"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Aug 14, 6:01 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

Thank you once more for attending to these simple issues: simply is
difficult. Ever was, will be.

If you have some recommendation will you please say why you think your
choice a good one?

Two choices he 1) admit that the USA is well
behind the curve and go with algebraic notation,
the metric system, etc., or 2) remain in denial
and tell people they must learn both descriptive
and algebraic, and further, tell them that outdated
works by writers like, say, Mr. Horowitz, Mr.
Chernev and Mr. Reinfeld are their best bets for
learning chess (a bold move, if admittedly stupid).

Oh, and write the elementary explanation of how
algebraic notation works in modern English-- not
O.E., M.E. or Andean.

**Such wits! But I really want to know what they prefer at your club. If you
don't go there, you won't know, anything else is clutter and if we use 10
terms many of which contradict others, then I suggest that is because people
insist on cluttering up the subject, to hear their own voice rather than
contribute to chess - but you make a good joke below on who is a Queen and
who aint...

One other thing: I noticed that there are some
questions concerning the meaning of terms such
as chess "man" versus chess "piece", and even
confusion as to what constitutes a piece (major,
minor, or both). For this it may be helpful to
mention the vastly inferior game of checkers (or
draughts), where a "man" represents a token on
a square and all "men" are of the same, low
value (much like the majority here in rgc) --until
crowned.

The thing is, the questions posed seemed to
completely ignore the fact that the rules of the
game of chess themselves define the answer.
In the rule book, a "man" is defined and the
term is then used; thus, it is ludicrous to try
and pretend that "all chess men" can be called
"pieces" AND that we can easily do away with
the supposedly outmoded term chess "man",
simplifying. (Well, the rules can always be
revised or rewritten.)

Lastly, I think it is high time the term chess
"man" was changed to better reflect our
modern attitudes; is it not true that chess
"person" would serve just as well?

**Ah! - 400 years ago a fellow called Hyde had the same problem - how can a
queen be the strongest piece in a war-game, he asked, and actually tried to
change the gender of the Queen.

**These days we are, so people here are insisting, seemingly content to call
the chess Queen a "Man". Which is //equally// numb, no?

**If you can't answer the question to advise young players of current terms
in use, you can't contribute to this thread - I see that Brennen and Ken
Sloan have followed Kingston's lead of mocking public discussion on chess
terms in a public chess newsgroup, but their's is a long established pattern
of noisy destruction, since they both demonstrate no ability to write
anything cogent on topic in English, nor at any length, not now, not ever.

**Peace, man! Phil Innes



And is it
not hopeless bigotry to give infinite value to
chess person Kings, while at the same time
allowing chess person Queens to be captured
and traded on a whim? What does this sort
of gender bias say about our culture in this
modern age? Is democracy only a term to
be applied to /men/-- all of whom are
purported to have been created equal? These
are the real questions your readers need to
address; not just how to notate chess games,
but how to see and understand the world in
general.


-- help bot

On Aug 14, 2:04 pm, wrote:
On Aug 14, 2:38 pm, "Chess One" wrote:



wrote in message

...
On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

As some people here know, I am designing an accredited chess course for
initially home schooled students, then opened up as a distance learning
course for all students. The age range is k-12, and there is a beginners
course to acquaint players with basics, then an Intermediate course which
should suffice players or any age to at least 1500 level play. For
high-school students the 36 lesson Intermediate course gains a full
academic
credit.

The course draws on contributions from half a dozen or 10 authors, and in
several media, ie as books, hyper-texts, DVD and CD ROMS.

With Dan Heisman we are converting his book "A Parent's Guide to Chess" to
a
hyper-text, and I would like to ask particularly American readers here a
couple of questions I have about Dan's Glossary entries.

Since I edited that book, and wrote some of the glossary entries, I
may be able to answer.

TOPIC 1

Dan makes some distinction between "Piece" and "Man", I give both his
definitions below, then ask my questions:

MAN: Any chess piece, including pawns.

From this small survey so far, a difference there from Mike's response

PIECE:
(1) Any of the chess men, as in "Get all the pieces out of the bag."
(2) A non-pawn, as in "You have to develop all your pieces."
(3) A Bishop or a Knight, as in "I am up a piece."

My questions are for MAN: is this term still much in use?

Probably not used much by average chess players, but it's still
often seen in books. It's useful for a young student of chess to
understand terms he's going to see often in his studies.

I think the boat is still out on that one too - people do say 'chess-men'
but doesn't sound like chess players do, and its a recent archaism?

The man/piece distinction is one that beginners should learn, if
only because they will encounter it in chess literature. It doesn't
matter whether it comes up in conversation.

If it is, is Dan's
definition to your liking?

That definition is correct.

My Questions for PIECE are more varied, since among the 3 definitions we
have 3 contradictions!

Not really; it depends on context. I think the glossary entry makes
clear the context for each of the three meanings of "piece."

**They have internal contradictions.

I doubt that few readers will agree.

I suppose what I would most like to do
is to talk of pawns distinct from other men, or pieces, as the main
emphasis.

Feel free.

These may fairly represent the lose way we discuss
PIECES - but are there better terms to use? Does anyone here use Dan's
limited sense of piece in #3?

That meaning is seen very often in chess literature. I recall first
encountering it in Chernev's "Logical Chess" back in the mid-1960s, I
think. To "hang a piece," "win a piece," or "be up/down a piece," when
no specific piece is named, invariably refers to a minor piece,

**um, well, don't know who translated Chernev,

Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to
the USA at about age 4.

Is Phil really this dense? And is pretending he can write anything of
value to instruction?

On Aug 15, 6:27 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But much of his phrasing is Russian, especially in the frequant avoidance of

Like you are able to pick up on anything like that.....

Tell me sometime if you understand such subtleties of logical sequencing, or
indeed, anything at all.

Yes indeed, anytime we want advice from a puffed-up moron, we'll know
where to look.

"SBD" wrote in message
...
On Aug 15, 6:27 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But much of his phrasing is Russian, especially in the frequant avoidance
of

Like you are able to pick up on anything like that.....

Tell me sometime if you understand such subtleties of logical sequencing,
or
indeed, anything at all.

Yes indeed, anytime we want advice from a puffed-up moron, we'll know
where to look.

OPENLY CHEATING

Stephen Dowd/Rynd writes in specifically to //eliminate// my comments about
why I had doubts about Chernev, the cheat just snipped it! He was not even
brave enough to show he snipped anything. Certainly not capable of making a
substantive answer, otherwise he would have done so.

He contributes nothing whatever to the topic and proceeds directly to
exercise his spite.

This is his contribution to chess education in this country. Not a
contribution, but an attempted reduction.

EYERORE IS IN

How odd that some people are hell-bent on destroying attempts to promote
chess in America via their misanthropy, and if they have to publicly cheat
as Dowd/Rynd does here so as to rubbish those who succeed where USCF never
even thought of going before...

ROFL

....well, what is that to them? That is the normal and flaccid corporate
culture of chess in USA, which has slumbered through the post-Fischer era,
and now makes up angry and anxious to discover they have been left in the
dust.

Kept dependent and barefoot and content with so little homegrown talent,
they WHINE about strong players coming from overseas chess cultures to rule
the roost here

And so they resent anyone escaping their own reduced conditions and
expectations - since possibly they sense to engage promoting chess will
require actual work and enterprise - in fact they have talked each into
doubting their best asset, good old American know-how, and go-for-it.

These are merely the received attitudes for a level of mediocrity which
ensures that real initiatives keep away from flak issuing from the official
dross-corps.

It does not deserve condemnation. That would be to mock the old biddy in the
wheelchair. What she needs more is to be told she ain't dead yet, and in
fact she should pick up her wheelchair and walk - since in fact, she is only
38 years old

Phil Innes

On Aug 15, 7:27*am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message

...

wrote:
On Aug 14, 3:52 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

**um, well, don't know who translated Chernev,

* Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to
the USA at about age 4.

English was his second language, and I have no idea of the facility of his
parents in English and suppose any English would have come late to him

"Late"?? Um, Phil, just what do you consider a "late" age? I just
told you: Chernev came to the USA at about age 4. He learned English
as a child in Brooklyn.

and
since I have quoted from his works extensively, [more than anyone here] I
always doubted how much English he could express, and what text was his and
what of his editors?

Good Lord, Phil, this is as big a gaffe as your saying that Spanish
was Andean. Chernev grew up in America. He spoke and wrote English
like a native speaker. As a young man, he once pinch-hit for a sick
Lasker when the latter was scheduled to give a lecture to an American
audience. No editors to help him then.
I strongly suggest you read Denker's appreciation of Chernev in "The
Bobby Fischer I Knew and Other Stories." It will give you some idea of
how an American chess pro viewed his prose skills.

I assumed from the often mannered phrasing that his work was translated.

The intersection between your assumptions/delusions and reality is
often scant. In this case, non-existent.

Surely he used words like 'piquant' and 'impress' correctly, and indeed, his
adjectives are somewhat rich for a text book of chess annotation, even
somewhat /superior/ to the writings of native speakers at the time.

But much of his phrasing is Russian, especially in the frequant avoidance of
the definite article,

Hmmm. Let's see how many instances of the definite article we find
in this Chernev passage:

"In this book we persuade him. We find out from the master the
purpose of every single move he makes in the course of a game. We
follow the ideas, the methods, the very thoughts of a master as he
outlines them in simple detail. We learn the inner workings of his
mind, and thus acquire the knowledge -- yes, the instinct -- for
recognizing good moves and rejecting inferior ones."

I count nine instances of "the," and one of "this" -- ten in the
space of four sentences. Doesn't look like "avoidance of the definite
article" to me.

40 word unpunctuated sentences 'as wide as Taiga!'
[lol] and just as commonly, his infinitive verb forms combat randomly with
his Western apostrophies.

Care to give us examples of these alleged grammatical sins?

It should also be noted that Chernev was probably more familiar with
chess literature than any other man, at least in America. Denker
writes "No one ever devoured chess lore like Irving did. 'I have
probably read more about chess and played over more games,' he once
plausibly claimed, 'than any man in history.'" Therefore I would
consider Chernev quite well qualified as an authority on proper usage
of chess terminology.

wrote in message
...
On Aug 15, 7:27 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message

...

wrote:
On Aug 14, 3:52 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

**um, well, don't know who translated Chernev,

Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to
the USA at about age 4.

English was his second language, and I have no idea of the facility of his
parents in English and suppose any English would have come late to him

"Late"?? Um, Phil, just what do you consider a "late" age? I just
told you: Chernev came to the USA at about age 4. He learned English
as a child in Brooklyn.

**Laugh! Taylor Kingston pronounces on what it is to speak a second language
not acquired until the age of 4! At least 4! He fortunately does not tell us
anything of his understanding, lest it come under question.

**He is a bit backwards on the efficacy of early child education. Not just a
little bit. But this is merely an absurd correspondance on Taylor's own
recommendation of speak-like-Chernev, and despite 2 other people
contradicting him already, Taylor has to insist as usual that some idiotic
but unspoken understanding he has privately acquired is vitally relevent to
the issue. What issue? What people say in 2008! Here, learning English at
[some unknown age, but 4+] from parents whose English muct have been
uncertain? And in Brooklyn, [ROFL] does not phase him in the least.

**"I just TOLD you" he says.

and
since I have quoted from his works extensively, [more than anyone here] I
always doubted how much English he could express, and what text was his
and
what of his editors?

Good Lord, Phil, this is as big a gaffe as your saying that Spanish
was Andean.

**Pardon me? I never said that you imbecile!@ YOU IMBECILE. YOU LIAR. I said
that Mexican Spanish was not the same as Castillian, and Mexican different
from that of the Andes. Did you actually dispute that? I can't tell from
your words. It is your understanding of things which is absurd, since I
don't believe you are so stupid. Instead I think you deliberately mis-state
what others say - as you do here consistently, insisting, INSISTING, that
what Chernev says is current terminology. But you don't even go to the chess
club, eh?

**So you are the fool of your own diversions, and to cover that you invent
on what others say, insist on what /they/ mean, just like a ****y pedant.

Chernev grew up in America. He spoke and wrote English
like a native speaker. As a young man, he once pinch-hit for a sick
Lasker when the latter was scheduled to give a lecture to an American
audience. No editors to help him then.

**How lovely for him! What a wonderful man! To stand up, we are to
understand, and speak English!

I strongly suggest you read Denker's appreciation of Chernev in "The
Bobby Fischer I Knew and Other Stories." It will give you some idea of
how an American chess pro viewed his prose skills.

**I strongly suggest you re-attend your chess club and answer what I asked
you: is Chernev's phrasing of things current terminology? You propose it is
with no evidence at all - you ignore what 2 others say and create a whole
thread to pretend that others are wrong! If you have some other points to
make on what young players /should/ know, which you insisted upon! Then
maybe do your own chess course for those who want to know terms of
yesteryear they should now in case they encounter them?

I assumed from the often mannered phrasing that his work was translated.

The intersection between your assumptions/delusions and reality is
often scant. In this case, non-existent.

**Taylor decides what reality is - for other people! - especially those who
disagree with him. In fact, always for them.Which so far, is everybody who
replied substantively to what I actually asked. Naturally, this is their
fault, and a sure guide on how Our Taylor fell out with 2 of the most
popular chess writers on Earth, Evans and Keene - who I suggest to Taylor
Kingston received the vote of people willing to part with their money,
rather than consider your instructions what they /should/ do or buy.


Surely he used words like 'piquant' and 'impress' correctly, and indeed,
his
adjectives are somewhat rich for a text book of chess annotation, even
somewhat /superior/ to the writings of native speakers at the time.

But much of his phrasing is Russian, especially in the frequant avoidance
of
the definite article,

Hmmm. Let's see how many instances of the definite article we find
in this Chernev passage:

"In this book we persuade him. We find out from the master the
purpose of every single move he makes in the course of a game. We
follow the ideas, the methods, the very thoughts of a master as he
outlines them in simple detail. We learn the inner workings of his
mind, and thus acquire the knowledge -- yes, the instinct -- for
recognizing good moves and rejecting inferior ones."

I count nine instances of "the," and one of "this" -- ten in the
space of four sentences. Doesn't look like "avoidance of the definite
article" to me.

**And ROFL this is typical is it, Mr. Kingston? It is not contradicted by
less-edited relapses?

40 word unpunctuated sentences 'as wide as Taiga!'
[lol] and just as commonly, his infinitive verb forms combat randomly with
his Western apostrophies.

Care to give us examples of these alleged grammatical sins?

**No. I did not say it was a sin, that again is your spin! Your bit of
defensive hyperbole about your hero! ROFL And talking of which, you are
patently in-sin-cere in your requests. [bottom of page 48 wink]

It should also be noted that Chernev was probably more familiar with
chess literature than any other man, at least in America. Denker
writes "No one ever devoured chess lore like Irving did. 'I have
probably read more about chess and played over more games,' he once
plausibly claimed, 'than any man in history.'" Therefore I would


**Write more about him here than I do? But you don't. )

consider Chernev quite well qualified as an authority on proper usage
of chess terminology.

**as in use in 1946? What date does your preface for "The Russians Play
Chess" have?

** "The" Russians...? Not exactly American diction, is it? It certainly
ain't now, and to return to MY subject, that is the context of MY inquiry.


ROFL

Phil Innes

While Our Taylor is figuring out his response to the previous challenges I
offered him, he might as well share his understanding of Laskers 8th place
finish - which he denied ever happened - and which he sent off to England
for further information to refute!

At the time he accused me of being something on the wrong side of Mussolini
for opining at all - but since I merely reported an entry by Hooper,
/naming/ my source, and the English Encyclopedia which carried the article,
and which Our Taylor, BTW, has a copy of.

In refutation of this terrible crime Our Taylor hissed at me that I was
nutz@

He did not actually dispute the encyclopedia entry, which showed Lasker
coming equal 7th / 8th on score but 8th in placement, and accused Hooper of
making a mistake.

Now... Hooper may have done so, or he may not have - the material Our Taylor
received from England could not explain if final placements by virtue of
opponents beaten, or other means, how equal placements on score were ranked.

This non-event caused Our Taylor some 20 hissy responses, since he deemed
that the Great Lasker, [and he truly was], was being dissed by me in some
way since I dared point out that these games came at the end of his carear
in chess, and obvious 8th place [or even 7th] was not exactly a commanding
performance.

Why object so much without preseenting a scintilla of evidence that Hooper
was wrong in his entry for Anne Sunnucks' Encyclopedia entry?

Phil Innes

On Aug 15, 5:10*pm, "Chess One" wrote:
While Our Taylor is figuring out his response to the previous challenges I
offered him, he might as well share his understanding of Laskers 8th place
finish - which he denied ever happened - and which he sent off to England
for further information to refute!

At the time he accused me of being something on the wrong side of Mussolini
for opining at all - but since I merely reported an entry by Hooper,
/naming/ my source, and the English Encyclopedia which carried the article,
and which Our Taylor, BTW, has a copy of.

In refutation of this terrible crime Our Taylor hissed at me that I was
nutz@

He did not actually dispute the encyclopedia entry, which showed Lasker
coming equal 7th / 8th on score but 8th in placement,

What a load of bull, Phil. The Sunnucks encyclopaedia entry simply
says Lasker was "8th at Nottingham 1936." Nothing about him actually
placing =7th-8th with Flohr, both of them scoring 8½-5½. Therefore it
is slightly inaccurate.

and accused Hooper of making a mistake.

I wouldn't use the word "accused," but the plain fact is that it's a
mistake, and all your bloviating doesn't change that fact. In any
event, it's a rather minor mistake, and hardly worth the gaseous
effort you keep expending on it.

Now... Hooper may have done so, or he may not have - the material Our Taylor
received from England could not explain if final placements by virtue of
opponents beaten, or other means, how equal placements on score were ranked.

This non-event caused Our Taylor some 20 hissy responses, since he deemed
that the Great Lasker, [and he truly was], was being dissed by me in some
way since I dared point out that these games came at the end of his carear
in chess, and obvious 8th place [or even 7th] was not exactly a commanding
performance.

Why object so much without preseenting a scintilla of evidence that Hooper
was wrong in his entry for Anne Sunnucks' Encyclopedia entry?

Phil Innes

On Aug 15, 3:43*pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Aug 15, 7:27 am, "Chess One" wrote:

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message

...

wrote:
On Aug 14, 3:52 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

On Aug 14, 12:49 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
**um, well, don't know who translated Chernev,
Chernev wrote in English, Phil. He was born in Russia but came to
the USA at about age 4.

English was his second language, and I have no idea of the facility of his
parents in English and suppose any English would have come late to him

* "Late"?? Um, Phil, just what do you consider a "late" age? I just
told you: Chernev came to the USA at about age 4. He learned English
as a child in Brooklyn.

**Laugh! Taylor Kingston pronounces on what it is to speak a second language
not acquired until the age of 4! At least 4! He fortunately does not tell us
anything of his understanding, lest it come under question.

**He is a bit backwards on the efficacy of early child education. Not just a
little bit. But this is merely an absurd correspondance on Taylor's own
recommendation of speak-like-Chernev, and despite 2 other people
contradicting him already, Taylor has to insist as usual that some idiotic
but unspoken understanding he has privately acquired is vitally relevent to
the issue. What issue? What people say in 2008! Here, learning English at
[some unknown age, but 4+] from parents whose English muct have been
uncertain? *And in Brooklyn, [ROFL] does not phase him in the least.

**"I just TOLD you" he says.

*and
since I have quoted from his works extensively, [more than anyone here] I
always doubted how much English he could express, and what text was his
and
what of his editors?

* Good Lord, Phil, this is as big a gaffe as your saying that Spanish
was Andean.

**Pardon me? I never said that you imbecile!@ YOU IMBECILE. YOU LIAR. I said
that Mexican Spanish was not the same as Castillian, and Mexican different
from that of the Andes. Did you actually dispute that? I can't tell from
your words. It is your understanding of things which is absurd, since I
don't believe you are so stupid. Instead I think you deliberately mis-state
what others say - as you do here consistently, insisting, INSISTING, that
what Chernev says is current terminology. But you don't even go to the chess
club, eh?

**So you are the fool of your own diversions, and to cover that you invent
on what others say, insist on what /they/ mean, just like a ****y pedant.

*Chernev grew up in America. He spoke and wrote English
like a native speaker. As a young man, he once pinch-hit for a sick
Lasker when the latter was scheduled to give a lecture to an American
audience. No editors to help him then.

**How lovely for him! What a wonderful man! To stand up, we are to
understand, and speak English!

* I strongly suggest you read Denker's appreciation of Chernev in "The
Bobby Fischer I Knew and Other Stories." It will give you some idea of
how an American chess pro viewed his prose skills.

**I strongly suggest you re-attend your chess club and answer what I asked
you: is Chernev's phrasing of things current terminology? You propose it is
with no evidence at all - you ignore what 2 others say and create a whole
thread to pretend that others are wrong! If you have some other points to
make on what young players /should/ know, which you insisted upon! Then
maybe do your own chess course for those who want to know terms of
yesteryear they should now in case they encounter them?

I assumed from the often mannered phrasing that his work was translated..

* The intersection between your assumptions/delusions and reality is
often scant. In this case, non-existent.

**Taylor decides what reality is - *for other people! - especially those who
disagree with him. In fact, always for them.Which so far, is everybody who
replied substantively to what I actually asked. Naturally, this is their
fault, and a sure guide on how Our Taylor fell out with 2 of the most
popular chess writers on Earth, Evans and Keene - who I suggest to Taylor
Kingston received the vote of people willing to part with their money,
rather than consider your instructions what they /should/ do or buy.

Surely he used words like 'piquant' and 'impress' correctly, and indeed,
his
adjectives are somewhat rich for a text book of chess annotation, even
somewhat /superior/ to the writings of native speakers at the time.

But much of his phrasing is Russian, especially in the frequant avoidance
of
the definite article,

* Hmmm. Let's see how many instances of the definite article we find
in this Chernev passage:

* "In this book we persuade him. We find out from the master the
purpose of every single move he makes in the course of a game. We
follow the ideas, the methods, the very thoughts of a master as he
outlines them in simple detail. We learn the inner workings of his
mind, and thus acquire the knowledge -- yes, the instinct -- for
recognizing good moves and rejecting inferior ones."

* I count nine instances of "the," and one of "this" -- ten in the
space of four sentences. Doesn't look like "avoidance of the definite
article" to me.

**And ROFL this is typical is it, Mr. Kingston? It is not contradicted by
less-edited relapses?

40 word unpunctuated sentences 'as wide as Taiga!'
[lol] and just as commonly, his infinitive verb forms combat randomly with
his Western apostrophies.

* Care to give us examples of these alleged grammatical sins?

**No. I did not say it was a sin, that again is your spin! Your bit of
defensive hyperbole about your hero! ROFL And talking of which, you are
patently in-sin-cere in your requests. [bottom of page 48 wink]

* It should also be noted that Chernev was probably more familiar with
chess literature than any other man, at least in America. Denker
writes "No one ever devoured chess lore like Irving did. 'I have
probably read more about chess and played over more games,' he once
plausibly claimed, 'than any man in history.'" Therefore I would

**Write more about him here than I do? But you don't. *)

consider Chernev quite well qualified as an authority on proper usage
of chess terminology.

**as in use in 1946? What date does your preface for "The Russians Play
Chess" have?

** "The" Russians...? *Not exactly American diction, is it? It certainly
ain't now, and to return to MY subject, that is the context of MY inquiry..

ROFL

Phil Innes

Our Phil responds in his usual way. When shown to be in a hole, he
digs himself deeper, and when shown to be full of hot air, he blows
all the harder.

On Aug 15, 5:37*pm, wrote:
On Aug 15, 5:10*pm, "Chess One" wrote:

While Our Taylor is figuring out his response to the previous challenges I
offered him, he might as well share his understanding of Laskers 8th place
finish - which he denied ever happened - and which he sent off to England
for further information to refute!

At the time he accused me of being something on the wrong side of Mussolini
for opining at all - but since I merely reported an entry by Hooper,
/naming/ my source, and the English Encyclopedia which carried the article,
and which Our Taylor, BTW, has a copy of.

In refutation of this terrible crime Our Taylor hissed at me that I was
nutz@

He did not actually dispute the encyclopedia entry, which showed Lasker
coming equal 7th / 8th on score but 8th in placement,

* What a load of bull, Phil. The Sunnucks encyclopaedia entry simply
says Lasker was "8th at Nottingham 1936." Nothing about him actually
placing =7th-8th with Flohr, both of them scoring 8½-5½. Therefore it
is slightly inaccurate.

and accused Hooper of making a mistake.

* I wouldn't use the word "accused," but the plain fact is that it's a
mistake, and all your bloviating doesn't change that fact. In any
event, it's a rather minor mistake, and hardly worth the gaseous
effort you keep expending on it.



Now... Hooper may have done so, or he may not have - the material Our Taylor
received from England could not explain if final placements by virtue of
opponents beaten, or other means, how equal placements on score were ranked.

This non-event caused Our Taylor some 20 hissy responses, since he deemed
that the Great Lasker, [and he truly was], was being dissed by me in some
way since I dared point out that these games came at the end of his carear
in chess, and obvious 8th place [or even 7th] was not exactly a commanding
performance.

Why object so much without preseenting a scintilla of evidence that Hooper
was wrong in his entry for Anne Sunnucks' Encyclopedia entry?

I might point out that in its list of "International Tournaments
1851-1949," the Sunnucks encyclopaedia makes a much worse mistake
about Nottingham 1936, showing Flohr, not Botvinnik, equal 1st with
Capablanca. I notice also that it has Reshevsky winning Semmering-
Baden 1937 (Keres actually won, while Reshevsky was =3rd-4th), Keres
winning at Groningen 1946 (he didn't even play), and Botvinnik tieing
with himself for first at Moscow 1947.
In fact the whole list on page 464 is a complete mess due to the
insertion of Rubinstein as a co-winner at Vienna 1908 (he was actually
4th), which throws off all the subsequent entries. No doubt Phil will
find some way to argue that this too is correct.