
1896, it is properly referred to as St. Petersburg 1895-96. This is the
convention for any chess tournament that spans two years.

Innes: Kingston, who will not write such material himself,

Um, Phil, I've been writing such material for years, and for much
better publications than chessvile.com, including Chess Life, Inside
Chess, Kingpin, Chess Horizons, ChessCafe.com, JeremySilman.com, and
others.

Innes: ... critises [sic] publication by
Chessville's readers - so far based on the word 'handily' and secondly
complaining that the tournament spans two years -

No, Phil. Based on the fact that the article is junk.

Innes: ... in rejection of the a [sic]
preference to the fact that it started in December and ended January. This
is so far, we are assured, "chock-full of misinformation" say [sic] the guy who
does not raise the same scruples to detail where it is reported to Gulko was
'away from chess' [meaning he and his wife being beaten up by the KGB
because they were Jewish.]

No, Phil, that is not what that passage in the OC refers to, as has
been noted here several times, most notably by your friend Bill Hyde.

"In 1904, the last year that he played active chess, Pillsbury beat
Lasker, with the same opening, but with a different 7th move, at
Cambridge Springs, PA, USA."
A nonsensical sentence. The same as what?

Innes: Presumably the writer intends the same opening until the seventh move, when
there was a deviation.

Again one must ask: the same as what? To say "This move is the same"
is meaningless.

A 7th move different
compared to what? The article does not say.

Innes: Does it need to?

Um, yes, Phil. To say "This move is different" means nothing. One
must say "It is different from ..." and then give a specific example.

Innes: I suppose anyone actually interested in chess could
download several hundred Pillsbury games offered at the same site with the
article to discovery which var. was played. Of course, I would not suspect
because Lasker was beaten that this is the issue here - although issues
around Lasker have arisen before

The other game it should
mention is Pillsbury-Lasker, St. Petersburg 1895-96, round 10, 4
January 1896.

Notice that our Phil makes no comment on this, probably to conceal
his embarrassment at not knowing what the stem game was.

The bulk of Pillsbury's career, pretty much everything between St.
Petersburg 1895-96 and Cambridge Springs 1904, is completely omitted.
Nothing about other major tournaments: Nuremberg 1896, Budapest 1896,
Vienna 1898, London 1899, Paris 1900, Munich 1900, Monte Carlo 1902,
Hanover 1902, Monte Carlo 1903. Nothing about his blindfold play and
other famous talents.

Innes: Tinker Taylor should complain to the editor of the series, since in 500-700
words he would need to include his /suggested/ text, and if there were too
many words, suggest what may be excluded in their place. Rational, no?

You are saying that a website needs to worry about space? You really
worry about silly things, Phil.

"Later that year [i.e. 1904] Frank Marshall was proclaimed U.S.
Chess Champion when Pillsbury declined to play due to serious
illness."

Eh? What is the unnamed author's source for this claim? Who did the
alleged "proclaiming"? There was no official authority comparable
to today's USCF

Innes: Excuse me - ROFL - these records are in the rented wharehouse in boxes!
They ain't indexed, and its got business correspondance mixed with it plus one
ton of old Chess Life's. This is the comparison being made.

that could issue such a decision. I know of no
reputable basis for this claim.

Innes: How would you?

By being vastly more informed on chess history than a certain
Cornishman and the ignorami he defends.

Innes: You are surprised by so much, and content to issue your
surprise rather than ask.

Really? A few lines above, it clearly appears that I asked "What is
the unnamed author's source for this claim?" So far our Phil has not
answered.

It is not mentioned in Soltis' "The
United States Chess Championship, 1845-1996," nor in "Pillsbury's
Chess Career" by Sergeant and Watts.
In fact, Soltis says that the tournament book of the 7th American
Chess Congress, St. Louis 1904, specifically states that Marshall's
winning that event "has no reference whatever to the United States
Chess Championship held by Harry N. Pillsbury, whom Marshall
acknowledges as holder thereof." This seems a direct contradiction of
the article's claim.

Innes: Yes. And we wonder in turn how Soltis knows this? Since there is 'no
reference' - why is any assumption so secure? laugh

Innes: It reminds me of the Nottingham tournament book, where there was also /no
referernce/ to placement in regard to Lasker in the tournament book, and
Kingston decided that Hooper was therefore wrong based on literally, 'no
referrence.'

And as for "Pillsbury [declining] to play due to serious illness,"
Soltis says that he "was never officially challenged" for the title.

Innes: And is there an implication in that 'officially' that there was unofficial
challenge? Why mention it otherwise? Why not say, 'was not challenged', or
define what 'officially' meant to Soltis? Should not Kingston make his own
understanding of what was official and who would have decided it? Or
otherwise why include the word 'official'?

One cannot decline to answer a challenge that is not made.

Innes: One could say why the term 'officially' is included, and what that means,
and whose interpretation it is of what is official, and why the term is
included unless it has some purpose.

Isn't it remarkable, the extent to which Phil will go to defend crap?
I find it a major source of amusement.

Soltis in fact says that after Pillsbury's death, "Showalter
[was] subsequently recognized as champion." Soltis does not date the
start of Marshall's reign until 1909, when he won a match with
Showalter.

The unnamed author of this article actually seems to know relatively
little about Pillsbury, and seems little better qualified to write
about him than Stevie Wonder is to discuss photography.

As we see, our expert in Stevie Wonder wonders in public why his own vague
suggestions about chess should not take the place of issues which he
questions - which is as he did before.



Isn't it remarkable, the extent to which Phil will go to defend crap?

Taylor,
LOL!
It's always enjoyable to read your "refutes" of minor points. Just
remember, the final critic and the only one that counts is the general
public. The general public ,even as a fraction of a percent, has a
greater potential to change the face of chess and the chess playing
public than the entirety of organized chess today.

In plain speakne percent of three billion is more than 100 percent on
five hundred thousand.

I think the "one percenters" are where these articles are aimed. Your
submissions might not even make the grade, they would have to hold ones
attention while reading.
Rob
I find it a major source of amusement.

Yes, excellent...


"Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:
NEW PLAY ABOUT ALEKHINE

About his last days in Portugal.

See Evans On Chess

http://wcn.tentonhammer.com/modules....cle&sid= 1113




Larry,
Thanks for the link. It was excellent.
Rob

Taylor Kingston wrote:

Isn't it remarkable, the extent to which Phil will go to defend crap?
I find it a major source of amusement.

Well, I for one had no trouble in seeing how "Tinker Taylor's" many
criticisms of this article are perfectly valid (except for *one* silly
nitpick).

Apparently, Chessville is IM Innes' Web site, so this is going to be
another flamewar style thread, its contents dictated more by the
relationship between the two warriors than by what appeared in that
article. And speaking of amusement, it would seem that "IM Innes"
has chided "Tinker Taylor" for not himself contributing material for
this, yet why should a sworn enemy of the Web site's editor do
something as silly as that? It makes no sense. It would be like
Tinker Taylor asking IM Innes to contribute his thoughts for a book
review, to be published by -- and credited to -- Tinker Taylor! In
sum,
fugetaboudit.

IM Innes should consider the possibility of editing some of these
contributions, to weed out the worst misinformation and maybe even
to add in his own two cents worth. Something along these lines,
perhaps:

Sanny: "Program is grately improved now. All problems fix.
Stronger than Fritz now! Will defeet Tayler Kinston easilly!"

edited: "The GetClub program has again been modified; a few
bugs fixed; perhaps slightly improved strength of play. It is not
entirely inconceivable that even players such as Taylor Kingston
will find it a somewhat more interesting opponent now." -- Ed.

-- help bot

Rob wrote:

LOL!
It's always enjoyable to read your "refutes" of minor points. Just
remember, the final critic and the only one that counts is the general
public. The general public ,even as a fraction of a percent, has a
greater potential to change the face of chess and the chess playing
public than the entirety of organized chess today.

In plain speakne percent of three billion is more than 100 percent on
five hundred thousand.

[*That* was plainspeak? ;D]

I think the "one percenters" are where these articles are aimed. Your
submissions might not even make the grade, they would have to hold ones
attention while reading.

Mr. Mitchell, your brown-nosing of IM Innes is pathetic. You really
ought to consider the possibility of using an organ other than your
nose -- say, your *brain*, for instance! You can't justify the sort of
sloppy material TK has criticized by suggesting that the public would
prefer it to something better; that's just plain silly.

My take is that having the readers contribute material is a good idea
in the sense that it encourages reader participation; but as we have
seen, it is also a poor idea in terms of the quality of the results.
So,
where does that leave us? With some reader participation AND some
negative feedback from the critics -- that's where.

-- help bot