Yet a continuation of facist attacks.
Can you not just move on to something else?
There is a world championship going on ya know.


The Historian wrote:
help bot wrote:
Louis Blair wrote:

Phil Innes wrote (Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:00:14 GMT):
7 ... in truth, i never mentioned any rating, ever, in any chess
7 newsgroup, and only contradicted some idiocy of Brennans
7 in a humanities newsgroup, to indicate that he was a chess
7 idiot, didn't know whta he was saying ...


I suspect that the above quote is why I have, for years,
been under the distinct impression that IM Innes was
"correcting" a claim by Neil Brennen that he could make
out the exact situation on the board in some painting,
while the great IM Innes could not.

Mr. Parr's "model intellect" is always creating a straw-Neil or
straw-Taylor or straw-someoneorother that he can "correct." In his
now-infamous defense of an alleged Orwell 'quotation' Innes invented he
also claimed to have been correcting me. That was the same thread,
incidentally, in which he confused me with Matt Nemmers. Mr. Nemmers
stated he had never heard of the novelist Henry Miller; Innes to this
day believes I wrote that confession.

It never occurred to
me that Mr. Innes might have simply been confused as
to what happenned, himself.


7 "... My qualifications for saying so is that I was
7 nearly an international master, with a rating of
7 2450 ..." - Phil Innes


I tend to compare such a claim as this with many by
local players of the past, who insisted they were Masters
on account of having had a performance in some event
which exceeded 2200 USCF. Their other performances,
such as, say, 1600 level, in other events, escaped their
memories somehow. Just as common were claims by
Class A or B players to be Experts, based upon a single
performance in some random event. In each case the
players in question were firmly convinced, despite being
wrong. For me, the fact that IM Innes pulled off this ploy
in a newsgroup other than rgc tells us only that he knew
he could not get away with such a lie *here*.

Agreed. I've been pointing this out for years. Unfortunately for the
Nearly an IM 2450, he's been caught almost as often as he's tried his
trick. His self-proclaimed 'skill' in Russian translation was shown up
on HLAS; he didn't realize one of the posters was fluent in the
language. Ditto his Latin.

Further comments hidden deep within the long quotations
such as melancholy having naught to do with sadness,
seem to reveal a pattern of pretentious posing by our
dear IM Innes, no matter which newsgroup he infests at a
given time.

Agreed.

Rob Mitchell wrote (25 Sep 2006 07:58:54 -0700):

7 Yet a continuation of facist attacks.
7 Can you not just move on to something else?
7 There is a world championship going on ya know.

_
Does Rob have any objection to attacks posted by
Larry Parr?

While not quite understanding why these 2 characters are discussing
something from a humanities newsgroup in a chess one, nor any intelligence
either bring to either subject, I am also not understanding what lie I am
accused of.

Mr Kennedy seems to think that unless I have some need to prove something to
him, then it is untrue. Mr Brennen seems not to think at all.

Phil Innes

"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...

The Historian wrote:

Uh, I hadn't said a thing about the painting in this thread at the time
Mr. Innes posted his drivel. Mr. Innes is correcting the owner of the
website, a Marlovian nutcase named John Baker.


This text has been quoted here many times, and in each
of these cases it has been another Innesian attack on
Neil Brennen, so why are the words of someone else
being used to "summon" Mr. Innes' ire against The
Historian? Why does Innes lash out against you while
in the middle of correcting someone else? Is it another
case of "A WOUND SO DEEP", or was Innes himself
confused, perhaps?


A curious coincidence is that Mr. Baker, like Mr. Innes, has claimed a
title he didn't have. In Baker's case, it was a doctorate from Florida
State University. In the case of Mr. Innes, it's a 2450 rating and a
"nearly an IM" title.


IM Innes repeatedly notes that he never lied about his
chessic titles *here*, in the chess newsgroups, so his
lie "doesn't count". It is as though he actually believes
a man can be truthful in one space, while being a
baldfaced liar in another, seperate space, with no
"bleeding" between the two. A strange fellow, this IM.
IMO, a liar is a liar, no matter where he is at the moment.
BUT...this was a very small lie, possibly even a mere
exaggeration, IF Mr. Innes truly is a strong player, which
is still in doubt. The moreso since his closest "allies",
such as Mr. Parr, seem to prefer backing Sam Sloan
to IM Innes in any grudge matches.

-- help bot

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chess One wrote:
Mr. Kingston! recently you said i wrote all sorts of lies, and so i
challenged you to a match - in court - you then retracted each one and
retreated into vaguery ...

Our Phil, after a brief and unsuccessful dabbling with the invention
of ficticious languages, returns to his usual pastime, the invention of
fictitious events.

How odd then that some ELSE noted to me that you backed off - since I was
away for a week - but not as odd as what you cut from my message, which
was:-

why should /you/ write of truth and lies? YOU even covered up the KNOWN
official anti-Semitism of your interviewee, neglecting to mention that he
had oppressed refuseniks and others! no questions at all about his
'government service', material you SPECIFICALLY wrote me about - but even
after being given 2 references in 2002 to sustain this view, before gulko's
own mss was circulated stating 'who did it', or taimanov's record of
released kgb archives about his own oppression, but also without keene's
available writing, that makes 5 references, 4 of them GMs

but your have written of such things in a disparaging way - without respect
for what others know, and when you learned of them, without respect for what
you then knew

as replies to all these messages you become vague - then return with even
more nonsense about other people who write on these subjects, utterly
without connection to any facts at all - you are no longer bothered with
them, why pretend it?

not incidentally, fascism is the insistence of one point of view to the
extent of suppressing other points of view - those who can stand several
perspectives take in these 4 or 5 points of view such as I wrote of above.
when Taylor Kingston is not making abstract smears he ignores the fact of
his own behavior which I illustrate above, and describes what I write here
as fascist propaganda

Phil Innes

Phil Innes wrote (Mon, 25 Sep 2006 18:22:25 GMT):

7 While not quite understanding why these 2 characters
7 are discussing something from a humanities newsgroup
7 in a chess one, ...

_
I believe the most recent discussion has been a reaction
to rec.games.chess.politics statements of this sort:
_
"... In a humanities newsgroup the hapless
Brennen was making a hash of some chess
exlanation, and to clarify something of the
board position I said I could, and why - I have
otherwsie never mentioned my rating in a
chess newsgroup. ..." - Phil Innes (Wed,
07 Jun 2006 16:36:09 GMT)
_
"... in truth, i never mentioned any rating, ever,
in any chess newsgroup, and only contradicted
some idiocy of Brennans in a humanities
newsgroup, to indicate that he was a chess
idiot, didn't know whta he was saying ..." - Phil
Innes (Sat, 23 Sep 2006 00:00:14 GMT)
_
Such statements (here) have inspired others to look
up the now famous "nearly an international master"
note and the notes that led up to it. No Neil Brennen
"hash" or "idiocy" was identified in those notes.
Instead, it appears that Phil Innes was reacting to
something that he saw at a site mentioned by "lyra".
The notes are again reproduced below so that Phil
Innes can see for himself.
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Chess One"
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Subject: Be not self-WILL'd
Message-ID: 90W3d.12449$%42.6255@trndny08
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:28:37 GMT

lyra wrote:
BEN IONSon (anagram)
BENISON on...!

and note the picture of him making the sign of BENEdiction
or blessing, in The Chess Picture

http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/portrait.htm

Dear Art - what interesting images [especially the final one, the
x-ray]
however...

**In the strange commentary [AA]:-
"The Chess Portrait has van Mander's signature at the top right corner
and
its 1604 date is just about right for the time van Mander seems to have
been
in London. The paint dates to the period and the painting is
authentic.
One may find a discussion of it in Frederick J Pohl's *Like to the
Lark, The
Early Years of Shakespeare.* For my money this is the most authentic
of all
the possible paintings. Jonson is clearly the man on the left, at 286
pounds
and towering over other Elizabethans, his features are unmistakable.
He is
conceding the game three moves before mate. The man on the our right
(Shakespeare?) is holding the board or stage with his left hand and
moving a
knight with his right. Behind them are the initials SS, two ink horns,
one
of which has a pen in it and a crumpled paper beside it. A third man,
likely a player, because of the course red outfit, watches. Jonson has
taken four of the winner's pawns...a type of game generally called a
"pawn
sacrifice."

**The final comment is a nonsense, and would not make sense to a
chessplayer. Where a player sacrifices material, [pawns or pieces], the
player is said to /gambit/ the material.

**It is also not at all clear that 'Jonson' is conceding the game, and
from
what I can determine from the board, there is no mate-in-three that I
can
discern and why that claim should be made is not clear to me, in fact
White
has considerably more material at hand, and, other things being equal,
apparently could defend against current threats to the extent of
continuing
to win the game.

**Another photograph carries the caption:-
" It [sic] title is "Unknown Melancholy Man." Like the Cambridge
portrait
of Marlowe, the sitter's hands are concealed, suggesting he is a keeper
of
secrets. The sword guards form an SS. The tree behind him is a
Greenwood
tree or Poplar. The house is vaguely like the Old Palace at Hatfield.
He is
certainly not happy about who is walking that woman in the garden."

**However, I have several objections to this commentary:-
(a) the first has to do with the title itself, since /in the period/
and
certainly later, 'melancholy' has another, an esoteric, and indeed a
primary
meaning: the same sense as used by Durer.
(b) frank observation of the subject's features may or may not suggest
'melancholy' in our modern sense, but would certainly do so in Durer's
sense.
(c) melancholy is not synonymous with 'sad', and in fact meant nothing
of
the kind, and instead refers to a contemplative quietness of mind which
traditionally is often associated with Saturn. The Durer image
explicitly
allows us to see what the meditator is contemplating, and if we allow
for
the original meaning of the word, then this 'author?' portrait shows us
the
subject of his contemplation

Cordially, Phil

NB: The conjunction below provides a date.
--------------------------

The second, sir, [John Harvey] is a physician
or a fool, but indeed a physician, and had proved a proper man if he
had not spoiled himself with his Astrological Discourse of the terrible
conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter.

so he, God's BENISON light upon him,
was the first that invented English hexameter;

Quip For An Upstart Courtier -- "Robert Greene"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Art Neuendorffer"
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
References: ... 90W3d.12449$%42.6255@trndny08
Subject: Chess Portrait by Karel van Mander
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:41:16 -0400
Message-ID:

lyra wrote:
BEN IONSon (anagram)
BENISON on...!

and note the picture of him making the sign of BENEdiction
or blessing, in The Chess Picture

http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/portrait.htm

"Chess One" wrote

Dear Art - what interesting images [especially the final one, the x-ray]
however...

**In the strange commentary [AA]:-
"The Chess Portrait has van Mander's signature at the top right corner and
its 1604 date is just about right for the time van Mander seems to have
been
in London. The paint dates to the period and the painting is authentic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Baker wrote (March 1999):

Its called the Chess Portrait by Karel van Mander dated 1604.

volker multhopp wrote:

I didn't find the van Mander, but I did find:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/art.htm.

Here is a list of known chess artists or artists who play chess.
Mander, Karel van
Middleton, Thomas; "A Game At Chess" (1624)

Why it's our old friend Thomas Middleton! :-)
Fancy meeting HIM here.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fwkc.com/encyclopedia/low...03002760f.html

BRUEGHEL, Pieter, the Elder (c. 1525/30-69),

Modern scholars are far from interpreting Brueghel's art
as simple drolleries and folk subjects painted by an artist
from mere peasant stock, as Karel van Mander (1548-1606)
described him in 1604. Recent writers see him as a knowledgeable
man with such intellectual friends as geographer Abraham Ortelius.
Brueghel's art has been variously interpreted as referring to the
conflicts between Roman Catholicism & Protestantism, to the political
domination of the Lowlands by the Spanish, and as parallels to dramatic
allegories performed publicly by Flemish societies of rhetoric.
--------------------------------------------------------------
1603, 31 August, Karel van Mander writes about Caravaggio
in _Het Schilderboek_ (1604):

There is also a certain Michelangelo da Caravaggio who paints
wonderful
things in Rome. He has laboriously emerged from poverty by means of
hard
work, tackling and accepting everything with foresight and daring, as
is
done by some who do not wish to remain inferior through timidity and
cowardice. He is one who cares little for the works of others without
at the
same time overtly praising his own. He holds that all works are nothing
but
childish trifles, whatever their subject and by whomever they are
painted
unless they are made and painted from life and that there can be no
good or
better way of painting than to follow nature. He is a mixture of grain
and
chaff: indeed he does not continuously devote himself to this study but
when
he has worked for a couple of weeks he swaggers about for a month or
two,
his sword at his side and a servant behind him and goes from one ball
game
to another ever ready for a duel or a scuffle so that it is almost
impossible to get to know him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org...letterMain.htm
http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Ashbourne.htm

http://www.shakespearefellowship.org..._II_Winter_20=
02.pdf

_A Golden Book, bound richly up_
By Barbara Burris =A92001


The Dutch painter Cornelius Ketel, whose initials Barrell found in
the painting through X-rays, was in England from 1573 to 1581. Hatton
introduced Ketel as a painter to Elizabeth's Court in 1578. Van Mander
notes Ketel painted a portrait of Oxford. In 1580 Harvey mocked
Oxford's
wearing of large French Camerick ruffs. Barrell's X-ray examination
revealed a large circular ruff under the visible ruff. Lord Russell's
1580 French ruff fits perfectly over the outlines of this hidden
ruff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

One may find a discussion of it in Frederick J Pohl's *Like to the Lark,
The
Early Years of Shakespeare.* For my money this is the most authentic of
all
the possible paintings. Jonson is clearly the man on the left, at 286
pounds
and towering over other Elizabethans, his features are unmistakable. He
is
conceding the game three moves before mate. The man on the our right
(Shakespeare?) is holding the board or stage with his left hand and moving
a
knight with his right. Behind them are the initials SS, two ink horns, one
of which has a pen in it and a crumpled paper beside it. A third man,
likely a player, because of the course red outfit, watches. Jonson has
taken four of the winner's pawns...a type of game generally called a "pawn
sacrifice."

**The final comment is a nonsense, and would not make sense to a
chessplayer. Where a player sacrifices material, [pawns or pieces], the
player is said to /gambit/ the material.

**It is also not at all clear that 'Jonson' is conceding the game, and
from
what I can determine from the board, there is no mate-in-three that I can
discern and why that claim should be made is not clear to me, in fact
White
has considerably more material at hand, and, other things being equal,
apparently could defend against current threats to the extent of
continuing
to win the game.

Dear Phil -
There was a lot of discussion 5 years ago about the "Chess Portrait"
but you are the first (that I recall) to analysis the actual chess
play.

**Another photograph carries the caption:-
" It [sic] title is "Unknown Melancholy Man." Like the Cambridge portrait
of Marlowe, the sitter's hands are concealed, suggesting he is a keeper of
secrets. The sword guards form an SS. The tree behind him is a Greenwood
tree or Poplar. The house is vaguely like the Old Palace at Hatfield. He
is
certainly not happy about who is walking that woman in the garden."

**However, I have several objections to this commentary:-
(a) the first has to do with the title itself, since /in the period/ and
certainly later, 'melancholy' has another, an esoteric, and indeed a
primary
meaning: the same sense as used by Durer.
(b) frank observation of the subject's features may or may not suggest
'melancholy' in our modern sense, but would certainly do so in Durer's
sense.
(c) melancholy is not synonymous with 'sad', and in fact meant nothing of
the kind, and instead refers to a contemplative quietness of mind which
traditionally is often associated with Saturn. The Durer image explicitly
allows us to see what the meditator is contemplating, and if we allow for
the original meaning of the word, then this 'author?' portrait shows us
the
subject of his contemplation

Cordially, Phil
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Chess One"
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
References: ...
Subject: Chess Portrait by Karel van Mander
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:13:37 GMT

Dear Art,

to address only the chess portrait:-

For my money this is the most authentic of
all
the possible paintings. Jonson is clearly the man on the left, at 286
pounds
and towering over other Elizabethans, his features are unmistakable. He
is
conceding the game three moves before mate. The man on the our right
(Shakespeare?) is holding the board or stage with his left hand and
moving
a
knight with his right. Behind them are the initials SS, two ink horns,
one
of which has a pen in it and a crumpled paper beside it. A third man,
likely a player, because of the course red outfit, watches. Jonson has
taken four of the winner's pawns...a type of game generally called a
"pawn
sacrifice."

**The final comment is a nonsense, and would not make sense to a
chessplayer. Where a player sacrifices material, [pawns or pieces], the
player is said to /gambit/ the material.

**It is also not at all clear that 'Jonson' is conceding the game, and
from
what I can determine from the board, there is no mate-in-three that I
can
discern and why that claim should be made is not clear to me, in fact
White
has considerably more material at hand, and, other things being equal,
apparently could defend against current threats to the extent of
continuing
to win the game.

Dear Phil -
There was a lot of discussion 5 years ago about the "Chess Portrait"
but you are the first (that I recall) to analysis the actual chess
play.

I must qualify what I have said therefo from the resolution of the
painitng on my monitor I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or
black,
but given the worst placements from white's perspective, I would still
hold
these views, [even though black is holding a piece in the air].

My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion - for example, Nil, who used to post here before splitting,
so to
speak, was a player of about 1400 rating, and this "ELO" scale is not
linear. This is not to say that Nil could not also resolve the
situation
over the board - but given the best imagined placements for black and
the
worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert
"mate-in-three" if
a board position cannot be resolved.

Phil

-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

"Rob" wrote in message
ps.com...

Taylor Kingston wrote:
Chess One wrote:
Mr. Kingston! recently you said i wrote all sorts of lies, and so i
challenged you to a match - in court - you then retracted each one and
retreated into vaguery ...

Our Phil, after a brief and unsuccessful dabbling with the invention
of ficticious languages, returns to his usual pastime, the invention of
fictitious events.


This entire conversation began
with me asking a question of Neil. It was, will he retract his
statements calling Chessville, "Chess-vile" now that he has been
published in it?

He asked some questions comprising a hundred words, so I don't quite think
he is exactly published in his own right, as much as his own publisher being
indulged in offering an interview with this, somewhat contentious, and
certainly boring, jhistorical view of things as proposed by his interviewee.
If the article had achieved more hits it might be worth further response.

Since he managed to write discreditably about persons, while mentioning over
his sig that he was a 'chessville author', his further attentions to any
subject cannot be countenanced, since it is not in the admitted meagre work
he did, but his disporting on what that might mean, which is objectionable
to a leader in the chess community. I should have no difficulty in letting
this be known to Mr. Cambell, with whom I write on other subjects, and who
is an intelligent person, though no cause seems strong enough to promote the
subject.

Phil Innes

He then proceeded to drag red herrings into the
conversations and attempted to provoke me into a personal confrontation
in an attempt to dodge the question and suppress the conversation.

Rob

"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Rob Mitchell wrote (25 Sep 2006 07:58:54 -0700):

7 Yet a continuation of facist attacks.
7 Can you not just move on to something else?
7 There is a world championship going on ya know.

_
Does Rob have any objection to attacks posted by
Larry Parr?


Louis, if Rob wre to answer your question honestly, his reply would be
along the lines of "No, I have no objection to attacks by parr because
I agree with them. I only object to counterattacks by his critics. Especially
so if they [the critics] are right."

Instead, in typical parrian fashion Rob will jut call us a bunch of fachists [ sic ]
while ignoring the question.

g4 wrote:
"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Rob Mitchell wrote (25 Sep 2006 07:58:54 -0700):

7 Yet a continuation of facist attacks.
7 Can you not just move on to something else?
7 There is a world championship going on ya know.

_
Does Rob have any objection to attacks posted by
Larry Parr?


Louis, if Rob wre to answer your question honestly, his reply would be
along the lines of "No, I have no objection to attacks by parr because
I agree with them. I only object to counterattacks by his critics. Especially
so if they [the critics] are right."

Instead, in typical parrian fashion Rob will jut call us a bunch of fachists [ sic ]
while ignoring the question.

I prefer to discuss issues of chess. I refuse to respond to personal
jibes an become provoked on this matter.

Rob wrote:

Louis, if Rob wre to answer your question honestly, his reply would be
along the lines of "No, I have no objection to attacks by parr because
I agree with them. I only object to counterattacks by his critics. Especially
so if they [the critics] are right."

Instead, in typical parrian fashion Rob will jut call us a bunch of fachists [ sic ]
while ignoring the question.

I prefer to discuss issues of chess. I refuse to respond to personal
jibes an become provoked on this matter.


Rob is right: this is not a hypocrisy newsgroup, and thus
we are not allowed to discuss his problem here, except as
it relates to chess. :D

-- help bot

g4 wrote:
"Louis Blair" wrote in message
oups.com...
Rob Mitchell wrote (25 Sep 2006 07:58:54 -0700):

7 Yet a continuation of facist attacks.
7 Can you not just move on to something else?
7 There is a world championship going on ya know.

_
Does Rob have any objection to attacks posted by
Larry Parr?


Louis, if Rob wre to answer your question honestly, his reply would be
along the lines of "No, I have no objection to attacks by parr because
I agree with them. I only object to counterattacks by his critics. Especially
so if they [the critics] are right."

Instead, in typical parrian fashion Rob will jut call us a bunch of fachists [ sic ]
while ignoring the question.

And by doing so he shows us that Rob Mitchell is the true faschist
[sic].