On May 21, 4:38 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message

...

On May 21, 8:10 am, "Chess One" wrote:

He is not alone in his 'idiotic claims.' To think that Showalter and crew
were of category XV is extraordinary! But enough of pure nonsense....

I agree it's nonsense to compare the assortment of players in the
SPICE Puff with Showalter, one of the best players in the world in his
era. I think H. N. Pillsbury is a better judge of such matters as
Showalter's ability than P Innes.

I disagree, I thing P. Innes is a better judge of overall field strength
than Harry Pillsbury who existed before there were ratings, and certainly of
contemporary GM performance.

Pillsbury could have given you rook odds, Philsy. Go back to your 300
game match with Tennessee Tyro.

On May 21, 7:39 pm, nobody wrote:
The Historian wrote:
Devoid of your fanciful convolutions helpnot, the ineluctable fact is
Phil blundered badly in so confusing jkh's drivel with a TK post. The
onus now rests with Phil to manfully 'own his words' & apologise to TK
for his stupid behaviour..

Don't hold your breath.

No! - in an earlier post Phil has owned his words & apologised for being
a moron (in cod latin no less)..

It's a start. He has the rest of his life to apologize for his
remaining blunders and libels. And yes, it would take that long.

On May 21, 4:11 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

No, I say the one owed an apology is Mr. Brennen-- for
the impersonation of a nearly-an-IM 2450 while trashing
NB in multiple newsgroups, including rgc*. Sir IMnes has

**** you jock!

This guy stalks people and excites hatred. Has he ever done anything else

Read the June Chess Life, folks, and then answer the question.

On May 21, 5:22 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On May 21, 5:35�pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

....
On May 21, 7:49 am, David Richerby
wrote:

Chess One wrote:
I made the simple statement that this was the highest category US
tournament

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! You wrote, `Strongest ever US Tournament'. It's
still there on the web at

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...ive_2008Q2.htm

I quote it in its entirety (my emphasis):

Coming up later this Year -- **Strongest ever US Tournament**

September 19th to 28th sees a [so far] Category 15 tournament on US
soil in the 10 player SPICE CUP. Seven of the 10 invitees have
already signed up, and I understand average Elo is currently 2600.
Chessville's senior editor Kelly Atkins recently visited the SPICE
campus at Lubbock and will make an extended report on its current
and future activities.

� It would appear that Mr. Hillery had a valid point. To call this the
"strongest ever US tournament" seems a definite exaggeration, in terms
of the rankings (rather than the ratings) of the players.

**Mr Hillery argues some point about 'rankings' not ratings? Qhat then is
his 'point'?

�Here is the
list of prospective contestants Innes posted a day or two ago:

GM Onischuk, Alexander 2728 USCF / 2663 FIDE
GM Akobian, Varuzhan 2666 USCF / 2612 FIDE
GM Kaidanov, Gregory 2697 USCF / 2611 FIDE
GM Becerra, Julio 2644 USCF / 2601 FIDE
GM Kritz, Leonid 2667 USCF / 2600 FIDE
GM Miton, Kamil 2703 USCF / 2581 FIDE
GM Perelshteyn, Eugene 2623 USCF / 2549 FIDE

� Of these, only Onischuk is even in the FIDE top 100, at #56. In
contrast, New York 1924 had the world's #1, 2, and 3, and several of
the top 10 or 20. At New York 1927 all but one of the players were in
the top 10 or 12 of the time and it had the clear #1 and #2.

**These are US Rankings, not ratings, understood.

No, Phil, those are *_world_* rankings. How high each player ranks
in the whole world, not just one country. I thought you knew the
difference between FIDE and USCF.

But again, his point?

Well, _my_ point is that a tournament whose best player is only #56
in the world, and which has no one else even in the top 100, has no
business claiming it's "stronger" than tournaments that included the
likes of world's top three and many others from the top 10 or 20.

At the risk of again confusing the easily confused Phil Innes as to
which of us is which -- that's a fair summary.

That's my point as well. Taylor did a better job of explaining it than
I did.

Now, if you use enough
weasel words, and define the question as "the strongest tournament
held in the U.S. and consisting entirely of U.S. citizens or
residents," it might qualify (though I'd like to see some confirmation
on Kritz). But that's not what he said. Admittedly, it's often
impossible to determine what Philsy _meant_.

Whatever meaning allows him to pose as an expert on a given topic.

Let's be fair here. The SPICE Cup looks to be an excellent tournament,
and Polgar and Truong deserve a lot of credit for organizing it. But
no one deserves credit for shoddy journalism or misleading press
releases.

On May 22, 3:28 am, wrote:
Let's be fair here. The SPICE Cup looks to be an excellent tournament,
and Polgar and Truong deserve a lot of credit for organizing it. But
no one deserves credit for shoddy journalism or misleading press
releases.

I agree. However, Ms. Polgar can, should, and will be criticized for
working with flacks and flakes who provide "shoddy journalism and
misleading press releases." She has a history of such things; recall
the silly chess 'broadcast' press release a few years ago that claimed
she was the third strongest chess player in the world?

On May 22, 7:20 am, The Historian wrote:
On May 22, 3:28 am, wrote:

Let's be fair here. The SPICE Cup looks to be an excellent tournament,
and Polgar and Truong deserve a lot of credit for organizing it. But
no one deserves credit for shoddy journalism or misleading press
releases.

I agree. However, Ms. Polgar can, should, and will be criticized for
working with flacks and flakes who provide "shoddy journalism and
misleading press releases." She has a history of such things; recall
the silly chess 'broadcast' press release a few years ago that claimed
she was the third strongest chess player in the world?

That second sentence was a clunker. Substitute "However, GM Polgar
deserves criticism for working with flacks and flakes......."

Chess One wrote:
"David Richerby" wrote:
Chess One wrote:
I made the simple statement that this was the highest category US
tournament

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! You wrote, `Strongest ever US Tournament'. It's
still there on the web at

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...ive_2008Q2.htm

I quote it in its entirety (my emphasis):

Coming up later this Year -- **Strongest ever US Tournament**

September 19th to 28th sees a [so far] Category 15 tournament on US
soil in the 10 player SPICE CUP. Seven of the 10 invitees have
already signed up, and I understand average Elo is currently 2600.
Chessville's senior editor Kelly Atkins recently visited the SPICE
campus at Lubbock and will make an extended report on its current
and future activities.

well dave, what don't you insist on what 'us tournament means'?

I'm sorry but I can't work out what that sentence is supposed to mean.

If you're asking me what I understand by the phrase `US tournament',
I'd have to say that `a tournament held in the USA' is the most
natural interpretation. Especially given that you explicitly mention
that the tournament will be held on American soil but say absolutely
nothing about the nationality of the players invitied.

Even if it's not the most natural meaning to you, surely you must
accept that it is a natural meaning. For example, the US Open tennis
and golf tournaments are so called because they're held in the USA,
not because entry is restricted to Americans. The British (Formula
One) Grand Prix and Open Snooker tournament are held in Britain but
entry is open to people of all nationalities. The Tour de France,
Giro d'Italia and Vuela a Espana are open to people who aren't French,
Italian or Spanish.


other mind****ers already did it, then you can be right, which i
think is your entire [and pathetic] motive. go go go dave, be right!
cummon dave, we know that this is your motive, nail the point home!

My motive is to demonstrate that you are a liar. Not because you
claimed this was going to be the strongest-ever US tournament rather
than the highest-category tournament among American players but
because you point-blank denied having written something that anyone
can see is on the web.

If you'd just said something like, ``Oh, I'm sorry. By `US', I mean
`on US soil' and by `strongest', I meant `highest-category','' I
wouldn't have bothered to say anything. It would be nice if you went
back and corrected the original article but it's the lying that gets
to me. And the fact that you feel the need to insult intelligent
people who (and I'm being charitable to you, here) misunderstood your
ambiguous writing.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Flammable Postman (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ man who delivers the mail but it burns
really easily!

SBD wrote:
"Chess One" wrote:
or get over your 'understanding' of things, and write like a human
being

Does anyone else ever understand what he means by this part of the
rant?

I'm afraid I have no `understanding' of that thing.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Addictive Sushi (TM): it's like a raw
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fish but you can never put it down!

On Thu, 22 May 2008 05:24:50 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
wrote:


That second sentence was a clunker. Substitute "However, GM Polgar
deserves criticism for working with flacks and flakes......."


Why revise it? Just deny you wrote the original.