(Mark Houlsby) writes:

wrote in message .. .
[re rec.games.chess.politics]


I can see no earthly reason to read this group unless
you are interested in USCF backbiting and/or the
sociology/pathology of small groups.

I have had interesting, pleasant and valuable
email discussions with people whose posts on that
group are not worth reading. So it's something about
the group, not the participants.


Dear Mr. Hyde,

Please excuse my butting in, but I feel compelled to echo your every
sentiment expressed here. My own experience apparently mirrors yours
*exactly* and is the reason why normally I steer clear of RGCP.

Thanks.

Given the number of people active in the group, I was
starting to think that everyone in chess liked that sort
of thing.


William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University

"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" wrote in message
om...
Warren Porter wrote in message
...
Robert Musicant wrote:

"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski" wrote in message

But I have heard from a friend of mine
that Fisher was very displeased with Byrne's
resigning.

Wlod

Wlod,
What I regard as "nice" is not the resigning, but what was going on in
the
room where the audience was seeing the moves as relayed by runners.
What I
meant was (and what Byrne later wrote) was that Fischer's conception
was so
deep that observers of great ability -- Rossolimo and I.A. Horowitz --
thought that he was losing when in fact he had a forced win.
Fischer's
displeasure was not in the nature of anger or annoyance. He
described it
himself in 60 Memorable Games as a "bitter disappointment," that Byrne
was
sufficiently sharp enough that he saw he was lost, and thus did not
give
Fischer a chance to play the combination over the board, thus
consigning it
to the annotation, rather than the actual game score.

Bob

In sharp contrast to his brother's famous loss to Fischer.

There was a beautiful, while simple, miniature
which made its way to many chess textbooks.
I think (am I right?) that it was between Reti
and Tartakower, and that Tartakower let Reti
play it to the very end, so that that artistic
game would be completely recorded, and give
Reti full satisfaction of the artiostic
accomplishement.
snip

Wlod
Is this the game you have in mind?
[Event ""]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1910.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Reti, Richard"]
[Black "Tartakower, Saviely"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B15"]

1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Qd3 e5 6. dxe5 Qa5+ 7. Bd2 Qxe5
8. O-O-O Nxe4 9. Qd8+ Kxd8 10. Bg5+ Ke8 11. Rd8+ 1-0

"Tim Hanke" wrote in message news:RBXWa.50847$Ho3.7741@sccrnsc03...
"Nick" wrote ...
"L'enfer c'est les autres."
--Jean-Paul Sartre (Huis Clos)

This is one of my favorite quotes, and a reminder that Nick can be
interesting when he is not being tendentious.
Tim Hanke

For the record, on 13 June 2003 Tim Hanke created the thread, "Nick
Bourbaki's many lies", in order to make a baseless personal attack
on me. And Hanke has provided *no evidence* of my alleged "many lies"
about him. Tim Hanke's flagrant misbehaviour brings dishonour only
to him, none to me.

Apparently, when Tim Hanke's not busy lying about me, he still likes
to read my posts. Why?

--Nick

Nick (The Pedantic Twit) wrote:

For the record, on 13 June 2003 Tim Hanke created the thread, "Nick
Bourbaki's many lies", in order to make a baseless personal attack
on me. And Hanke has provided *no evidence* of my alleged "many lies"
about him. Tim Hanke's flagrant misbehaviour brings dishonour only
to him, none to me.

Nick, you sniveling weasel!

I called you a liar *and* I provided positive proof in support
of my assertion. When are you going to admit that you lied?
You are hardly one to be questioning the honor of others, when
you have been so dishonest yourself.


Apparently, when Tim Hanke's not busy lying about me, he still likes
to read my posts. Why?

Because he like bad jokes?

wrote in message .. .
(Nick) writes:
...
At rec.games.chess.misc, some writers have impressed me by their
intelligence, knowledge, and courtesy. Many other writers, however, seem
most known by their near illiteracy, ignorance, and stupidity. And some
writers evidently are pathological liars or perhaps deranged.

Your killfile is your friend.

"Politeness is compelled to throw off cloak and jacket when it steps
into the arena to meet the encounter of a bull."
--George Meredith (Beauchamp's Career)

Dear Mr. Hyde,

Thanks for your advice. Several other readers here already have
urged me to add more persons specifically to my 'killfile', which
may be done soon.

Some writers here have shown some evidence of derangement, and I can
think of no reasonable response toward their apparent affliction.

For example, Briarroot, who has a copious record of lies about me,
wrote in the thread, "A new enemy of Lev Khariton" (9 July 2003),
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 (surely, not his real name) has demanded that I
reveal personal information 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 declared 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.

I have heard a rumour that rec.games.chess.politics has become a de facto
USCF politics newsgroup, a kind of "private gentlemen's club", wherein many
of its members routinely lie to and about each other, particularly on issues
that remain obscure to those of us outside the club,

I am not an easily depressed person.
Nonetheless, I found rgcp to be depressing.

From a utilitarian perspective, even a tendency toward depression
might have its uses. Perhaps you could suggest that your students
visit RGCP before they read "Candide" by Voltaire or "Gulliver's
Travels" (particularly about the Yahoos) by Jonathan Swift.
Or your students could speculate about RGCP's position among the
"circles of hell" in Dante's Inferno.

Circular argument,

"People are not intelligent. It is very unreasonable to expect
them to be so. And that is a fate my philosophy reconciled me to
long ago. How else could I have lived for forty years in America?"
--George Santayana (letter to Bertrand Russell, December 1917)

endless and witless insult,

To rephrase Hannah Arendt on Adolf Eichmann, it's "the banality of
insult". Evidently, those writers lack the literary talents of
Alexander Pope or Jonathan Swift.

infinite energy wasted on trivial points, endless repetition, stale debate,
fact-free, an utter and complete waste of time.

From what I have heard about them, that sounds like most American
radio political talk shows. Some of my American friends prefer
to listen to international news programmes via shortwave radio
or the internet.

"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of Mankind is Man."
--Alexander Pope (An Essay on Man)

Yes, it seems more worthwhile and encouraging to reread
"Titus Andronicus" than to read rec.games.chess.politics regularly.

Well, there are many "facts" provided.
But for each one there is a contradictory "fact". Or several.

"Facts fled before philosophy like frightened forest things."
--Oscar Wilde (The Picture of Dorian Gray)

and also feel free to revel in making offensive,

That is de rigeur.

"Repentence is for little children."
--Adolf Eichmann (1961, attributed)

sometimes racist,

Not that I noticed, but perhaps things have gone downhill.

For example, in the thread, "Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice"
(created by Don Mihokovich, who cross-posted it to
rec.games.chess.misc), Tim Hanke's comment, "Bugger the Chinese",
has been widely discussed.

comments about other people. Could you briefly corroborate this rumour?

I can see no earthly reason to read this group unless you are interested in
USCF backbiting and/or the sociology/pathology of small groups.

I don't follow RGCP. I have no interest in or connection to
USCF politics. I don't understand why I have become the target of
a campaign of personal defamation here by a USCF politician,
Tim Hanke, and his zealous followers, StanB and Briarroot.

I have had interesting, pleasant and valuable email discussions with people
whose posts on that group are not worth reading. So it's something about
the group, not the participants.

Perhaps the 'Richter und Henker' can become 'Dichter und Denker'? :-)
Or perhaps some members of the old gang just seem nicer when one
meets them individually than when one meets them together with a
rope in their hands? :-)

I don't attempt to read all the nonsense that has been written
about me in rec.games.chess.politics (*from* which I have not
yet posted anything). Several persons have written to advise me
that anyone who's stupid enough to believe all the nonsense written
about me in RGCP should be too stupid to become a really worthwhile
friend or a too dangerous enemy in real life.

A friend of mine once made a memorable comment about an occupational
hazard of some academics: receiving incoherent, abusive, or even
threatening letters from the public. (Mathematicians might receive
"proofs" of the parallel postulate; evolutionary biologists might be
"informed" that our planet is only several thousand years old; and
some historians of 20th century Europe might be told that all their
books about the Holocaust belong in the section for science fiction.)
She said: "From my experiences in the United States, I know that it's
always a bad sign whenever I get messages that have been written in
crayon."

I hope that you have not received too many messages in crayon. :-)

"There is often something poisonous in the air of public rooms."
--George Eliot (Middlemarch)

--Nick

wrote in message .. .
(Mark Houlsby) writes:
wrote in message .. .
[ rec.games.chess.politics]
I can see no earthly reason to read this group unless you are interested
in USCF backbiting and/or the sociology/pathology of small groups....

Please excuse my butting in, but I feel compelled to echo your every
sentiment expressed here. My own experience apparently mirrors yours
*exactly* and is the reason why normally I steer clear of RGCP.

Thanks.
Given the number of people active in the group, I was starting to think
that everyone in chess liked that sort of thing.

Dear Mr. Hyde and Mr. Houlsby,

Thanks for sharing your views.

Like you, I had begun to fear that it had become normal for chess-players to
be impressed, or even convinced, by unceasing insults, circular arguments,
and crudely attempted "proofs by assertion".

"At the University every great treatise is postponed until its author attains
impartial judgement and perfect knowledge. If a horse could wait as long for
its shoes and would pay for them in advance, our blacksmiths would all be
college dons."
--George Bernard Shaw (The Revolutionist's Handbook)

--Nick

Have you guys ever noticed the type of people who frequent chess
tournaments?

Sweats up to the tits, pen in shirt pocket, sniveling bickering, ass
biters. I mean not everybody but a vast majority.

The scene use to depress me so bad that I decided I was not going to
waste another weekend while I was young and could still get laid.

Anyway, when I witness all the bickering and back biting I just remember
that scene and it all makes sense.

American chess is in trouble boy. No wonder we cant keep women involved
and there are so few "active" masters in our country.

I have been to clubs in Europe and clubs here and there is a vast
difference. Europe chess players take care of each other. Here it is
awful.

..

Eric Hicks wrote:

snip

No wonder we cant keep women involved
and there are so few "active" masters in our country.

I have been to clubs in Europe and clubs here and there is a vast
difference. Europe chess players take care of each other. Here it is
awful.

This morning I get home 4.30am turn the TV on, make tea & prepare to
devour fresh bread. Lo! Victoria Principal ex-paramour of deceased
BeeGee, greets me with fixed grin flogging of her deep skin 'scrub'
peculiarities @ $50 a pop. My point? what unattractive femmes. Plastic
in the extreme. Who in their right mind would lust after U.S. females?..