On Aug 20, 3:20*pm, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Aug 19, 10:56 am, "Chess One" wrote:

wrote in message

"He [Lasker] played in five more tournaments: Moscow 1925, second
(+10 =8 -2) after Bogoljubow, ahead of Capablanca; Zurich 1934, fifth
(+9 =2 -4); Moscow 1935, third (+6 =13), after Botvinnik and Flohr,
ahead of Capablanca; Moscow 1936, sixth; and Nottingham 1936 (+6 =5
-3) TO SHARE SEVENTH PLACE." (emphasis added)

Do you see that, Phil? "TO SHARE SEVENTH PLACE." Very plain and easy
to understand. Why can't you?

**Because others say different. Bill Wall for example talks of 1st to 8th
place.

* Bill Wall? Bill Wall?? *ROFLMAO! Bill Wall is one of the most
careless, most inaccurate writers who ever said a word about chess.
For examples of his studious scholarship, I commend you to these
links:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/e...edibility.html

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fun.html

* Bill Wall. Lord, I can't stop chuckling. Innes had found his ideal.

**Our Taylor prefers the Oxford encyclopedia

To Bill Wall, I certainly do.

whose idea of accuracy was to
describe Boris Gulko as being away from chess, when he and his wife were
being beaten up by KGB.

Really, Phil? I believe your erstwhile friend Bill Hyde (or perhaps
it was Larry Tapper) pointed out that the time period referred to in
that OC passage did *_not_* correspond to the time Gulko was
persecuted. But of course such inconvenient facts don't concern you.

**The point is not to argue 'authorities' but on veracities - how do we know
that anyone got it right?

Well, Phil, you might start by conceding some credibility to what
the actual tournament book of Nottingham 1936 says. On the subject of
the Nottingham 1936 tournament, I would call that an authoritative
source.

That is the only issue here. To be sure of things
takes more than a list of 'authorities' and calling those who have other
opinion, or who simply are not convinced 'insane'.

To be sure of things certainly takes more than the muddled thought
processes of Phil Innes.

**Bill Wall may often be criticized because he does not hide his opinion
with his words.

Bill Wall is often criticized because he often reports arrant
nonsense as fact.

To avoid being criticized one should be Vague,

That's why I tend to be quite specific. But of course in Phil's
Newspeak, to be specific is to be vague, if the specific statement is
not what he wants to hear.

then no one
can tell if we are right or wrong - and we place ourselves beyond criticism.

Yes, Phil, we all know that no matter what the facts, you consider
yourself beyond criticism.

The only drawback with Vaguery is that nothing is revealed, which is to
place oneself beyond notice.

Phil Innes

Phil, the plain fact is that in the area of chess history, you are
pretty much a nincompoop. Everyone else here knows that. I suspect you
do do too, but of course you dare not admit it publicly.

On Aug 20, 8:52*am, "Chess One" wrote:

One remarkable fact of language acquisition I just read about is from
Hampton Sides, writing on Kit Carson. He says Carson had about 10 languages
which he spoke /very/ well, but was an illiterate! He could hardly read in
English. But he mastered 6 native languages, including the somewhat
universal Navajo.


What I find most interesting is how the Andes
mountains were moved northward, across
central America to where the Rockies used to
stand. Indeed, the multitude of "Andean"
languages is akin to the many tribes we stole
our country from-- each with its own unique
language. What did you say those were
called-- the many "Andean languages" you
spoke of? Or did you say? (Perhaps you are
stuck here, like those miners who could not
find a way to instruct aborigines to collect
only "yellow" rocks, because they had no
word for yellow and could not grasp it.)

I know what many folks must be thinking:
that the reason Dr. IMnes cannot name
these many "Andean languages" is because
they don't exist! But that would be a grave
error; it is only a bashful reluctance to
display his quite vast -- to say the least --
knowledge in linguistics that holds our man
back; he is not one to boast, or make such
brazen displays of great intellect, unless
absolutely necessary. Indeed, one can
see the same attribute on any other forum,
such as for instance the Shakespeare
newsgroup, where Dr. IMnes did not wish
to attest to his great achievements in the
realms of chess, but had to have them
/dragged out of him/ by a very determined
Neil Brennen.


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Aug 20, 8:37 am, "Chess One" wrote:

Its okay to say 'don't know' or even 'most likely' but to not know and be
sure at the same time is not a happy combination. What we want is
qualified
information or qualified guesses.

In other words, relative statements not absolute ones.


Okay, I am watching a "lecture" on DVD,
being delivered by a supposedly top-1% of
all Ivy Leaguer professors, and he flatly
states that "you can't use X to try and
answer questions of type Y". Trouble is,
you *can*, and I already have! So, what is
his beef with using X in relation to Y?

** Yes, the method is all, and 'top' people, especially academics, have
better opportunity to tell us method, since that is the presumption on their
employment. To be only told something, rather than have the decision process
explained, is merely rote learning, and in fact you cannot determine if what
you are told is correct or not - not to any degree - and not so that you can
objectify result by comparing it with your own process. Strictly speaking,
results are part of process, but somewhere near the end of the process. In
the age of sound-bite [byte?] people therefore know much, understand little.

He
is obviously /shielding a weakness/; it is

**Maybe lazy - or merely presenting results to research which exists
elsewhere? The point being the reader/audience can determine little verity
from results alone. Philosophically what is not going on here is
'transference' in the sense of sharing the means of inquiry.

**Feynman is a good example in mathematics of uncritically acceping the
collected received opinion of 50 years of authorities. More recently in
physics there is the infamous announced result of : cold fusion in a
test-tube.

akin to a player who will lock up as many
pawns as possible, because he is tired of
hanging pieces to unexpected forks by
the opponent's Queen.

**certainly akin to the danger of rote memorised moves alone. Without
understanding the process of developing the whole team in such-and-such a
formation, then the individual moves may be known, but not understood.

As such, it is not a discussion of how we know what we know - which is
itself a scientific phrase to do with research. He, in fact, discusses
nothing whatever.

Hmm. If it's the prize money that's at
issue, then there ought to have been no
tiebreaks-- they just split it. But if there
is a trophy (or title) at stake (i.e. "dead
last finisher"), then there has to be
some sort of tiebreak or else you have to
get out a chainsaw.

**reporting on the subject is less than informative. Wall shows prize money
awarded, but oddly not to 7th & 8th places. Similarly, in charts of the
tournament the top 8 places are shown with Lasker always in 8th position
even though from his score he might sometimes we included as 7th? This is
surely the result of one source repeating another, over and over. [I note
Wiki places him in 8th place.] It doesn't prove anything, either way.

**But that's not why Our Taylor is inistent that it does prove something.
Even before the placement issue at Nottingham arose, another poster
contested that Lasker was not on top of his game at the end of his carear
and said that he finished 8th etc - Our Taylor took great exception to the
contradiction of Lasker's actual performance. I then picked up the most
relevant Encyclopedia to hand, whcih was the British one by Sunnucks, and
there was Hooper saying 8th place.

**Now, without knowing if Hooper was right or wrong, Our Taylor then became
excited to the degree that he is prepared to call me insane for citing an
encylopedia. His own citation is of the tournament book which he hotly
obtained from UK, but which did /not/ illustrate means of placement. But
obviously, Our Taylor's strong reaction is /not/ to the encyclopedia entry,
but to the refutation of Lasker's world status as proposed by Our Taylor,
whether Lasker finished 7th or 8th. And that is the context for everything,
including inventing my opinion for me.

Its as daft as continuing to write about Morphy's shoes

Laugh - I walk 5 miles a day, minimum, and one of my kids started her PhD
this week.


Is it perhaps a PhD in law, "taken from" the
Sorbonne? (They never recovered the one
Dr. Alekhine stole from them, you know.)

**No, no that sort of law. Perhaps scientific law of sorts. At one time
study of both Physics and Nature was called "Natural Philosophy". They have
been not exactly divorced, but definitely experiencing a trial-seperation
since the onset of the Industrial Age. An interesting synopsis of the
subject is the 1991 title by Rupert Sheldrake: The Rebirth of Nature; The
Greening of Science and God. As if, you know, there was one operating system
for the Cosmos, and our Universe suggested that the Nature of Man, the
Nature of Nature, and the Nature of God, also share one Operating System.
Very much of this title points to the dead-end result of received knowledge,
which is seen to be merely rule-of-thumb conveniences fitting only some
circumstances, and not addressing the whole, though presuming to do so.

**The rule of pedants, especially literary ones, is the story of our modern
age - if I can date that to the emergence of the printing press, and the
contrary instinct from such as Galileo's preference for observation before
thought. Indeed, this hidden animus of singular insistences was noted early,
and also its natu

No-one who sees the iconoclasts raging thus against wood
and stone would doubt that there is a spirit hidden in
them which is death-dealing, not life-giving, and which at
the first opportunity will also kill men.

//Martin Luther, 1525.

**At about the same time Henry VIII was destroying the integrated means of
knowledge in destroying the English monasteries - which certainly provided
greater emphasis to how we know things, and their meaning to us, than what
succeeded that; a simple quantification of result which is the modus of our
current age. [I hasten to stress that Our Taylor is not responsible for all
of this! Merely responsive to it, and that, alas, is 'normative'.]

Phil Innes


-- help bot

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Aug 20, 3:20 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

**The point is not to argue 'authorities' but on veracities - how do we
know
that anyone got it right? That is the only issue here. To be sure of
things
takes more than a list of 'authorities' and calling those who have other
opinion, or who simply are not convinced 'insane'.


Quite right old chap.


**Bill Wall may often be criticized because he does not hide his opinion
with his words. To avoid being criticized one should be Vague, then no one
can tell if we are right or wrong - and we place ourselves beyond
criticism.
The only drawback with Vaguery is that nothing is revealed, which is to
place oneself beyond notice.


Mr./Dr./IM Innes: please read the top link
in Mr. Kingston's last post before attempting
to address the issue of Mr. Wall's credibility.
I know it is painful to face the music, but The
Great Pedant Edward Winter does not just
make stuff up. It appears that Mr. Wall just
spews nonsense at times, even committing
atrocious spelling errors (gasp!) and aping
silly stories, much like the Evans ratpackers.

This is *not* a question of daring to state
one's opinions-- you have intellectually
"derailed".

**I said Bill Wall is not 'daring', but 'able' to say...

Dr. n-IMnes is too much like Dr. Nimo, and besides, authorities...
authorities everywhere! Like flies round our eyes, dirty flies who need us
more than we need them! In The Story of the Great Pedant, part deux; he, who
after 2 years issued forth with so many mistakes the publication needed to
be reprinted, the sacrificial victim to error became the printer. Mere human
beings are often wrong, pedants never. Being right or wrong is always
possible in a relative-universe, but that is not to frame the issue well.
What is actually interesting is not even the absolutism of right or wrong,
but the degree anyone can explain /how/ some part of what they espouse is
right, or at least produces their result. Phil Innes

-- help bot

wrote in message
...

**Our Taylor prefers the Oxford encyclopedia

To Bill Wall, I certainly do.

whose idea of accuracy was to
describe Boris Gulko as being away from chess, when he and his wife were
being beaten up by KGB.

Really, Phil? I believe your erstwhile friend Bill Hyde (or perhaps
it was Larry Tapper) pointed out that the time period referred to in
that OC passage did *_not_* correspond to the time Gulko was
persecuted. But of course such inconvenient facts don't concern you.

**There you go again! "Pointed out" facts too precious to repeat! But that
is a diversion and not exactly the frame that Larry Parr offered you, which
was to ask if you personally thought the entry fair, from whatever basis of
knowledge or interest you had? You always seem a bit evasive on these
Soviets subjects - but I give you the main thing below - since in fact you
challenge me to it.

**The point is not to argue 'authorities' but on veracities - how do we
know
that anyone got it right?

Well, Phil, you might start by conceding some credibility to what
the actual tournament book of Nottingham 1936 says.

**Which is? Says about what? Come on!@ 35 tries and you're out!

On the subject of
the Nottingham 1936 tournament, I would call that an authoritative
source.

That is the only issue here. To be sure of things
takes more than a list of 'authorities' and calling those who have other
opinion, or who simply are not convinced 'insane'.

To be sure of things certainly takes more than the muddled thought
processes of Phil Innes.

**More vagueness? I am muddled because you are sure but present no evidence
to refute Hooper, who I presume is also muddled and insane? I see Bill Wall
has now joined the crew.

**Bill Wall may often be criticized because he does not hide his opinion
with his words.

Bill Wall is often criticized because he often reports arrant
nonsense as fact.

**From the general to the specific, then?

To avoid being criticized one should be Vague,

That's why I tend to be quite specific. But of course in Phil's
Newspeak, to be specific is to be vague, if the specific statement is
not what he wants to hear.

**Our Taylor is now psychic and knows what I want to hear. He even foretells
it, telling me I hold an opinion I do not, but fails to be 'quite specific'
enough to quote my opinion back at me. At no time is he quite specific
enough to mention what I did say, which is that I don't know for sure from
what I have read if an error was made by Hooper and his editors.

then no one
can tell if we are right or wrong - and we place ourselves beyond
criticism.

Yes, Phil, we all know that no matter what the facts, you consider
yourself beyond criticism.

**To be 'quite specific' in this instance of these /particular/ facts, you
now tell me that I think my question about knowing what is true is 'beyond
criticism?'

The only drawback with Vaguery is that nothing is revealed, which is to
place oneself beyond notice.

Phil Innes

Phil, the plain fact is that in the area of chess history, you are
pretty much a nincompoop. Everyone else here knows that. I suspect you
do do too, but of course you dare not admit it publicly.

**Let's be 'quite specific! Does everybody know you asked me about Soviet
Cheating? Do they know because you accused me of knowing Russian players
since I evidently did. Does everybody know the /specific/ was about
Averbakh's role in Soviet chess organisation? Do they know I obtained you 2
Russian references which admitted that he might not tell the truth? Do they
know that after you received that information you neglected to ask Averbakh
a pertinent question about it? Do they know that instead you attacked Larry
Evans about his own sources, interpretations, while neglecting to provide
your own quite specific questions when you had the opportunity to do so? Do
they know that you then told me my opinion that I would 'jumped at' the
chance to interview him? Do they know that after this more than somewhat
duplitious inquiry Evans and Averbakh on Soviet cheating, as explored in
this very newsgroup at great length, you then admitted you would 'under
prepared'. Do they know that is not strictly true - but you rather selected
from your preparations to edit the issue out.

**And do they know that this would otherwise be just a hill of beans by
someone doing a celebity interview, rather than historical interview EXCEPT
that you made such a fuss in Evan's face, preferring, so it seems, the guy
who the 2 Russians rather doubted, and who Boris Gulko specifically
mentioned, to the views of the 5 time US Champions own /experience/?

Phil Innes

On Aug 21, 9:56*am, "Chess One" wrote:
wrote in message

* Well, Phil, you might start by conceding some credibility to what
the actual tournament book of Nottingham 1936 says.

**Which is? Says about what? Come on!@ 35 tries and you're out!

Phil, you have this preposterous habit of pretending a question has
not been answered. You ask, say, "Who was the first President of the
United States." I reply "George Washington," citing several
authoritative sources. Then you spend innumerable posts pretending I
have not answered the question, presented no evidence, etc. Do you
realize how foolish that makes you look? Apparently not, or else you
enjoy being foolish.

Yet again, the Nottingham tournament book is _the_ authoritative
source on a matter you've belabored here off and on for at least a
year: where Lasker stood in the final standings at Nottingham 1936.
You keep supporting the Sunnucks encyclopaedia's statement that he was
sole 8th. Whereas the tournament book clearly shows him tied for 7th
and 8th places with Salo Flohr. End of story.

I have two copies of the Nottingham 1936 book. Shall I send you one?
Then you can see for yourself. Alas, I suspect you will just continue
as you have always done.

On Aug 20, 6:08 pm, wrote:

Bill Wall? Bill Wall?? ROFLMAO! Bill Wall is one of the most
careless, most inaccurate writers who ever said a word about chess.
For examples of his studious scholarship, I commend you to these
links:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/e...edibility.html

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fun.html

Bill Wall. Lord, I can't stop chuckling. Innes had found his ideal.

Wall is pretty ridiculous, confusing say, Wolfgang Pauli with Wolfgang
Pauly.

Does he work as a fact-checker for Chessvile?

On Aug 20, 7:37 am, "Chess One" wrote:

I think

No you don't, that is the problem. You spew forth without thinking.

Chess One wrote:
** Yes, the method is all, and 'top' people, especially academics, have
better opportunity to tell us method, since that is the presumption on their
employment. To be only told something, rather than have the decision process
explained, is merely rote learning, and in fact you cannot determine if what
you are told is correct or not - not to any degree - and not so that you can
objectify result by comparing it with your own process. Strictly speaking,
results are part of process, but somewhere near the end of the process. In
the age of sound-bite [byte?] people therefore know much, understand little.


What process did you follow to reach these conclusions?


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/

On Aug 21, 8:42*am, "Chess One" wrote:

* He is obviously /shielding a weakness/; it is

**Maybe lazy - or merely presenting results to research which exists
elsewhere?


Um, no.


The point being the reader/audience can determine little verity
from results alone. Philosophically what is not going on here is
'transference' in the sense of sharing the means of inquiry.


In this case, there was a decided *avoidance*
of "inquiry"; you see, there was a war going on,
between science and religion. This insistence
that X cannot be used with regard to Y is a
truce of sorts, or maybe a buffer zone having
mainly to do with the war.


**Feynman is a good example in mathematics of uncritically acceping the
collected received opinion of 50 years of authorities.


To heck with him then! Why can't he be more
like me, and carefully scrutinize the claims of
these "authorities", instead of blindly accepting
them?


More recently in physics there is the infamous
announced result of : cold fusion in a test-tube.


Already tried. The glass tube becomes
brittle, and prone to shattering easily. As
for the "fusion", it smells like sulfur and
tastes like onion.


**certainly akin to the danger of rote memorised moves alone. Without
understanding the process of developing the whole team in such-and-such a
formation, then the individual moves may be known, but not understood.


Precisely. I recently lost a game due to
making two horrific tactical blunders in a
row, yet my opponent remained convinced
that I had gone awry in the opening--
because my early moves did not precisely
match those in his books! As can easily
be seen by objective examination, his
conception was wrong; computer analysis
shows that my loss was almost entirely
due to those tactical blunders, which were
so severe that I am shown to come out a
full Queen down!


As such, it is not a discussion of how we know what we know - which is
itself a scientific phrase to do with research. He, in fact, discusses
nothing whatever.


That will be one of my next projects; I am
especially interested in why, after careful
definition of science as X, certain alleged
scientists made reckless assumptions and
were given a free pass, when others would
have automatically have been termed
pseudo-scientists or even hacks.


**Now, without knowing if Hooper was right or wrong, Our Taylor then became
excited to the degree that he is prepared to call me insane for citing an
encylopedia. His own citation is of the tournament book which he hotly
obtained from UK, but which did /not/ illustrate means of placement. But
obviously, Our Taylor's strong reaction is /not/ to the encyclopedia entry,
but to the refutation of Lasker's world status as proposed by Our Taylor,
whether Lasker finished 7th or 8th. And that is the context for everything,
including inventing my opinion for me.


Whew. I have discovered that sometimes
Mr. Kingston gets an idea from a dubious
source, then sticks to it like a pig-headed
mule. One example was where he lifted
the phrase "not in the top 50" from Mark
Crowther, regarding Mr. Alekhine near the
end of his career.


* Is it perhaps a PhD in law, "taken from" the
Sorbonne? *(They never recovered the one
Dr. Alekhine stole from them, you know.)

**No, no that sort of law. Perhaps scientific law of sorts. At one time
study of both Physics and Nature was called "Natural Philosophy". They have
been not exactly divorced, but definitely experiencing a trial-seperation
since the onset of the Industrial Age. An interesting synopsis of the
subject is the 1991 title by Rupert Sheldrake: The Rebirth of Nature; The
Greening of Science and God. As if, you know, there was one operating system
for the Cosmos, and our Universe suggested that the Nature of Man, the
Nature of Nature, and the Nature of God, also share one Operating System.
Very much of this title points to the dead-end result of received knowledge,
which is seen to be merely rule-of-thumb conveniences fitting only some
circumstances, and not addressing the whole, though presuming to do so.


There are many "courses" on this subject
from which to choose-- some fitting the
category of science and some fitting religion,
or even both.


**The rule of pedants, especially literary ones, is the story of our modern
age - if I can date that to the emergence of the printing press, and the
contrary instinct from such as Galileo's preference for observation before
thought. Indeed, this hidden animus of singular insistences was noted early,
and also its natu

* * No-one who sees the iconoclasts raging thus against wood
* * and stone would doubt that there is a spirit hidden in
* * them which is death-dealing, not life-giving, and which at
* * the first opportunity will also kill men.

* * * * //Martin Luther, 1525.


Not all of these "scientists" placed so
heavy a weighting on objective observation.
In fact, many sought to incorporate flawed
thinking into their "revolutionary" ideas,
not reject and reformulate from scratch to
simply match the data.


**At about the same time Henry VIII was destroying the integrated means of
knowledge in destroying the English monasteries - which certainly provided
greater emphasis to how we know things, and their meaning to us, than what
succeeded that; a simple quantification of result which is the modus of our
current age. [I hasten to stress that Our Taylor is not responsible for all
of this! Merely responsive to it, and that, alas, is 'normative'.]


So then, Mr. Kingston is not accountable
for this alleged destruction of knowledge,
perpetrated by the sinister Henry five-one-
one-one. (I once knew a fellow from the
Borg, with a somewhat similar name.)

I've read similar-sounding accounts on
the Web, but it seems to me that since
we have no way of knowing what would
have happened otherwise, the claims to
"protection of knowledge" by the church
are specious. Can it be demonstrated
for a fact that they did more protecting
and promoting overall, than they did of
the opposite? How so? Without the
oppression of certain forces, knowledge
has often sprung up from out of the blue,
and it is impossible to calculate where
or when.

I note that /even today/, there are such
oppressive forces hard at work. The Ivy-
leaguer of whom I wrote earlier, often feels
compelled to stop in mid-course to
address these issues. The war
continues... .


-- help bot