On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:19:49 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

Turning Phil loose with statistics is like letting a baby play in the
bathtub. BTW, Phil, in what percentage of Fischer's games as Black
did he essay the Gruenfeld? Think he didn't consider it viable?

Usual straw-man diversion from Murray.

Phil confuses analogy with diversion. He's had that problem before.
The point he misses: Fischer's percentage of games with the Gruenfeld
was very small compared with, say, the King's Indian, but he utilized
the former on some very important occasions and evidently considered
it fully viable. The analogy with Spassky and the King's Gambit seems
clear enough.

The [laugh] coterie of geniuses can't
understand why Spassky did not use the KG even at the peak of his carear,
and now don't answer what percentage of his opening repetoire it was, and
instead divert to Fischer. Typical!

You can't infer his opinion about the viability of an opening from the
percentage of time he played it. Many other factors are involved: the
respective styles of the players, tournament and match context, the
committing nature of the play, etc.

and will Mike Murray still think this is ignurunt?

Yup, Mike Murray still thinks Phil's proclamation was ignorant.

Said our Phil earlier:

"Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a career -
since indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at
2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilized it much more."

So Spassky played the King's Gambit against Averbakh, Bronstein
(twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,
Matanovic, Krogius and others, and Phil says with a straight face, "if
Spassky HAD felt it was a viable [!!] opening at the 2600-2700 level,
he surely would have utilized it much more". Uh, Phil, maybe he
saved it for certain situations.

Ugh! Maybe he did Mike? Ugh, like his last five outings with it scored
draws - though that's not what you meant is it?

You mean like when his strength had declined somewhat? You mean that
because he only drew the last five games, he didn't consider the
opening viable? What in Hell did you mean, Phil??

I am so sick and tiried of nincompoops and dunderheads practicing their lies
and Ugh! comments here. There is no logic in them, and no chess either, and
they haven't read anything.

So are we Phil. That's why we've been trying our best to improve the
quality of your postings (and your thinking -- keep working on
analogy, you'll be glad you did).

Whereas the USCF is about to either explode or implode, and I mean new news
not yet released publicly, that will do one or the other - the effect will
be much the same. The End!

And who opened with a complaint about "diversions" ?

What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
than the usual?

No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
something else.

He played it again, Sam.

On Mar 31, 1:19 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message

...



On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:04:44 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

Hmmm. Will Phil now back off on the ignorant proclamations he made
earlier in the thread or continue to bluster and evade? If I were a
bettin' man, I know where I'd put my money.

Like help-bog, Taylor Kingston also make my point for me - that these KGs
are unusual stratagems considering all the games in the player's career.
While should I 'back-off' about such a commentary? Are these even 1% of
the
players games against GMs? and inserted as surprise openings?

Turning Phil loose with statistics is like letting a baby play in the
bathtub. BTW, Phil, in what percentage of Fischer's games as Black
did he essay the Gruenfeld? Think he didn't consider it viable?

Usual straw-man diversion from Murray. The [laugh] coterie of geniuses can't
understand why Spassky did not use the KG even at the peak of his carear,
and now don't answer what percentage of his opening repetoire it was, and
instead divert to Fischer. Typical!



and will Mike Murray still think this is ignurunt?

Yup, Mike Murray still thinks Phil's proclamation was ignorant.

Said our Phil earlier:

"Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a career -
since indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at
2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilized it much more."

So Spassky played the King's Gambit against Averbakh, Bronstein
(twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,
Matanovic, Krogius and others, and Phil says with a straight face, "if
Spassky HAD felt it was a viable [!!] opening at the 2600-2700 level,
he surely would have utilized it much more". Uh, Phil, maybe he
saved it for certain situations.

Ugh! Maybe he did Mike? Ugh, like his last five outings with it scored
draws - though that's not what you meant is it?

I am so sick and tiried of nincompoops and dunderheads practicing their lies
and Ugh! comments here. There is no logic in them, and no chess either, and
they haven't read anything.

Whereas the USCF is about to either explode or implode, and I mean new news
not yet released publicly, that will do one or the other - the effect will
be much the same. The End!

It seems hardly worth my time writing in this newsgroup, and I can
understand why other people, far more significant than me, would resign
their attention to evolving chess in this country. The only problem here is
that those who do so, don't really like to suffer the opinion of those who
did rather more, elsewhere.

Phil Innes
Vermont

Mike Murray knows where he will put his money, and so do we, nowhere at
all.

I'd have trouble getting anyone to take my bet.

The between times Fischer conflict sees Spassky drawing with Bronstein
after
a 4-year lay-off of the KG, and then after drawing with Ornstein après
Fischer. Considering this was Spassky's peak, will Murray think this is
such
a terrible weapon, since Spassky's last five outings with it were all
draws
with him as White?

But we weren't talking about whether Murray thinks the King's Gambit
is "such a terrible weapon". We were discussing whether Spassky felt
it was a viable opening at the 2600-2700 level.

What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
than the usual?

No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
something else.

Whats going on? Is the rumor true? Did Kirsan really approve it?

On Mar 27, 8:42 am, "Chess One" wrote:

A crucial correction: Boris Spassky was
*not* limited in his success with the King's
Gambit to 2500-2600 players; in fact, his
most famous wins include one against
Bobby Fischer; in sum, GM Spassky
seems to have had no particular limit
whatever here.


Absurd Innesian jibberish omitted.


Which was in 1960! [Mar del Plata] where Fischer seemed to err in a
Kieseritzky with 11. ... c5?

Okay, my computer was unconcerned by
this purported error, seeing Black as on top
all the way through until a single blunder at
the end.

I mentioned this anecdote since it returns the subject to chess [and indeed
to our recently rehersed discussion if 1700 players can analyse as well as
GMs


Well, that program has not been awarded the
GM title, but it is nonetheless, of super-GM
*strength* the way I wield it.


grin] and it provokes the issue if black's 11th move is actually
playable. It is interesting that your computer evaluation seems to think so.


More than that, it seems to indicate that the
source you copied (as always) was mistaken.
Black's (i.e. GM Fischer's) decisive error was
not this move at all, but came much later.

The graphic representation of a game does
a fine job in pinpointing the most significant
errors therein. In this particular game, the
graph indicates objectively that Black was
hunky-dory both before and after ...c5, but
fell apart near the finish, where his Queen
was being chased about. In sum, GM
Fischer's idea was okay, if not brilliant.


As above, perhaps some people can understand what's going on - Spassky
could! Which is why he didn't play the KG very much after he got good, since
it was too predictable and offered insufficient winning chances with white.


Wrong. You are stuck like a stick in the
mud, with this nonsense. In reality, GM
Spassky beat up on players of all strengths,
with the KG, as White. Just put that book
down and look at the facts.


Or perhaps that is your answer right there! Boris is a good guy, and
expanded his own repetoire far beyond the KG


I have no problem with this part of your
copied-out book. Where we seem to run
aground is in the nonsense regarding BS
not being able to win as White in the KG
against players above the 2600 level;
whoever wrote the book you are copying
out of this time, just didn't have his facts
straight.


Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a carear

"carrier"


I generally carry only one: a chess game
(or set), in a zip-up nylon bag which also
protects my roll-up vinyl chess board.

I hope you know to roll it with the checkered side outward? That stops the
curl and means the rooks in the corners don't skateboard on a and h files
all on their own. [Messages from the Masters, vol twa.]


I knew that, even though after a long absence
from active play I somehow managed to roll it
the wrong way! Surprisingly, it was a total
patzer who first informed me of this (I had been
using anything but vinyl boards up until then),
and by strange coincidence, I am now reminded
once again by the very same!


This returns to the first point I made, and what you cite are 'surprise'
exceptions to the rule. Your list actually supports what I am saying,
since
if there are half a dozen wins with the KG at tops levels, is that still
as
much as 1% of Spassky's repetoire?


Whatever you think you are saying with regard
to GM Spassky's openings repertoire, you
missed the mark by copying out that part of
the book which insists that BS could not beat
2600+ opponents, as White, with the KG.

Look, when copying all these other writers,
you might want to think about what they are
saying, now and then. Do random spot-checks
to see whether or not it's all a bunch of hooey.


-- help bot

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:19:49 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

Turning Phil loose with statistics is like letting a baby play in the
bathtub. BTW, Phil, in what percentage of Fischer's games as Black
did he essay the Gruenfeld? Think he didn't consider it viable?

Usual straw-man diversion from Murray.

Phil confuses analogy with diversion. He's had that problem before.
The point he misses: Fischer's percentage of games with the Gruenfeld
was very small compared with, say, the King's Indian, but he utilized
the former on some very important occasions and evidently considered
it fully viable. The analogy with Spassky and the King's Gambit seems
clear enough.

Well Look! I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him. I am
reporting that he did not use it very successfully at the top levels, and
his last five uses of it were all draws against players much lower ranked
than him.

That seems hardly any analog of Fischer and the KID. Murray's problem which
he alwas has, is that he can't figure out what he is arguing against.



Ugh! Maybe he did Mike? Ugh, like his last five outings with it scored
draws - though that's not what you meant is it?

You mean like when his strength had declined somewhat?

You know what a tautalogical sentence is? Eg: is this cause or effect?

You mean that
because he only drew the last five games, he didn't consider the
opening viable? What in Hell did you mean, Phil??

I didn't write that. I wrote lots of context before, and why should I suffer
your malicious understanding? He used it rarely against top opposition - and
that IS the record. OKAY? Understand Murray? You want to argue it is not the
record, knock yourself out!

I am so sick and tiried of nincompoops and dunderheads practicing their
lies
and Ugh! comments here. There is no logic in them, and no chess either,
and
they haven't read anything.

So are we Phil. That's why we've been trying our best to improve the
quality of your postings (and your thinking -- keep working on
analogy, you'll be glad you did).

"we" you prat! You don't even know what you are disagreeing with - but have
to write **** about other people. If you could talk chess then you would,
but you can't can't do it.

unless by "we" you mean a bunch of net-nancy-nazi's ?

1) Look at the name of the thread
2) Daft isn't it?
3) If I misrepresented Spassky's use of the KG, where?

Phil Innes



Whereas the USCF is about to either explode or implode, and I mean new
news
not yet released publicly, that will do one or the other - the effect will
be much the same. The End!

And who opened with a complaint about "diversions" ?

What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
than the usual?

No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
something else.

He played it again, Sam.

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:16:48 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

Well Look! I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him. I am
reporting that he did not use [the KG] very successfully at the top levels, and
his last five uses of it were all draws against players much lower ranked
than him.

We weren't arguing about what Spassky's trainers did or did not tell
him. We were arguing about whether Spassky considered the KG viable
against top-level players.

Spassky's advisors told him to press for a forfeit and go back to the
USSR in the first match against Fischer -- would Phil argue this
implies the match was terminated? Oh, analogy again. See, Phil, you
can't avoid it.

Ugh! Maybe he did Mike? Ugh, like his last five outings with it scored
draws - though that's not what you meant is it?

You mean like when his strength had declined somewhat?

You know what a tautalogical sentence is? Eg: is this cause or effect?

You seem to imply the King's Gambit accelerates the aging process.

You mean that
because he only drew the last five games, he didn't consider the
opening viable? What in Hell did you mean, Phil??

I didn't write that. I wrote lots of context before, and why should I suffer
your malicious understanding? He used it rarely against top opposition - and
that IS the record. OKAY? Understand Murray? You want to argue it is not the
record, knock yourself out!

Ahhh, Phil, your words come back to haunt you. Let us recapitulate
to help you capitulate. You first said:

"..people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating
opinions. It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players".

Then, when the Bot pointed out that Spassky used it not only against
2500-2600 players, but used it to beat Fischer, you retorted,

"I am sorry, but any singular instance does not comprise any
'whatever' statement. Spassky's trainers told him it wouldn't work at
the top level. And it doesn't, otherwise we would see a KG at 2700
level, and we do not."

When the Bot found a few more games, you sniffed,

"Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a carear -
since indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at
2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilised it much more."

At this point, Taylor Kingston, inconveniently for you, discovered
Spassky had essayed the KG in twenty-eight games (and the Bot remarked
there were probably a few others that didn't make Kingston's database)
and, more importantly, that this list included names like Averbakh,
Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov,
Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius and others.

How would Phil respond, with his face being rubbed in his own
falsehoods and non sequiturs? We waited and suffered no
disappointment.

You try " I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him."

Phil, what Spassky's trainers told him wasn't in dispute. We were
talking about what that stubborn fellow Spassky believed and
practiced.

Then, you have the gall to proclaim, "I am reporting that he did not
use it very successfully at the top levels". This despite Taylor
Kingston showing Spassky DID use it repeated against top players
(Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan,
Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius) and, more importantly, without
loss of a game!

And last, but not least, you add lamely, " and his last five uses of
it were all draws against players much lower ranked than him."

Really? The last five uses were draws against lower ranked players?
Well, one of these five was Korchnoi, but we'll ignore this for a
moment. We'll also ignore the fact that Spassky was OLDER then and
inclined to be a bit more peaceful. What's really fun is to go back
to your FIRST statement, to wit, "It certainly served him against
2500-2600 players". Looks like you once again came full circle and
are arguing against yourself!!

If you could talk chess then you would,
but you can't can't do it.

Spassky's use of the King's Gambit seems at least to touch upon the
subject of chess. And correcting some of your writings about same is
at least on topic at a meta-level.


3) If I misrepresented Spassky's use of the KG, where?

Hopefully, this has clarified things a bit.

What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything other
than the usual?

No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
something else.

He played it again, Sam.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:16:48 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

Well Look! I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him. I am
reporting that he did not use [the KG] very successfully at the top
levels, and
his last five uses of it were all draws against players much lower ranked
than him.

We weren't arguing about what Spassky's trainers did or did not tell
him.

'We'?

I ****in was. Who the hell is 'we'?

We were arguing about whether Spassky considered the KG viable
against top-level players.

You were arguing this?

Spassky's advisors told him to press for a forfeit and go back to the
USSR in the first match against Fischer -- would Phil argue this
implies the match was terminated? Oh, analogy again. See, Phil, you
can't avoid it.

?

Ugh! Maybe he did Mike? Ugh, like his last five outings with it scored
draws - though that's not what you meant is it?

You mean like when his strength had declined somewhat?

You know what a tautalogical sentence is? Eg: is this cause or effect?

You seem to imply the King's Gambit accelerates the aging process.

Actually, its your point.

You mean that
because he only drew the last five games, he didn't consider the
opening viable? What in Hell did you mean, Phil??

I didn't write that. I wrote lots of context before, and why should I
suffer
your malicious understanding? He used it rarely against top opposition -
and
that IS the record. OKAY? Understand Murray? You want to argue it is not
the
record, knock yourself out!

Ahhh, Phil, your words come back to haunt you. Let us recapitulate
to help you capitulate. You first said:

"..people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating
opinions. It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players".

Then, when the Bot pointed out that Spassky used it not only against
2500-2600 players, but used it to beat Fischer, you retorted,

"I am sorry, but any singular instance does not comprise any
'whatever' statement. Spassky's trainers told him it wouldn't work at
the top level. And it doesn't, otherwise we would see a KG at 2700
level, and we do not."

When the Bot found a few more games, you sniffed,

"Let you not get overexcited about half a dozen games in a carear -
since indeed if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at
2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilised it much more."

At this point, Taylor Kingston, inconveniently for you, discovered
Spassky had essayed the KG in twenty-eight games (and the Bot remarked
there were probably a few others that didn't make Kingston's database)
and, more importantly, that this list included names like Averbakh,
Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov,
Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius and others.

28 games against in his entire carear - is Mike Murray's point. Point? What
is his point?

How would Phil respond, with his face being rubbed in his own
falsehoods and non sequiturs? We waited and suffered no
disappointment.

That way!

You try " I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him."

Phil, what Spassky's trainers told him wasn't in dispute. We were
talking about what that stubborn fellow Spassky believed and
practiced.

28 games in his carear - right or wrong?

Then, you have the gall to proclaim, "I am reporting that he did not
use it very successfully at the top levels". This despite Taylor
Kingston showing Spassky DID use it repeated against top players
(Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan,
Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius) and, more importantly, without
loss of a game!

But importantly he, at the time of Fischer, as the great Soviet Champion
could only draw with it, before Rejavik, and also immediately after. And not
against anyone the calibre of Fischer.

So Mike Murray argues these 28 games are somehow significant in a way I
failed to mention. What way?

And last, but not least, you add lamely, " and his last five uses of
it were all draws against players much lower ranked than him."

Really? The last five uses were draws against lower ranked players?
Well, one of these five was Korchnoi, but we'll ignore this for a
moment. We'll also ignore the fact that Spassky was OLDER then and
inclined to be a bit more peaceful.

Mike thinks Korchnoi is older than Sapssky, and what of the other 4 outings
? Nothing...

What's really fun is to go back
to your FIRST statement, to wit, "It certainly served him against
2500-2600 players". Looks like you once again came full circle and
are arguing against yourself!!

Does it look like that to whom? But what is Murray really agrueing with,
rather than fussing over... see below [I challenged Murray with 3 topical
comments - let's see how honest he is]

If you could talk chess then you would,
but you can't can't do it.

Spassky's use of the King's Gambit seems at least to touch upon the
subject of chess. And correcting some of your writings about same is
at least on topic at a meta-level.


3) If I misrepresented Spassky's use of the KG, where?

ah! There is something Murray does not care to answer, since he has cut 2
items from what I said, and not responded to the third. What an arse!

What a bloody numbskull rubbishing sort of bloke is Mike Murray! He cut the
very thing I re-iterated was the point of this discussion.

Murray - you are a coward and a cheat! Stop pretending you care anything for
chess or conversation about it. You would rather rubbish people, by such
obvious evasions that your opinion is bent any possibility of civil
discourse.

What a coward! He CUT the very issue AGAIN~ and Murray has the gall to
attack others and pretend he has some objective interest.

Put it back Murray, and answer it. Otherwise 'we' all see what you do and
you become as ignorable to content as help-****. This is, technically
speaking, a pure chess thread. It is about the title [see above] and you
Murray obscure what others say about chess, the KG, without mentioning any
chess because you Murray are as sick as help--bog. You can't help yourself,
right? Its like a red gfalg to you, actual chess comment?

And then you don't have the balls to reply to any response like a man.

Phil Innes


Hopefully, this has clarified things a bit.

What is this nonsense from Murray supposed to illustrate? Anything
other
than the usual?

No, it just illustrates the usual -- that when caught saying something
dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the subject and pretends he said
something else.

He played it again, Sam.

On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 18:06:33 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

We weren't arguing about what Spassky's trainers did or did not tell
him.

I ****in was. Who the hell is 'we'?

You *asserted* that. Who disputed your assertion about what his
trainers said? Nobody. So, there WAS no argument, unless you were
arguing with yourself.

We were arguing about whether Spassky considered the KG viable
against top-level players.

You were arguing this?

You argued that he DIDN'T when you said "if Spassky HAD felt that it
was a viable opening at 2600-2700 level, he surely would have utilised
it much more." Remember saying that, Phil?

I disagreed and argued that since he played it against Averbakh,
Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov,
Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius and others, he must have considered it
viable.

You lost that one, Phil, and it makes you look the fool. Deal with
it.

At this point, Taylor Kingston, inconveniently for you, discovered
Spassky had essayed the KG in twenty-eight games (and the Bot remarked
there were probably a few others that didn't make Kingston's database)
and, more importantly, that this list included names like Averbakh,
Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov,
Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius and others.

28 games against in his entire carear - is Mike Murray's point. Point? What
is his point?

Murray's point is that when the 28 games included opponents like
Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan,
Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius, and others, Spassky must have
considered the KG a viable tool against super-GMs.

How would Phil respond, with his face being rubbed in his own
falsehoods and non sequiturs? We waited and suffered no
disappointment.

That way!

You mean, of course, the way of bluster, fuming, denial, insult.
Sure. it's your standard modus operandi. No surprises there.

You try " I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him."

Phil, what Spassky's trainers told him wasn't in dispute. We were
talking about what that stubborn fellow Spassky believed and
practiced.

28 games in his carear - right or wrong?

Games against Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi,
Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius, and others -- right or
wrong?

Then, you have the gall to proclaim, "I am reporting that he did not
use it very successfully at the top levels". This despite Taylor
Kingston showing Spassky DID use it repeated against top players
(Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan,
Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius) and, more importantly, without
loss of a game!

But importantly he, at the time of Fischer, as the great Soviet Champion
could only draw with it, before Rejavik, and also immediately after. And not
against anyone the calibre of Fischer.

So Mike Murray argues these 28 games are somehow significant in a way I
failed to mention. What way?

They included super-GMs such as Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer,
Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius, and
others

And last, but not least, you add lamely, " and his last five uses of
it were all draws against players much lower ranked than him."

Really? The last five uses were draws against lower ranked players?
Well, one of these five was Korchnoi, but we'll ignore this for a
moment. We'll also ignore the fact that Spassky was OLDER then and
inclined to be a bit more peaceful.

Mike thinks Korchnoi is older than Sapssky, and what of the other 4 outings
? Nothing...

I said nothing about Spassky's age versus Korchnoi's.

Spassky was older when he played the last five games than he was when
he played the other 23. Surely, Phil, even someone as defective in
logic as you cannot argue with that. I mean, you *did* use the word
"tautology" earlier.

But even mo how does the fact that he drew the games imply that he
didn't consider the opening viable? Phil, can you spell non sequitur?
Can you use it in a sentence?

3) If I misrepresented Spassky's use of the KG, where?

Well, one example is when you said, "Let you not get overexcited about
half a dozen games in a career". Last time I checked, a half dozen is
six, somewhat less than 28.

But I was mostly arguing the implausibility of your assertions about
what Spassky's opinion must have been when you said (remember this?),
"if Spassky HAD felt that it was a viable opening at 2600-2700 level,
he surely would have utilised it much more." In light of his
employing it against super-GMs such as Averbakh, Bronstein (twice),
Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic,
Krogius, and others, your comment reveals astonishing ignorance on
your part.

ah! There is something Murray does not care to answer, since he has cut 2
items from what I said, and not responded to the third. What an arse!

I wasn't responding to the first two items. It's standard convention
to snip the non-essentials (no, no, Phil, put down the scissors and
don't hurt yourself -- I didn't mean it *that* way)

What a bloody numbskull rubbishing sort of bloke is Mike Murray! He cut the
very thing I re-iterated was the point of this discussion.

Murray - you are a coward and a cheat! Stop pretending you care anything for
chess or conversation about it. You would rather rubbish people, by such
obvious evasions that your opinion is bent any possibility of civil
discourse.

What a coward! He CUT the very issue AGAIN~ and Murray has the gall to
attack others and pretend he has some objective interest.

Put it back Murray, and answer it. Otherwise 'we' all see what you do and
you become as ignorable to content as help-****. This is, technically
speaking, a pure chess thread. It is about the title [see above] and you
Murray obscure what others say about chess, the KG, without mentioning any
chess because you Murray are as sick as help--bog. You can't help yourself,
right? Its like a red gfalg to you, actual chess comment?

And then you don't have the balls to reply to any response like a man.

Phil Innes

when caught saying something dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the
subject and pretends he said something else.

He just played it again, Sam.

On Apr 1, 7:44 pm, Mike Murray wrote:

You *asserted* that. Who disputed your assertion about what his
trainers said? Nobody. So, there WAS no argument, unless you were
arguing with yourself.


I wouldn't rule that out; nearly-an-IMnes has
often been found to be arguing with the wrong
person, and once he even got into a dispute of
sorts with his puppet-master, Larry Parr. LOL!


We were arguing about whether Spassky considered the KG viable
against top-level players.


You lost that one, Phil, and it makes you look the fool. Deal with
it.

At this point, Taylor Kingston, inconveniently for you, discovered
Spassky had essayed the KG in twenty-eight games (and the Bot remarked
there were probably a few others that didn't make Kingston's database)
and, more importantly, that this list included names like Averbakh,
Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov,
Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius and others.

28 games against in his entire carear - is Mike Murray's point. Point? What
is his point?

Murray's point is that when the 28 games included opponents like
Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan,
Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius, and others, Spassky must have
considered the KG a viable tool against super-GMs.

How would Phil respond, with his face being rubbed in his own
falsehoods and non sequiturs? We waited and suffered no
disappointment.

That way!

You mean, of course, the way of bluster, fuming, denial, insult.
Sure. it's your standard modus operandi. No surprises there.


What's up with all this Latin gibber-jabber?
(Qui bono?)


You try " I am merely reporting what Spassky's trainers told him."
Phil, what Spassky's trainers told him wasn't in dispute. We were
talking about what that stubborn fellow Spassky believed and
practiced.
28 games in his carear - right or wrong?


Wrong. It's spelled "career". I seriously
doubt that /every game/ played by Boris
Spassky appears in the 2005 Megabase,
so it would be silly to argue from this as if
it were known to be /comprehensive/.


Then, you have the gall to proclaim, "I am reporting that he did not
use it very successfully at the top levels". This despite Taylor
Kingston showing Spassky DID use it repeated against top players
(Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer, Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan,
Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius) and, more importantly, without
loss of a game!


I think he would have lost if he had tried it
against Deeper Blue. But then, we weren't
talking about 2900+ players. The book
which nearly-IMnes is coping out of this
time put the cutoff at only 2600.


But importantly he, at the time of Fischer, as the great Soviet Champion
could only draw with it, before Rejavik, and also immediately after. And not
against anyone the calibre of Fischer.
So Mike Murray argues these 28 games are somehow significant in a way I
failed to mention. What way?


They appear to contradict and *refute* the idea
that nearly-an-IMnes copied out of some book;
that idea was that BS could not use the KG
against players above the 2600 level, as we
already know. (Some people are merely slow,
while others have the four winds howling within
their empty craniums!)


They included super-GMs such as Averbakh, Bronstein (twice), Fischer,
Najdorf, Korchnoi, Seirawan, Karpov, Portisch,Matanovic, Krogius, and
others

And last, but not least, you add lamely, " and his last five uses of
it were all draws against players much lower ranked than him."
Really? The last five uses were draws against lower ranked players?
Well, one of these five was Korchnoi, but we'll ignore this for a
moment. We'll also ignore the fact that Spassky was OLDER then and
inclined to be a bit more peaceful.


The cold hard truth is that Boris Spassky's
rating dropped hundreds of points-- far more
than would be expected due to his aging.
I would like to know what BS has to say
about this.


Mike thinks Korchnoi is older than Sapssky, and what of the other 4 outings
? Nothing...

I said nothing about Spassky's age versus Korchnoi's.


Are you trying to suggest that the above
bluster was less than creative?


Spassky was older when he played the last five games than he was when
he played the other 23.


If listed chronologically, he was older in each
and every game than in the ones before. And
younger the closer you get to the first game.
In fact, he is still aging today! But what the
Sam Hill has this got to do with... .


when caught saying something dumb, Phil blusters, fumes, changes the
subject and pretends he said something else.


Nearly-an-IMnes is nothing if not consistent.


-- help bot

On Apr 1, 6:06*pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Mike thinks Korchnoi is older than Sapssky,

Mike is correct, then. Korchnoi is almost seven years older than
Spassky. Their dates of birth, as given in Gaige's "Chess Personalia":

Korchnoi: 23 March 1931

Spassky: 30 January 1937

Correcting my previous post, which had the age differential off by
one year. I really should not try to do even simple arithmetic before
my morning coffee has kicked in:

On Apr 1, 6:06*pm, "Chess One" wrote:



Mike thinks Korchnoi is older than Sapssky,

* Mike is correct, then. Korchnoi is almost six years older than
Spassky. Their dates of birth, as given in Gaige's "Chess Personalia":

* Korchnoi: 23 March 1931

* Spassky: 30 January 1937