"Bob Lablaw" wrote in message
...
mdamien wrote:

Chessbase has four or five games with 9. ... Qf5, but none above master
level.

Matt

Could you post them if you have them? I don't know why, but it's taking
me ages.

I guess a few more than "four or five," now that I take a second look. I
think the innovation here is 9. ... Qf5 in combination with 11. ... Rb8,
though I still think it's at least +=.

[Event "Oberliga Ost-A 9596"]
[Site "Germany"]
[Date "1995.10.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Priepke,Wolfgang"]
[Black "Karassek,Juergen"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6
9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Bxc3 11.Qxc3 Nge7 12.Re1 0-0 13.Bd3 Qh5 14.Re4 f5 15.exf6
Rxf6 16.Rh4 Qa5
17.Qb3+ d5 18.Bxh7+ Kf8 19.Be3 Be6 20.Ng5 b5 21.Bd3 Rd8 22.Nh7+ Kf7 23.Qd1
Nf5 24.Nxf6 Nxh4
25.Qh5+ g6 26.Qxh4 Qc3 27.Qh7+ Kxf6 28.Qxg6+ Ke7 29.Rc1 Bf7 30.Bg5+ Ke8
31.Rxc3 Bxg6 32.Bxg6+ Kd7
33.Bf5+ Kd6 34.Rxc6+ 1-0

[Event "EM/C/A073"]
[Site "ICCF Email"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Engelen,Rene"]
[Black "Campoy Moreno,Alfonso"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6
9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Bb2 0-0 12.Ne2 Bb6 13.Bd3 Qg4 14.Qc2 Ng6 15.Ba3 d6
16.exd6 cxd6
17.Bxd6 Rd8 18.h3 Qh5 19.Bxg6 hxg6 20.Ng3 Qa5 21.Bf4 Be6 22.Be3 Bd5 23.Bxb6
axb6 24.Qd3 Qa3
25.Qxa3 Rxa3 26.Rfb1 Ra6 27.a4 Bxf3 28.gxf3 Nd4 29.f4 Rda8 30.Rd1 Rxa4
31.Rxa4 Rxa4 32.Rc1 b5
33.Rc8+ Kh7 34.Rc7 f5 35.Rxb7 Rc4 36.Kg2 b4 37.Rb6 b3 0-1

[Event "ICCF email"]
[Site "ICCF email"]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Rasmussen,Per Arnt"]
[Black "Wengler,Joerg"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6
9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Bb6 11.Ba3 Nge7 12.Rad1 Na5 13.Qa4 Qf4 14.Bxf7+ Qxf7 15.e6
Qxe6 16.Rfe1 Qc6
17.Rxe7+ Kd8 18.Ne5 1-0

[Event "POR CPXE corr"]
[Site ""]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Simoes,Vitor"]
[Black "Gomes,Diogo"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6
9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Qh5 13.Nxc7+ Bxc7 14.Bxf7+ Kd8 15.e6
Qg4 16.Rfe1 d6
17.h3 Qf4 18.Rad1 Nge7 19.Qc3 Qf6 20.Bxd6 Bxd6 21.Rxd6+ Kc7 22.Nd4 Qg5
23.Nxc6 Nxc6 24.Rdd1 Bxe6
25.Rxe6 Rhd8 26.Rb1 Rac8 27.g4 1-0

[Event "POR T corr"]
[Site ""]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Wilhelms,Diego"]
[Black "Gomes,Diogo"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6
9.e5 Qf5 10.Nh4 Qxe5 11.Bxf7+ Kf8 12.Ba3+ d6 13.Bg6 Qf6 14.Be8 Kxe8 15.Nxc3
Bxc3 0-1

[Event "Theme S1 corr"]
[Site ""]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Domenche Redondo,Francesco"]
[Black "Wengler,Joerg"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6
9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Bb6 12.Nd5 Ng6 13.Bd3 Qg4 14.h3 Qh5 15.Kh2
Ngxe5 16.Nxe5 Nxe5
17.Rae1 d6 18.f4 Be6 19.fxe5 c6 20.Nf4 1-0

[Event "Theme S1 corr"]
[Site ""]
[Date "1998.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Doplmayr,Fritz"]
[Black "Wengler,Joerg"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6
9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Bb6 11.Ba3 Nge7 12.Rad1 Na5 13.Qa4 Nxc4 14.Qxc4 Qe6 15.Qb4
a5 16.Qe4 h6
17.Bxe7 Qxe7 18.Nd5 Qe6 19.Nd4 Qg6 20.Nf5 d6 21.exd6+ Be6 22.Nxb6 cxb6
23.d7+ Kd8 24.Qxb7
1-0

[Event "C3"]
[Site "IECG email"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Breis Abellan,Jesualdo"]
[Black "McGrath,Tom"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6
9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Re1 a6 12.Nh4 Qh5 13.Re4 Bxc3 14.Qxc3 Qd1+ 15.Bf1
Nd5 16.Qc5 b6
17.Qc4 b5 18.Qc5 Nde7 19.Bb2 Qd2 20.Ba3 0-0 21.Nf5 Ng6 22.Be2 Re8 23.Rd1
Qxa2 24.Bh5 Ngxe5
25.f4 d6 26.Nxd6 cxd6 27.Qxd6 Bf5 28.Re2 Qb3 29.fxe5 Rad8 30.Qxc6 Qxd1+ 0-1

[Event "Fax BF1-051"]
[Site ""]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Lukas,Maritta"]
[Black "Reichardt,Ewald"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6
9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Nf4 13.Nxf4 Qxf4 14.Bd5 Nd8 15.Rac1
Ne6 16.Rc4 Qf5
17.g4 1-0

[Event "Theme GT"]
[Site "ICCF email"]
[Date "1999.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Roelofszen,Tom"]
[Black "Adamczyk,Wieslaw"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6
9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Bb2 0-0 12.Rfd1 a6 13.Ne2 b5 14.Bd3 Qg4 15.h3 Qa4
16.Qxa4 bxa4
17.Bc2 Rb8 18.Rab1 Re8 19.Bxa4 Rb6 20.Ned4 Nxd4 0-1

[Event "CP.1999.P.00074"]
[Site "IECG Email"]
[Date "1999.10.01"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Poretti,Ennio"]
[Black "Crnic,Narcis"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6
9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Rb8 13.Ne3 Qf4 14.Nd5 Qh6 15.Nc3 Nd8
16.Ne4 Bb6
17.Bc1 Qh5 18.Ng3 Qg4 19.Re1 Nf4 20.Re4 g5 21.Kf1 Bxf2 22.Kxf2 b5 23.Nxg5
Qxg5 24.Rxf4 Qe7
25.Be3 a6 26.Bd5 Ne6 27.Nf5 Qg5 28.Rf3 1-0

[Event "IECC M"]
[Site "IECC email"]
[Date "2000.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Corbat,Philippe"]
[Black "Nagley,Tim"]
[Result "1/2"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.Qb3 Qf6 8.0-0
dxc3
9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 h6 13.Ne3 Qf4 14.Nd5 Qf5 15.Ne3 Qf4
1/2

[Event "IECC TH-M"]
[Site "IECC email"]
[Date "2000.??.??"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Dambacher,Andreas"]
[Black "Cherner,Lyle"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6
9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Ngxe5 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 14.f4 Qd4+ 15.Kh1
b5 16.Qxb5 f5
17.Rad1 a6 18.Qxa5 Nxa5 19.Rxd4 Kf7 20.Nxc7+ Nxc4 21.Rxc4 Rb8 22.Re1 Bb7
23.Re7+ 1-0

[Event "L1.2000.0.00016"]
[Site "IECG Email"]
[Date "2000.08.14"]
[Round "0"]
[White "Ottenweller,Wolfgang"]
[Black "Baer,Werner"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Eco "C52"]
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3
Qf6
9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Qh5 13.Rae1 a6 14.Re4 b5 15.Nxc7+
Bxc7 16.Bxf7+ Kd8
17.e6 b4 18.Bxb4 Qf5 19.Rfe1 1-0

Lance Smith wrote (2004-06-02 04:44:29 PST):
I never passed them off as authentic. How can
others like Mike Murray, Dave Richerby, and
Nomorechess understood what I meant if I was
trying to falsify things.

I wrote (2004-06-02 11:44:48 PST):
Here is what Mike Murray initially wrote on this
matter:

"I don't remember saying ['Nick is a dimwit']
either. I think that precise phrase was just
a 'placeholder', where Liam Too hadn't looked up
the actual derogatory remark. Sometime, I'll go
back and look up what I really said." (2004-05-26
18:42:22 PST)

It certainly looks to me as though Mike Murray took
the Nick-is-a-dimwit thing as a "placeholder" in a
list of actual derogatory remarks. At that point,
if Mike Murray perceived the whole thing as a "parody",
he mysteriously chose to keep that perception to
himself.


Mike Murray wrote (2004-06-02 13:36:17 PST):

It can't be both ? A parody can't employ placeholder
"quotes"? I interpreted the post, taken as a whole,
as a parody of Nick's frequently posted list of
favorable newsgroup citations. But Lance Smith didn't
bother to look up the individual quotes of those people
who had posted remarks critical of Nick -- he used the
same "quote" for each.

_
That last sentence is clearly false. For Timothy
Hanke, for example, the quote that Lance Smith
composed was: "My garden gnome is smarter that
Nick."


Mike Murray wrote (2004-06-02 13:36:17 PST):

And the repetition was humorous in its own right.
Would his post have been more effective if he
plugged in actual cites? Possibly. But, IMO,
a little less funny.

So, no mysterious silence on my part -- the
parody aspect just seemed obvious.

_
Perhaps I should phrase things a little bit
differently in order to be sure that Mike
Murray gets the point. Mike Murray's original
note showed awareness that the Nick-is-a-dimwit
quotes were not real. If Mike Murray perceived
that OTHER quotes were not real, it seems to me
that he rather strangely chose to keep that
perception to himself and rather strangely
chose to refer ONLY to the "dimwit" quotes
as "placeholder"s.

play chess

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 19:04:00 GMT, Louis Blair
wrote:


Perhaps I should phrase things a little bit
differently in order to be sure that Mike
Murray gets the point. Mike Murray's original
note showed awareness that the Nick-is-a-dimwit
quotes were not real. If Mike Murray perceived
that OTHER quotes were not real, it seems to me
that he rather strangely chose to keep that
perception to himself and rather strangely
chose to refer ONLY to the "dimwit" quotes
as "placeholder"s.

You're right. I thought ONLY the "dimwit" quotes were made up and
*did* believe the others were probably actual quotes. My error.

David Richerby wrote in message ...
Liam Too wrote:
Lighten up Simon, I never passed them off as authentic. How can others
like Mike Murray, Dave Richerby, and Nomorechess understood what I
meant if I was trying to falsify things.

Oh look, it's my turn to be misrepresented in this thread. I never
claimed to understand what you meant and I'm not sure what I might have
written in this thread that could be taken as being in any way supportive
of you.


By not directly answering Louis Blair's question, and asking about
the illiteracy slur, Lance Smith wants to divert the attention of his
readers.

Dave already answered it for me. Try and read all the exchanges and
I'm sure that you'll find out.

For reference, the answer I was suggesting was `Yes, Lance Smith does
think it's acceptable to put things that aren't quotes in quotes.' In
case anyone is in any doubt I, in general, do not think this is
acceptable.-- Dave.

Oh look, it's my turn to be misrepresented here. Did I ever say Yes?

I don't think it is acceptable for you to be butting in like this if
you don't know what you're talking about. First you said, that I
already answered Blair's question and now you are saying a different
answer. Something is fishy here don't you think?

Lance Smith

Man...you guys are really nuts.

..

..
I certainly don't wish to complicate this matter any further by adding fuel
to the fire now, but...

I recall thinking (when I first read the quote of me calling Nick a dimwit)
that I had no recollection of having called him precisely that. However, I do
know that I have agreed with Mark Trollsby, who once very astutely observed
that:

"[Nick Bourbaki] is not the sharpest tool in the box."

This is not only notable in the sense that Trollsby worships Nick like a god,
but because I have so rarely agreed with him on *anything.*

In addition, I just didn't think researching this particular quote (or
misquote) was worth my time, since Nick's dimwittedness is the least of his
many problems.


It can't be both ? A parody can't employ placeholder
"quotes"? I interpreted the post, taken as a whole,
as a parody of Nick's frequently posted list of
favorable newsgroup citations.


I failed to see the humor of this parody at the time, but this was likely due
to the fact that Nick's ridiculous antics have already been pointed out here,
more than once.



That last sentence is clearly false. For Timothy
Hanke, for example, the quote that Lance Smith
composed was: "My garden gnome is smarter that
Nick."


I must admit to feeling jealous -- outdone even -- by this (purely invented)
quote, which, it seemed to me, clearly topped the routine "Nick is a dimwit."
Hanke is *creative,* while I am just a run-of-the-mill insulter, I concluded,
only to later discover that this quote, too, had been invented! :-)

That's all for now. Back over to Louis "deadpan" Blair -- the man who never
laughs. Too bad he's never seen me play chess -- he would at least have
experienced a few snickers....

"Eric Hicks" wrote in message
.. .
Man...you guys are really nuts.

Stick around a while........it only gets worse!



Regards,

Matt

mdamien wrote:

I did mean that Black has only the choice 13. ... Qf4 (considering that it
was presently at f5) since it's the only reasonable square the queen
*couldn't* have also reached from g6. The move13. ... Qg4 would have also
been possible in the Schroeder-F.Polgar game, so in that case 9. ... Qf5
would not have independent significance.

Matt


I can't figure out when you're talking about the Schroeder-Polgar game,
and when you're talking about the Fischer/Smith-Sayers one. But never
mind...

"Bob Lablaw" wrote in message
...
mdamien wrote:

I did mean that Black has only the choice 13. ... Qf4 (considering that
it
was presently at f5) since it's the only reasonable square the queen
*couldn't* have also reached from g6. The move13. ... Qg4 would have
also
been possible in the Schroeder-F.Polgar game, so in that case 9. ... Qf5
would not have independent significance.

Matt


I can't figure out when you're talking about the Schroeder-Polgar game,
and when you're talking about the Fischer/Smith-Sayers one. But never
mind...

Yeah, I was being confusing, sorry. The thing is that GF was following the
Schroeder-Polgar game for a few moves (actually, a much earlier
recommendation, but MCO gave that game as the latest word on it), even
though the queen was at f5 rather than g6. So the question was: at what
point would/might it make a difference that the queen is actually on f5? My
point was that after move 13, it would no longer make a difference unless
Black played 13. ... Qf4.

Matt