Nick wrote:

"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."
--George Bernard Shaw

Someone else here sent me that advice above, which applies to what I should
do about Briarroot here. The advice is welcome, and I intend to follow it.
For the sake of clarity here, I add two brief comments.

So Nick, is this why you haven't acknowledged the lies I've
caught you making in the Lev Khariton thread?

When you first began posting, I was assuming that two
(or more) people were posting using your nick-name.
I had assumed that no single person could possibly be
responsible for so much anal retentive fluff posted to
a chess newsgroup, which while not exactly known as a
forum for clear thinking, has seldom been subjected to
a poster who used so many words to say so little. Your
posts seemed like an elaborate prank of the kind typically
thought witty by certain college students with too much
time on their hands. I briefly toyed with the idea that
you were a computer program. But...

Lately I've come to the realization that you are merely
a pathetic liar, who prefers to dance around the truth
spouting inane quotations, hoping that you will be taken
for an intellectual, and that no one will notice the broken
logic contained within your posts, nor the outright falsehoods
you conjure up to defend yourself when challenged.

The very acts for which you condemn me, are those with which
you make your feeble attempts at self defense. Can you not
see yourself?

GM Nick has "improved" his former analysis, so that it now contains only
legal moves! Bravo.
We are told that in addition to 3....Nxe4 being inadvisable, this opening is
reputedly drawish and symmetry can be avoided.
Alas, even I was shocked to learn that in Nick's original line: 1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5??, we have avoided the dreaded Ruy Lopez! What a relief for
Black, who always seems to be under-the-gun after a routine move like 3.B-b5.

Like most readers, I am very grateful that GM Nick has, until now, written
very little here in the way of chess analysis. Apparently, his prior attempts
are to be found in threads relating to Sam Sloan's adventures with Damiano's
Defense -- how appropriate! LOL

NoMoreChess has snipped my entire post to which he's "responding" in order
to make it harder for the reader to perceive the defects in his latest attack
on me. But my post can be read earlier in this thread.

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
GM Nick has "improved" his former analysis, so that it now contains only
legal moves! Bravo.

NoMoreChess's sarcasm is unwarranted, though characteristic of him.

I accidentally typed "2...Nc6" instead of "2...Nf6". On my keyboard, the
letters "c" and "f" are adjacent. Then I wrote of "the Petroff Defence" and
the possibility of Black playing "3...Nxe4". To any knowledgeable and
fair-minded reader, which excludes NoMoreChess, "2...Nc6" was an obvious typo.

If NoMoreChess finds a solitary misprinted move in a chess book written by a
GM, then does he demand that FIDE strip that GM of his or her title?

We are told that in addition to 3....Nxe4 being inadvisable, this opening is
reputedly drawish and symmetry can be avoided.
Alas, even I was shocked to learn that in Nick's original line: 1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nxe5??, we have avoided the dreaded Ruy Lopez! What a relief for
Black, who always seems to be under-the-gun after a routine move like 3.B-b5.

NoMoreChess has completely snipped and then severely distorted what he and I
wrote in our previous posts in this thread.

On 10 July 2003 NoMoreChess wrote to me:
"...There are some critics who would claim that Nick cannot analyse worth a
hoot, but the above comment shows otherwise: indeed, Black SHOULD NOT play
3...Nxe4?? in that position (although it is not actually a Petroff, but a
Ruy Lopez, but this is nitpicking)...."

Please note that it was NoMoreChess himself who made the *incorrect* claim
that the position after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nxe5 was a "Ruy Lopez".

Then, in response, on 11 July 2003 I wrote to NoMoreChess on that point:
"...In fact, a Ruy Lopez begins with 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 *3 Bb5*, which was
*not* written at all by me...."

Of course, NoMoreChess now has completely snipped what he and I wrote about
that in his attempt to conceal the fact that he was wrong.

Also, I have asked NoMoreChess to provide some *evidence* of those anonymous
"critics who would claim that Nick cannot analyse worth a hoot" from any
past posts at rec.games.chess.misc or rec.games.chess.analysis.

NoMoreChess has not responded so far to my request; apparently, he seems
determined to ignore it. Did NoMoreChess actually read any posts here by
"critics who would claim that Nick cannot analyse worth a hoot"? Or did
NoMoreChess simply *fabricate* their existence? Could NoMoreChess be in
secret communication with the analytical spirits of Alekhine, Botvinnik,
Capablanca, Lasker, Petrosian, or Tal?

Like most readers, I am very grateful that GM Nick has, until now, written
very little here in the way of chess analysis. Apparently, his prior attempts
are to be found in threads relating to Sam Sloan's adventures with Damiano's
Defense -- how appropriate! LOL

"Most readers"? Did NoMoreChess conduct a survey of readers at RGCM or RGCA
on their opinions of my chess analysis or potential chess analysis?

Contrary to what NoMoreChess might be insinuating, I was and still am critical
of Sam Sloan's variation of Damiano's Defence. Randy Bauer, a USCF master,
wrote a positive response to one of my posts about it.

On 5 July 2003 in the thread, "Why do some people play 1 d4 or 1 c4???",
Southpaw wrote this about NoMoreChess: "...Knowing nothing about me, you
still feel qualified to make large assumptions. Have a nice life."

After I made a typo of a single move in a single post here, NoMoreChess seems
to have presumed that I probably must be worthless as a chess analyst and
extremely weak as a chess-player, assuming that I would even know how to make
legal chess moves consistently.

To paraphrase Southpaw about NoMoreChess: "Knowing nothing about me as a
chess-player, NoMoreChess still feels qualified to make large assumptions."

Is such premature stereotyping what NoMoreChess regards as "fair play"?

--Nick

Briarroot exhibits some obsessive behaviour characteristic of a stalker.

Briarroot wrote in message
...
...
When you first began posting, I was assuming that two
(or more) people were posting using your nick-name.
I had assumed that no single person could possibly be
responsible for so much anal retentive fluff posted to
a chess newsgroup, which while not exactly known as a
forum for clear thinking, has seldom been subjected to
a poster who used so many words to say so little. Your
posts seemed like an elaborate prank of the kind typically
thought witty by certain college students with too much
time on their hands. I briefly toyed with the idea that
you were a computer program. But...

I have no interest in knowing anything about the personal lives, careers,
or circumstances of anyone else who writes here, including "Briarroot".
On the other hand, "Briarroot" seems to have spent much time obsessively
speculating about who I am or how to track me down.

In the thread, "A new enemy of Lev Khariton" (9 July 2003), Briarroot wrote
to me: "Now this I readily admit to. You deserve to be insulted, roundly
and repeatedly. I consider it my duty to expose you..."

Then "Briarroot" (evidently, not his real name) has been demanding that I
reveal personal information (such as my location) to him, presumably for the
purposes of more ad hominem attacks by him.

Anyone who's not deranged should be able to understand that Briarroot's public
declaration of intent toward me, not to mention his continuing lies and insults,
removes any *obligation* that I might have to respond to him in any way, though
I retain the *right* to respond whenever I choose.

But "Briarroot" seems unable to understand that; so how deranged might he be?

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides,
the pig likes it."
--George Bernard Shaw

--Nick

Nick (The Liar) wrote:

Briarroot exhibits some obsessive behaviour characteristic of a stalker.

Another dishonest attempt to paint me as something I'm not.
Your own obsessive behavior, you excuse, but your critics
are not to be afforded the same consideration. Hypocrite!

As for the "stalker" charge; it's an obvious ploy to associate me
with criminal behavior. Evidently you can't stop yourself from
habitually lying.


Briarroot wrote in message
...
...
When you first began posting, I was assuming that two
(or more) people were posting using your nick-name.
I had assumed that no single person could possibly be
responsible for so much anal retentive fluff posted to
a chess newsgroup, which while not exactly known as a
forum for clear thinking, has seldom been subjected to
a poster who used so many words to say so little. Your
posts seemed like an elaborate prank of the kind typically
thought witty by certain college students with too much
time on their hands. I briefly toyed with the idea that
you were a computer program. But...

I have no interest in knowing anything about the personal lives, careers,
or circumstances of anyone else who writes here, including "Briarroot".
On the other hand, "Briarroot" seems to have spent much time obsessively
speculating about who I am or how to track me down.

A typical example of your attempt to distort the discussion.
Your introduction of the word obsessive indicates your desire
to focus attention away from your own behavior, which is to
continually duck the question of your own homeland. I have
never asked for any personal details, I merely want to know
where you come from so I can post details of *your* country's
war crimes, as you seem so intent to do over *my* country.
You operate at an advantage, I just want to level the playing
field. But of course, that would not suit Nick the propagandist,
who wishes only one side to be heard.

In the thread, "A new enemy of Lev Khariton" (9 July 2003), Briarroot wrote
to me: "Now this I readily admit to. You deserve to be insulted, roundly
and repeatedly. I consider it my duty to expose you..."

Then "Briarroot" (evidently, not his real name) has been demanding that I
reveal personal information (such as my location) to him, presumably for the
purposes of more ad hominem attacks by him.

Liar! I never asked for your location, you know damned well
why I want to know your homeland. What a hypocrite you are!

Anyone who's not deranged should be able to understand that Briarroot's
public
declaration of intent toward me, not to mention his continuing lies and
insults,
removes any *obligation* that I might have to respond to him in any way,
though
I retain the *right* to respond whenever I choose.

You've just restated the obvious. Congratulations. Now tell us
something that we don't already know.

But "Briarroot" seems unable to understand that; so how deranged might he
be?

Compared with you, I'm as sane as can be.


"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides,
the pig likes it."
--George Bernard Shaw

And yet, you continue to play in the pig pen. You must *like* the
smell.