On Jun 28, 6:59 am, "Chess One" wrote:

My take on this issue is that Mr. Innes seems to exhibit
genuine concern, possibly on account of being a father and
thus feeling a bit protective. But being at best a mere
member of the USCF, what can he accomplish here?

This is an honest question, but surely the question is what others are doing
writing 'here' in a chess politics newsgroup


...and a chess.miscellaneous newsgroup...


when they make no positive contribution to the subject?


Au contraire; pointing out the fruitlessness of what goes
on here *is constructive*, because it points toward some
more fruitful approach to the issue; it attempts to bluntly
redirect genuinely interested parties in the direction of
real progress, as opposed to empty jabbering here.


Cynicism is an attempted means to negate a
subject by the writer


In my case, there is obviously no need to negate these
empty jabberings, for they are of no importance whatever.


- a pretence that they don't care ~ an obvious
nonsense since they care sufficiently to be negative all the time.


It's true; I'm negative more often than not. I see this as
resulting from the overall lack of anything of real value to
respond to here, in conjunction with my own laziness,
which prevents me from constructing new threads in
which I "inject" real value created through hard work. :(


Rather than see myself as in any way eccentric, I feel I express what a
majority of people feel, and at least I can claim more readership than USCF.


I expect that the majority of people are exposed mainly
to the mass media, which will zoom in on any and every
item wherein some slimy chess organizer/player is
caught doing something illegal with a child. What's
your "readership" as compared to, say, the AP?


Over the past year we [in these twin newsgroups politics and misc] have seem
off a bunch of dizzy people obsessed with their [usually] anonymous views,


(Bizarre attempt to change the subject duly noted.)


mostly by challenging their absolute qualities, as their writers would
prefer them to be seen - usually to reveal that these are personal
preferences and ideosyncracies.


Would you care to rephrase that, in some known
planet Earth language?


I have been writing about chess in the USA, and if USCF turns a blind eye to
any and all standards, then their are certain signs [even from within it!]
that next year there will be something to compare it to. Then USCF won't be
the only outfit around


Ah, progress! I have often wondered why none of the
"enterprising" chess organizers have managed to launch
a competing company, with its own ratings service and
tournaments. It's not like it would take much to knock
the old USCF into outer space, given its ineptitude and
incessant internal warring.


and instead of My Federation Right or Wrong [an
infamous formation, not worth response] then its // behavior // can be
assessed in comparison to something else!


As far as I know, the behavior of the USCF has already
been "refuted"; all that remains is to arrange for a suitable
replacement, the selection of a different plan.


Not much, apart from stabbing away at Sam Sloan, now and
again. If anything substantive is accomplished in this field,
I have a feeling it will be done by those with real power, by
someone like this Stan V. Mr. Sloan talks about, or a Bill
Goichberg type tournament organizer. Or maybe through
the federal government. The goings on here in rgc seem to
accomplish very, very little.

On the contrary - the goings on here comprises [despite all the 'noise'] the
only forum where there is no censorship


I think you have missed the point entirely. It is not
about "what is said"; the question is, "what is done?"

It has been my experience that the incessant whining
and bemoaning of the troubles of the USCF here are an
ipso facto admission that no real *action* is being taken
to address these problems in the real world. The real
world is that world outside of computers, the one in
which we all used to live. Get it?


- and lack of substantive
conversation only occurs to people who perhaps seem like they have nothing
to say?


Hey, I like the idea of "no censorship"; but it hardly
substitutes for real action in the real world outside.
It still means that all you have is talk.


Those who have would likely aver this preamble to the agenda I suggested,


(The "bitch list", I take it.)


an agenda actually generated by those who do care for American chess.


Yes, yes, all bloody well and good, old man. But aside
from blather, what are you *doing* to improve things? I
ask this not to attack you personally, but rather because
I have seen these same gripes for _many years_, and
NOBODY ever does anything about them! Hence, the
griping continues, ad infinitum.

What I want is somebody who can get off their big fat
keyboard and take action; I want someone like Arnold
Swarzenegger; I want a Terminator who walks into the
USCF headquarters and starts blasting. Better still, I
want someone who can start their own organization for
chess and put the USCF and its evil minions out of
business, once and for all. I want the bitching to end
because the root cause has finally been extinguished,
killed, terminated. End of line.

-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 28, 6:59 am, "Chess One" wrote:

My take on this issue is that Mr. Innes seems to exhibit
genuine concern, possibly on account of being a father and
thus feeling a bit protective. But being at best a mere
member of the USCF, what can he accomplish here?

This is an honest question, but surely the question is what others are
doing
writing 'here' in a chess politics newsgroup


...and a chess.miscellaneous newsgroup...

where more chess is, as if we need a lodestone

when they make no positive contribution to the subject?


Au contraire; pointing out the fruitlessness of what goes
on here *is constructive*,

interesting 'logic'

because it points toward some
more fruitful approach to the issue; it attempts to bluntly
redirect genuinely interested parties in the direction of
real progress, as opposed to empty jabbering here.


Cynicism is an attempted means to negate a
subject by the writer


In my case, there is obviously no need to negate these
empty jabberings, for they are of no importance whatever.

were you meaning to say, 'in your opinion'? or possibly, that there are no
values or importance for you? Or is the reason to write deprecating other
people so much, so that nothing will appear here to disturb a settled
cynicism?

you are so psychologically naive as to say one thing, yet behave as if you
cared intensively, by writing so much to every point

what i am saying is if you are truly completely cyncial and don't give a
damn for anyone else in chess, why don't you **** off?

- a pretence that they don't care ~ an obvious
nonsense since they care sufficiently to be negative all the time.


It's true; I'm negative more often than not. I see this as
resulting from the overall lack of anything of real value to
respond to here, in conjunction with my own laziness,
which prevents me from constructing new threads in
which I "inject" real value created through hard work. :(

Or being brave enough to admit your own name, or even brave enough to see if
anything changes if you do. pfft!

I didn't read further

Phil Innes


Rather than see myself as in any way eccentric, I feel I express what a
majority of people feel, and at least I can claim more readership than
USCF.


I expect that the majority of people are exposed mainly
to the mass media, which will zoom in on any and every
item wherein some slimy chess organizer/player is
caught doing something illegal with a child. What's
your "readership" as compared to, say, the AP?


Over the past year we [in these twin newsgroups politics and misc] have
seem
off a bunch of dizzy people obsessed with their [usually] anonymous
views,


(Bizarre attempt to change the subject duly noted.)


mostly by challenging their absolute qualities, as their writers would
prefer them to be seen - usually to reveal that these are personal
preferences and ideosyncracies.


Would you care to rephrase that, in some known
planet Earth language?


I have been writing about chess in the USA, and if USCF turns a blind eye
to
any and all standards, then their are certain signs [even from within
it!]
that next year there will be something to compare it to. Then USCF won't
be
the only outfit around


Ah, progress! I have often wondered why none of the
"enterprising" chess organizers have managed to launch
a competing company, with its own ratings service and
tournaments. It's not like it would take much to knock
the old USCF into outer space, given its ineptitude and
incessant internal warring.


and instead of My Federation Right or Wrong [an
infamous formation, not worth response] then its // behavior // can be
assessed in comparison to something else!


As far as I know, the behavior of the USCF has already
been "refuted"; all that remains is to arrange for a suitable
replacement, the selection of a different plan.


Not much, apart from stabbing away at Sam Sloan, now and
again. If anything substantive is accomplished in this field,
I have a feeling it will be done by those with real power, by
someone like this Stan V. Mr. Sloan talks about, or a Bill
Goichberg type tournament organizer. Or maybe through
the federal government. The goings on here in rgc seem to
accomplish very, very little.

On the contrary - the goings on here comprises [despite all the 'noise']
the
only forum where there is no censorship


I think you have missed the point entirely. It is not
about "what is said"; the question is, "what is done?"

It has been my experience that the incessant whining
and bemoaning of the troubles of the USCF here are an
ipso facto admission that no real *action* is being taken
to address these problems in the real world. The real
world is that world outside of computers, the one in
which we all used to live. Get it?


- and lack of substantive
conversation only occurs to people who perhaps seem like they have
nothing
to say?


Hey, I like the idea of "no censorship"; but it hardly
substitutes for real action in the real world outside.
It still means that all you have is talk.


Those who have would likely aver this preamble to the agenda I suggested,


(The "bitch list", I take it.)


an agenda actually generated by those who do care for American chess.


Yes, yes, all bloody well and good, old man. But aside
from blather, what are you *doing* to improve things? I
ask this not to attack you personally, but rather because
I have seen these same gripes for _many years_, and
NOBODY ever does anything about them! Hence, the
griping continues, ad infinitum.

What I want is somebody who can get off their big fat
keyboard and take action; I want someone like Arnold
Swarzenegger; I want a Terminator who walks into the
USCF headquarters and starts blasting. Better still, I
want someone who can start their own organization for
chess and put the USCF and its evil minions out of
business, once and for all. I want the bitching to end
because the root cause has finally been extinguished,
killed, terminated. End of line.

-- help bot

On Jun 28, 2:58 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Au contraire; pointing out the fruitlessness of what goes
on here *is constructive*,

interesting 'logic'

because it points toward some
more fruitful approach to the issue; it attempts to bluntly
redirect genuinely interested parties in the direction of
real progress, as opposed to empty jabbering here.

Cynicism is an attempted means to negate a
subject by the writer

In my case, there is obviously no need to negate these
empty jabberings, for they are of no importance whatever.

were you meaning to say, 'in your opinion'?

No. Unlike certain denizens of the briny deep, I
say what I mean and mean what I say, and in
addition, I say it in comprehensible English, sans
obfuscation. (Can you honestly say this? No.)


or possibly, that there are no values or importance for you?


IMO, someone who writes that he is "nearly-an-IM",
adding a hefty 2450 rating for good measure, is
lacking in what are generally known as "values".
The decided tendency to lie and snuggle up to
scumbags is indicative of a "values" problem, so
I am hardly surprised when such comments come
bolting from the blue from you.


Or is the reason to write deprecating other
people so much,


Behold: I have in fact *tried* very hard to hold
back from personal attacks here; in fact, I recently
scolded two other ad hominists for this very crime!
But it is nearly-an-im possible task when all you
want to do is **** yourself.


so that nothing will appear here to disturb a settled
cynicism?


I consider myself to be a realist, not a pessimist;
what you call "cynicism" is just a healthy look
'round, with head well *above* the sand. If things
look ugly, I say so. What's wrong with that?


you are so psychologically naive as to say one thing, yet behave as if you
cared intensively, by writing so much to every point


Careful -- your insanity is showing! I have every
bit as much right to write here as you do, fella.


what i am saying is if you are truly completely cyncial


Which I am not.


and don't give a
damn for anyone else in chess, why don't you **** off?


Why don't you take a "chill pill" or something? You're
getting awfully hot under the collar for no apparent
reason. No wonder you are widely known as "insane
Innes" around these parts.


- a pretence that they don't care ~ an obvious
nonsense since they care sufficiently to be negative all the time.


Look in the mirror, shorty; it is you who insists on
being negative. I have given my ideas on how best
to deal with the USCF and its ever-present govern-
mental issues. I like the idea of blowing it up from
the inside, ala Sam Sloan, with his multitudinous
law suits; but really, that is a mean thing to do. Why
not just ignore the USCF, and create from scratch
a much better org.? In my view, you can't just patch
an organization which has been so corrupted for so
long; maybe I'm wrong; maybe one day, someone
will come along and do it.


It's true; I'm negative more often than not. I see this as
resulting from the overall lack of anything of real value to
respond to here, in conjunction with my own laziness,
which prevents me from constructing new threads in
which I "inject" real value created through hard work. :(

Or being brave enough to admit your own name


The trouble with ad hominists is they cannot think
clearly, and thus, they are always in dire need to
latch onto something personal at which to throw
stones. I think it may be a low-IQ issue, but who
knows? Truth is, I sort of feel sorry for you, on
account of your being so needy and incapable of
rational thinking. In any case, any decent school
will teach you that killing the messenger works no
better today than it did back when a famous
Caesar did it, after he was given bad news
regarding some battle. OTOH, if all you want is
a ****ing contest, then ad hom. is definitely the
way to go! Hire a private detective, and get all
the "dirt" you can; then launch a nasty personal
attack, demonstrating just how good you are at
slinging mud and all that. You never know -- it's
possible that *somebody* will be impressed.



I didn't read further


No matter. All this is mere talk; what is required
here is action, and as previously noted, men of
action do not hang about in rgc, jibber-jabbering.

Previously, I mentioned that some big time
chess organizer might very well be the one to
take real action regarding the abuse of children
in chess; but now I have gravitated to thinking it
will probably never happen at all. I now think that
in all likelihood, things will just go on as they
always have in the past, not getting any better.
That's because there may not be any real men
of action in chess. Or maybe the federal govern-
ment will one day step in, after a particularly ugly
incident? Who knows.

What I do know is that twenty or thirty years ago,
there were similar complaints here in rgc, and
certain individuals were fingered as sex abusers.
But nothing much came of it, and now, all these
years later, we are still in the same position, not
having even moved. :(

-- help bot

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

were you meaning to say, 'in your opinion'?

No. Unlike certain denizens of the briny deep, I
say what I mean and mean what I say, and in
addition, I say it in comprehensible English, sans
obfuscation. (Can you honestly say this? No.)

You are content to pose the question and answer it yourself. And this, you
think, is to own your own opinion?

or possibly, that there are no values or importance for you?


IMO, someone who writes that he is "nearly-an-IM",
adding a hefty 2450 rating for good measure, is
lacking in what are generally known as "values".

I wrote to a bunch of people who don't know if 2400 is better or worse thawn
a 1000, and simply indicated a performance level some 25 years ago, and what
an IM rating was. Its YOU who can't understand the context - but wait,
actually, its you who pretend they cant, since you are jealous, no?

And so your writing is always regretful of what others say, to the extent
that you either knowing distort or misconstrue the context, or ask
mock-questions. What you have done in this thread is make it all about you!
Do you understand this? The only context here is YOU. And you express this
by eliminating a social agenda for chess, claiming you are cynical about its
application, and returning the subject once more to you!

The decided tendency to lie and snuggle up to
scumbags is indicative of a "values" problem, so
I am hardly surprised when such comments come
bolting from the blue from you.


Or is the reason to write deprecating other
people so much,


Behold: I have in fact *tried* very hard to hold
back from personal attacks here; in fact, I recently
scolded two other ad hominists for this very crime!
But it is nearly-an-im possible task when all you
want to do is **** yourself.


so that nothing will appear here to disturb a settled
cynicism?


I consider myself to be a realist, not a pessimist;
what you call "cynicism" is just a healthy look
'round, with head well *above* the sand. If things
look ugly, I say so. What's wrong with that?


you are so psychologically naive as to say one thing, yet behave as if
you
cared intensively, by writing so much to every point


Careful -- your insanity is showing! I have every
bit as much right to write here as you do, fella.


what i am saying is if you are truly completely cyncial


Which I am not.


and don't give a
damn for anyone else in chess, why don't you **** off?


Why don't you take a "chill pill" or something? You're
getting awfully hot under the collar for no apparent
reason. No wonder you are widely known as "insane
Innes" around these parts.


17 self-contradictions later, 'cool-guy' Kennedy, who can't write his name
or address a topic, continues to garbage every one he touches, based on his
psychic survey.



- a pretence that they don't care ~ an obvious
nonsense since they care sufficiently to be negative all the time.


Look in the mirror, shorty; it is you who insists on
being negative.


Write to the thread items, or save your opinions for those others who enjoy
your company. If you gave up on chess organisation, go away - shoo!

Otherwise you are in some danger of confirming your messages are utterly
pointless, [read one, and you read 'em all] and simply obsessive about those
who are not, for reasons you deny yet with no apparent irony demonstrate all
the time.

An alternative is to address the topic, not the writer. Its your choice, and
I leave you in the company of 'everybody' and what they 'widely know' so you
can all be resentful together.

Phil Innes


I have given my ideas on how best
to deal with the USCF and its ever-present govern-
mental issues. I like the idea of blowing it up from
the inside, ala Sam Sloan, with his multitudinous
law suits; but really, that is a mean thing to do. Why
not just ignore the USCF, and create from scratch
a much better org.? In my view, you can't just patch
an organization which has been so corrupted for so
long; maybe I'm wrong; maybe one day, someone
will come along and do it.


It's true; I'm negative more often than not. I see this as
resulting from the overall lack of anything of real value to
respond to here, in conjunction with my own laziness,
which prevents me from constructing new threads in
which I "inject" real value created through hard work. :(

Or being brave enough to admit your own name


The trouble with ad hominists is they cannot think
clearly, and thus, they are always in dire need to
latch onto something personal at which to throw
stones. I think it may be a low-IQ issue, but who
knows? Truth is, I sort of feel sorry for you, on
account of your being so needy and incapable of
rational thinking. In any case, any decent school
will teach you that killing the messenger works no
better today than it did back when a famous
Caesar did it, after he was given bad news
regarding some battle. OTOH, if all you want is
a ****ing contest, then ad hom. is definitely the
way to go! Hire a private detective, and get all
the "dirt" you can; then launch a nasty personal
attack, demonstrating just how good you are at
slinging mud and all that. You never know -- it's
possible that *somebody* will be impressed.



I didn't read further


No matter. All this is mere talk; what is required
here is action, and as previously noted, men of
action do not hang about in rgc, jibber-jabbering.

Previously, I mentioned that some big time
chess organizer might very well be the one to
take real action regarding the abuse of children
in chess; but now I have gravitated to thinking it
will probably never happen at all. I now think that
in all likelihood, things will just go on as they
always have in the past, not getting any better.
That's because there may not be any real men
of action in chess. Or maybe the federal govern-
ment will one day step in, after a particularly ugly
incident? Who knows.

What I do know is that twenty or thirty years ago,
there were similar complaints here in rgc, and
certain individuals were fingered as sex abusers.
But nothing much came of it, and now, all these
years later, we are still in the same position, not
having even moved. :(

-- help bot

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


IMO, someone who writes that he is "nearly-an-IM",
adding a hefty 2450 rating for good measure, is
lacking in what are generally known as "values".

I wrote to a bunch of people who don't know if 2400 is better or worse thawn
a 1000, and simply indicated a performance level some 25 years ago, and what
an IM rating was. Its YOU who can't understand the context - but wait,
actually, its you who pretend they cant, since you are jealous, no?

Here is the context the Nearly an IM 2450 'forgot' to include:

*******************

I must qualify what I have said therefo from the resolution of the
painitng on my monitor I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or
black,
but given the worst placements from white's perspective, I would still
hold
these views, [even though black is holding a piece in the air].

My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion - for example, Nil, who used to post here before splitting,
so to
speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
linear. This is not to say that Nil could not also resolve the
situation
over the board - but given the best imagined placements for black and
the
worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert
"mate-in-three" if
a board position cannot be resolved.

Phil

"The Historian" wrote in message
ups.com...



This is not to say that Nil could not also resolve the
situation
over the board - but given the best imagined placements for black and
the
worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert
"mate-in-three" if
a board position cannot be resolved.

Well quite - it was a well meant attempt to correct a truly dumb and inane
opinion. This, you see, is now a motive for revenge, even years later.

Kerist! This strange people have driven off every other strong player from
these newsgroups, and if you like em you should upchuck your own stuff too,
but let's not pretend that being a popular idiot is amusing in the way
intended by these writers!

But enough of these twits and their pathetic resentful obsessions. What is
it that will further chess in this country? If you have some other agenda,
personal and obscure, pray start your own thread, since this one is not
about you.

Phil Innes


Phil

On Jun 29, 9:39 am, "Chess One" wrote:

I say it in comprehensible English, sans
obfuscation. (Can you honestly say this? No.)

You are content to pose the question and answer it yourself. And this, you
think, is to own your own opinion?


I only answered because I knew you quite literally
could not. Psychology can sometimes be crippling.


or possibly, that there are no values or importance for you?

IMO, someone who writes that he is "nearly-an-IM",
adding a hefty 2450 rating for good measure, is
lacking in what are generally known as "values".

I wrote to a bunch of people who don't know if 2400 is better or worse thawn
a 1000, and simply indicated a performance level some 25 years ago,


Please explain how such an audience is expected to
appreciate your false claims to title and rating, if they are
so ignorant as you represent here.

Also, please note where in your false claims you wrote
about the time lapse claimed above; I must have "missed"
it.

Of course, I have no beef with how good you may think
you were some twenty-five years ago; many players I
have known think or thought they are/were far, far better
than in reality. But precious few post claims to titles and
ratings they never had, just because (apparently) they
think they can get away with it. Critically, this tendency
to make such claims was not a one-off aberration; it has
been confirmed by numerous events since. Without any
Blairian research to drum up relevant examples, let me
simply remind you of the countless instances where, say,
a random poster writes about fictitious chessplayer Tricky
Dick Nixon, and Chess One responds: "I just got off the
phone with the old man...". Do you really believe everyone
is buying all this cr*p? I seriously wonder! LOL


and what an IM rating was. Its YOU who can't understand the


In fact, it's a whole lot of people who, like me, *do*
understand the context, to a large extent. What is
not understood is this:

1. Why do you feel it *necessary* to lie, exaggerate,
pretend -- whatever you wish to call it? Please explain.

2. How can you fail to see that the damage to your
reputation/credibility is far greater than any presumed
short-term gain from these lies? It's plain as a mate
in one! (no offense, GM Kramnik).


context - but wait,
actually, its you who pretend they cant, since you are jealous, no?


I am reminded here of a very, very old movie, The Swiss
Family Robinson. A family is stranded in a remote locale,
with three boys, two of which begin to go bananas when
an attractive girl is saved from pirates. The oldest boy,
already a man really, is accused of being "jealous" by the
middle, still-a-boy brother, whereupon he retorts, quite
cruelly: "of WHAT?" LOL Spoiler: the girl, of course,
goes for the more mature brother. Moral: grow up, kid!



And so your writing is always regretful of what others say, to the extent
that you either knowing distort or misconstrue the context, or ask
mock-questions. What you have done in this thread is make it all about you!

You are quite delusional.

This thread is not about me, or about YOU, nor is it
about me & you. It only seems that way because of
your obsessions. It really should be quite possible to
discuss what you call an agenda, which has also been
labeled a "bitch list", if you can just get past your ad
hom. obsession.



Do you understand this? The only context here is YOU.


I am one with the universe, and we are one! Together,
we shall rule/be the world?


And you express this
by eliminating a social agenda for chess, claiming you are cynical


This is precisely what I mean by "delusional". It is,
of course, Chess One who claims that I am cynical,
as I have already explained.

BTW, I have not "eliminated" your agenda/bitch list;
I have merely expressed the idea that insofar as it
approaches issues through the corrupted organization
known as the USCF, it is, IMO, doomed to fail. Not
because of any flaw in the agenda, but because of the
corrupt nature of the USCF itself. Another point is that
you are attempting to foist your bitch list/agenda on
"them" from the position of an outsider, a non-elected
critic with no real power.


about its
application, and returning the subject once more to you!


Me! Me, me, me: it's all about me!

Tell me, nearly-an-IM One, are you an only child? I ask
because you seem to be obsessive about getting attention,
and about being the One and only. Even your many
projections are dominated by this connecting thread.
Psychology can sometimes be crippling.

-- help bot

On Jun 29, 10:57 am, The Historian wrote:

IMO, someone who writes that he is "nearly-an-IM",
adding a hefty 2450 rating for good measure, is
lacking in what are generally known as "values".

I wrote to a bunch of people who don't know if 2400 is better or worse thawn
a 1000, and simply indicated a performance level some 25 years ago, and what
an IM rating was. Its YOU who can't understand the context - but wait,
actually, its you who pretend they cant, since you are jealous, no?

Here is the context the Nearly an IM 2450 'forgot' to include:

*******************

I must qualify what I have said therefo from the resolution of the
painitng on my monitor I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or
black,
but given the worst placements from white's perspective, I would still
hold
these views, [even though black is holding a piece in the air].

My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion - for example, Nil, who used to post here before splitting,
so to
speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
linear. This is not to say that Nil could not also resolve the
situation
over the board - but given the best imagined placements for black and
the
worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert
"mate-in-three" if
a board position cannot be resolved.


My take is that although some people may have much
sharper vision than I, these attempts to proclaim a mate
or no mate reveal an astounding lack of critical thinking
skills, to the extent that no such assessment should be
made in any complex position without first determining
the exact position on the board. (It must be pointed
out that there are positions where a far-distant piece is
the one delivering check or even mate!)

As far as I can see, the strange shapes of the men
make things awfully unclear as to what is what, and
whose men are whose. In this perspective, the claims
to IM title and 2450 rating come off as nothing other
than hot air, whipped up to try and lend credence to
what ought to be taken as a mere blind guess. All
well and good if that's the sort of thing you're into, but
the question remains: why the need for fabrication of
titles or ratings? Why is it necessary to invent "facts"
to back up one's comments? It seems that the answer
is just this: it isn't really necessary, but why not try and
see if it can be "gotten away with", since this is PI's
routine modus operandi. Call it short-sightedness, or
call it something far worse, but it seems to reveal a
serious ethical problem in the subject; his checks and
balances system is not working properly, and as a
result his ego has gotten way out of control. (Perhaps
he cannot even distinguish between reality and his
world of fabrications after so many years of suffering.)

-- doc bot

On Jun 26, 4:03 am, The Historian wrote:
..

No, it's just a short visit. All the interesting posters have left,
probably to avoid the 'morning toast' that Innes and you routinely
leave floating behind. Mitchell is the little fish that likes to
nibble it.

It is amusing to check in here every now and again just to see Phil
and Larry ranting with hardly anyone but the trolls responding.

On Jun 30, 3:48 pm, Vince Hart wrote:
On Jun 26, 4:03 am, The Historian wrote:

No, it's just a short visit. All the interesting posters have left,
probably to avoid the 'morning toast' that Innes and you routinely
leave floating behind. Mitchell is the little fish that likes to
nibble it.

It is amusing to check in here every now and again just to see Phil
and Larry ranting with hardly anyone but the trolls responding.


I don't see "Larry" here much anymore. I think maybe he
was driven off by Louis Blair's untiring devotion, or the fact
that he had but one faithful toady left in Phil Innes.

As for the interesting posters, you must of course mean
Nick Bourbaki and Bob Hyatt. I think they were both put
off by the number of critics here. BH was for years hounded
by people like Rolf Tueschen, while NB seemed to believe
he was being persecuted because of his race -- though no
one can actually tell what race anyone is in this forum.
Chalk it up to psychology, to a a lack of mental toughness,
or just give them credit for finally making a smart move.
As Confucius put it: "Life is too short to squander on the
internet". Also: "Even the longest posting begins with but
a single word". And, for those who live to torment posters
like LP, PI, and JR: "Be happy in your work".

-- help bot