From: (Nick)
Date: 06/10/03 21:23 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

(Mark Houlsby) wrote in message
.com...
illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in
message ...
Does "Nick the liar" also keep records of the many negative responses
to his postings here?

That's a very good question, Greg. Do you, Nick?

Dear Mr Houlsby,

No, what's the point? Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") or "Briarroot" or another
troll could easily write (as they have been doing) many posts of distortions
and lies about me, which then they could 'cite' as their 'proof' that I must
be guilty of whatever nonsense that they might care to project onto me.


My dear Nick, I rather doubt that. It seems to me, rather, that these idiots
have sworn
a "Hypocritic" (sic) oath.

Perhaps your writings in these groups have encouraged these same idiots to read
Jane Austen, but (being rather feeble-minded) they have managed to absorb only
such encouragement as this:

'For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them
in our turn?'
--Jane Austen (Pride and Prejudice, Ch. 57)

Evidently, however, they have *not* read many fourteenth century Italian
writers:

'It often happens, that he who endeavours to ridicule other people, especially
in things of a serious nature, becomes himself a jest, and frequently to his
great cost.'
--Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-75) (Decameron, 'Second Day')

They are hell-bent on this purpose:

'Ridicule often checks what is absurd, and fully as often smothers that which
is noble.'
--Walter Scott (Quentin Durward)

You might perhaps do worse than to heed a few candid words of caution
concerning what, I suspect, in your case, could be their ultimate aim...

'There is a way of asking us for our reasons that leads us not only to forget
our best reasons but also to conceive a stubborn aversion to all reasons. This
way of asking makes people very stupid and is a trick used by tyrannical
people.'
--Nietzsche (The Gay Science)

'There is a sort of man who goes through the world in a succession of quarrels,
always able to make out that he is in the right, although he never ceases to
put other men in the wrong. The least that can be said of such a person is that
he has an unhappy aptitude for eliciting whatever evil there may be in the
natures with which he comes in contact; and a man who is sure to cause injuries
to him wherever he goes, is almost as great an evil and inconvenience as if he
were himself the wrongdoer.'
--Sir Henry Taylor (The Statesman, 1836)

Now, of course, as C3PO put it, in his customary, "clipped Noël Coward"
delivery:

'It's a *very* long dro-o-o-o-o-o-op.'
--The Return of the Jedi, dir. Richard Marquand

....nevertheless perhaps you should tread a little carefully.

Now, with *his* customary, ungrammatical ineloquence, the erstwhile English pop
star Stuart Leslie Goddard, who became famous using the nom d'etage: 'Adam
Ant', put it like this:

'Ridicule is nothing to be scared of.'
(Prince Charming)

Ugh! His advice had a point, though, which, for his part, he failed to follow,
consequently falling from grace. He's "on the up" now, I believe... :-)

A misrepresenter and twister of facts. A spin-doctor.

So, you're describing yourself again, Greg Kennedy?

As far as I know, at least several other writers here already have described
Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") in those terms or worse.

Mr. Bourbaki's main problem, apart from arrogance that is, is his angst.
He cannot handle it when someone disagrees on any issue, and goes right
into his trademark ad hominem mode, desperately lashing out in all
directions.

Oh, he can handle a person's disagreeing with him, but he gets too annoyed
about people trolling him. Unlike you, he *never* resorts to ad hominem.

You and I have had some disagreements. :-)

No, we haven't.

"Is this the five-minute argument or the full half-hour?"
--Monty Python's Flying Circus ('Argument')

Shall we ask "Mr. McBad" (the name that Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") kept
calling John Macnab) what he thinks about Kennedy's professed aversion to
ad hominem attacks?


I believe "we" (mostly you) just did.

What about it? You admitted above that you *are* a troll and that you
*intend* to continue to troll at every opportunity. What's your point?
Is there any point to you, Greg?
...
Nice job, Greg. You've admitted that you're a troll, and that you have
no intention of quitting. This is duly noted.

Indeed, Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") seems so obsessed about trolling me at
every possible opportunity that he once denounced me as an ignorant racist
after I had described Stan Booz--accurately--as a "white American" (after I
had been informed of that fact by someone who has met StanB in person).

'Falsehood hemmed him in to the narrowest ring that ever statue stood on, if
he meant to be stone.'
--George Meredith (Beauchamp's Career)


'O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!
My tables, - meet it is I set it down,
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain;
At least I'm sure it may be so in Denmark.'
--William Shakespeare (Hamlet, I:5)

'I speak of peace, while covert enmity
Under the smile of safety wounds the world.'
--William Shakespeare (Henry IV, Part Two, Induction, 9)

'A liar is a man who does not know how to deceive, a flatterer one who only
deceives fools: he alone can pride himself on his cleverness who knows how to
make skilful use of the truth.'
--Vauvenargues (Reflections and Maxims)

'The accomplished hypocrite does not exercise his skill upon every possible
occasion. In all important matters, who is more just, more upright, more
candid, more honourable?'
--Sir Arthur Helps (Thoughts in the Cloister and the Crowd)

--Mark

..
"Nick the liar" has failed to give *any* pertinent examples of Smyslov's
alleged tactical problems, and instead blindly relies upon what somebody else
said, somebody said, which he then quoted himself, making it thrice removed in
total. The claim was made that Smyslov was well ahead in almost every game,
then botched virtually all of them between moves 25 and 30 -- quite unlikely.
A statistical analysis might assess this as being about as likely as my winning
the Kentucky Derby -- on foot! :-)
Well, I suppose I should not complain -- at least Nick isn't lying, again.


As for me, I accept that many chessplayers may think Tal was (relatively) a
tactical genius, and I have no doubt fallen into this trap myself at times, but
unsound tactical slop which results in a win is not the same as tactical
superiority, for it entails failure in defense AND a propensity for gambling.

Deep Blue probably "saw" more tactics than any world champion who ever lived,
yet its style was somewhat less wild-and-wooly than Tal's, because it also
"saw" the refutations, and did not just ignore them.

..
In his latest ravings, Mark Baloney (or was it Houlsby?) alleged that several
posters I listed were all "trolls" -- a word the Baloney man uses to describe
all and sundry who sing not in perfect harmony with "Nick the liar" and his
bootman.
I just want to point out that, although I don't know in which key each of the
posters I listed sing, I think it is fair to note that, while Jason Repa or
Greg Kenedy may deserve such a tounge-lashing, the Baloney man seems to have
gotten very sloppy by including The Historian, who is neither Nomorechess, nor
any of the other dreaded "enemies" of the brain-dead duo -- no matter what
Larry Parr may have written to the contrary.
For the record, The Historian (at one time at least) referred to one Neil
Brennen, who as far as I know, has yet to be targetted by "Nick the liar"'s ad
hominem attacks. Perhaps the Baloney man will apologize for clumsily calling
Neil Brennen a troll, unintentionally. But on second thought, if he did that,
Mr. Brennen might begin to feel left out, being the only non-"troll" left on
this newsgroup.

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
.
In his latest ravings, Mark Baloney (or was it Houlsby?) alleged that several
posters I listed were all "trolls" -- a word the Baloney man uses to describe
all and sundry who sing not in perfect harmony with "Nick the liar" and his
bootman.
I just want to point out that, although I don't know in which key each of the
posters I listed sing, I think it is fair to note that, while Jason Repa or
Greg Kenedy may deserve such a tounge-lashing, the Baloney man seems to have
gotten very sloppy by including The Historian, who is neither Nomorechess, nor
any of the other dreaded "enemies" of the brain-dead duo -- no matter what
Larry Parr may have written to the contrary.

Part of the above is very true. My having inadvertently inferred that
the impeccable Louis Blair is *in any sense* like the trolls Greg
Kennedy, Jason Repa, Neil Brennen, Lance Smith, Kevin Bacheler,
Timothy Hanke, Marc Margolies, Stan Booz,.... was not only an
egregious error, it was *incredibly dumb*. I do hope that Dr. Blair
might accept my sincere apology for any hurt or embarrassment which
this may have caused him.

snips rest which is trolling BS, badly spelt

Mark Houlsby

Mark Houlsby wrote (2003-10-07 03:42:51 PST):

My having inadvertently inferred that the
impeccable Louis Blair is *in any sense* like
the trolls Greg Kennedy, Jason Repa, Neil
Brennen, Lance Smith, Kevin Bacheler, Timothy
Hanke, Marc Margolies, Stan Booz,.... was not
only an egregious error, it was *incredibly
dumb*. I do hope that Dr. Blair might accept
my sincere apology for any hurt or embarrassment
which this may have caused him.

_
I must have missed that note. Probably nothing
to worry about. Anyway, thanks for the apology.

..
Far from having missed anything, I believe the Baloney man has simply
confounded Larry Parr's "The Historian" for Louis Blair, in place of Neil
Brennen.

OTOH, there is a distinct possibility that Larry Parr did at one time, refer
to Louis Blair in place of Neil Brennen as "The Historian," for Mr. Parr is a
very confused man who cannot seem to keep other posters' identities sorted out.
As far as I know, Mr. Blair was normally referred to as "Parser Blair" or
"the Parser" by Mr. Parr, during their flamewar(s).



The Baloney man has created a rather long list of alleged "trolls":

1.Greg Kennedy
2.Jason Repa (outclassed by just one other "troll")
3.Neil Brennen AKA "The Historian"
4.Lance Smith
5.Kevin Bachler
6.Tim Hanke
7.Marc Margolies
8.Stan Booz


My view is that each of these names was added merely because of a
disagreement, indicating far more about the list's creator, the Baloney man,
than about any or all of these posters.

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message
...
William Hyde wrote:
Steinitz and Tarrasch, he claims, sometimes missed tactical wins that
later players would not miss.

Heck, *I* would not miss many of the tactical shots missed by famous
Grandmasters, generally speaking....

Has not "NoMoreChess" recently been attempting to distance himself from
being identified here as Greg Kennedy (a USCF master)?

wrote in message
.. .(to Greg Kennedy):
illspam (NoMoreChess) writes:
William Hyde wrote:
The point Euwe is making is that Steinitz was tactically not as strong
as the players of later times

Hardly a fair comparison,

"Fairness" is beside the point. It is no more "unfair" to point out
Steinitz' relative lack of tactical skill than it is to point out
Anderssen's relative lack of positional skill.

In this book he is trying to trace, as the title says, the development of
chess style. Steinitz and Tarrasch, he claims, sometimes missed tactical
wins that later players would not miss.

Their style was positional, and they tended to think of positional solutions
to all problems - perhaps to excess. Zukertort was (according to Lasker),
always looking for combinations, Steinitz and Tarrasch only in positions
where they judged one might exist. In the early days of positional chess
it is not surprising that such judgment would sometimes be a little off.
But of course both did play a number of excellent attacking games.

William Hyde wrote:
(and I think Lasker says that he was not as good tactically as
some contemporaries such as Zukertort, Blackburne, and Tchigorin

Okay, but he beat all of those players in matches. How so, exactly?

By being positionally far far better, and tactically somewhat worse.
As Lasker says, when he had a good plan, Zukertort would beat Steinitz.
But he didn't know how to make up new plans, hence in many positions he
would either drift or attack unjustifiably. Examples are given in
Lasker's manual of chess.

I have many times been outplayed

Neither your experience nor mine applies (unless you are a 2600 player). To
be relatively weak at tactics for a 2600 player is still to be fairly strong.

Steinitz was not "feeble" at tactics - I specifically said so (you
noticed, of course?). He was good enough at tactics to usually convert
his positionally won games.

Dear Mr. Hyde,

Thanks for your lucid post.

Based on the evidence of their known posts, "NoMoreChess" has been identified
as Greg Kennedy. I doubt that he has understood your distinction between
being "relatively weak at tactics" (for a top player) and being "'feeble'
at tactics".

I take it as a given that Steinitz was a much better positional player than
Tchigorin. Yet their lifetime score is almost even, implying that Tchigorin
had something with which to counter Steinitz' greater positional abilities.

Steinitz played far more top-level games than many of his successors, so
you can't just give a few examples of his oversights, and conclude that he
was tactically feeble.

This is a book. Euwe is not required to include 200 of Steinitz' games to
back up his statement. He makes a claim, based on what he knows of Steinitz'
play, and provides a few examples. What else would you have him do?

Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") seems beyond reasonable discussion again.

Elsewhere in this thread, I have quoted GM Andrew Soltis's complete statement,
citing Mikhail Tal, about Vasily Smyslov's tactical problems in "a difficult
tournament, the 1967 Soviet Championship" (The Inner Game of Chess, p. 19).

I have quoted Andrew Soltis accurately and identified my source of reference.
I am under no obligation whatsoever to write anything more about that subject.

Although he has admitted being entirely ignorant of Vasily Smyslov's games
in the 1967 Soviet Championship, Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") has been making
personal attack after personal attack after personal attack against me in
this thread supposedly because I have not cited many Smyslov games from that
tournament in order to prove Andrew Soltis's statement beyond a possible doubt.

Any reader with a modicum of sanity should be able to know that Greg Kennedy's
reiterated demands are utterly unreasonable.

William Hyde wrote:
He beat these players positionally, creating positions in which the
tactics worked for him, not them

Look you (Euwe?), the only way to CONSISTENTLY do that, is by SEEING the
tactics! You can't manuever around, what you don't see!

Being relatively weak in tactics does not means being able to see very
little.

Evidently, Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") has not understood your distinction
between "being relatively weak in tactics" (for a top player) and "being able
to see (only) very little" (about tactics).

In his match defeat by Tarrasch Marshall lost several games by premature
attack. Tarrasch needed to be tactically good enough to refute these attacks,
but he didn't need to be tactically as good as Marshall to win these games.

Fine. But I can easily give examples of tactical-monster, Bobby Fischer,
going after irrelevent pawns when there was a simple mating net, or when
he was extroadinarily far behind in development in the opening.

As usual for him, Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") makes an assertion and claims
that he "can easily give examples", but then he *never provides the evidence*.

This problem with occasional myopia is not limited to feeble tacticians.

Well, if you were one of the best players in the world and you assured me
that this was not an isolated case, I would take what you say seriously, not
dismiss it out of hand, assuming I wasn't already familiar with Fischer's
games as annotated by world class players.

Likewise, I hope that anyone familiar with my writings here would *not* take
seriously anything that Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") might write about them.

There is a famous game where Alekhine and Euwe are playing each other, and
they BOTH miss an elementary tactical shot. What does this tell us about
Euwe? Nothing, for it is only a single (double-)blunder, and everyone
makes them.

Everyone blunders. That's not the point Euwe is making.

Given his 'response' to your post, do you believe that Greg Kennedy has been
able to understand any of your points (or Euwe's point)?

"Your killfile is your friend." --William Hyde

Thanks again for your advice.

'I love to advise, when I am sure the heart of the person advised is on my
side.'
--Frances Moore Brooke (The History of Emily Montague)

--Nick

-remove- (Mhoulsby) wrote in message
...(to Nick Bourbaki):
(snipped)
Perhaps your writings in these groups have encouraged these same idiots
to read Jane Austen,

Dear Mr Houlsby,

Yet might not 'these same idiots' prefer to read Jane Austin? :-)

but (being rather feeble-minded) they have managed to absorb only such
encouragement as this:

'For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them
in our turn?'
--Jane Austen (Pride and Prejudice, Ch. 57)

Evidently, however, they have *not* read many fourteenth century Italian
writers:

'It often happens, that he who endeavours to ridicule other people,
especially in things of a serious nature, becomes himself a jest, and
frequently to his great cost.'
--Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-75) (Decameron, 'Second Day')

http://www.snopes.com/language/literary/rosie.htm

Nick wrote:
You and I have had some disagreements. :-)

No, we haven't.

Ah, shall we then 'disagree to agree' or not? :-)

'An agreeable person is one who agrees with me.'
--Benjamin Disraeli (Lothair)

--Nick

From: illspam (NoMoreChess)
Date: 08/10/03 04:32 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

.
Far from having missed anything, I believe the Baloney man has simply
confounded Larry Parr's "The Historian" for Louis Blair, in place of Neil
Brennen.

OTOH, there is a distinct possibility that Larry Parr did at one time,
refer
to Louis Blair in place of Neil Brennen as "The Historian," for Mr. Parr is a
very confused man who cannot seem to keep other posters' identities sorted
out.
As far as I know, Mr. Blair was normally referred to as "Parser Blair" or
"the Parser" by Mr. Parr, during their flamewar(s).



The Baloney man has created a rather long list of alleged "trolls":

1.Greg Kennedy
2.Jason Repa (outclassed by just one other "troll")
3.Neil Brennen AKA "The Historian"
4.Lance Smith
5.Kevin Bachler
6.Tim Hanke
7.Marc Margolies
8.Stan Booz


My view is that each of these names was added merely because of a
disagreement, indicating far more about the list's creator, the Baloney man,
than about any or all of these posters.


Who is this "Baloney man" anyways?