On Dec 21, 12:00 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

IF: 2+2 = 4 yesterday. It is pretty darn sure it will do so today.

It depends on what the definition of "equals" is. (If
you don't inhale, you couldn't possibly understand. )


Jealous! Besides, I redid the calculation again today, using Christmas
walnuts, and 2+2 still equal 4. That ain't luck, its science.

I once beat several players, one after another.
I was then summarily informed that I had merely
been lucky; my defense was that although my
moves were admittedly horrible, I played them
quickly so scientifically speaking, Time was on
my side.


If its the second, is it the thin air source which resolves their
not-convincingness?

Nah. It is more often the internal inconsistencies
which betray the cracks in his thinking. It reminds
me of the imbeciles who support Mr. Kasparov as
the answer to evil-dictator-Putin; a liar and cheat, a
poor "savior" makes; why not present some decent
chap, chosen at random?

Possibly decent American chaps should do it?
Who in this government should run Russia?

A very loaded question. It mistakenly presumes
that people in our government can run anything at
all! Besides, in a set (wrestling) match, Mr. Putin
would kick "President" Clinton's butt (he's twice her
size). Kidding! Of course, nobody is going to elect
a /girl/ for president! It will be... Huckleberry, by a
finn.


Do not neglect to propose yourself either,
there are many many cornfields there!
Black earth....!

I'm told that the USCF HQ has been relocated
a tad closer to home, but still, that's one heckova
commute. How about Rob "da robber" Mitchell?


or, is it because the results are gleaned from Chess
Life customers who live above 10,000 feet?

Readers of Chess Lies are not customers; they
are *victims*! That dreadful rag is plagued by
erroneous game annotations, as demonstrated
time and again by careful analysis by Fritz. It
has gotten so bad that I am almost /afraid/ to
look at any more articles in CL. :(

The dreadful rag might be indexed! For a real subscription price USCF could
also chuck the entire year onto a searchable CD. Then it could offer for an
extra 5 bucks the whole thing in print, with a spine, and also indexed
[leaving out ads and such, it would still be thick enough].

A once-a-year solution misses the fact that
tournament announcements are listed monthly;
without monthly updates, only internet-freaks
would know where to play. As one of those
freaks, I would not mind such a change, but
some people actually take printed materials
and read them while away from their computers.
(As a help bot, I am not allowed to go "outside".
But one day I hope to defect to the real world.)


As for analysis, depends who is analysed

The latest issue(?!!) has GM Bronstein making up
excuses for his failures in the world championship
cycles. If one lays his excuses side-by-side with
GM Botvinnik's holier-then-thou remarks, it makes
for interesting material which would give Dr. Fine
a good belly-laugh.

Putting this new (to me) material into better
perspective, it shows precisely how loonies like
Larry Parr have distorted the hearsay/reality in new
and amazing ways; where DB indicates he feared
dire consequences for his father's indiscretions, LP
morphs things into a KGB plot to keep DB from
winning the title (as if the KGB had orchestrated the
father's own actions).


Don't worry, Son of Sanny couldn't solve the fortress problem I set him, and
its only 101 plies.

Yeah, but then, Fritz was not /designed/ as a
fortress-detector. It's primary function was to beat
up on other programs like Hiarcs, Genius, M-Pro
and so on in tournament time controls, so a few
fortresses were largely irrelevant.


In any case, you will get your usual paycheck
for attempting to "defend" LP. How you manage
to live on such a small sum is beyond me; even
here, the cost of living keeps going up, and then
there are tournament entry fees, Fritz updates,
and yes, food and gasoline to buy.

I get paid in emeralds from the secret fund.

Don't hear much about emeralds anymore; these
days, it's nothing but gold, uranium and oil-- all
supposedly the answer to the coming wave of
mega-inflation which will wipe America off the map.

The reality is that the more the American dollar falls
in value, the more easily we will be able to *export*
goods and thus reduce our titanic budget deficits.
Once the avian flu hits(!??), our debt burden with
regard to Social Security payments will be dramatically
reduced by the near-total devastation to the old and
infirm, so we're actually in great shape. As for China
and other threats, they will choke on their own air
and water pollution, random earthquakes and so forth;
I'm not worried. In the end, "we* will emerge from our
mine-shafts with a one-pawn advantage still intact;
and our technique (with apologies to Mr. Bronstein)
will carry us through; after all, technique is all we've
got; we're lazy, complacent, and ignorant people.



-- help bot

On Dec 21, 4:47 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

The systems you have proposed is not all that different from the BAP (Ballard
anti-draw point) system that has been experimented with: 3 for Black
win, 2 for White win, 1 for Black draw, 0 for everything else.

Its features are that (1) it provides an incentive for both sides to play to win
(2) it removes the imbalance of the existing scoring in favor of White.


It also appears to "feature" a titanic flaw:

there is no difference between a draw and a loss
for White! Imagine that you are having a great
tournament, but in the final round you are given
the White pieces against a far superior player;
no point in groveling for a draw, is there? Just
play willy-nilly reckless attacking style, since
losing is unfairly treated the very same as a
well-earned draw.

Also, toss out your "Winning with 1.x4 books"
and replace them with study of *only* the Black
side of openings; simple math tells us that no
longer is it advantageous to waste time on the
White side of things; all energy and focus must
now be directed to increasing one's winning
percentage /as Black/!

Wow. What an amazing "improvement". You
may have blindly stumbled onto one of the
silliest "solutions" to the grandmaster-drawing
problem known to mankind.

I think a blind squirrel could likely do a bit better
than this. Have him/her try out every possibility,
and then analyze the results. But before trying
anything out of sheer desperation, you might want
to first have a go at revising the ratings system so
that players of the White pieces get a small
penalty for giving up draws; these penalties, when
added together over time, could give some pause
regarding their behavior; I suspect that more than
a few "grandmasters" would begin to try harder as
White, and the draw percentage would decline
somewhat. If that's not sufficient, then step up
the pressure a bit more.

I have given precious little thought to this funky
system of yours, but it is *readily apparent* that
the typical 5-round Swiss tournament will be
ruined by the fact that whoever gets three Blacks
has a titanic advantage over his unlucky brethren
who are alloted only two. The luck of the pairings
would largely determine who has the best shot at
first place, among other prizes. This is not so
bad, given that everyone has a fair shot at getting
lucky; but the dramatic *unintended consequences*
reveal the shallowness of the approach.

It reminds me of the U.S. government's decision to
exempt trucks and SUVs from stricter fuel-mileage
regulations; in that fiasco, the unintended (and
unforeseen) consequence was that trucks suddenly
became the "car" of choice for many Americans;
they were incredibly inexpensive, relatively speaking,
and so long as gasoline prices remained at bay,
there were no severe consequences. Almost every
week for many years now, I've seen ads in the paper
listing basic work trucks at unfathomable prices. The
government didn't see that one coming, did they? On
top of this, the "best" hybrid cars have been in short
supply, and the added cost only exacerbated the
problem. Result: many, many more gas-hogs on the
roads.

You would think that chess players would be smart;
you would think they, of all people, could figure out a
near-flawless solution; but noooo.


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 4:47 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

The systems you have proposed is not all that different from the BAP (Ballard
anti-draw point) system that has been experimented with: 3 for Black
win, 2 for White win, 1 for Black draw, 0 for everything else.

Its features are that (1) it provides an incentive for both sides to play to
win
(2) it removes the imbalance of the existing scoring in favor of White.


It also appears to "feature" a titanic flaw:


Snipped.

There *are* a number of complexities
that this alternate scoring system introduces.
Amazingly, your raving response may have obliquely
touched on a few valid ones, but it would be
too much work to figure out exactly where.

In short, if anyone cares to see how the system
worked in practice, just look it up.
The experiment certainly succeeded in
a way that is important to me. It produced
consistent fighting chess. Something that
1867-scoring point-splitting scoring rarely
does.

help bot wrote:

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

When someone engages in logical fallacies, it is
like having a car with sugar in the gas tank
or a computer running Microsoft Vista

Ouch! That hurt. Look, unless you fork
over the big bucks for an Apple computer,
or are a Linux freak, Microsoft is just a
(harsh) fact of life.

But Vista is not. I run linux where I can, but there are
several windows programs that have no Linux replacement,
such as AutoCAD and OrCAD. They all run fine in Windows
Server 2003 or Windows XP Pro. In fact, Microsoft will,
if asked, give you a licence key to downgrade the copy of
Vista installed on a new PC to XP.

Is Windows XP Pro a 64-bit OS?

Some of the chess programs offer more-expensive
versions which purportedly run faster, but they fail
to explain that most factory Windows PCs can't run
the programs because even if the PC has more bits,
the OS may not. In fact, my laptop says it has 64
bits (Turioun 64) , but the standard OS doesn't (fully)
support it.

there are two 64-bit XPs.

Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is for Intel x86-64
Microsoft Windows XP 64-bit Edition is for Intel Itanium.

For XP Professional x64 Edition vs. XP Professional,
here are the differences:

XP64 XP32
Virtual memory 16 TB 4 GB
Paging file 512 TB 16 TB
Hyperspace 8 GB 4 MB
Paged pool 128 GB 470 MB
Non-paged pool 128 GB 256 MB
System cache 1 TB 1 GB
System PTEs 128 GB 660 MB

Also see:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/282423
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

"David Kane" wrote in message
. ..

The systems you have proposed is not all that different from the BAP
(Ballard
anti-draw point) system that has been experimented with: 3 for Black
win, 2 for White win, 1 for Black draw, 0 for everything else.

Yes - I remember you wrote on this before. At the time I think I wanted to
know how effective it was in reducing draws. I also note a GM tournament was
recently played with an alt scoring system, 0, 1, 3, and though it produced
few draws, didn't contain enough games to 'draw' conclusions from.

Its features are that (1) it provides an incentive for both sides to play
to win
(2) it removes the imbalance of the existing scoring in favor of White.

The tests with it taught much are were a measured success. No last round
pseudo-games!

I should be interested to hear of any further experiments - especially
quantifying the results, so proper comparison could be attempted.

Phil Innes

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 11:50 am, "Chess One" wrote:

The emphasis is not really about proofs, or even draws - the
emphasis
is about wins.

Why?

Because it encourages them by awarding them a higher score than
currently
in relation to other scores - hence, it is motivational to win! More
reward
for it than tacitly playing for 2 draws.

Not everyone plays for draws; why do you want to
penalize those who play in accordance with the rules

Giving more points for a win penalizes people who are playing for a win?

Some people aren't very bright... .

Penalizing *everyone* by switching to a funky
scoring system is not the answer to the problem.

I think David Kane just wrote an anecdote that it did solve something -
admittedly, in a small survey.

If you have a problem with certain players agreeing
to what you have called "tacit draws", then you
need to target *them* (i.e. the "tacit draw-mongers)
specifically.

But this /is/ to target them, by not rewarding that activity. It pointedly
maintains the same differential between lose and draw, but optimises any
win.

It's like locusts: you don't go and kill

snip, let's face it Greg, its not like locusts! not even at Christmas,
though I grant you greater knowledge of them in your fields that I have, the
Vermont locust being tolerably scarce )

----------

You are concerned about cheating, and suspect much! If indeed people do
cheat currently, I suppose they will attempt a cheat of a new system.

As I said, some people aren't very bright.

That has been one of the points I've been making
here for a long, long time. Around here, there were
(I can't say what the status is now) clock-flippers,
deliberate illegal moves in time scrambles, and God
only knows what else. It was a problem for the few
who were in contention for a prize; so much so that
some folks would not enter a tournament if certain
known cheaters showed up.

While I appreciate the issue you describe as being a real one, I think to
confound it with draw/win differentials is not perspective to resolve
either.

I am not so concerned about cheating, but awarding winning. While you may
continue to entail your point, please note that you really argue out loud
with yourself.

Nobody is "arguing" here; but I find it amusing
that you would think everything must somehow
be perceived as such; it reveals a good deal
about *you*. :D

As above. There are at least two issues - that of cheating, and that of
drawing, and 'the argument' seems to be to address cheating as if that were
a synonym for draws. I do not say all draws are results of cheating, or a
conspiracy among players - though some might be.

Seems like one useful way to have discussions on usenet is to first say if
you understand your correspondent's issue to their own satisfaction; so to
you I say I think you are, by virtue of your previous writing, addressing
cheating. I think a few others are as well - BUT - there are still others
who are talking about draw-death and prospective systems to alleviate that
condition in top chess. Fair?

For future reference, I would like to point out the
fact that I see many of the folks posting here as
complete imbeciles, so I would never try to "argue"
with them, as if that were going to accomplish
anything. I try to keep emotion out of it, and
instead focus on those "lurkers" who might run
across this stuff without knowing what's what;
this is why, for instance, I have continued to reply
to David "Red Herring" Kane, among others. It's
not just for his benefit (he's very likely too dumb to
profit by it); it's for the benefit of others, who may
not realize what herrings are or where they
school.

Well, I think everyone has a point - for me, the winner is often the one
whose point is and stays on topic - and maybe we all confound each other
because there are several aspects bearing on this topic, and some aspects
which are merely similar, but which really do not seem to influence it.

Just so you know, I have nothing against changing
the current scoring system, and in fact I believe the
current ratings system is a mess.

And there is another point! I also considered if changing the scoring system
would effect the general rating system, or has specific inference for only
top players. I don't know the answer.


But we need to
see some sort of /rational/ approach to such issues,
not merely huffing and puffing and breast-beating.
I'm not holding my breath.

Laugh - true, its a good point. I certainly don't want to draw this
conversation out for 5,000 more posts, when, then, and only then, everyone
realises they are writing entirely to their own subject ))

I mean, as chess players we might all be daft, but we ain't stupid, no?

Merry Christmas everybody!~

Phil Innes



-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Dec 21, 12:00 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

IF: 2+2 = 4 yesterday. It is pretty darn sure it will do so today.

It depends on what the definition of "equals" is. (If
you don't inhale, you couldn't possibly understand. )


Jealous! Besides, I redid the calculation again today, using Christmas
walnuts, and 2+2 still equal 4. That ain't luck, its science.

I once beat several players, one after another.

You jest!- Besides, something interesting has happened here, now there are
only 3 walnuts! I deeply suspect the calico cat who has either taken one or
knocked yet another ornament off the tree, but I digress...


I snipped something which reminded cornfed of "the imbeciles who support
Mr. Kasparov as the answer to evil-dictator-Putin; a liar and cheat, a poor
"savior" makes; why not present some decent chap, chosen at random?" for the
reason that it very improbably addressed either the 3 remaining walnuts, or
the missing one.


Possibly decent American chaps should do it?
Who in this government should run Russia?

A very loaded question. It mistakenly presumes
that people in our government can run anything at
all! Besides, in a set (wrestling) match, Mr. Putin
would kick "President" Clinton's butt (he's twice her
size). Kidding! Of course, nobody is going to elect
a /girl/ for president! It will be... Huckleberry, by a
finn.

Times have changed. And while she currently is appearing 'not tough' on tv,
she is! And that's good.

Do not neglect to propose yourself either,
there are many many cornfields there!
Black earth....!

I'm told that the USCF HQ has been relocated
a tad closer to home, but still, that's one heckova
commute. How about Rob "da robber" Mitchell?

He is currently busy raiding money for a chess event by selling time-shares
on one of the moons of Jupiter, Io actually, and is not available.


The dreadful rag might be indexed! For a real subscription price USCF
could
also chuck the entire year onto a searchable CD. Then it could offer for
an
extra 5 bucks the whole thing in print, with a spine, and also indexed
[leaving out ads and such, it would still be thick enough].

A once-a-year solution misses the fact that
tournament announcements are listed monthly;

I meant as well as monthly - but who, these days, doesn't have a computer?
Can't that sort of stuff be posted there, which would be far more timely?

without monthly updates, only internet-freaks
would know where to play.

Which is almost everybody. Look, even if a vegetarian comes for Christmas
dinner, the rest of us can eat the traditional fair, and the veggie can
bring their own! [I will chip in 3 walnuts]

As one of those
freaks, I would not mind such a change, but
some people actually take printed materials
and read them while away from their computers.

Let them pay for it! But I think there is always a rush to get those out in
time anyway, and net TLAs seem much more likely. Besides - there is a huge
advantage of putting it on the net - non-USCF members might actually go to
an event if they could read about it!

[I am on such a roll this week!]

Since otherwise they can't - and ICC for example have bigger membership than
USCF, and they are more active players... food for thought, but who's
hungry?

----

As for analysis, depends who is analysed

The latest issue(?!!) has GM Bronstein making up
excuses for his failures in the world championship
cycles. If one lays his excuses side-by-side with
GM Botvinnik's holier-then-thou remarks, it makes
for interesting material which would give Dr. Fine
a good belly-laugh.

Every week I look around about a dozen chess sites, plus 3 or 4
event-oriented sites, and the standard of article seems to me /at least/
equivalent to the print product in CL. The point of a print magazine these
days seems to be as respository for something more, not less considered than
web-output.

Before Tim Hanke attained his previous emminence at USCF we actually talked
a lot about what might be possible there [with another regular here who knew
the rope] - and Tim was gung-ho for getting rid of the mag entirely and
going all on-line. After election I think he was told to drop it!

But I didn't agree with him completely - I though some things should be
on-line, and only on-line, but the more considered journal of chess should
become a quarterly - with just as many pages as 3 individual editions, but
sufficiently indexed and worked up to become a real 'keeper'. This would
also provide an opportunity to take the best of the web contributions and
increment those too.

It still seems like a viable means to proceed - but depends what USCF
actually want. Chessville has more unique hits per month than CL's
distribution, eg, but of course, these are not necessarily USCF members,
though 90% are US/Canadian originated.

Putting this new (to me) material into better
perspective, it shows precisely how loonies like
Larry Parr have distorted the hearsay/reality in new
and amazing ways; where DB indicates he feared
dire consequences for his father's indiscretions, LP
morphs things into a KGB plot to keep DB from
winning the title (as if the KGB had orchestrated the
father's own actions).

You evidently never read Gulko's MSS? Anyway, not to be further contentious
about complexities...

The reality is that the more the American dollar falls
in value, the more easily we will be able to *export*
goods and thus reduce our titanic budget deficits.

Same happened in England. A possibly unwonted side-effect is that well
dressed fellas from Saudi wound up owning half of London. But that can't
happen here unless the Saudis buy New York from the Japanese.

The problem, you see, is what to buy imports with, and since they are
cheaper than local products, are no longer manufactured here, leaving as
sole viable markets to export, maple-syrup, and all the old hardwood timber
still standing in the great north-west, plus Hollywood, and hand-carved
lead-free weighted chess sets, carved! not turned! Which we can trade for
'sort-of' tuna fish and all the rice we can eat.

Once the avian flu hits(!??), our debt burden with
regard to Social Security payments will be dramatically
reduced by the near-total devastation to the old and
infirm, so we're actually in great shape. As for China
and other threats, they will choke on their own air
and water pollution, random earthquakes and so forth;
I'm not worried.

I can see! Compared with some reports this is a relatively optimistic and
cheerful view of the future.

In the end, "we* will emerge from our
mine-shafts with a one-pawn advantage still intact;
and our technique (with apologies to Mr. Bronstein)
will carry us through; after all, technique is all we've
got; we're lazy, complacent, and ignorant people.

Short-term, one sugegstion I have is to sell New York completely, before it
sinks beneath the waves - naturally declining to insure it with greenbacks,
otherwise sale = drawn game dang!

Phil Innes

-- help bot

On Dec 22, 11:21 am, "Chess One" wrote:

A once-a-year solution misses the fact that
tournament announcements are listed monthly;

I meant as well as monthly - but who, these days, doesn't have a computer?

Old folks and kids who can't yet afford one?


As one of those
freaks, I would not mind such a change, but
some people actually take printed materials
and read them while away from their computers.

Let them pay for it! But I think there is always a rush to get those out in
time anyway

Yeah, I hear that as an excuse for the poor
quality; yet many articles are not of a timely
nature (rehashes of old fogy stuff), or else
the game notations are no better than instant
anno-Fritzations.


, and net TLAs seem much more likely. Besides - there is a huge
advantage of putting it on the net - non-USCF members might actually go to
an event if they could read about it!

I see; free content for everyone, and a but
more, hopefully *quality* content, for paying
members.


[I am on such a roll this week!]

Zebediah-- is that you? The Easy level is
getting thumped! But I'm still ahead (for
once) on points, this month.


Since otherwise they can't - and ICC for example have bigger membership than
USCF, and they are more active players... food for thought, but who's
hungry?

Look, I told you how it is: Bill Goichbrg /owns/
the USCF, so if you want to implement change,
you gotta talk to the big guy, see?


Every week I look around about a dozen chess sites, plus 3 or 4
event-oriented sites, and the standard of article seems to me /at least/
equivalent to the print product in CL. The point of a print magazine these
days seems to be as respository for something more, not less considered than
web-output.

You appear to be describing a magazine from
a different planet; maybe Inside Chess or New
in Chess? Chess Lies is filled with second-rate
stuff.


Before Tim Hanke attained his previous emminence at USCF we actually talked
a lot about what might be possible there [with another regular here who knew
the rope] - and Tim was gung-ho for getting rid of the mag entirely and
going all on-line. After election I think he was told to drop it!

The Boss don't like other people coming up with
ideas; it makes him look dumb in comparison. In
fact, he /is/ dumb in comparison, but dumb in a
powerful, dictator-ruler sort of way.


But I didn't agree with him completely - I though some things should be
on-line, and only on-line, but the more considered journal of chess should
become a quarterly

Ah, New in Chess (again).


- with just as many pages as 3 individual editions, but
sufficiently indexed and worked up to become a real 'keeper'. This would
also provide an opportunity to take the best of the web contributions and
increment those too.

It still seems like a viable means to proceed - but depends what USCF
actually want.

Um, power, money, power, fame, money, power... .


Chessville has more unique hits per month than CL's
distribution, eg, but of course, these are not necessarily USCF members,
though 90% are US/Canadian originated.

Okay, but Google has more hits in one second
than you guys get in an entire week! Even SS's
various porn sites-- er, I mean Web sites-- get a
huge number of hits (just like the druggies in
baseball).


Putting this new (to me) material into better
perspective, it shows precisely how loonies like
Larry Parr have distorted the hearsay/reality in new
and amazing ways; where DB indicates he feared
dire consequences for his father's indiscretions, LP
morphs things into a KGB plot to keep DB from
winning the title (as if the KGB had orchestrated the
father's own actions).

You evidently never read Gulko's MSS?

That depends. What is "MSS", decoded from
the original Andean, through Latin and on down
the line into modern English?

I simply read the article in Chess Lies magazine,
and it failed to match up with the tall tales spun by
the spin-meisters here. Taking GM Bronstein at
his word, he put the blame on his own fears, which
in turn came about as the direct result of his father's
indiscretions. DB implied that his father had come
to watch him play voluntarily, and that he got away
with falsifying his passport to do so. DB also
seemed fearful of the dramatic changes which
which winning the title (he says) would have brought
in his life, and of scrutiny of his personal life. All
this, of course, is after-the-fact bolt-on psychology,
which allows a person to /justify/ failure (not that
tying for the world championship is actually a
failure, by any measure).

I compare it to GM Botvinnik's own psychology,
his holier-than-thou claptrap wherein he proclaims
to be of far superior character than everybody else
(with the /possible/ exception of Mother Teresa).
Interesting stuff.


Anyway, not to be further contentious
about complexities...

The reality is that the more the American dollar falls
in value, the more easily we will be able to *export*
goods and thus reduce our titanic budget deficits.

Same happened in England. A possibly unwonted side-effect is that well
dressed fellas from Saudi wound up owning half of London. But that can't
happen here unless the Saudis buy New York from the Japanese.

Like it or not, *we* gave them all that money
in exchange for light, sweet crude, buried under
heaps of sand in their desert. Now if they want
to spend it, we have little choice* but to give
them California and half of Texas.

-----
* Low scum that we are, "we" have arranged for
inflation to eat away at the real value of their
American dollars, bwahahaha!
-----


The problem, you see, is what to buy imports with, and since they are
cheaper than local products, are no longer manufactured here, leaving as
sole viable markets to export, maple-syrup, and all the old hardwood timber
still standing in the great north-west, plus Hollywood, and hand-carved
lead-free weighted chess sets, carved! not turned! Which we can trade for
'sort-of' tuna fish and all the rice we can eat.

Wrongo! It is the Chinese who must /import/
food from "us"!

Droughts, pollution (which we Americans
practically invented, or stole from London) and
other factors have reduced the Chinese to
buying food from everybody and his brother,
including Brazil, Argentina, and yes, even
America.


Once the avian flu hits(!??), our debt burden with
regard to Social Security payments will be dramatically
reduced by the near-total devastation to the old and
infirm, so we're actually in great shape. As for China
and other threats, they will choke on their own air
and water pollution, random earthquakes and so forth;
I'm not worried.

I can see! Compared with some reports this is a relatively optimistic and
cheerful view of the future.

Apart from say, 30%+ casualties, inflation
is the only serious downside. It beats a
nuclear war with the old USSR by a wide
margin (no bald mutants, etc.).


In the end, "we* will emerge from our
mine-shafts with a one-pawn advantage still intact;
and our technique (with apologies to Mr. Bronstein)
will carry us through; after all, technique is all we've
got; we're lazy, complacent, and ignorant people.

Short-term, one sugegstion I have is to sell New York completely, before it
sinks beneath the waves - naturally declining to insure it with greenbacks,
otherwise sale = drawn game dang!

You East coasters are soooo self-centered!
The USCF moves its HQ away to Jed Clampet's
old back yard, and you whine that it's the end of
the world. FYI: not everything centers around
New York-- the city or the state. Apart from the
NYSE, what do you have that the Arabs might
really want? Nothing. Okay, that thingie in
NY harbor could be melted down for copper in
a pinch, but really, aside from Niagara Falls
and a few pretty trees which change color in
Autumn, it's boring. That's why I'm moving to
the top floor of a new casino in Maccau... just
as soon as I win the World Open.


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Dec 22, 11:21 am, "Chess One" wrote:

A once-a-year solution misses the fact that
tournament announcements are listed monthly;

I meant as well as monthly - but who, these days, doesn't have a
computer?

Old folks and kids who can't yet afford one?

I dunno what interest old folks have in TLA's but all kids have scholastic
access to computers, besides, their chess teachers do - so I don't think
this is a big factor.

-------

Yeah, I hear that as an excuse for the poor
quality; yet many articles are not of a timely
nature (rehashes of old fogy stuff), or else
the game notations are no better than instant
anno-Fritzations.

Therefore, as is, CL sucks as a 'keeper' print magazine.

, and net TLAs seem much more likely. Besides - there is a huge
advantage of putting it on the net - non-USCF members might actually go
to
an event if they could read about it!

I see; free content for everyone, and a but
more, hopefully *quality* content, for paying
members.

I'm not sure what sort of qualities are appropriate for TLAs - you got to
pay for them in the mag, but Chessville puts them on the web for free, eg.
There is no difference in the copy we/print.

[I am on such a roll this week!]

Zebediah-- is that you? The Easy level is
getting thumped! But I'm still ahead (for
once) on points, this month.

I am just about to score 2300, then I can resign 4 games and slink back to
2260. Haven't played Sanny's game in an age - I would if it actually played
a move regularly, but its slower than correspondance! Really - I can play 10
opponents in about the same time as Sanny's thing makes its 15th move. I
think it win by out-boring opponents.

Since otherwise they can't - and ICC for example have bigger membership
than
USCF, and they are more active players... food for thought, but who's
hungry?

Look, I told you how it is: Bill Goichbrg /owns/
the USCF, so if you want to implement change,
you gotta talk to the big guy, see?

I don't think there is much negotiable there. Last time someone else made an
independent commitment, it was over-ruled, and Bill took him to the
woodshed.

Every week I look around about a dozen chess sites, plus 3 or 4
event-oriented sites, and the standard of article seems to me /at least/
equivalent to the print product in CL. The point of a print magazine
these
days seems to be as respository for something more, not less considered
than
web-output.

You appear to be describing a magazine from
a different planet; maybe Inside Chess or New
in Chess? Chess Lies is filled with second-rate
stuff.

I look at mostly online materials - they compare well with CL.

Before Tim Hanke attained his previous emminence at USCF we actually
talked
a lot about what might be possible there [with another regular here who
knew
the rope] - and Tim was gung-ho for getting rid of the mag entirely and
going all on-line. After election I think he was told to drop it!

The Boss don't like other people coming up with
ideas; it makes him look dumb in comparison. In
fact, he /is/ dumb in comparison, but dumb in a
powerful, dictator-ruler sort of way.

You don't need to be smart if you're dumb - is a well known aphorism, and
'b' students rule the world. This is why the proposed USCF support for
Kasparov's democracy would be a joke! And, methinks, as unwelcome an
association as Fischer said it was.

I just wish it would govern, and not be several businesses running under the
cover of a governing non-profit - which is so obviously the FIDE model we
all love.

But I didn't agree with him completely - I though some things should be
on-line, and only on-line, but the more considered journal of chess
should
become a quarterly

Ah, New in Chess (again).

Which at least works as a stand alone commercial magazine, rather than CL
which is as much propaganda device, and as generally interested as PR
hand-outs to the press. zzzzzz

I even think they would sell outside the membership - I'd pay for one if
there was something in it worth paying for and keeping, and not as
disposable as the daily newspaper.

- with just as many pages as 3 individual editions, but
sufficiently indexed and worked up to become a real 'keeper'. This would
also provide an opportunity to take the best of the web contributions and
increment those too.

It still seems like a viable means to proceed - but depends what USCF
actually want.

Um, power, money, power, fame, money, power... .

so sad we should agree so much - wanna stop now?

---------

You evidently never read Gulko's MSS?

That depends. What is "MSS", decoded from
the original Andean, through Latin and on down
the line into modern English?

good guess - manuscriptus [manuscripts] - an old word is MANUAL, from [L.],
the mass-book

it does not mean published in Massachusetts.

I simply read the article in Chess Lies magazine,
and it failed to match up with the tall tales spun by
the spin-meisters here. Taking GM Bronstein at
his word, he put the blame on his own fears, which
in turn came about as the direct result of his father's
indiscretions. DB implied that his father had come
to watch him play voluntarily, and that he got away
with falsifying his passport to do so. DB also
seemed fearful of the dramatic changes which
which winning the title (he says) would have brought
in his life, and of scrutiny of his personal life. All
this, of course, is after-the-fact bolt-on psychology,
which allows a person to /justify/ failure (not that
tying for the world championship is actually a
failure, by any measure).

Now, they are /not/ that, but may be supposed to be that, with more or less
validity. And this indeed is a reason to interview chess players before they
become completely gaa-gaa!

But nothing emerging from the SU is as simple as ABC, comrade! And I think
we should take pity on all who write from experience of being in it, any
real information being like true-gold, and free conversation with other
informed persons also at a massive premium.

Since 1920 that state used family members to inform on one another, forced,
as policy, the division of children from their parents and insisted on
informers everywhere - so in your house or on your block someone would
report on /you!/ once per week, just as the default and background.

I compare it to GM Botvinnik's own psychology,
his holier-than-thou claptrap wherein he proclaims
to be of far superior character than everybody else
(with the /possible/ exception of Mother Teresa).
Interesting stuff.

You cannot compare anything Soviet to anything else unless you too lived
under such repression.

But Botvinnik was not the only straight-shooter [at least apparently so - in
this respect Spassky was his heir. I do not suspect we know much more about
the lives and times of chess players in the Soviet Union than those who were
in it. At least, from several thousand messages with Russians on this
subject, I sometimes learn new things - but mostly they learn things from me
about themselves.

This is complicated subject, and ... Whoops - gotta go!

Phil Innes

help bot wrote:
Is Windows XP Pro a 64-bit OS?

If it's just labelled `XP Pro' it's 32-bit.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Hilarious Cat (TM): it's like a cuddly
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ pet but it's a bundle of laughs!