Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. - |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. - |