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

It would perhaps take all of five minutes to stroll over to
GetClub.com or even RedHotPawn.com in its quest for
information as to the level of this writer's play

No idiot, corr. chess has nothing whatsoever to do with "playing chess".
You're a 1300 rated patzer when you have to think for yourself.

On Feb 25, 3:45 am, "Good Moves Aren't worth BEANS!"
wrote:

No idiot, corr. chess has nothing whatsoever to do with "playing chess".

Yes, don't feed the troll, I know; however, I would say that both the
late great Paul Keres, and currently Ulf Andersson (sp.?) would
certainly disagree. Of course, compared to Jason, they were and are
fish. Certainly he is the world champion in avoiding matches he
doesn't want to play.

You could probably find greater consensus that bullet chess has
nothing to do with "playing chess," although that would be incorrect;
there is a modicum of chess play in there, although 90% of it is just
moving quickly, not well.

Correspondence chess has always served me well in times when I could
not play OTB; as in my ten year layoff when I raised my children (I
didn't think the long weekends away would do them justice), or now. It
is an imperfect substitute for OTB, but it does help to retain many
aspects of the skill set needed for OTB play. It also has a friendly
attribute absent in OTB play; I currently play correspondence with
some of the readers of my column, and we discuss many things, some of
which have nothing to do with "playing chess." That strikes me as
rather healthy.

Of course, Jason would have great difficulty doing this, since his
entire verbal/written repertoire seems to consist of calling people
patzers. He appears to take great delight in his emotional immaturity/
maladjustment, and that's probably a pleasure we should not deprive
him of, since he seems to have little else of worth in his life. Best
to let him stomp his feet and hold his breath until he feels he has
"proven" himself correct; apparently there is some catharsis there
which lets him justify his own fishy rating as being some proof of
superiority. Exactly how this makes him superior is hard to tell, but
if he can convince himself, its probably best, as otherwise such folks
end up in bell towers with rifles.....

Mr. Repa is on playchess every day and offered to play Dowd, or whoever the
half-retarded jackass who posts using his name is, numerous times and
provided his playchess.com ID.

Dowd backed down EVERY time and never provided HIS playchess.com ID.

In all probability Dowd has already played Mr. Repa who has a 200+ higher
rating than Dowd and lost very badly. In any event, Dowd has backed down and
make it quite obvious that he won't play with an ID he owns up to having.

Dowd is nothing more than a bull****ting little coward who's made excuses
ranging from "arthritis", LMAO! to feeling it's "unlucky" to play on a
weekend.

I really shouldn't feed this jackass troll, and anyone more intelligent than
a fruitfly would have understood that when Paul Keres and Ulf Andersson
played corr. chess, it wasn't done on the internet, and there was no fritz
to make the moves for them, so they actually did have to come up with the
moves on their on.

Most people would already understood this obvious fact, but apparently it's
well over the head of the idiot coward Dowd.

JMR

On Feb 25, 3:34 pm, "Good Moves Aren't worth BEANS!"
wrote:

Dowd backed down EVERY time and never provided HIS playchess.com ID.

On Usenet, Jason, you can go back and view past posts, including one
in which I provided a playchess ID.I never backed down and even sent
two posts on playchess asking you to set a date, and made a request
here to schedule a match. In the second case, you seemed to think that
I was on usenet continually, and was angry when I did not immediately
play you within half an hour of a post you made - that I didn't see
until hours later. If that qualifies as "backing down," OK, I
challenge Kasparov to a match on playchess. If he doesn't show up in
30 minutes, I am declaring him a coward.


In all probability Dowd has already played Mr. Repa who has a 200+ higher
rating than Dowd and lost very badly.

Again, I already noted that I do not play bullet chess, which is the
only form of "chess" the ID you gave has ever played on playchess.com.
My account had only 3 0 games to its credit. So it isn't possible for
me to have played you, let alone lost "very badly." I also am rated
200 points above Mr. Repa (are you now like Bob Dole, and referring to
yourself in third person?), not below him. At least where it counts,
and not in videogame faux chess.


I really shouldn't feed this jackass troll, and anyone more intelligent than
a fruitfly would have understood that when Paul Keres and Ulf Andersson
played corr. chess, it wasn't done on the internet, and there was no fritz
to make the moves for them, so they actually did have to come up with the
moves on their on.


Ulf Andersson is a modern-day player of the computer era, and still
plays correspondence chess, and on the Internet. In fact, he didn't
start playing correspondence until later in his career. But don't let
actual facts get in the way of your adolescent ranting. The louder you
shout it, the truer your "facts" are, right?


Most people would already understood this obvious fact, but apparently it's
well over the head of the idiot coward Dowd.


You cited more than one supposed fact, and they all break down with
any scrutiny. The "most people" who understand seem to be your various
aliases and Larry "I never met anyone who didn't like Dowd that I
didn't like" Parr, and even you are having trouble keeping your
aliases straight.

It is simply insults you want to trade; and if so, you perhaps should
be spending your time with an activity other than chess; to play chess
well requires brain activity that isn't clouded by your constant
testosterone rushes. I suggest Go Fish! - a game fitting both to your
intellect and chess ability. Now go back to trying to find Rob's
address, Goran, I mean, Jason. Oh, and your neighbors under your slum
apartment are complaining about you constantly stomping your feet;
it's disturbing their heroin daze.

"SBD" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 25, 3:34 pm, "Good Moves Aren't worth BEANS!"
wrote:

Dowd backed down EVERY time and never provided HIS playchess.com ID.

On Usenet, Jason, you can go back and view past posts, including one
in which I provided a playchess ID.I

After being asked something in the neighborhood of ten times for your
Playchess ID, which you convienently kept avoiding giving, that is, when you
weren't making up other ridiculous excuses why you couldn't play, such as
arthritis, etc, you gave an ID, (whether it was actually YOU or not we don't
know at this point) that was nowhere to be found on the server at any of the
times I offered to play. You logged onto the site under a different ID just
to check me out.

Dowd, everyone knows you're an idiot and a coward that never had any
intention of playing. Give it up already. I'm even on the site right now and
will be for another hour or so, but just like before, you will back down, as
you always do. I understand that you realize you would lose very badly, but
why offer to play someone when you're a spineless little unich that never
had any intention to?

I never said anything about the games having to be bullet chess. These are
more lies from the snivelling little idiot named Dowd. I do, however, insist
on playing at time controls where it is not realistically possible for a low
life like you to cheat. Such as 3 min. or faster. This is all academic,
however, because you've ALWAYS backed down every single time you were
invited to play.

Run along trollboy Dowd. You've demonstrated to everyone here that you don't
have enough character to be a chess player. Do, however, try to come up with
more creative excuses than "arthritis" when you back down from playing in
the future.

JMR

ILL WHIFF OF ENVY?

Exactly how this makes him superior is hard to tell, but if he can
convince himself, its probably best, as otherwise such folks end up in
bell towers with rifles. -- Steven Dowd (SBD) on Jason Repa..

First, we have Greg Kennedy, who once blamed
his life in Indiana for his highly original spelling,
criticizing the spelling of Jason Repa. Help Bog even
told us that he was planning to purchase a special
spellchecker that would solve his "i" before "e" problems.

Now, we have Rynd/Dowd accusing Jason Repa of
emotional immaturity. I don't know Mr. Repa from
Jason and the Argonauts. Never met him and never
corresponded with him. He may be as sick or healthy
as the rest of us. I just don't know.

But Rynd/Dowd has posted enough here and engaged
in sufficiently bizarre practices (such as forging my
name at a university website) so that one can reach
some conclusions. My conclusion is that the man has
an injured spirit, and he fears that youthful Mr. Repa
does not. One catches an ill whiff of envy in some of
Rynd/Dowd's attacks directed against Mr. Repa.

Yours, Larry Parr



SBD wrote:
On Feb 25, 3:34 pm, "Good Moves Aren't worth BEANS!"
wrote:

Dowd backed down EVERY time and never provided HIS playchess.com ID.

On Usenet, Jason, you can go back and view past posts, including one
in which I provided a playchess ID.I never backed down and even sent
two posts on playchess asking you to set a date, and made a request
here to schedule a match. In the second case, you seemed to think that
I was on usenet continually, and was angry when I did not immediately
play you within half an hour of a post you made - that I didn't see
until hours later. If that qualifies as "backing down," OK, I
challenge Kasparov to a match on playchess. If he doesn't show up in
30 minutes, I am declaring him a coward.


In all probability Dowd has already played Mr. Repa who has a 200+ higher
rating than Dowd and lost very badly.

Again, I already noted that I do not play bullet chess, which is the
only form of "chess" the ID you gave has ever played on playchess.com.
My account had only 3 0 games to its credit. So it isn't possible for
me to have played you, let alone lost "very badly." I also am rated
200 points above Mr. Repa (are you now like Bob Dole, and referring to
yourself in third person?), not below him. At least where it counts,
and not in videogame faux chess.


I really shouldn't feed this jackass troll, and anyone more intelligent than
a fruitfly would have understood that when Paul Keres and Ulf Andersson
played corr. chess, it wasn't done on the internet, and there was no fritz
to make the moves for them, so they actually did have to come up with the
moves on their on.


Ulf Andersson is a modern-day player of the computer era, and still
plays correspondence chess, and on the Internet. In fact, he didn't
start playing correspondence until later in his career. But don't let
actual facts get in the way of your adolescent ranting. The louder you
shout it, the truer your "facts" are, right?


Most people would already understood this obvious fact, but apparently it's
well over the head of the idiot coward Dowd.


You cited more than one supposed fact, and they all break down with
any scrutiny. The "most people" who understand seem to be your various
aliases and Larry "I never met anyone who didn't like Dowd that I
didn't like" Parr, and even you are having trouble keeping your
aliases straight.

It is simply insults you want to trade; and if so, you perhaps should
be spending your time with an activity other than chess; to play chess
well requires brain activity that isn't clouded by your constant
testosterone rushes. I suggest Go Fish! - a game fitting both to your
intellect and chess ability. Now go back to trying to find Rob's
address, Goran, I mean, Jason. Oh, and your neighbors under your slum
apartment are complaining about you constantly stomping your feet;
it's disturbing their heroin daze.

"SBD" wrote in message
perhaps should
be spending your time with an activity other than chess

But I'm much stronger at chess than you. Additionally, I actually play the
game. You're just a testosterone-deficient little unich that loiters on
usenet groups spewing nonsense and drivel and backs down from acepting any
challenges.

JMR

On Feb 26, 12:05 am, " wrote:

But Rynd/Dowd has posted enough here and engaged
in sufficiently bizarre practices (such as forging my
name at a university website) so that one can reach
some conclusions. My conclusion is that the man has
an injured spirit, and he fears that youthful Mr. Repa
does not. One catches an ill whiff of envy in some of
Rynd/Dowd's attacks directed against Mr. Repa.

Oh, Larry, even you can keep better company than this. Don't you
already have enough fleas on your person?

But your lie is verifiable - I did not forge your name at a university
website. Rather than refute your lie for what seems like the
thousandth time, I'll let anyone interested get the true facts in the
archives - although I doubt anyone is that interested. It's a small
thing that seems to have, um, "injured your spirit." Although I always
felt that a soul/spirit was reserved for those with at least a modicum
of basic human kindness in them, the rubber/glue backatcha bit seems
appropriate....

I like the "ill whiff of envy" bit, but attacks on Repa? The guy comes
out like a Rottweiler after a man covered with steaks, and I'm
attacking him?

Thanks for remaining amusing in your delusions, although your
repetition wears thin. Can't you come up with better dirt on me than
this? You're slipping, old man.....

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 23, 2:16 pm, "Rob" wrote:

I beg for the whooping so I can learn from my mistakes. There are lots
of better players than me who have suffered the same fate to Phil. If
anything, he is modest when describing his abilities because his ego
and self worth are not measured by rating points.
Rob

I agree; it is obvious that nearly-an-IM, recently demoted to master
Innes in no way derives his puffy ego from his *actual* rating, nor
from his *actual* title. To the contrary, it is all based upon
imagined
titles and ratings, such as the 2450 he claimed as Othello or Hamlet
or whoever, not to mention all the names he has offhandedly "dropped"
over the years, inflating his own balloon via "association" with the
rich
and famous in chess.

It is notable that while insisting that *others* refrain from
teaching
patzers like yourself a lesson or two about chess, the self-demoted-
to-master Innes himself enjoys doing precisely this! As for myself,

Actually, although speculators know no limits since they know no facts [!]
it must be hard for Kennedy to realise that this is not all about him!

Or about his fascinating opinions about other people. I wonder really if
there is any objectives points in all these messages? For some, its plainly
obsessing jeolosy about other peoples ratings - and I think we know why that
usually occurs, don't we 1300-bot?

It is so hard to take friend Kennedy seriously when Fischer and Kasparov
also get the same treatment for their obvious shortcomings in chess and in
life and resulting disspointment in them that they aren't as we wish them to
be, but the point of the tournament is actually not about personalities or
ranks, but to bond around the idea of /actually playing chess together/.

This is moderately successful! So that even people who don't otherwise agree
with each other now find themselves on the same hitman-team, and find some
common ground in playing chess itself. What a shocker!

I see Rob Mitchell below is offered gratuitous advice on taking requested
advice from others. ROFL

The only advise Rob is not allowed to take is his own! As if it were /his/
game, rather than help-not's game. And as if this were not his own learning
experience which he does from his own motives.

The advice, uh, volunteered by 1300-bot looks pretty autobiographical to me.

Whether its patzer advice or take-it-over politicians, the message to them
is the same: the game belongs to its players, who play it for their reasons,
not yours.

Phil Innes

I am currently in the middle of one heck of a struggle in one game
at RedHot, against a mere 1300 player! The way I see it, I may, if
I'm really lucky, be able to escape with my life into a Rook and pawn
ending, where it goes without saying I win proceed to win easily due
to my vastly superior understanding of chess. How this patzer
managed to get me into such a tight spot is easy to explain: he got
lucky.

All my other games are going well, and in fact I am just about to
deliver checkmate to one poor chap, having brilliantly conducted an
attack on my opponent's King, whose required shelter had of course
been compromised due to my amazing positional skills, etc., etc.
Quite the norm for me, you know. A few famous GMs of old were
known for similar feats, but of course back then nobody knew how
to defend, nor would they have even had they known. Modesty
keeps me from posting my amazingly brilliant wins here, which of
course would leave all others looking dull by comparison.

In my experience, Mr. Mitchell, it is not sufficient to merely get
beaten, again and again, by a superior player; for often as not, the
reason you lost is not entirely clear, unless by a simple tactical
blow. In many cases, the true reason is obscured, such as how
did you know my pawn could simply be attacked and eventually
won? Why, of course because it was such-and-such *type* of
pawn, which every good player "knows" is weak, and cannot
easily be defended for long, etc. The fastest route is to play a
much stronger player face-to-face, asking questions and having
subtleties carefully explained, as required. But lacking any such
opportunities you can also gain much from carefully replaying
the games of great masters, who basically demonstrate what
to do, while leaving explanations of "why not this move" to a few
examples, consisting in their opponents' actual mistakes. This
method can be tedious, however, and there is no possibility for
asking questions such as: "Mr. Capablanca, why is this move
often given between two and four exclamation points by annotators,
when all it does is lead to a draw by agreement, which was not
entirely clear on the board?"

Such is life.

-- help bot

On Feb 25, 4:45 am, "Good Moves Aren't worth BEANS!"
wrote:

It would perhaps take all of five minutes to stroll over to
GetClub.com or even RedHotPawn.com in its quest for
information as to the level of this writer's play

No idiot, corr. chess has nothing whatsoever to do with "playing chess".
You're a 1300 rated patzer when you have to think for yourself.

Alas, the creature -- once again -- demonstrates a total
ignorance when it comes to assessing the play of others.

Any number of posters here could attest to the fact that
my play, at GetClub, for example, is lacking in the smooth
and silky always-on-top-of-things aspect which one might
rationally expect of any competent computer cheater. In
truth, the opposition at that site hardly warrants any such
measures as the creature suggests, rendering them as
vast "overkill".

IMO, the nearly-an-IM Celt, Phillip Innes, having recently
purchased a copy of Rybka, could easily poke numerous
holes in my play, not excluding crude, tactical blunders on
occasion. But alas, the creature is incapable of rational
thought, of connecting the intellectual dots as it were, so
my comments must be directed for the benefit of others,
of those whose neurons are firing -- not dead or suffering
from acute paralysis (admittedly, a mucked metaphor).

The imbecile Jason Repa should be informed that, given
sufficient free time and a *working* copy of Rybka, I expect
to be able to defeat any and all comers on every chess
site, short of world-class GMs. Though I cannot present
any substantive evidence to back my theory, I know that
I *am* a competent computer operator, on top of being a
chess genius of sorts. I know that these two attributes,
properly combined, could not help bot improve my results
dramatically, even in spite of the fact that my current
results are superlative! To the intelligent mind, this is
simple logic; though to the incurable nitwit, it may be a
very confusing, even overwhelming, puzzle which his brain --
such that it is -- cannot possibly fathom. One cannot help
bot pity the poor creature.

-- help bot