I am pleased to note that my Chessville colleague Prof. Nagesh Havanur has
reviewed an article in the very good Quarterly for Chess History, issue #3,
1999, editor Dr.Vlastimil Fiala.

He makes interesting comments on editors generally, especially of their
technical limitations, but also offers the relevance to the game of factors
which do not appear in the game score. This issue of the Review was
principally on Steinitz, but also noted Laskers early, middle and late
attitude to the Old Chess.

Here he writes about Lasker's shock when confronted with the American genius
Harry Pillsbury - also providing a fully annotated game.

"What was most surprising to all was Pillsbury's extreme coolness.
During the first few moves his face seemed to express almost indifference to
his opponent's strength and he made his play with a languid, deliberate ease
that astonished the spectators."

He also offers a fully annotated Steinitz Lasker from Montreal 1894, the
complex 16th game.

Much credit is given to Dr. Fiala who unearthed quite a few unknown games of
Steinitz and Lasker - and also an explanation for other chess historians and
sleuths of how they were obtained.

http://www.chessville.com/reviews/QCH19993.htm

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
I am pleased to note that my Chessville colleague Prof. Nagesh Havanur has
reviewed an article in the very good Quarterly for Chess History, issue #3,
1999, editor Dr.Vlastimil Fiala.

Chessvile has blacklisted Fiala, so it's odd to see a review of QFCH
there. But fortunately you can buy it at Chess Cafe:
http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=33&PID=768

He makes interesting comments on editors generally, especially of their
technical limitations, but also offers the relevance to the game of factors
which do not appear in the game score. This issue of the Review was
principally on Steinitz, but also noted Laskers early, middle and late
attitude to the Old Chess.

Here he writes about Lasker's shock when confronted with the American genius
Harry Pillsbury - also providing a fully annotated game.

"What was most surprising to all was Pillsbury's extreme coolness.
During the first few moves his face seemed to express almost indifference to
his opponent's strength and he made his play with a languid, deliberate ease
that astonished the spectators."

He also offers a fully annotated Steinitz Lasker from Montreal 1894, the
complex 16th game.

Much credit is given to Dr. Fiala who unearthed quite a few unknown games of
Steinitz and Lasker - and also an explanation for other chess historians and
sleuths of how they were obtained.

http://www.chessville.com/reviews/QCH19993.htm

Chess One wrote:
I am pleased to note that my Chessville colleague Prof. Nagesh Havanur has
reviewed an article in the very good Quarterly for Chess History, issue #3,
1999, editor Dr.Vlastimil Fiala.

He makes interesting comments on editors generally, especially of their
technical limitations, but also offers the relevance to the game of factors
which do not appear in the game score. This issue of the Review was
principally on Steinitz, but also noted Laskers early, middle and late
attitude to the Old Chess.

Here he writes about Lasker's shock when confronted with the American genius
Harry Pillsbury - also providing a fully annotated game.

"What was most surprising to all was Pillsbury's extreme coolness.
During the first few moves his face seemed to express almost indifference to
his opponent's strength and he made his play with a languid, deliberate ease
that astonished the spectators."

He also offers a fully annotated Steinitz Lasker from Montreal 1894, the
complex 16th game.

Much credit is given to Dr. Fiala who unearthed quite a few unknown games of
Steinitz and Lasker - and also an explanation for other chess historians and
sleuths of how they were obtained.

http://www.chessville.com/reviews/QCH19993.htm

Phil Innes

The reviewer's comments on Fiala's article reminded me of a monkey
examining a watch. The kindest remark I can make about the review is
that it's just the sort of stuff that would fit next to the
semi-literate "Parrot" droppings Chessvile offers each week.

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

The reviewer's comments on Fiala's article reminded me of a monkey
examining a watch. The kindest remark I can make about the review is
that it's just the sort of stuff that would fit next to the
semi-literate "Parrot" droppings Chessvile offers each week.

A Parrot fan writes in! Even complete idiots read it!

Though what business such folks think they have writing their constant
nonsense in public is presumably a secret best known to them and the
mysterious poster Nylon-Quest.

I should doubt that Prof. Havanur will reply.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

The reviewer's comments on Fiala's article reminded me of a monkey
examining a watch. The kindest remark I can make about the review is
that it's just the sort of stuff that would fit next to the
semi-literate "Parrot" droppings Chessvile offers each week.

A Parrot fan writes in! Even complete idiots read it!

Though what business such folks think they have writing their constant
nonsense in public is presumably a secret best known to them and the
mysterious poster Nylon-Quest.

I should doubt that Prof. Havanur will reply.

Phil Innes

Well, if Prof. Havanur wishes to reply, he is free to do so.
Unfortunately, his "review" of the GFCH #3 was a pale rehash of Fiala's
articles. Havanur's only original thought was his comment that Fiala
could have been more selective when quoting annotations. This is, of
course, often a matter of taste, and there's much to be said for being
inclusive instead of exclusive.

Neal,

Life is short. The choice on how to pursue it is one of personal taste.
If one continues to perpetuate evil and spitefulness, then the world is
more hateful and spiteful. Nothing in the original post was directed
at or about you yet you chose to attack. Such actions destroy your
credibility with mature adults and do little to give a positive
impression to parents who may wish to encourage their children to
pursue the game. Please measure your posts impacts upon your
credibility prior to submitting.

Happy Holidays!
Rob


The Historian wrote:
Chess One wrote:
I am pleased to note that my Chessville colleague Prof. Nagesh Havanur has
reviewed an article in the very good Quarterly for Chess History, issue #3,
1999, editor Dr.Vlastimil Fiala.

He makes interesting comments on editors generally, especially of their
technical limitations, but also offers the relevance to the game of factors
which do not appear in the game score. This issue of the Review was
principally on Steinitz, but also noted Laskers early, middle and late
attitude to the Old Chess.

Here he writes about Lasker's shock when confronted with the American genius
Harry Pillsbury - also providing a fully annotated game.

"What was most surprising to all was Pillsbury's extreme coolness.
During the first few moves his face seemed to express almost indifference to
his opponent's strength and he made his play with a languid, deliberate ease
that astonished the spectators."

He also offers a fully annotated Steinitz Lasker from Montreal 1894, the
complex 16th game.

Much credit is given to Dr. Fiala who unearthed quite a few unknown games of
Steinitz and Lasker - and also an explanation for other chess historians and
sleuths of how they were obtained.

http://www.chessville.com/reviews/QCH19993.htm

Phil Innes

The reviewer's comments on Fiala's article reminded me of a monkey
examining a watch. The kindest remark I can make about the review is
that it's just the sort of stuff that would fit next to the
semi-literate "Parrot" droppings Chessvile offers each week.

Rob wrote:
Neal,

Life is short. The choice on how to pursue it is one of personal taste.
If one continues to perpetuate evil and spitefulness, then the world is
more hateful and spiteful. Nothing in the original post was directed
at or about you yet you chose to attack.

I chose to criticize a weak piece of work. I seem to recall I still
have that right.

Such actions destroy your
credibility with mature adults and do little to give a positive
impression to parents who may wish to encourage their children to
pursue the game.

This is coming from the person who routinely ignores his 'partner's'
actions and postings. Of course, considering the position Rob assumes
with Innes I doubt he can see what Philth does, Rob's face being buried
in the pillow and all.

-

Neal,

The Historian wrote:
Rob wrote:
Neal,

Life is short. The choice on how to pursue it is one of personal taste.
If one continues to perpetuate evil and spitefulness, then the world is
more hateful and spiteful. Nothing in the original post was directed
at or about you yet you chose to attack.

I chose to criticize a weak piece of work. I seem to recall I still
have that right.

This is simply a LIE by you Neal. In case you have already forgotten
what you posted here it is:

Nov 28, 6:36 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
From: "The Historian" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 28 Nov 2005 16:36:16 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 28 2005 6:36 pm
Subject: Current Historical Article Reviewed - Steinitz
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



Chess One wrote:
I am pleased to note that my Chessville colleague Prof. Nagesh Havanur has
reviewed an article in the very good Quarterly for Chess History, issue #3,
1999, editor Dr.Vlastimil Fiala.

Neal Wrote:

Chessvile has blacklisted Fiala, so it's odd to see a review of QFCH
there. But fortunately you can buy it at Chess Cafe:
http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=33&PID=768


-
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/QCH19993.htm



The in an immediate post afterwards to attempt to provoke an argument
Neal posts this:




3. The Historian
Dec 3, 10:14 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
From: "The Historian" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 3 Dec 2005 08:14:09 -0800
Local: Sat, Dec 3 2005 10:14 am
Subject: Current Historical Article Reviewed - Steinitz
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Chess One wrote:
I am pleased to note that my Chessville colleague Prof. Nagesh Havanur has
reviewed an article in the very good Quarterly for Chess History, issue #3,
1999, editor Dr.Vlastimil Fiala.

He makes interesting comments on editors generally, especially of their
technical limitations, but also offers the relevance to the game of factors
which do not appear in the game score. This issue of the Review was
principally on Steinitz, but also noted Laskers early, middle and late
attitude to the Old Chess.


Here he writes about Lasker's shock when confronted with the American genius
Harry Pillsbury - also providing a fully annotated game.


"What was most surprising to all was Pillsbury's extreme coolness.
During the first few moves his face seemed to express almost indifference to
his opponent's strength and he made his play with a languid, deliberate ease
that astonished the spectators."


He also offers a fully annotated Steinitz Lasker from Montreal 1894, the
complex 16th game.


Much credit is given to Dr. Fiala who unearthed quite a few unknown games of
Steinitz and Lasker - and also an explanation for other chess historians and
sleuths of how they were obtained.


http://www.chessville.com/reviews/QCH19993.htm


Phil Innes

Neal says:

The reviewer's comments on Fiala's article reminded me of a monkey
examining a watch. The kindest remark I can make about the review is
that it's just the sort of stuff that would fit next to the
semi-literate "Parrot" droppings Chessvile offers each week.

SO Neal,

You neither attempted to refute or acclaim the quality of the work
being commented upon. Noting you psted contributed to the advancement
or the appreciation of the game of chess. If you wish you take part in
personal attacks, write to me directly. Or better yet... call me on the
phone. If you want to metaphorically stand in the school yard and stick
out your tongue in a pale attempt to garner the attention you were
denied as a child, I will not participate.

My comment to your posts was civil and measured. It was an attempt to
gentle nudge you back onto a productive path of intellectual
discussion. Should you desire another some other form of discourse and
wish to become personal I will not take part in a news group. I am an
adult and will not be baited by impish and immature attempts at
juvenile prodding.

Happy Holidays,
Rob

Rob wrote:
Neal,

The Historian wrote:
Rob wrote:
Neal,

Life is short. The choice on how to pursue it is one of personal taste.
If one continues to perpetuate evil and spitefulness, then the world is
more hateful and spiteful. Nothing in the original post was directed
at or about you yet you chose to attack.

I chose to criticize a weak piece of work. I seem to recall I still
have that right.

This is simply a LIE (sic) by you Neal (sic). In case you have already forgotten
what you posted here it is:

Nov 28, 6:36 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
From: "The Historian" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 28 Nov 2005 16:36:16 -0800
Local: Mon, Nov 28 2005 6:36 pm
Subject: Current Historical Article Reviewed - Steinitz
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse



Chess One wrote:
I am pleased to note that my Chessville colleague Prof. Nagesh Havanur has
reviewed an article in the very good Quarterly for Chess History, issue #3,
1999, editor Dr.Vlastimil Fiala.

Neal Wrote:

Chessvile has blacklisted Fiala, so it's odd to see a review of QFCH
there. But fortunately you can buy it at Chess Cafe:
http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=33&PID=768


-
http://www.chessville.com/reviews/QCH19993.htm

That was a comment on Chessvile's blacklisting of Fiala. If you weren't
Innes' lickspittle, I'd suggest you look up how many times he's made
silly accusations of blacklisting against a business rival. BTW, do you
agree with Philth's claims that Chess Cafe blacklists authors?

The in an immediate post afterwards to attempt to provoke an argument
Neal posts this:




3. The Historian
Dec 3, 10:14 am show options

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc
From: "The Historian" - Find messages by this
author
Date: 3 Dec 2005 08:14:09 -0800
Local: Sat, Dec 3 2005 10:14 am
Subject: Current Historical Article Reviewed - Steinitz
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse




- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Chess One wrote:
I am pleased to note that my Chessville colleague Prof. Nagesh Havanur has
reviewed an article in the very good Quarterly for Chess History, issue #3,
1999, editor Dr.Vlastimil Fiala.

He makes interesting comments on editors generally, especially of their
technical limitations, but also offers the relevance to the game of factors
which do not appear in the game score. This issue of the Review was
principally on Steinitz, but also noted Laskers early, middle and late
attitude to the Old Chess.


Here he writes about Lasker's shock when confronted with the American genius
Harry Pillsbury - also providing a fully annotated game.


"What was most surprising to all was Pillsbury's extreme coolness.
During the first few moves his face seemed to express almost indifference to
his opponent's strength and he made his play with a languid, deliberate ease
that astonished the spectators."


He also offers a fully annotated Steinitz Lasker from Montreal 1894, the
complex 16th game.


Much credit is given to Dr. Fiala who unearthed quite a few unknown games of
Steinitz and Lasker - and also an explanation for other chess historians and
sleuths of how they were obtained.


http://www.chessville.com/reviews/QCH19993.htm


Phil Innes

Neal (sic) says:

The reviewer's comments on Fiala's article reminded me of a monkey
examining a watch. The kindest remark I can make about the review is
that it's just the sort of stuff that would fit next to the
semi-literate "Parrot" droppings Chessvile offers each week.

SO Neal (sic),

You neither attempted to refute or acclaim the quality of the work
being commented upon.

LOL! What part of "monkey examining a watch" don't you understand? In
fact, I rather like my use of the old line; since the monkey quip is
often attributed to Steinitz, using it to describe the cluelessness of
the 'review' author seems an admirable conceit. But of course, you
cannot read, so naturally it passed over your head.

Noting (sic) you psted (sic) contributed to the advancement
or the appreciation of the game of chess.

You have a high opinion of newsgroup postings. Pity most people don't
share it.

The person, whose name is Neal Brennan, asserts his right to be publicly
abusive at everyone opportunity! Ain't America great?! While affirming that
this is indeed his right, this is also the reason why he is so seldom so.

Phil Innes

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

Rob wrote:
Neal,

Life is short. The choice on how to pursue it is one of personal taste.
If one continues to perpetuate evil and spitefulness, then the world is
more hateful and spiteful. Nothing in the original post was directed
at or about you yet you chose to attack.

I chose to criticize a weak piece of work. I seem to recall I still
have that right.

Such actions destroy your
credibility with mature adults and do little to give a positive
impression to parents who may wish to encourage their children to
pursue the game.

This is coming from the person who routinely ignores his 'partner's'
actions and postings. Of course, considering the position Rob assumes
with Innes I doubt he can see what Philth does, Rob's face being buried
in the pillow and all.

-