Were you beaten and humiliated by your parents Help-Bitch? I'm trying
to understand how someone could develop into such a pathetic and
lowely little creature. You're afraid of everyone and everything. You
clearly have absolutely not a shred of a social life, nor do you have
a career. Being a usenet troll is your full time job.

JMR

On Mar 22, 10:23 pm, "Rob" wrote:
On Mar 22, 9:56 pm, "help bot" wrote:

On Mar 22, 1:18 pm, "Rob" wrote:
LOL! I used to catch Sesame Street with my kids years ago. I remember
"The Count". Taylor reminds me of him.
"One" Page in the book, "Tow, two pages in the book!"
One can always "count" on Rob to jump in an cut
right to the heart of the matter, slashing away any
and all personal bias while cutting right to the chase
(or ad hominem, as the case may be).

Three! Three pages in the book! Four! Four pages in the book!

Ad hominey? we cookin something bot?

The way I see it this: not only did his IMness get
GM Adorjan's statistics all screwed up, but GM
Adorjan himself was apparently working with bogus,
or partial stats. himself. In order to get meaningful
stuff out, you gotta put in complete, uncorrupted
data. And what is even more important is this:
you don't start off with a theory that Black is OK
and THEN try and justify it using statistics. Duh!

You start off with (complete) statistics, and from
these you try to extrapolate meaning -- not the
other way around. The meaning should flow *from*
the source, like a river, to whatever sea is in its
path. And always downhill, going with the data,
not working against it to help any pet theory.

-- raft floating bot

Kingston mocks on! His comments on the book are reduced to other things he
hasn't studied or understood, and he makes no acknowledgement of my kind
introduction of Adorjan to him ~ though its true, the leading bit of
Hungarian about the '56 is not exactly a recommendation.


"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 23, 4:19 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

se e mu tamogataoikent hozzajararulni ahhoz,
hogy 1956 dicsosege tovabboroklodjek
gyermekeink es unokaink sziveben!

Ash nazg durbatuluk
Ash nazg gimbatul
Ash nazg thrakatuluk
Agh burzum ishi krimpatul

And tell the son of a bitch that this my language is a much older one than
his
Gus an ginear mi 'm phàiste

Nom goopa nar del yummo, nov schmoz ka pop.

On Mar 25, 8:47 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Kingston mocks on!

Back when the Beatles first came to America, a reporter asked one,
Ringo I think it was, "Are you a Mod or a Rocker?" Ringo replied to
the effect of "I'm sort of in between, I'm more of a Mocker."
Anyway, Phil, for you to complain that people mock you is like a rug
complaining that people walk on it, like a shooting-gallery duck
complaining about the gunfire, like a clown complaining that people
laugh at him. That is your karma, your destiny, your function in life,
what you were made for -- embrace it.

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 25, 8:47 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Kingston mocks on!

Back when the Beatles first came to America,

kingston, this is a chess newsgroup - spare us the opium beatles or
beach-boy analogies [do men really sing castrato on purpose?]since as I
wrote just yesterday

you are to chess history as the beach-boys are to kafka [a good intro to a
hungarian, no? a modest brilliancy. IMO]

what anything is like to Kingston, is not like to chess, since he can't
quite compass that much - below his analogy takes in

a rug,
a clown,
gunfire,
karma and [man, are we in kalifornia yet?]
a duck,
also destiny

though not chess exactly

))

[this guy is a 'chess book reviewer']

sooner or later [later] kingston will admit that it was his 'all' games
presumption which has now caused him some 25 posts on the subject, and that
it ain't nobody else's fault

[and it doesn't have to be anyone's fault!]

but he won't do that - he would rather accuse everyone who tries to figure
out what he is almost saying, and like talk beach-trash, like, you know?

coolness to the max baby!

buck-up! kingston - soon adorjan will offer you his own advice on like,
whatever your scene seems hot, or at least anywhere warmer than death, man
)

pi

a reporter asked one,
Ringo I think it was, "Are you a Mod or a Rocker?" Ringo replied to
the effect of "I'm sort of in between, I'm more of a Mocker."
Anyway, Phil, for you to complain that people mock you is like a rug
complaining that people walk on it, like a shooting-gallery duck
complaining about the gunfire, like a clown complaining that people
laugh at him. That is your karma, your destiny, your function in life,
what you were made for -- embrace it.

Taylor Kingston wrote:
There is some definite systematic bias in Adorjan's data. Earlier I
noted Adorjan's surprise that in his database there were more games
where the world champions played White than Black. In particular, he
seemed puzzled that for Capablanca and Alekhine, games as Black were
less than 35% of their totals. I surmised that his was due to the
many simultaneous exhibitions JRC and AA gave, in which they would
usually play White on all boards.

Checking ChessBase 2005, I've confirmed that this is true. It has
literally hundreds of simul games for both JRC and AA. Whatever
database Adorjan used (he didn't say), it's likely it too has
hundereds of simul games. I would submit that these have no place in
any serious attempt to determine whether "Black is OK" or not.

Not only that but including these games severely undermines the
hypothesis that `Black is OK'. The inclusion of a whole slew of games
where the World Champion has white and some random patzer has black
would tend to support the conclusion that Black should just resign
without playing any moves.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Old-Fashioned Solar-Powered Newspaper
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ (TM): it's like a daily broadsheet
but it doesn't work in the dark and
it's perfect for your grandparents!

Chess One wrote:
[Blah, blah, blah. And then signs himself...]

pi

Finally, the man admits to being irrational!


Dave.

--
David Richerby Sadistic Gigantic Radio (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a radio but it's huge and it
wants to hurt you!

Three! Three pages in the book! Four! Four pages in the book!

my statistics seem to be at odds with people's understanding of them, rather
than the book from which they are drawn - which short of quoting verbatim...
i am sure this subject could be continued, forever! pfft!~ [see Rage of the
Librarians, from last year]

pi

On Mar 26, 9:42 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Three! Three pages in the book! Four! Four pages in the book!

my statistics seem to be at odds with people's understanding of them, rather
than the book from which they are drawn - which short of quoting verbatim...
i am sure this subject could be continued, forever! pfft!~ [see Rage of the
Librarians, from last year]

pi

Well, personal attacks on IM Innes aside, I still
think it is silly to discuss the issue of Black being
OK from the perspective of an unspecified database
which apparently is of highly questionable merit.

A thoughtful discussion might begin with some
well (and honestly) annotated games, focusing on
how certain top players' results have fared with
either color. Or you could start out with a quality
database, and consider various players' results to
see if they were "OK" or not from a purely objective
standpoint.

Alternatively, we could brush the whole issue aside
and just beat up on Phil Innes, which might prove to
be a lot more fun. It's a tough choice... .

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 26, 9:42 am, "Chess One" wrote:
Three! Three pages in the book! Four! Four pages in the book!

my statistics seem to be at odds with people's understanding of them,
rather
than the book from which they are drawn - which short of quoting
verbatim...
i am sure this subject could be continued, forever! pfft!~ [see Rage of
the
Librarians, from last year]

pi

Well, personal attacks on IM Innes aside, I still
think it is silly to discuss the issue of Black being
OK from the perspective of an unspecified database

Unspecified?

which apparently is of highly questionable merit.

Apparently?

A thoughtful discussion might begin with some
well (and honestly) annotated games, focusing on
how certain top players' results have fared with
either color. Or you could start out with a quality
database, and consider various players' results to
see if they were "OK" or not from a purely objective
standpoint.

Not understandable. Mr. Kennedy might conduct an example of his own idea,
and tell us more about his 'purely objective standpoint'.

Alternatively, we could brush the whole issue aside
and just beat up on Phil Innes, which might prove to
be a lot more fun. It's a tough choice... .

Issues of personality attacks 'aside' [for 3 paragraphs already!]; this
forum exists for people who /can/ discuss chess AND as Kennedy suggests to
'just beat up...'.

What Kennedy will chose to do is up to him and for his own reasons. shrug
But I think trying to talk chess - even if the talk is not good and needs
clarification is superior to so much fantasy based on suppositions and
'apparently' by people to whom very little seems apparent at any time.

Phil Innes

-- help bot