NoMoreChess wrote:

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

Dammit! You left me off this list. Nick's Lickspittle has
often referred to me as a troll (he's clueless about the
proper definition). I consider it a mark of distinction to
be a critic of Nick the Liar and his lickspittle; sort of
like being named on the Nixon Enemies List. Lately, I have
been relaxing watching Houlsby make a fool of himself, while
Nick the Liar has been working overtime spinning his various
webs of deceit, but that doesn't mean that I have retired.
Kindly add my name to the list.


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.

Yep. Observe the Obvious! ;-)

I don't think anyone could top a list with Jason Repa in it. He had
superhuman qualities when it came to trolldom.

"NoMoreChess" wrote in message
...

.
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.

From: (Nick)
Date: 08/10/03 06:55 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

-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? :-)


Maybe, but then again maybe we should 'disagree to disagree' or maybe vacillate
between deciding that "perhaps could be better than maybe" and "maybe is more
suitable than perhaps" or...

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


'Your dexterity seems a happy compound of the smartness of an attorney's clerk
and the intrigue of a Greek of the lower empire.'
--Disraeli (Speaking to Lord Palmerston. Attrib.)

'She is an excellent creature, but she never can remember which came first, the
Greeks or the Romans.'
--Disraeli (Referring to his wife. Attrib.)

'Her Majesty is not a subject.'
--Disraeli (Responding to Gladstone's taunt that Disraeli could make a joke out
of any subject, including Queen Victoria. Attrib.)

--Mark

In pursuit of his favourite pastime here of "trolling for a flame war"
(to quote John Macnab), Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") has written another
personal attack against me.

Please read my earlier response to Greg Kennedy's similar personal attack:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R29232326

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message
...
"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! :-)

Again, Greg Kennedy shows that he is beyond honest or reasonable discussion.
Greg Kennedy ("NoMoreChess") has been trolling me here on a *non-issue*.

Elsewhere in this thread, I have quoted GM Andrew Soltis' 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).

Of course, Greg Kennedy has *distorted* (above) what I quoted from GM Soltis.
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, not to mention his continuing personal attacks, on me are
utterly unreasonable.

"He was a falsehood done in flesh and blood."
--Mark Twain (The Gilded Age)

--Nick

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


A while back, "Nick the liar" was bashing this Greg Kennedy, but now he wants
to claim he is a USCF master. Whatever. All I know is that any "enemy" of
Larry Parr, can't be all bad. :-)




It goes without saying that you don't *need* to be a master in order to see
many of the tactical flubs of the world champions.
One of these guys was beaten in just seven moves. Two of them blindly missed
a simple two-move combination. Spassky has himself admitted to making
"one-move blunders."
Kasparov once gave away a full Rook, and all I would have had to do, was
capture it -- that simple. Save the tough ones for the masters.


I have no problem with Euwe's many broad generalizations, so long as they are
kept in proper perspective. For example, many people have belittled Euwe's own
accomplishments by saying that he only beat Alekhine because the man was
smashed, drunk, zonked. This hardly tells the whole tale. Euwe's handling of
the Slav Defense, for example, is reputed to have raised the bar.


Let me make it even clearer: I would bet money that even "Nick the liar",
Larry Parr, and Mark Baloney could each, independently, solve many of the
positions which have been bungled by the world champions, at their very worst.





Steinitz and Tarrasch, he claims, sometimes missed tactical wins that
later players would not miss.


The trouble with such "reasoning" is that players do not always play right at
a given level. The play of the world champions ranges from superb to
horrendous, with a heavy tilt toward superb.
I have often missed tactical wins that even I would not miss. :-)

..
Dammit! You left me off this list. Nick's Lickspittle has
often referred to me as a troll (he's clueless about the
proper definition).


I was merely numbering the list posted by the Baloney man in a recent rant.
It would seem that I am not the only one the Baloney man forgot about. Very
well, then, out of courtesy to Stan Booz, I will add us in at the bottom, and
the Baloney man can correct my rankings (which he would do regardless):


Alleged Trolls
------------------------
1.Greg Kenedy
2.Jason Repa
3.Neil Brennen
4.Lance Smith
5.Kevin Bachler
6.Tim Hanke
7.Marc Margolies
8.Stan Booz
9.Briarroot
10.NoMoreChess



(I hope no one mistakes this as a list of feeble tacticians among top
chessplayers!)

Perhaps your writings in these groups have encouraged these same idiots
to read Jane Austen,


Winston Churchill was a Jane Austen fan

(PJDBAD) wrote in message ...
Perhaps your writings in these groups have encouraged these same idiots
to read Jane Austen,


Winston Churchill was a Jane Austen fan

'Winston Churchill had a speech imp-p-p-p-pediment
- and look what he did...'
--Mark E. Smith (Tempo House)

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message
...
Nick wrote:
Has not "NoMoreChess" recently been attempting to distance himself from
being identified here as Greg Kennedy (a USCF master)?

A while back, "Nick the liar" was bashing this Greg Kennedy, but now he
wants to claim he is a USCF master.

Here's a link to the USCF ratings database entry for Greg Kennedy:

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12405700

Greg Kennedy's current USCF rating is 2291, which exceeds the threshold of
2200 required for a USCF master. Hence, Greg Kennedy is a USCF master.

"He was a falsehood done in flesh and blood."
--Mark Twain (The Gilded Age)

--Nick