..
IF 3...Nf6 THEN 4.Ng5
The Two Knights. Black is favored to win as published in most books
and in the analysis of chessplayers in the Correspondence World.


Bah -- what do they know? You, Garan "Fischer" Tomic, are an internet
Grandmaster, and virtuoso of bullet-chess! This far outweighs whatever stodgy
correspondence chessplayers may think they know.








Did you say "most books," as in not *all*? :-)

(Nick) wrote in message . com...

Mr Sayers, David is correct. There *is* a common (though not universal)
convention among experienced correspondence chess players of specifying
conditional moves even when the opponent has more than one possible
legal move in response.

--Nick

Greetings,

Whether or not there is a convention is not what is being examined: it
is the applicability and timelessness (or, rather, "universality", as
you described it) of the convention that is being examined.

The moves so far in Goran Tomic vs. Michael Sayers:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6


Regards,
Michael Sayers

..
Whether or not there is a convention is not what is being examined: it
is the applicability and timelessness (or, rather, "universality", as
you described it) of the convention that is being examined.

The moves so far in Goran Tomic vs. Michael Sayers:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6


It's dejavu, all over again!

The Englishman, Michael Sayers, has apparently accidentally kill-filed his
opponent, as he never seems to receive Goran's moves:


1.e4 e5

2.Nf3 Nc6

3.Bc4 {if ...Nf6, then 4.Ng5}
{or if ...Bc5, then 4.b4}




IMO, if-then moves are purely optional. (Did anyone else notice how Nick
cleverly sidesteped any analytical entanglements, while focusing solely upon
protocol?) :-)

The reason MS is getting beat-up over this, is because of his arrogance in
demanding his opponent meet some arbitrary deadline, after railing against time
limits and so forth. The sequence of events not only made such a "demand" seem
very hypocritical, but laughable, to boot.


Now, put down that silly Ruy Lopez book and get out your BCO. I recommend
heading into Captain Evans' harbor, keeping hard to port and steering clear of
rocks and kelp. As another Evans aptly put it: "the onus is on Goran Fischer."
:-)

(Michael Sayers) wrote in
message . com...
(Nick) wrote in
message . com...
(The context was snipped by Michael Sayers.)
Mr Sayers, David is correct. There *is* a common (though not universal)
convention among experienced correspondence chess players of specifying
conditional moves even when the opponent has more than one possible
legal move in response.

Whether or not there is a convention is not what is being examined: it
is the applicability and timelessness (or, rather, "universality", as
you described it) of the convention that is being examined.

Mr Sayers, David made a well-meaning *suggestion* to you (who seem to be a
comparatively inexperienced player) that you consider using conditional moves
'in order to speed up the opening play'. You have the right to ignore his
suggestion, but your opponent, Goran Tomic, has decided to follow it.

You replied to David: 'This (conditional moves) may *make sense* for forced
lines in which the opponent has a single legal response, *but not otherwise*.'
My post was simply intended to point out to you that your claim of 'but not
otherwise' is mistaken. Conditional moves are not obligatory, but they also
are *not* necessarily nonsensical in non-'forced lines in which the opponent
has a single legal response', as you have contended. Goran Tomic evidently
can understand David's suggestion about conditional moves.

Mr Sayers, I could not care less about the outcome of your game with Goran
Tomic. By the way, you may notice, if you have not already done so, that
Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') is a well-known troll in the chess newsgroups.

The moves so far in Goran Tomic vs. Michael Sayers:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6

I am not the only reader who has noticed that Michael Sayers seems 'gormless'.

--Nick

Nick wrote:
I am not the only reader who has noticed that Michael Sayers seems
'gormless'.

And I cannot be the only reader who has noticed that Goran Tomic posts
from a machine in htnet.hr, using Outlook Express and the E-mail address
, whereas Goran Fischer posts through Google from an AOL
account and uses the E-mail address .


Dave.

--
David Richerby Flammable Cat (TM): it's like a cat
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it burns really easily!

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
.
IF 3...Nf6 THEN 4.Ng5
The Two Knights. Black is favored to win as published in most books
and in the analysis of chessplayers in the Correspondence World.


Bah -- what do they know? You, Garan "Fischer" Tomic, are an
internet
Grandmaster, and virtuoso of bullet-chess! This far outweighs
whatever stodgy
correspondence chessplayers may think they know.

What would Tolya (Karpov to outsiders) say. I know that you are a
supporter of Tolya way back in your discussions with Larry Parr.

BTW, Goran Tomic is Goran Tomic and Goran Fischer is somebody else. I
wish that Goran Tomic would post here and confirm this fact to avoid
confusion.

Did you say "most books," as in not *all*? :-)

Yeh, I'm not the kind of person who would say "all", "never", etc. At
least the publications/books are Chess Mail Magazine, The Giuoco Piano
by Gufeld and Stetsko, and The Italian Game by Harding and Botterill.

Regards, GF

..
Nick-the-liar has posted yet another "brilliant contribution" to this thread,
in effect, calling me a "troll" for noting that conditional moves are *not*
obligatory,and calling Michael Sayers dimwitted for daring to disagree about
the usefulness of conditional moves. Regulars here are already quite
familiar with Nick's little problem, where he throws a hissyfit and starts
name-calling, whenever people dare to disagree with his personal opinions on
any matter whatever.

I happen to agree with Goran Fischerov and Nick that conditional moves can
often be used to speed-up the opening phase, but I strongly believe that it is
every player's right to choose whether or not to use them.

I also note that there is no way Nick-the-liar could know for certain that MS
is a "comparatively inexperienced player," simply because he doesn't want to
*give away his intentions* with regard to the opening (unlike Goran Fischer).
I think Nick simply overlooked this variation.

This is where Nick comes back with a "disclaimer," noting that he included
the waffle-word, "seems." But he forgot to include the maple syrup. If there
is one thing worse than a puerile name-caller, it's a puerile name-caller who
insists upon waffling, instead of showing a little backbone, now and then.




I reiterate my earlier recommendation: go for the toothless Evans' Gambit!
The other line is actually dangerous. :-)

..
Identity probe misses target. Try again.


What would Tolya say about this opening? He might say Black should have
tried the Petroff. BTW, I don't see how Karpov is, in any way, connected to
correspondence players, except that real correspondence chessplayers use
postcards, with STAMPS on them.

Larry Parr might say that five-time U.S. Champion, GM Larry Evans, often
recommended snatching gambit pawns, the onus being upon White to demonstrate
adequate compensation. He would probably find some tie-in to Josef Stalin,
Communism, and Campomanes. If you take the pawn and lose, he would invariably
find a way to blame it all on FIDE, (which we all know, granted Karpov more
favorable conditions than Fischer ever dreamed of asking for). Now then, about
drug-testing....

(Nick) wrote in
message . com...
(snipped)
By the way, you may notice, if you have not already done so, that
Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') is a well-known troll in the chess newsgroups.

Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') has an long record of writing dishonest
distortions (including flagrant snipping out-of-context), fabrications,
and outright lies in order to make trolling personal attacks against me
and at least several other writers in the chess newsgroups.

Long ago, John Macnab observed that Greg Kennedy's evident favourite motive
for writing was 'trolling for a flame war' in the chess newsgroups.
I can recall reading complaints by Louis Blair, Mark Houlsby, John Macnab,
Ed Seedhouse, 'Southpaw' (far from a complete list) that Greg Kennedy has
seriously and evidently dishonestly misrepresented their writings.

Here's an earlier post wherein I addressed some of Greg Kennedy's lies:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X5D821A16

Every so often, when memories have faded slightly, Greg Kennedy appears
to challenge someone to reiterate all the evidence (it's on Google) of
his many past distortions, fabrications, and lies. Of course, everyone
else has better things to do than to respond to his tireless trolling.

Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') is an inveterate troll and an evident
pathological liar who warrants no further response beyond disdain.

--Nick

illspam (NoMoreChess) wrote in message ...
.
Identity probe misses target. Try again.

Richerby and Smith know their IP (Internet Protocol) and NNTP (News
Network Transport Protocol) stuff. They can trace people's postings.
What they are saying is that Goran Tomic is different from Goran
Fischer.

What would Tolya say about this opening? He might say Black should have
tried the Petroff. BTW, I don't see how Karpov is, in any way, connected to
correspondence players, except that real correspondence chessplayers use
postcards, with STAMPS on them.

I agree, Gazza and Leko have more experience in Correspondence chess
than Tolya. Postcards are pre-email. Email are post postcards. IMO,
they're the same correspondence chess.

Larry Parr might say that five-time U.S. Champion, GM Larry Evans,
often
recommended snatching gambit pawns, the onus being upon White to
demonstrate
adequate compensation. He would probably find some tie-in to Josef
Stalin,
Communism, and Campomanes. If you take the pawn and lose, he would
invariably
find a way to blame it all on FIDE, (which we all know, granted Karpov
more
favorable conditions than Fischer ever dreamed of asking for). Now
then, about
drug-testing....

Yes, it was because of FIDE that Larry Parr was canned as editor of
Chess Life. From then on, it became his passion to destroy FIDE and
Campo. GM Evans was just a front of course, Larry Parr did all the
writing.

Drug-testing...What about about it? I believe that John Fernandez can
fight it out with Larry Parr until kingdom come and the result is
still as clear as mud, the same way as the discussions started. As for
me, I don't have an opinion on it. Even though I can tell you that I
didn't inhale in those hippy and groovy days, drug-testing will always
be a toss up issue, the same way as politics, religion, and the
pro-choice...pro-life issues.

Outside of FIDE, Tolya could have agreed to play Bobby but the KGB
succeeded in preventing Tolyafrom accepting Bobby's very reasonable
demands. There were precedents. Even Gazza's book, ...Predecessors...
talked about the 5-5 draw clause in the Capa-Alekhine championship
match. Bobby didn't make it up. Just ask Louis Blair, he read Gazza's
book.

Nice to talk to a well informed poster like you, NoMoreChess.

Goran Fischer