Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 28th 10, 02:44 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Greg Kennedy Lies Again (was: d6 or e6 Sicilian)

On Apr 25, 11:29*pm, The Master wrote:

* I understand that Kingston may have altered the definition at the
link I provided earlier.


Greg, you are as blatant and inept a liar as anyone I've ever read
here. You are referring to this link, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_pawn

You posted that link on 21 April 2010, in this thread. And as anyone
can check he

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...action=history

that Wikipedia page, as of now, has not been altered since 16 April
2010, five days /before/ you posted the link. And I can assure you
that I have never altered it, as can also be checked in the above
revision history.
I haven't altered it, even though it badly needs alteration, because
I wanted rgc readers to see for themselves what a bad definition you
recommended something "in which the backward pawn is properly
described."

*Well, when I read it, it seemed to be a perfectly
good definition,


Yes, and you also thought it was perfectly obvious that a black
knight on f2 attacked a white queen, even when the queen stood on
e2.

but I cannot be held responsible for the actions of
imbeciles.


Ah, so now the "perfectly good definition" is the work of imbeciles.
So then you were equally imbecilic to recommend it?

* The Oxford Companion contains quite a lot of information in one
handy
spot. *But to really understand pawn structure you need to get ahold
of a book like Pawn Power in Chess


By Hans Kmoch? I've had that book for years. Kmoch's definition of
"backwardness," on pages 25-26, differs significantly from the
Wikipedia article you so strongly supported. If, as you claim, you
knew Kmoch to have the "real understanding," how could you have
recommended something so different?
  #2   Report Post  
Old April 28th 10, 09:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,146
Default Greg Kennedy Lies Again (was: d6 or e6 Sicilian)

On Apr 28, 9:44*am, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

* I understand that Kingston may have altered the definition at the
link I provided earlier.



My comment above was made _in response to_ a claim here in rgc
by someone that 'any imbecile' could modify wikipedia's articles-- a
claim which seemed to be complaining about the absurdity of the
definition of a 'backward pawn' which had been mucked up since I
read it. It was only logical to conclude therefore that *if* it had
in
fact been modified (his claim, not mine) as described, the culprit in
question was most likely Taylor Kingston. Who else fits the above
description, had a motive to modify the wiki definition to something
absurd, and is the sort of lowlife who might stoop to that level?
Come on Lestrade, you know the answer.


that Wikipedia page, as of now, has not been altered since 16 April
2010, five days /before/ you posted the link. And I can assure you
that I have never altered it, as can also be checked in the above
revision history.



Good work, Inspector! For once, you have actually done some
real 'legwork' before leaping to unwarranted conclusions... or
sending off a letter to the editor before even bothering to ponder
the issues you are arrogantly pontificating on.


* I haven't altered it, even though it badly needs alteration, because
I wanted rgc readers to see for themselves what a bad definition you
recommended something "in which the backward pawn is properly
described."



Readers here might be interested to know what you -- an admitted
ignoramus on the matter of what a backward pawn is -- now believe
you 'know' about the subject. The other fellow seemed reluctant to
chat about what made him so unhappy about the definition given at
wikipedia.org, preferring instead to attack its allegeded modifier
with
epithets.


*Well, when I read it, it seemed to be a perfectly good definition,


* Yes, and you also thought it was perfectly obvious that a black
knight on f2 attacked a white queen, even when the queen stood on
e2.



Is this supposed to be a 'retraction' of your previous claim, that
I
had 'maintained' that a knight on f2 in fact attacks d1? Or are you
just playing around with the words, like a small child in a sandbox.
Of course, you do realize that you are free to quote me in context,
if you wish to discuss things like a mature adult. I seem to recall
a fellow by the name of Louis Blair who liked to quote things as
opposed to playing with the words to make of them what you will
like your very own 'playdough.'


But to really understand pawn structure you need to get ahold
of a book like Pawn Power in Chess


* By Hans Kmoch? I've had that book for years. Kmoch's definition of
"backwardness," on pages 25-26, differs significantly from the
Wikipedia article you so strongly supported. If, as you claim, you
knew Kmoch to have the "real understanding," how could you have
recommended something so different?



Please provide a quote to support your crazy idea (that I 'know'
HK to have this real understanding). I of course know I have not
said any such thing, but after that last go-around I cannot rule out
the possibility of temporary insanity!

If you object to Kmoch's odd approach, there is always the book
by Andrew Soltis. In any case, either of these writers had at
least a far superior understanding of the subject than that which
was displayed by you in the post which even 'Ray Lopez' found
to be 'shocking' in its revelations, and which I happened to note
another of your careless gaffes.





  #3   Report Post  
Old April 28th 10, 11:03 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Greg Kennedy Lies Again (was: d6 or e6 Sicilian)

On Apr 28, 4:35*pm, The Master wrote:
On Apr 28, 9:44*am, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

* I understand that Kingston may have altered the definition at the
link I provided earlier.


* My comment above was made _in response to_ a claim here in rgc
by someone that 'any imbecile' could modify wikipedia's articles-- a
claim which seemed to be complaining about the absurdity of the
definition of a 'backward pawn' which had been mucked up since I
read it. * It was only logical to conclude therefore that *if* it had in
fact been modified (his claim, not mine) as described, the culprit in
question was most likely Taylor Kingston. *Who else fits the above
description, had a motive to modify the wiki definition to something
absurd, and is the sort of lowlife who might stoop to that level?
Come on Lestrade, you know the answer.


Greg, I provided a link to the revision history for that article.
You can find the answer yourself. But of course you won't bother. You
prefer to cast baseless aspersions. This is one of your usual defenses
to the charge of casting baseless aspersions: to cast more baseless
aspersions.

that Wikipedia page, as of now, has not been altered since 16 April
2010, five days /before/ you posted the link. And I can assure you
that I have never altered it, as can also be checked in the above
revision history.


* Good work, Inspector! *For once, you have actually done some
real 'legwork' before leaping to unwarranted conclusions...


No, Greg. The correct response is something along the lines of
"You're right, Taylor. I made a false accusation against you. I lied
in a foolish way that anyone with brains could see through. I did
wrong, to both you and myself. I humbly apologize."
But of course you're as likely to apologize as Turkey is about
Armenia.

*Well, when I read it, it seemed to be a perfectly good definition,


* Yes, and you also thought it was perfectly obvious that a black
knight on f2 attacked a white queen, even when the queen stood on
e2.


* Is this supposed to be a 'retraction' of your previous claim, that I
had 'maintained' that a knight on f2 in fact attacks d1? *


No, it's an example of how sloppy and careless you are.

But to really understand pawn structure you need to get ahold
of a book like Pawn Power in Chess


* By Hans Kmoch? I've had that book for years. Kmoch's definition of
"backwardness," on pages 25-26, differs significantly from the
Wikipedia article you so strongly supported. If, as you claim, you
knew Kmoch to have the "real understanding," how could you have
recommended something so different?


* Please provide a quote to support your crazy idea (that I 'know'
HK to have this real understanding). * I of course know I have not
said any such thing,


You ask me to provide a quote that's already here, less than a dozen
lines above? Sheesh.

but after that last go-around I cannot rule out
the possibility of temporary insanity!


Certainly in your case we cannot, or at least not selective
blindness.

* If you object to Kmoch's odd approach, there is always the book
by Andrew Soltis. * In any case, either of these writers had at
least a far superior understanding of the subject than that which
was displayed by you in the post which even 'Ray Lopez' found
to be 'shocking' in its revelations, and which I happened to note
another of your careless gaffes.


Greg, the plain facts are that in response to a minor mistake on my
part, you cited /as definitive/ an article with far worse mistakes,
and then accused me of changing said article. You were sloppy and
careless, and then tried to cover up that sloppiness with a clumsy
lie. You're not only pointlessly unethical, but highly inept at it.

I again urge you to read the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7, verse 3.
You badly need to heed its advice.
  #4   Report Post  
Old April 29th 10, 07:20 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default Greg Kennedy Lies Again (was: d6 or e6 Sicilian)

GREG COULDA BEEN A CONTENDAH

Greg Kennedy tells us, though not quite directly, that he read
a position "blindfolded." Hence an error crept it.

Readers may recollect Greg moaning about how he coulda been a
contendah if he had not suffered in the cornfields of Indiana -- if he
had just had the good luck to grow up in Brooklyn and had the same
keen competition as Bobby Fischer had at the Marshall and Manhattan
Club.

I am reminded of how Larry Evans paid Bobby a few hundred
dollars to sight-read an ENTIRE BOOK -- his Modern Chess Brilliancies.
Bobby effortlessly read through involved annotations and provided
corrections. Just like that.

Our Greg "a contendah"?

Heh, heh, heh.

Yours, Larry Parr



Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Apr 28, 4:35 pm, The Master wrote:
On Apr 28, 9:44 am, Taylor Kingston
wrote:

I understand that Kingston may have altered the definition at the
link I provided earlier.


My comment above was made _in response to_ a claim here in rgc
by someone that 'any imbecile' could modify wikipedia's articles-- a
claim which seemed to be complaining about the absurdity of the
definition of a 'backward pawn' which had been mucked up since I
read it. It was only logical to conclude therefore that *if* it had in
fact been modified (his claim, not mine) as described, the culprit in
question was most likely Taylor Kingston. Who else fits the above
description, had a motive to modify the wiki definition to something
absurd, and is the sort of lowlife who might stoop to that level?
Come on Lestrade, you know the answer.


Greg, I provided a link to the revision history for that article.
You can find the answer yourself. But of course you won't bother. You
prefer to cast baseless aspersions. This is one of your usual defenses
to the charge of casting baseless aspersions: to cast more baseless
aspersions.

that Wikipedia page, as of now, has not been altered since 16 April
2010, five days /before/ you posted the link. And I can assure you
that I have never altered it, as can also be checked in the above
revision history.


Good work, Inspector! For once, you have actually done some
real 'legwork' before leaping to unwarranted conclusions...


No, Greg. The correct response is something along the lines of
"You're right, Taylor. I made a false accusation against you. I lied
in a foolish way that anyone with brains could see through. I did
wrong, to both you and myself. I humbly apologize."
But of course you're as likely to apologize as Turkey is about
Armenia.

Well, when I read it, it seemed to be a perfectly good definition,


Yes, and you also thought it was perfectly obvious that a black
knight on f2 attacked a white queen, even when the queen stood on
e2.


Is this supposed to be a 'retraction' of your previous claim, that I
had 'maintained' that a knight on f2 in fact attacks d1?


No, it's an example of how sloppy and careless you are.

But to really understand pawn structure you need to get ahold
of a book like Pawn Power in Chess


By Hans Kmoch? I've had that book for years. Kmoch's definition of
"backwardness," on pages 25-26, differs significantly from the
Wikipedia article you so strongly supported. If, as you claim, you
knew Kmoch to have the "real understanding," how could you have
recommended something so different?


Please provide a quote to support your crazy idea (that I 'know'
HK to have this real understanding). I of course know I have not
said any such thing,


You ask me to provide a quote that's already here, less than a dozen
lines above? Sheesh.

but after that last go-around I cannot rule out
the possibility of temporary insanity!


Certainly in your case we cannot, or at least not selective
blindness.

If you object to Kmoch's odd approach, there is always the book
by Andrew Soltis. In any case, either of these writers had at
least a far superior understanding of the subject than that which
was displayed by you in the post which even 'Ray Lopez' found
to be 'shocking' in its revelations, and which I happened to note
another of your careless gaffes.


Greg, the plain facts are that in response to a minor mistake on my
part, you cited /as definitive/ an article with far worse mistakes,
and then accused me of changing said article. You were sloppy and
careless, and then tried to cover up that sloppiness with a clumsy
lie. You're not only pointlessly unethical, but highly inept at it.

I again urge you to read the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7, verse 3.
You badly need to heed its advice.

  #5   Report Post  
Old April 29th 10, 11:17 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
sd sd is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 922
Default Greg Kennedy Lies Again (was: d6 or e6 Sicilian)

On Apr 29, 1:20*am, " wrote:


* * * * Readers may recollect Greg moaning about how he coulda been a
contendah if he had not suffered in the cornfields of Indiana


No but I do recall you bringing it up say 4 or 5 billion times.




* * * * I am reminded of how Larry Evans paid Bobby a few hundred
dollars to sight-read an ENTIRE BOOK -- his Modern Chess Brilliancies.
Bobby effortlessly read through involved annotations and provided
corrections. Just like that.

* * * * Our Greg "a contendah"?



Fischer was a bit more than a contender.

Greg is no prize, but I swear Parr, you are the most infantile poster
here.

SBD


  #6   Report Post  
Old April 29th 10, 02:03 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Greg Kennedy Lies Again (was: d6 or e6 Sicilian)

On Apr 29, 6:17*am, sd wrote:

Greg is no prize, but I swear Parr, you are the most infantile poster
here.

SBD


Does that mean Mr. Innes has left for good?

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
The Judith Exner Story, The Life of the Mistress of John F.Kennedy ISBN 0923891900 samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 9 February 29th 08 05:07 PM
The Judith Exner Story, The Life of the Mistress of John F.Kennedy ISBN 0923891900 samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 9 February 29th 08 05:07 PM
The Judith Exner Story, The Life of the Mistress of John F.Kennedy ISBN 0923891900 samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 7 February 29th 08 12:16 PM
Keene reviews Kingston (part 1) [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 445 June 11th 06 09:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017