Kenneth Sloan wrote:
2722 wrote:
"help bot" wrote in message
oups.com...
My view is that IM Innes is and has been asking TK
for clarification regarding his choice of the phrase
"natural talent", which TK has now answered only in part
by ruling out the idea of a "chess gene". The question
remains: what exactly is "natural" talent, as opposed to
any other kind of talent in chess?

Sure. But stop telling people I am an IM, or you lose credibility for more
sober reflections. I never said I was an IM, only close to it for a few
seasons a quarter century ago.

How many IM norms did you have?

And when did he get that rating of 2450 he mentioned?

"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...

Sure. But stop telling people I am an IM, or you lose credibility for
more sober reflections. I never said I was an IM, only close to it for a
few seasons a quarter century ago.

How many IM norms did you have?

Three things;

(1) How many threads can you initiate with your bizarre posting method of
titles unrelated to the previous tpic, and entirely non-decriptive?

(2) You don't understand what I wrote above to make your usual idiotic and
/always/ insulting inquiry based on an obvious and evident missaprehension.
You are merely content to advertise your ineptitude both as 'Computer and
Information Scientist' and as someone with the available wit to respond
either in a civil manner, or indeed, intelligently.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473

(3) Not a boast!

Neither of competency, decency, or logic.

Phil Innes



Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

3041 wrote:
"Kenneth Sloan" wrote in message
...

Sure. But stop telling people I am an IM, or you lose credibility for
more sober reflections. I never said I was an IM, only close to it for a
few seasons a quarter century ago.
How many IM norms did you have?

Three things;

(1) How many threads can you initiate with your bizarre posting method of
titles unrelated to the previous tpic, and entirely non-decriptive?

(2) You don't understand what I wrote above to make your usual idiotic and
/always/ insulting inquiry based on an obvious and evident missaprehension.
You are merely content to advertise your ineptitude both as 'Computer and
Information Scientist' and as someone with the available wit to respond
either in a civil manner, or indeed, intelligently.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473

(3) Not a boast!

Neither of competency, decency, or logic.

Phil Innes



Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/



so...I take it that the answer is: 0?


--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:36:33 GMT):

7 ... I never said I was an IM, only close to it for a few seasons
7 a quarter century ago. ...

_
"... My qualifications for saying so is that
I was nearly an international master, with
a rating of 2450, ..." - Phil Innes (Tue,
21 Sep 2004 22:13:37 GMT)
_
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
From: "Chess One"
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
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

Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:01:24 GMT):

7 ... Brennan says Kingston's idea of eugenics was 'clearly
7 expressed'. ...

_
Some of what Neil Brennen actually wrote:
_
"Taylor, ... Your original statement was perfectly
comprehensible." - Neil Brennen (10 Nov 2006
20:24:56 -0800)
_
"... I wrote ... that Kingston's point was clearly
expressed. ..." - Neil Brennen (11 Nov 2006
18:23:37 -0800)
_
As far as I can tell, it was Phil Innes who brought "eugenics"
into the discussion.
_
"What's this now? The other guys had a
Chess gene? ) ..." - Phil Innes (Fri,
10 Nov 2006 02:01:20 GMT)
_
"... To repeat my analogy, there is no doubt
that height is affected by genetic factors, and
that height has considerable bearing on
basketball skills. That is not at all the same
thing as claiming there is a 'basketball gene.' ..."
- Taylor Kingston (10 Nov 2006 15:05:30 -0800)
_
"... That's true - its a sociological factor to do
with slavery, mainly of black people, who were
bred in a eugenics program to breed and be big
..." - Phil Innes (Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:00:31 GMT)
_
"Hmm, our Phil seems eager to share Jimmy
the Greek's fate. Well, I leave him to it." - Taylor
Kingston (10 Nov 2006 16:24:27 -0800)

Moscow, 1935 - (Super - 18 to 20)

I think this may have been the tournament in question? Alekhine did not
participate in it due to the location of Moscow and his evident
hesitation over being able to safely return to his homeland.

Won by Mikhail Botvinnik and Salo Flohr.
3rd - Dr. Lasker, (12.5). He "aroused universal admiration." (Lasker
was 67 years old),
Capablanca - 4th (12-7)
Spielmann - 5th (11-8), Kan 6th (10 1/2-8 1/2),
Levenfish - 6th (10 1/2-8 1/2),
followed by in order:
Lillienthal
Ragozin,
Romanovsky,
Alatortsev,
Goglidze,
Rabinovich,
Ryumin,
Lisitisyn,
Bogatyrchuk,
Stahlberg,
Pirc,
Chekhover,
Vera Menchik, (1 1/2-17 1/2).