help-bitch also thinks there is a mate-in-three, which was the supposed
situation about this painting as received by the humanities group, though
admits below he can't even tell which pieces are which. [presumably the
piece on e1 is a King, therefore the singular white piece that is developed
is the piece missing one from d1, and this Queen [?] is about to deliver a
mate all on her own against a developed black position?] grin

Which is pretty much what I said.

But this isn't the issue - its strong players' comments which get his goat
and Brennan's too - they already drove off other strong players here,
including GMs, and anybody knows more than what they do. And boy! Do they go
on about what they are so sure about. pfft! Sure?

These people don't even admit liking chess! But they have some hidden
ambitions in it, which means they have to claw their way in with these very
abstract opinions - in short, Kinstonite opinion, which make strong players
roar with laughter!

The topic of this thread is not them nor me, but as I wrote - and as these
idiotic fellows are desperate to subvert to personality issue, though they
contribute nothing to any subject, not even their real names are added to
their posts - this is about standards of chess administration for all of us.

Readers will observe who makes contributions to this, and to their egos,
respectively.

Phil Innes

"help bot" wrote in message
ps.com...
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 30, 7:47 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

help-bitch also thinks there is a mate-in-three,


The nearly-an-insane-IM must have me confused with
another poster, for I have never claimed anything other
than that I can't make out the position, and remain
amazed that others *think* they can.



which was the supposed
situation about this painting as received by the humanities group, though
admits below he can't even tell which pieces are which.


There you go.



[presumably the piece on e1 is a King,


On my screen, it appears as though the e1 square is
quite *empty*. The tallest White men look to be on a1 and
c3, and they seem indistinguishable from one another. I
would not presume to know which was the King.

Nevertheless, I am hardly surprised that a nearly-blind
wannabe-IM *thinks* he sees a man on e1. LOL


therefore the singular white piece that is developed
is the piece missing one from d1, and this Queen [?] is about to deliver a
mate all on her own against a developed black position?] grin

Which is pretty much what I said.

But this isn't the issue - its strong players' comments which get his goat
and Brennan's too - they already drove off other strong players here,
including GMs, and anybody knows more than what they do. And boy! Do they go
on about what they are so sure about. pfft! Sure?

These people don't even admit liking chess! But they have some hidden
ambitions in it, which means they have to claw their way in with these very
abstract opinions - in short, Kinstonite opinion, which make strong players
roar with laughter!

The topic of this thread is not them nor me, but as I wrote - and as these
idiotic fellows are desperate to subvert to personality issue, though they
contribute nothing to any subject, not even their real names are added to
their posts - this is about standards of chess administration for all of us.

Readers will observe who makes contributions to this, and to their egos,
respectively.

Phil Innes

"help bot" wrote in message

ps.com...

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 30, 7:47 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

I seem to have accidentally hit "send" when I meant
to switch to view the painting, while writing my last
post (a mess, no doubt).


admits below he can't even tell which pieces are which. [presumably the
piece on e1 is a King, therefore the singular white piece that is developed
is the piece missing one from d1,


On my screen, there is a White man, apparently
captured, resting near Black's back rank, and also
another White "piece" which appears to be on the
square a5. However, I will say that these are much
shorter men, and so the King and Queen are likely
to be the tall ones referred to earlier (on a1 & c3).

It should be noted that BOTH King and Queen
are missing from their original squares, and there
are so many White men clustered together on
the King's side that one can only venture to guess
that not all of them could possibly be pawns.


and this Queen [?] is about to deliver a
mate all on her own against a developed black position?]


Typical insane-IM logic!

Obviously, it is not White, but Black who is on move.
I would be far more worried about whether the man on
a1 is the White King, hopefully safe for the moment,
as opposed to the man on c3, which might be presumed
to be a precarious position with so many pieces still on.

IMO, the inferior pieces are so small as to be very
difficult to distinguish from pawns, except in some
cases by their excessive width. I hate this set!


grin

Let me know if you can get an original pic of this
position, and blow it up to, say, 100 times its
present size. Also, can you add some light --
these clowns were playing in semi-darkness.


-- blind bot

On Jun 27, 2:13 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message

ups.com...

Really? gee.. already back and a response to a civil comment to you is
met with more venom. So predictable. Why should one expect your new
diet to have changed your disposition?

Just like the who cares for kids thread, Rob, you can see who wants to bury
that subject and this one too. And to be fair to anyone, they can be having
a bad year resulting from their complete narcissistic cynicism - but for 5
years?

Like Sloan, its not worth attending to such personalities [which is all they
want] except to contrast them with how much they bring to any subject - and
Usenet is a prime medium for cranks who hate other people's agendas since
they gave up on their own

I am, with grim amusement, observing who actually can bring themselves to
consider anything other than their own preferences and consider the welfare
of others - this is most marked when the subject of children in chess is
raised - but in almost all cases there is submerged personal ambition
inserted as substitute for what we normally call common decency.

Cordially, Phil

Agreed.