Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61   Report Post  
Old December 21st 09, 11:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood

On Dec 20, 8:14*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:53*am, ChessFire wrote:



When I interviewed Michael Adams a few years ago he said 'you know,
I'm studying this really old book written in descriptive notation',
and I didn't say anything since at the time of buying my first chess
books algebraic notation hadn't been invented. At least I never saw it
deployed anywhere.


Does anyone actually know who originated and popularized it?


* One can find references to algebraic notation in various 19th-
century works. One example is "The Modern Chess Instructor" by
Steinitz (1889) which discusses the "German algebraic system of
notation" on pages xvi-xvii.
* Therefore, unless our Phil is much older than he lets on, he's quite
incorrect to say "at the time of buying my first chess books algebraic
notation hadn't been invented." But then, being incorrect is hardly a
new experience for Innes.


It is probably impossible to answer Phil's question about who
invented algebraic notation; apparently its origins are lost in
antiquity. Sunnucks' "Encyclopaedia of Chess" says it was used in
Europe in medieval times, and according to H.J.R. Murray it was
probably borrowed from Muslim players. In which case it's been around
for probably a thousand years or so, again contradicting Phil's belief
that it had not been invented at the time he bought his first chess
books.
It would be accurate to say that algebraic notation was not widely
used by the English-speaking chess community in the days of Phil's
youth. It was probably not until the 1970s or '80s that most British
and American players and publishers turned away from the old
descriptive notation.
  #62   Report Post  
Old December 22nd 09, 12:21 AM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,381
Default I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood

On Dec 20, 8:14*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:53*am, ChessFire wrote:



When I interviewed Michael Adams a few years ago he said 'you know,
I'm studying this really old book written in descriptive notation',
and I didn't say anything since at the time of buying my first chess
books algebraic notation hadn't been invented. At least I never saw it
deployed anywhere.


Does anyone actually know who originated and popularized it?


* One can find references to algebraic notation in various 19th-
century works. One example is "The Modern Chess Instructor" by
Steinitz (1889) which discusses the "German algebraic system of
notation" on pages xvi-xvii.
* Therefore, unless our Phil is much older than he lets on, he's quite
incorrect to say "at the time of buying my first chess books algebraic
notation hadn't been invented." But then, being incorrect is hardly a
new experience for Innes.


And the same to Kingbone, who didn't notice that I said of material at
the time I bought books, not some German theory. But that is his
geist, no? To bitch.

Merry Christmas, Kingbone. Cheer up, wontcha? This German idea hadn't
been invented into print, is my point, but if you want to bitch, be my
bitch, baby.

Phil Innes
  #63   Report Post  
Old December 22nd 09, 12:45 AM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood

On Dec 21, 6:21*pm, ChessFire wrote:
On Dec 20, 8:14*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:





On Dec 19, 9:53*am, ChessFire wrote:


When I interviewed Michael Adams a few years ago he said 'you know,
I'm studying this really old book written in descriptive notation',
and I didn't say anything since at the time of buying my first chess
books algebraic notation hadn't been invented. At least I never saw it
deployed anywhere.


Does anyone actually know who originated and popularized it?


* One can find references to algebraic notation in various 19th-
century works. One example is "The Modern Chess Instructor" by
Steinitz (1889) which discusses the "German algebraic system of
notation" on pages xvi-xvii.
* Therefore, unless our Phil is much older than he lets on, he's quite
incorrect to say "at the time of buying my first chess books algebraic
notation hadn't been invented." But then, being incorrect is hardly a
new experience for Innes.


And the same to Kingbone, who didn't notice that I said of material at
the time I bought books, not some German theory. But that is his
geist, no? To bitch.

Merry Christmas, Kingbone. Cheer up, wontcha? This German idea hadn't
been invented into print, is my point,


You are saying there were no books using algebraic notation until
late in the 20th century? Nonsense! I have the 1843 edition of
Bilguer's "Handbuch des Schachspiels." It's definitely invented, it's
definitely in print, and it's definitely algebraic.

but if you want to bitch, be my
bitch, baby.


Phil, will you ever grow up? You're caught out in broad daylight
making a clearly false statement. I quote you directly:

"...at the time of buying my first chess books algebraic notation
hadn't been invented."

Then when the inaccuracy of this statement is pointed out, you
pretend to have said something else. But everyone here can read what
you actually wrote.
How old are you, Phil? 50-something? Certainly old enough to stop
acting like a toddler who blames everything on his imaginary playmate.
  #64   Report Post  
Old December 22nd 09, 05:39 AM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.computer
sd sd is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 922
Default I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood

Alain White (an American problemist and publisher) used English
Algebraic (modified, as is convention in problems with S for knight)
in his book "More White Rooks", published in 1911.

I would have to go back to the magazines to look, but I believe
algebraic was occasionally used - although mostly discussed - as early
as the 1950s in American publications such as Chess Life. I recall
readers were not for it, but that doesn't mean it was not around.

I imagine the same is true for Britain.
  #65   Report Post  
Old December 22nd 09, 03:25 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,381
Default I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood

On Dec 21, 6:45*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Dec 21, 6:21*pm, ChessFire wrote:





On Dec 20, 8:14*pm, Taylor Kingston
wrote:


On Dec 19, 9:53*am, ChessFire wrote:


When I interviewed Michael Adams a few years ago he said 'you know,
I'm studying this really old book written in descriptive notation',
and I didn't say anything since at the time of buying my first chess
books algebraic notation hadn't been invented. At least I never saw it
deployed anywhere.


Does anyone actually know who originated and popularized it?


* One can find references to algebraic notation in various 19th-
century works. One example is "The Modern Chess Instructor" by
Steinitz (1889) which discusses the "German algebraic system of
notation" on pages xvi-xvii.
* Therefore, unless our Phil is much older than he lets on, he's quite
incorrect to say "at the time of buying my first chess books algebraic
notation hadn't been invented." But then, being incorrect is hardly a
new experience for Innes.


And the same to Kingbone, who didn't notice that I said of material at
the time I bought books, not some German theory. But that is his
geist, no? To bitch.


Merry Christmas, Kingbone. Cheer up, wontcha? This German idea hadn't
been invented into print, is my point,


* You are saying there were no books using algebraic notation until
late in the 20th century? Nonsense! I have the 1843 edition of
Bilguer's "Handbuch des Schachspiels." It's definitely invented, it's
definitely in print, and it's definitely algebraic.

but if you want to bitch, be my
bitch, baby.


* Phil, will you ever grow up? You're caught out in broad daylight
making a clearly false statement. I quote you directly:

* "...at the time of buying my first chess books algebraic notation
hadn't been invented."

* Then when the inaccuracy of this statement is pointed out, you
pretend to have said something else. But everyone here can read what
you actually wrote.


How dare you continue to willfully misunderstand - OBVIOUSLY the
context of talking with Adams is the right one, and if algebraic was
showing up in chess books? How come you leave out the context? In
order to have a hissy fit? You can't even end the paragraph you cite,
so leave out "At least I never saw it deployed anywhere."

==

Then you yourself talk of 1850, but Stamma in 1745.

I think it quite likely that it came from Spain much earlier, both the
game and the idea of algebra being Arab.

* How old are you, Phil? 50-something? Certainly old enough to stop
acting like a toddler who blames everything on his imaginary playmate.


As I said, be a bitch if you want, what's new?

Phil Innes


  #66   Report Post  
Old December 22nd 09, 03:56 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood

On Dec 22, 9:25*am, ChessFire wrote:

How dare you continue to willfully misunderstand -


Phil, did it ever occur to you that your writing is so murky,
confused and self-contradictory that it cannot be understood, as the
word "understood" is usually understood? I recall a comedian who
quipped "You know, nothing actually makes any sense; we just
understand it, that's all." With you, he was only half-right.
If you wanted to say "I had never heard of algebraic notation until
I was umpteen years old," then you should have written that. Not
"algebraic notation hadn't been invented," followed by "At least I
never saw it deployed anywhere." Your wording is like saying "When I
was a teenager the Pacific Ocean did not exist. At least, I had never
seen it."
BTW, one does not "deploy" chess notation. Soldiers and warships are
deployed. Chess notation is employed.

Then you yourself talk of 1850, but Stamma in 1745.


Eh? I have not mentioned 1850, 1745 or Stamma at all in this thread.
This is another serious problem you have, Phil: attributing to people
things they never said.




  #67   Report Post  
Old December 22nd 09, 04:06 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:56:59 -0800 (PST), Taylor Kingston
wrote:

On Dec 22, 9:25*am, ChessFire wrote:


How dare you continue to willfully misunderstand -


Phil, did it ever occur to you that your writing is so murky,
confused and self-contradictory that it cannot be understood, as the
word "understood" is usually understood?...
If you wanted to say "I had never heard of algebraic notation until
I was umpteen years old," then you should have written that. Not
"algebraic notation hadn't been invented," followed by "At least I
never saw it deployed anywhere." Your wording is like saying "When I
was a teenager the Pacific Ocean did not exist. At least, I had never
seen it."


Then you yourself talk of 1850, but Stamma in 1745.


Eh? I have not mentioned 1850, 1745 or Stamma at all in this thread.
This is another serious problem you have, Phil: attributing to people
things they never said.


What the hell is wrong with him, anyway? He denies stuff he's
written just a few posts up-thread. He falsely attributes quotes and
comments, seldom admits error. The relatively few people who read
this forum regularly all seem on to his "tricks". What's the payoff?
  #68   Report Post  
Old December 22nd 09, 05:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood

On Dec 22, 10:06*am, Mike Murray wrote:

What the hell is wrong with him, anyway? *He denies stuff *he's
written just a few posts up-thread. *He falsely attributes quotes and
comments, seldom admits error. * The relatively few people who read
this forum regularly all seem on to his "tricks". *What's the payoff?


He's trolling. What's the payoff in trolling? Attention. Just as James
Eade pegged him back in 2001.
  #69   Report Post  
Old December 22nd 09, 06:22 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood

On Dec 22, 11:27*am, The Historian
wrote:

He's trolling. What's the payoff in trolling? Attention. Just as James
Eade pegged him back in 2001.


So you're saying Phil ochrestrated 911 just for the attention?
  #70   Report Post  
Old December 22nd 09, 09:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.computer
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,381
Default I am reprinting "The Tactical Grob" by Claude Bloodgood

On Dec 22, 9:56*am, Taylor Kingston
wrote:
On Dec 22, 9:25*am, ChessFire wrote:



How dare you continue to willfully misunderstand -


* Phil, did it ever occur to you that your writing is so murky,
confused and self-contradictory that it cannot be understood, as the
word "understood" is usually understood?


Has it occurred to you that you have written **** about other people
in public and private since I first encountered your 'orienbtation to
chess.

I recall a comedian who

But you don't recall the 20 some e-mails you sent to me denigrating
other players and commentators? You don't recall even if I returned
you some of them at your own request.

What does it feel like to be the Ollie North of chess?

Non-stiop **** from Kingston, and no content from Kingston. Just what
Kingston makes from his books, and not from his intelligence.


quipped "You know, nothing actually makes any sense; we just
understand it, that's all." With you, he was only half-right.
* If you wanted to say "I had never heard of algebraic notation until
I was umpteen years old," then you should have written that. Not


But that is NOT my point, numbskull! It is that chess books did not
use algebraic notation in my youth. Tell me you understand this before
you rant and hiss further.

Tell me you understand the plain context of my writing, and don't spin
it because you are numb in the head, or something, or needing some
enemy always.


"algebraic notation hadn't been invented," followed by "At least I
never saw it deployed anywhere." Your wording is like saying "When I
was a teenager the Pacific Ocean did not exist. At least, I had never
seen it."


It is only if you destroy the context - which you did - and you even
eliminate my accusation to you that you did it willfully, since no-one
could read what I wrote and think as you do.



Therefore, you continue to **** with people, since you cannot admit
your own need to be a rather superior bloke, but to be superior you
have to be very much more informed than Taylor Kingston is, including
admitting your won insights, and more modest too.


* BTW, one does not "deploy" chess notation. Soldiers and warships are
deployed. Chess notation is employed.


Evidently one did not deploy algebraic notation much before 1970. Even
though the idea of it was 250 or even a thousand years older. The word
deploy indicates an idea acted upon, eh?

Then you yourself talk of 1850, but Stamma in 1745.


* Eh? I have not mentioned 1850,


Yes you did, by virtue of your previous post.

1745 or Stamma at all in this thread.


You have not mentioned it because you did not know of it.

This is another serious problem you have, Phil: attributing to people
things they never said.


60,000+ words with Blair reveal the same thing, apparently. He does
not want to discuss things, despite his 60,000 words.



Get it, Kingston?

The question is whether you will own your own opinion and behavior or
be content to have your say while pretending you have nothing to say.

As usual, you will either now become more personal and in denial, or
hiss and run. What you will not do is state your own opinion and try
to decently discuss it.

That is why you are such a light-weight, Kingston. You, who once wrote
a calendar.

Phil Innes
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chess tactical concepts? J.L.W.S. The Special One rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 36 December 28th 05 05:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:38 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017