On Mar 27, 9:06 am, "Chess One" wrote:

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?

Perhaps the nearly-a-loon IM has not been paying
attention; the claim has been made here *repeatedly*
that nowhere does GM Adorjan specify what database
he used, and this one-word query is the first hint of any
challenge whatever. (Note: I don't have -- or want -- the
book in question.)

which apparently is of highly questionable merit.

Apparently?

Yes, apparently. I do not assume that TK's claim
is beyond question, though I will note that it was
shouted down from the tower quite confidently. :D


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'.


In which book? I was discussing the book by
GM Adorjan. Besides, nobody reads books by
mere NMs, because they are such hopeless duffers,
you understand.


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...'.


My bad. I constructed a false dichotomy. It is very
possible to both discuss the real issue of Black being
OK (or not) AND beat up on Phil Innes! (What was I
thinking?)


What Kennedy will chose to do is up to him and for his own reasons. shrug

He *could* rewrite GM Adorjan's entire book,
making use of some quality database and
eradicating any bias -- but nobody would read it.
First, you got to get the GM thingy in front of
your name.



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.


Right. This is why it is clearly better to actually
address issues head-on, instead of the Innesian
approach of "questioning" without questioning,
attacking without any weaponry, dismissing w/o
adding anything. In sum, a quite vacuous activity
consisting of many words... signifying nothing.

-- help bot

Chess One wrote:

"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?
..

Oh! fer crying out effin loud Fillip - who in the grand scheme of things
is - Adorojan? mm.. a _huge_ authority perchance? Do the cryptics - do
we?..

Gradz connolp drak deniester dram rach frienk clorn! Griez gern't frak
klopaft chinl plohtjoklp yarquil tremanept als dert..

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 27, 9:06 am, "Chess One" wrote:

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?

Perhaps the nearly-a-loon IM has not been paying
attention; the claim has been made here *repeatedly*
that nowhere does GM Adorjan specify what database
he used,

'the claim' - whose claim? and 'repeatedly' justifies the claim?

and this one-word query is the first hint of any
challenge whatever. (Note: I don't have -- or want -- the
book in question.)

the book[s] in question do identify the constitution of the database, and I
have said that repeatedly. does kennedy want a name for it, like the
Beach-Boy-Base?

which apparently is of highly questionable merit.

Apparently?

Yes, apparently. I do not assume that TK's claim
is beyond question, though I will note that it was
shouted down from the tower quite confidently. :D

Anything, I suppose can be shouted down - the only questionable thing for me
is what TK's question is? ROFL.

And 'apparently'. Apparent to whom? What do these vague terms mean to people
who admit they haven't read the book?

Kennedy doesn't even care - he just wants to call people loonies. That's
good nuff for corn-fed folk!


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'.


In which book? I was discussing the book by
GM Adorjan. Besides, nobody reads books by
mere NMs, because they are such hopeless duffers,
you understand.

Is that an evasion or a 'no' or both? When asked about his own idea, kennedy
said... waahhh?


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...'.


My bad. I constructed a false dichotomy. It is very
possible to both discuss the real issue of Black being
OK (or not) AND beat up on Phil Innes! (What was I
thinking?)

You are not good at thinking, and therefore the answer is not what, but
which quality of things you now confuse yourself with. That's all.


What Kennedy will chose to do is up to him and for his own reasons.
shrug

He *could* rewrite GM Adorjan's entire book,
making use of some quality database and
eradicating any bias -- but nobody would read it.
First, you got to get the GM thingy in front of
your name.

Its also work, and its easier to bitch about others work. Have you noticed
that that is /all/ some people ever do?

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.


Right. This is why it is clearly better to actually
address issues head-on, instead of the Innesian
approach of "questioning" without questioning,
attacking without any weaponry, dismissing w/o
adding anything. In sum, a quite vacuous activity
consisting of many words... signifying nothing.

What I attacked here are idiots who criticise material they never read based
on their own unwarranted presumptions - rather than giving their serious
attention to it.

When asked to be specific, they fade away! All the while these sad doodlers
can proclaim 'highly questionable merit' much as they dismissed practically
everything else which proved beyond their own understanding or willingness
to know.

You are just lazy kennedy, and you snipe at people who are not. You are
boring, too boring for yourself, and others are more interesting, no? But
instead of making a contribution yourself, you try and get your kicks,
vampire-like, by drawing their blood.

You protest too much - get a life! Your own!

Phil Innes

-- help bot

"michael adams" wrote in message
...
Chess One wrote:

"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?
.

Oh! fer crying out effin loud Fillip - who in the grand scheme of things
is - Adorojan? mm.. a _huge_ authority perchance? Do the cryptics - do
we?..


We? We who use someone else's name? What does it matter what 'we' think, if
we let others do thinking for us, coz we can't be bothered [shame?] to put
our name to our own?

Some guy just left this forum saying there was not enough chess in it. OTOH
I never noticed him writing anything of note.

I suppose people content with supposing a lot will just carry on with vague
and abstract criticisms - with their authority 'issues' brayed out in every
post! - and are like really vacuous, baby!

Lord Kingston started this one, and will continue it in exactly the same
pattern as he has down with half a dozen other writers for the past 6 years.
Kingston insists others 'mean' something, rather than he assumed something,
and he is too lordly to ask, and too rigid once having got going to notice
any clarification [even if needed].

Rage of the Librarians = When Pencil-Necks Rule

zzzzzzz

Meanwhile, the Adorjan Okay books are very interesting reading to chess
players who didn't give up yet

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:

...

We? We who use someone else's name? What does it matter what 'we' think, if
we let others do thinking for us, coz we can't be bothered [shame?] to put
our name to our own?

Phil,

What is this Macbethian dirge ' - own your name ew - etc.'? - Skydiving
the Matterhorn now available! front up 7500$$'s - closeted,
dysfunctional & cowardly chess-players don't bother considering..

Enck Lincep..

On Mar 28, 9:38 am, "Chess One" wrote:

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?

Perhaps the nearly-a-loon IM has not been paying
attention; the claim has been made here *repeatedly*
that nowhere does GM Adorjan specify what database
he used,

'the claim' - whose claim?

Off your meds again? Of course you are.

'Twas Sir Kingstone, from way on high --
you know, the one from the big tower.


and 'repeatedly' justifies the claim?

Right. The more it is repeated, the more
justified he feels in saying it. Just ask your
friend, LP. LOL!


and this one-word query is the first hint of any
challenge whatever. (Note: I don't have -- or want -- the
book in question.)

the book[s] in question do identify the constitution of the database, and I
have said that repeatedly.

Um, Earth to IM Innes: nobody pays any
attention to what you say! This is what I
have been saying all along, but you never
get it.


does kennedy want a name for it, like the
Beach-Boy-Base?

Does he even like the Beach Boys? I took
'im for a Country kind of guy, like maybe
Johnny Cash or somphin like that. No, I
think it was Crystal Gayle -- or was it the
Talking Heads? Anyways, it was tough to
concentrate, which is why he got lucky in
that game. Now that I think of it, he was
lucky quite often, though he really weren't
all that good.


which apparently is of highly questionable merit.

Apparently?

Yes, apparently. I do not assume that TK's claim
is beyond question, though I will note that it was
shouted down from the tower quite confidently. :D

Anything, I suppose can be shouted down

(Hint of jealousy there, on account o' him
having a high tower and all that. I understand.)


- the only questionable thing for me
is what TK's question is? ROFL.

Check that floor for bugs! At night the
critters come out, and that includes the
nastiest sort, like roaches and spiders
and centipedes -- yuck!


And 'apparently'. Apparent to whom? What do these vague terms mean to people
who admit they haven't read the book?

Apparently to them what reads here, mate.
Them what can read has seen the claim
over and over -- jest ask one of us!


Kennedy doesn't even care - he just wants to call people loonies.

If he still plays in that silly Pizza circus, it
may be that they *are* a bunch of loonies!
Andy Sulfuric -- he's the one responsible.


That's good nuff for corn-fed folk!

I keep reading stuff about the poor
Mexicans, what can't afford tortillas
no more on account of their corn being
misdirected to ethanol production.
To which complaints I says: let them
eat cake! Even the Maniac Trader
(a complete patzer at chess) says
buy corn and wheat and stuff with
grains in it, 'cause it's going up, up, up.

-- luny bot

On Mar 28, 9:53 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Oh! fer crying out effin loud Fillip - who in the grand scheme of things
is - Adorojan? mm.. a _huge_ authority perchance? Do the cryptics - do
we?..

Meanwhile, the Adorjan Okay books are very interesting reading to chess
players who didn't give up yet

I reckon they might be a tad more "interesting"
to them what don't care much fer a rational
approach to the issue, a purely objective style
of tackling it. Anyhow, I suspect the players
who have an irrational problem of losing with
Black too often are the ones drawn to such a
title most strongly. Me, I can lose just as
easily with any color, if I put a mind to it.

I reckon nobody else here is sharp enough
to have noticed that his IMness has made a
kind of side shuffle, from demanding that the
critics or commentators not say nufin' unless
they had read the book he surposedly quoted
from, to a different trick: now he wants the
commentators to have read two of 'em! LOL!
Next, nobody will be allowed to comment unless
they own every book ever written by the authority
GM Adorjan, and know him intimately. In other
words, just the wifefepoo and IM Innes and
maybe God. Hehehe! This nearly-a-trickster
Innes is a regular riot, he is!

-- chatter bot

On Mar 28, 11:27 pm, "help bot" wrote:
Does [Kingston] even like the Beach Boys?

Very much so. I grew up in southern California. "Pet Sounds": in
some ways, an album worthy of Mozart.

I took
'im for a Country kind of guy, like maybe
Johnny Cash or somphin like that.

Ol' John was great, but country's not really my bag.

No, I
think it was Crystal Gayle

I could not name even one of her songs.

-- or was it the
Talking Heads?

Now you're talking -- "More Songs about Buildings and Food," "Fear
of Music," "Remain in Light," "Stop Making Sense," "Little Creatures"
-- great albums.

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 28, 9:38 am, "Chess One" wrote:

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?

Perhaps the nearly-a-loon IM has not been paying
attention; the claim has been made here *repeatedly*
that nowhere does GM Adorjan specify what database
he used,

'the claim' - whose claim?

Off your meds again? Of course you are.

'Twas Sir Kingstone, from way on high --
you know, the one from the big tower.


and 'repeatedly' justifies the claim?

Right. The more it is repeated, the more
justified he feels in saying it. Just ask your
friend, LP. LOL!


and this one-word query is the first hint of any
challenge whatever. (Note: I don't have -- or want -- the
book in question.)

the book[s] in question do identify the constitution of the database, and
I
have said that repeatedly.

Um, Earth to IM Innes: nobody pays any
attention to what you say! This is what I
have been saying all along, but you never
get it.

Look Kennedy - you make much abuse noise and defamation here - when
challenged to your terms, they evaporate. Now you continue to talk on behalf
of 'nobody'.

If you wish to continue to appear as an arse for all seasons - knock
yourself out. But you are so rarely worth engaging, since the 'nobody'
within you is psychically content to predict things from your own Fortress
of Solitude [built out of corn?].

If Kingston's comments are Kingstonite

[that which obscures a subject he thinks someone addressed, despite their
words, as such]

then yours must be Cornstonite

[your writing is content to resent anyone who speaks of chess, on behalf of
the often-pyschic nobody within]


Phil Innes


does kennedy want a name for it, like the
Beach-Boy-Base?

Does he even like the Beach Boys? I took
'im for a Country kind of guy, like maybe
Johnny Cash or somphin like that. No, I
think it was Crystal Gayle -- or was it the
Talking Heads? Anyways, it was tough to
concentrate, which is why he got lucky in
that game. Now that I think of it, he was
lucky quite often, though he really weren't
all that good.


which apparently is of highly questionable merit.

Apparently?

Yes, apparently. I do not assume that TK's claim
is beyond question, though I will note that it was
shouted down from the tower quite confidently. :D

Anything, I suppose can be shouted down

(Hint of jealousy there, on account o' him
having a high tower and all that. I understand.)


- the only questionable thing for me
is what TK's question is? ROFL.

Check that floor for bugs! At night the
critters come out, and that includes the
nastiest sort, like roaches and spiders
and centipedes -- yuck!


And 'apparently'. Apparent to whom? What do these vague terms mean to
people
who admit they haven't read the book?

Apparently to them what reads here, mate.
Them what can read has seen the claim
over and over -- jest ask one of us!


Kennedy doesn't even care - he just wants to call people loonies.

If he still plays in that silly Pizza circus, it
may be that they *are* a bunch of loonies!
Andy Sulfuric -- he's the one responsible.


That's good nuff for corn-fed folk!

I keep reading stuff about the poor
Mexicans, what can't afford tortillas
no more on account of their corn being
misdirected to ethanol production.
To which complaints I says: let them
eat cake! Even the Maniac Trader
(a complete patzer at chess) says
buy corn and wheat and stuff with
grains in it, 'cause it's going up, up, up.

-- luny bot

help bot wrote:

(,,)

'pi' winked & extrapolated forsooth

Meanwhile, the Adorjan Okay books are very interesting reading to chess
players who didn't give up yet

I reckon they might be a tad more "interesting"
to them what don't care much fer a rational
approach to the issue, a purely objective style
of tackling it. Anyhow, I suspect the players
who have an irrational problem of losing with
Black too often are the ones drawn to such a
title most strongly. Me, I can lose just as
easily with any color, if I put a mind to it.

It's inneresting bot, sorry, INTERESTING ( I've heard the French
habitually cogitate the adverb/adjective 'interesting' to mean boring -
what a perverse viewpoint - no?) For myself, I have to report my results
with black (playing on the icc server) are nothing short of astonishing
in my view. Maybe this has to do with the blackwatch beatle, the black
death, the black dog, the gross all black thug team stretching their
collective hamstrings in preparation for dominance. I dunno?!..