Main
Date: 13 Dec 2007 10:14:36
From: Sanny
Subject: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
Help Bot has helped a lot in development of GetClub Chess. And today
GetClub Chess is playing very good games and the credit goes to Help
Bot (Nomorechess).

For helping me in developing GetClub Chess. Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
Suggested me that Help Bot should be awarded free games. So 225 Free
Games worth ($20.00) will be awarded next month to Help Bot for his
help & support in development of GetClub Chess.

He was on Top at GetClub for 5 months, But Recently being overtaken by
Zebediah. Earlier Taylor Kingston. was at the Top position at GetClub
Chess.

Now, It is very difficult to win even the Beginner Level.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html




 
Date: 09 Jan 2008 04:55:46
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Chess for Tigers
LONG ON OPINIONS, SHORT ON FACTS

That's our Indiana Kid (aka help bot, nomorechess). Looks like TK is
right on this one.

<With respect to "Chess for Tigers," the only place where "cheating"
resides is in help-not's imagination. > -- Taylor Kingston


Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jan 8, 12:31?am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 10:03 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > ? Logic tells us that when I say the book
> > > > advocates "cheating" -- interpreted strictly as
> > > > it is written in the USCF rulebook -- my
> > > > comment is subject to fact-checking by
> > > > others, which I welcome.
> >
> > > ? OK, then. Here are the main chapter titles from "Chess for Tigers,"
> > > with a brief sumy of Webb's main recommendations:
> >
> > ? Nowhere is there any quote of me stating that
> > this book's chapter headings recommend cheating.
>
> Nowhere is also the location of any proof of your claim that "Chess
> for Tigers" advocates cheating.
>
> > ? To the contrary, I maintain that ideas on cheating
> > are contained in the main text,
>
> Then it is your responsibility to produce relevant portions of that
> text here. Otherwise you show yourself to be nothing more than a lazy
> cheap-shot artist.
>
> > and, as would be
> > expected, between the lines. ?
>
> Ah, shades of Larry Parr. Help-not reserves to himself the right to
> "interpret" in whatever manner serves his purpose. And in this case,
> regarding a book he seems never to have read at all.
>
> > ? Indeed. ?The amazing "logic" of Taylor Kingston
> > would have it that the chapter titles are the only
> > place where cheating might reside in a book.
>
> With respect to "Chess for Tigers," the only place where "cheating"
> resides is in help-not's imagination.
>
> > ? I am once again reminded of the failure with
> > regard to the B/B cheating brouhaha, where TK
> > fired off a shot in the dark which was published
> > in Chess Lies magazine, then later did some
> > "thinking" about the issue.
>
> "B/B" still meaning Botvinnik-Bronstein, I presume? Your imagination
> is really working overtime, Greg. I have never had anything about any
> "B/B cheating brouhaha" published in Chess Life, Chess Lies, or
> anywhere else.


 
Date: 08 Jan 2008 05:37:47
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Chess for Tigers (was: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at
On Jan 8, 12:31=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 10:03 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > =A0 Logic tells us that when I say the book
> > > advocates "cheating" -- interpreted strictly as
> > > it is written in the USCF rulebook -- my
> > > comment is subject to fact-checking by
> > > others, which I welcome.
>
> > =A0 OK, then. Here are the main chapter titles from "Chess for Tigers,"
> > with a brief sumy of Webb's main recommendations:
>
> =A0 Nowhere is there any quote of me stating that
> this book's chapter headings recommend cheating.

Nowhere is also the location of any proof of your claim that "Chess
for Tigers" advocates cheating.

> =A0 To the contrary, I maintain that ideas on cheating
> are contained in the main text,

Then it is your responsibility to produce relevant portions of that
text here. Otherwise you show yourself to be nothing more than a lazy
cheap-shot artist.

> and, as would be
> expected, between the lines. =A0

Ah, shades of Larry Parr. Help-not reserves to himself the right to
"interpret" in whatever manner serves his purpose. And in this case,
regarding a book he seems never to have read at all.

> =A0 Indeed. =A0The amazing "logic" of Taylor Kingston
> would have it that the chapter titles are the only
> place where cheating might reside in a book.

With respect to "Chess for Tigers," the only place where "cheating"
resides is in help-not's imagination.

> =A0 I am once again reminded of the failure with
> regard to the B/B cheating brouhaha, where TK
> fired off a shot in the dark which was published
> in Chess Lies magazine, then later did some
> "thinking" about the issue.

"B/B" still meaning Botvinnik-Bronstein, I presume? Your imagination
is really working overtime, Greg. I have never had anything about any
"B/B cheating brouhaha" published in Chess Life, Chess Lies, or
anywhere else.


 
Date: 07 Jan 2008 21:50:34
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Jan 7, 9:20 pm, Louis Blair <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 6:17 pm, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Can you state in your own words, what you believe
> > the book "Chess for Tigers" *does* advocate? How
> > do you see the word "tiger" as befitting this book, in
> > particular?
> > ...
>
> _
> Perhaps these reviews would be helpful:

As I have pointed out here before, there are book
reviews, and then there are book reviews. For instance,
at Jeremy Silman's site, any book on the openings
might well be torn to pieces by a tag-team of IMs, who
live and breathe openings theory and whose reviews
are sometimes as thick and meaty as the books they
are reviewing.

But give the man a book like this one and the result
is a brief fluff piece, with no meat or potatoes. It's not
even clear whether he even read the book. Probably
a quick flip-though the chapter titles sufficed, as with
Mr. Kingston's own, um, effort.

What is required here is to accept my definition (or
rather, the USCF's) of cheating, and then read the
book to see how it accords. I repeat my earlier point:
that TK is afraid to say where "tigers" enter the fray.

Obviously, a tiger is a ruthless predator (not unlike
Gary Kasparov or Bobby Fischer), who has no regard
for his victims-- er, I mean opponents, their rights or
equality under the law. A tiger POUNCES, then
dismisses camera footage of him cheating as though
the camera itself were in the wrong. Lions get all the
press as being the king of beasts, but team-hunting
is not the way of chess; in a game of chess, it's one
against one, and the tiger is the one who comes out
on top.


-- help bot









  
Date: 09 Jan 2008 00:22:51
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> What is required here is to accept my definition (or rather, the
> USCF's) of cheating, and then read the book to see how it accords.
> I repeat my earlier point: that TK is afraid to say where "tigers"
> enter the fray.

OK, then. As per your requirement, you go read the book and tell us
how it accords with the USCF (or, better, FIDE) laws of chess.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Love Dish (TM): it's like a fine
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ ceramic dish that you can share with
someone special!


 
Date: 07 Jan 2008 21:33:00
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Jan 7, 10:30 am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> Have you stopped beating your wife, help-bot?

Which one?


-- help bot




 
Date: 07 Jan 2008 21:31:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Chess for Tigers (was: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at
On Jan 7, 10:03 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Logic tells us that when I say the book
> > advocates "cheating" -- interpreted strictly as
> > it is written in the USCF rulebook -- my
> > comment is subject to fact-checking by
> > others, which I welcome.
>
> OK, then. Here are the main chapter titles from "Chess for Tigers,"
> with a brief sumy of Webb's main recommendations:


Nowhere is there any quote of me stating that
this book's chapter headings recommend cheating.

To the contrary, I maintain that ideas on cheating
are contained in the main text, and, as would be
expected, between the lines. For instance, when
the term "gamesmanship" is used in reference to
a player's questionable behavior, that is code for
what I have defined here as cheating. Reader's
may recall that posters like Mr. Kane and Mr.
Richerby like to use modified definitions, so as
to exempt GMs from taking responsibility for
their own actions, effectively tossing out the rules
of chess and making it up on a whim as they go
along.

Once again, Mr. Kingston's, um, difficulties with
logic race to the fore; he builds up a straw man
to knock over, while missing the forest for the trees.


> How to Catch Rabbits:
> Against players rated significantly lower than yourself, avoid
> complications in favor of technique.

Not everyone is created equal. In my experience,
some higher-rated players have poor technique,
while others excel in this area. Example: Emory
Tate is probably the top-rated player in Indiana, yet
he is a wild-eyed attacker, who does particularly
well in complications -- even against GMs.


> How to Trap Heffalumps:
> Against players rated significantly higher, go for complications
> above all.

Truth is, sometimes it is better to threaten a
draw-by-simplification and let the Heffalump do
the worrying about "creating" complications.

You can't overgeneralize about all higher-rated
players, or all lower-rated players, as though they
had undergone a process of homogenation.


> Clock Control:
> Go for positions in which you feel at home
> Have confidence in your own ability
> Don't be a perfectionist
> Use your opponent's time
> If your opponent is in time trouble, try to prepare two-move
> sequences so that you can reply instantly after he moves.

The rules require the recording of one's own
move, so this is illegal except in a time scramble.
In a time scramble, it is unlikely that one can
accurately predict the opponent's every blunder
like this.


> How to Avoid Silly Mistakes
> Write down your move before making it.

At the time, this was against the rules also.
At my local club, the TD makes a point to say
that he doesn't care one way or the other, and
the rules now allow it.


> Are You Ready?
> Get a good night's sleep before your game

Now you tell me.


> Take a ten-minute walk just before the start of play
>
> Chapters 13-15 offer various bits of advice for team play, quick TLs,
> and postal play.
>
> Nothing in the above constitutes cheating in any way, shape or form.

Indeed. The amazing "logic" of Taylor Kingston
would have it that the chapter titles are the only
place where cheating might reside in a book.

I am once again reminded of the failure with
regard to the B/B cheating brouhaha, where TK
fired off a shot in the dark which was published
in Chess Lies magazine, then later did some
"thinking" about the issue.


-- help bot



  
Date: 08 Jan 2008 19:00:33
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: Chess for Tigers (was: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub)

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:d2062b1f-e7ed-4eee-8bb4-9fa027c60254@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 10:03 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Logic tells us that when I say the book
>> > advocates "cheating" -- interpreted strictly as
>> > it is written in the USCF rulebook -- my
>> > comment is subject to fact-checking by
>> > others, which I welcome.
>>
>> OK, then. Here are the main chapter titles from "Chess for Tigers,"
>> with a brief sumy of Webb's main recommendations:
>
>
> Nowhere is there any quote of me stating that
> this book's chapter headings recommend cheating.
>
> To the contrary, I maintain that ideas on cheating
> are contained in the main text, and, as would be
> expected, between the lines. For instance, when
> the term "gamesmanship" is used in reference to
> a player's questionable behavior, that is code for
> what I have defined here as cheating. Reader's
> may recall that posters like Mr. Kane and Mr.
> Richerby like to use modified definitions, so as

Could you be a little clearer as to which
"modified definitions" you are talking about?
There are so many, you know.

I have never read "Chess for Tigers". The only thing
I can think of where "cheating" came up in exchanges
with Mr. Bot are with respect to draws, and on that
issue, you and Mr. Richerby would seem to be
"pro-draw" allies.






  
Date: 09 Jan 2008 00:20:09
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess for Tigers (was: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at
help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> Reader's may recall that posters like Mr. Kane and Mr. Richerby
> like to use modified definitions, so as to exempt GMs from taking
> responsibility for their own actions, effectively tossing out the
> rules of chess and making it up on a whim as they go along.

Please cite a post of mine in which I have used a modified definition
to exempt a GM from taking responsibility for his or her own actions
and/or effectively tossed out the rules of chess and/or made things up
on a whim and/or as I went along. groups.google.com should have a
full archive of my writings here.

>> Clock Control:
>> Go for positions in which you feel at home
>> Have confidence in your own ability
>> Don't be a perfectionist
>> Use your opponent's time
>> If your opponent is in time trouble, try to prepare two-move
>> sequences so that you can reply instantly after he moves.
>
> The rules require the recording of one's own move, so this is
> illegal except in a time scramble.

It is not permitted to make two consecutive moves without writing one
down. However, there is nothing illegal in preparing a two-move
sequence so that one can reply instantly to an opponent's move. the
following sequence of events is perfectly legal.

White thinks, `I shall play 1.e4 and respond 2.Nf3 to either 1... e5
or 1... c5',
White plays 1.e4,
White presses his clock,
White writes `1.e4' on his scoresheet,
Black moves 1... e5,
Black presses his clock,
White moves 2.Nf3,
White presses his clock,
White writes `e5 2.Nf3' on his scoresheet,
Black writes `e5 on his scoresheet.

>> How to Avoid Silly Mistakes
>> Write down your move before making it.
>
> At the time, this was against the rules also.

It is against current FIDE rules to write one's move before making it.
However, it was not against the rules at the point when Webb wrote his
book.

> At my local club, the TD makes a point to say that he doesn't care
> one way or the other, and the rules now allow it.

No, it's exactly the other way round. Until a couple of years ago,
the FIDE rules *allowed* the move to be written in advance; they now
*forbid* it. Webb's book was written more than a couple of years ago.

>> Chapters 13-15 offer various bits of advice for team play, quick TLs,
>> and postal play.
>>
>> Nothing in the above constitutes cheating in any way, shape or form.
>
> Indeed. The amazing "logic" of Taylor Kingston would have it that
> the chapter titles are the only place where cheating might reside in
> a book.

Taylor has given the title of each chapter *and* sumized the
contents. None of the advice, as sumized by Kingston, constitutes
cheating (except for writing the move down in advance, which was not
illegal when the book was written). Either Taylor has been dishonest
or negligent in his sumies (which would seem to me to be out of
character) or there really is no such advice in the book. Please give
an example of advice given by Webb in his book that constitutes
cheating or withdraw your claim that he advocates cheating.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Crystal Metal Composer (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pupil of Beethoven that's made of
steel but it's completely transparent!


  
Date: 08 Jan 2008 09:26:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess for Tigers (was: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub)

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:d2062b1f-e7ed-4eee-8bb4-9fa027c60254@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 10:03 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > Logic tells us that when I say the book
>> > advocates "cheating" -- interpreted strictly as
>> > it is written in the USCF rulebook -- my
>> > comment is subject to fact-checking by
>> > others, which I welcome.
>>
>> OK, then. Here are the main chapter titles from "Chess for Tigers,"
>> with a brief sumy of Webb's main recommendations:
>
>
> Nowhere is there any quote of me stating that
> this book's chapter headings recommend cheating.
>
> To the contrary, I maintain that ideas on cheating
> are contained in the main text, and, as would be
> expected, between the lines.

I think in this instance Taylor Kingston is entirely in the right of it, and
none of the things he bothers to repeat at some length are in any way
cheating - nor are there any 'between-lines' to account for.

> For instance, when
> the term "gamesmanship" is used in reference to
> a player's questionable behavior, that is code for
> what I have defined here as cheating.

Of course, the word 'questionable' is itself a euphemism or a code word - so
what specific will be questioned? Even between any two lines.. lets look ...

> Reader's
> may recall that posters like Mr. Kane and Mr.
> Richerby like to use modified definitions, so as
> to exempt GMs from taking responsibility for
> their own actions, effectively tossing out the rules
> of chess and making it up on a whim as they go
> along.
>
> Once again, Mr. Kingston's, um, difficulties with
> logic race to the fore; he builds up a straw man
> to knock over, while missing the forest for the trees.

Nolens Volens! Nevertheless... how is this introduction substantiated below?

>> How to Catch Rabbits:
>> Against players rated significantly lower than yourself, avoid
>> complications in favor of technique.
>
> Not everyone is created equal. In my experience,
> some higher-rated players have poor technique,
> while others excel in this area. Example: Emory
> Tate is probably the top-rated player in Indiana, yet
> he is a wild-eyed attacker, who does particularly
> well in complications -- even against GMs.

Almost exactly the same technique as perhaps the best non-GM blitz player in
the world - Genrikh Chepukaitis who died recently. He told me his technique
was to be 'profoundly awkward'. But he is atypical - and its my experience
that finding a couple of bishop diagonals, ensuring I get both knights
developed, some presence in the centre, castling by move 10... my less
experienced opponent has already made a mistake and I can proceed directly
to win material with no weaknesses - and that's game over!

>
>> How to Trap Heffalumps:
>> Against players rated significantly higher, go for complications
>> above all.
>
> Truth is, sometimes it is better to threaten a
> draw-by-simplification and let the Heffalump do
> the worrying about "creating" complications.
>
> You can't overgeneralize about all higher-rated
> players, or all lower-rated players, as though they
> had undergone a process of homogenation.

That's fair comment. For myself, if I know the position I would play for
complications, if not, try to ride out the storm to simplify, as you say.
But this has nothing to do with cheating, or anything could be called unfair
gamesmanship.


>> Clock Control:
>> Go for positions in which you feel at home
>> Have confidence in your own ability
>> Don't be a perfectionist
>> Use your opponent's time
>> If your opponent is in time trouble, try to prepare two-move
>> sequences so that you can reply instantly after he moves.
>
> The rules require the recording of one's own
> move, so this is illegal except in a time scramble.

The advise is to think in pairs of moves, or even triplets, it doesn't say
you should not write your move after you make it, but having seem what its
going to be in advance, play it as soon as possible.

> In a time scramble, it is unlikely that one can
> accurately predict the opponent's every blunder
> like this.

It encourages the other person to blunder, since his clock is going all the
time. Of course, if he does evidently blunder, then you might use your own
time [which you took the trouble to reserve for yourself] to concoct the
knock-out blow! But this isn't cheating either.

>> How to Avoid Silly Mistakes
>> Write down your move before making it.
>
> At the time, this was against the rules also.
> At my local club, the TD makes a point to say
> that he doesn't care one way or the other, and
> the rules now allow it.

Yeah - a null point these days because of rules changes. But very strong
players have recommended it, especially for young players.

>
>> Are You Ready?
>> Get a good night's sleep before your game
>
> Now you tell me.
>
>
>> Take a ten-minute walk just before the start of play
>>
>> Chapters 13-15 offer various bits of advice for team play, quick TLs,
>> and postal play.
>>
>> Nothing in the above constitutes cheating in any way, shape or form.
>
> Indeed. The amazing "logic" of Taylor Kingston
> would have it that the chapter titles are the only
> place where cheating might reside in a book.

There is no 'logic' in a list. Your comment says that there can be
unreported material which is suspect.

The obvious way to cheat is to distract one's opponent, or upset them - but
there are rules to cover that. Where there is logic is that if you follow
this advice, you will have no need to cheat at all.

Most 'offenses' seem to happen when there is something at stake, money or
prestige, which can reward bad behavior. Both are corruptions of the art of
chess, where something greater can be gained, win or lose, by simply playing
it honorably. That this is not the case is simply a measure of current
socail attitudes to behaving honorably, passing that up for a few bucks, or
a seat on the committee.

> I am once again reminded of the failure with
> regard to the B/B cheating brouhaha, where TK
> fired off a shot in the dark which was published
> in Chess Lies magazine, then later did some
> "thinking" about the issue.

I think that is no parallel to this issue - not in general nor in any
specific - and in fact is cheating this particular issue by referring to
ex-cathedra contentions elsewhere.

You have to be more honest yourself, Greg, and not cheat the discussion.
Cheating at chess is off course laughable! Of all things to try and cheat
at, here is the primum inter pares of in-the-open games, and while I know
you concern yourself much in your writing about other people cheating, you
may not accuse them by false argument that they are cheating you!

Phil Innes


> -- help bot
>




 
Date: 07 Jan 2008 18:20:13
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Jan 5, 6:17=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> ...
> =A0 Can you state in your own words, what you believe
> the book "Chess for Tigers" *does* advocate? =A0How
> do you see the word "tiger" as befitting this book, in
> particular?
> ...

_
Perhaps these reviews would be helpful:

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review512.pdf
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_jd/jd_chess_for_tigers.html
http://www.bfcc-online.org.uk/files/reviews/batsford/tigers.htm
http://chess.about.com/b/2006/08/21/review-chess-for-tigers-by-simon-webb.ht=
m


 
Date: 07 Jan 2008 09:30:33
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Chess for Tigers (was: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at
On Jan 7, 11:23=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Haha! =A0So he *does* advocate cheating! ;-)
>
> > Not as the rules stood in 1978, when the book was written, nor in
> > even in 1990, when the 2nd edition came out.
>
> The smiley was intended to make it clear that my comment was not to
> be taken seriously. =A0Clearly, IM Webb cannot be held responsible for
> barking changes to the rules subsequent to the writing of his book.

Understood, Dave. I just wanted to make sure help-not understood,
vain hope though that usually is.


 
Date: 07 Jan 2008 07:31:18
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Chess for Tigers (was: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at
On Jan 7, 10:20=A0am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Taylor Kingston =A0<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > OK, then. Here are the main chapter titles from "Chess for Tigers,"
> > with a brief sumy of Webb's main recommendations: [...]
>
> > How to Avoid Silly Mistakes
> > =A0 Write down your move before making it.
>
> Haha! =A0So he *does* advocate cheating! ;-)
>
> Dave.

Not as the rules stood in 1978, when the book was written, nor in
even in 1990, when the 2nd edition came out. You will also find that
recommendation in virtually every instructional book since Kotov's
"Think Like a Grandmaster" (1971).


  
Date: 07 Jan 2008 16:23:27
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess for Tigers (was: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at
Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Haha! So he *does* advocate cheating! ;-)
>
> Not as the rules stood in 1978, when the book was written, nor in
> even in 1990, when the 2nd edition came out.

The smiley was intended to make it clear that my comment was not to
be taken seriously. Clearly, IM Webb cannot be held responsible for
barking changes to the rules subsequent to the writing of his book.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Sadistic Permanent Flower (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a flower but it'll be there for
ever and it wants to hurt you!


 
Date: 07 Jan 2008 07:30:32
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Jan 7, 12:16 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 8:23 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Can you state in your own words, what you believe
> > > the book "Chess for Tigers" *does* advocate?
>
> > Check my earlier post in this thread, Greg.
> > More to the point, if you are going to insist that the book does
> > advocate cheating, or coffee-house distraction tactics, etc., it is
> > incumbent on you to cite relevant passages from it. Frankly, I get the
> > impression you've never even seen the book.
>
> To the contrary, my comments reflect my own
> opinions, not some silly "debate" or courtroom
> nonsense as you seem to have in mind.
>
> Now, if TK is afraid to say in his own words
> what the book advocates (in lieu of cheating),
> I think that tells a tale unto itself. Note that I

Have you stopped beating your wife, help-bot? Or P Innes' ex-wives,
for that matter?


 
Date: 07 Jan 2008 07:03:04
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Chess for Tigers (was: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at
On Jan 7, 12:16=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 8:23 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > =A0 Can you state in your own words, what you believe
> > > the book "Chess for Tigers" *does* advocate?
>
> > =A0 Check my earlier post in this thread, Greg.
> > =A0 More to the point, if you are going to insist that the book does
> > advocate cheating, or coffee-house distraction tactics, etc., it is
> > incumbent on you to cite relevant passages from it. Frankly, I get the
> > impression you've never even seen the book.
>
> =A0 To the contrary, my comments reflect my own
> opinions, not some silly "debate" or courtroom
> nonsense as you seem to have in mind.

> =A0 Now, if TK is afraid to say in his own words
> what the book advocates (in lieu of cheating),
> I think that tells a tale unto itself. =A0Note that I
> rid myself of this tome at the first opportunity,
> viewing it as unworthy of my meager collection.

Translation: our Greg does not remember (if he ever knew) what is
actually in "Chess for Tigers." Just as as he claimed, completely
without factual basis, that I had panned several of Edward Lasker's
books, when in fact I like them and have never reviewed them.

> =A0 I therefore have no quotations,
> no Blair-quips --
> either in or out of context -- to offer; to me, what
> is in the book is what is in the book, not what
> TK or I say is in the book; let those who are
> curious get a hold of one and read it,

Translation: our Greg wants to accuse IM Webb of advocating
cheating, but feels no responsibility to provide any evidence.
Basically, our Greg is a very lazy cheap-shot artist. I can just see
helpbot in court:

Judge: "Mr. Kennedy, state the charge."
HB: "Your honor, that IM Simon Webb advocates cheating."
Judge: "Please state your evidence."
HB: "I have none, your honor, but feel free to buy the book and read
it."
Judge: "Case dismissed! Mr. Kennedy, we find you in contempt of
court."

> =A0 Logic tells us that when I say the book
> advocates "cheating" -- interpreted strictly as
> it is written in the USCF rulebook -- my
> comment is subject to fact-checking by
> others, which I welcome. =A0

OK, then. Here are the main chapter titles from "Chess for Tigers,"
with a brief sumy of Webb's main recommendations:

Play the Man -- not the Board:
Against an old opponent, draw the game out to tire him, and play for
late-game complications.
Against a young opponent, avoid current opening theory and aim for
an early endgame.
Choose openings your opponent dislikes or is unfamiliar with.

Looking in the Mirror:
Go through your past games. Analyze your results in terms of what
openings and kinds of positions you tend to play well, and which
badly.

How to Improve your Opening Repertoire:
Study in greater depth the openings the preceding research indicates
are best for you.

How to Catch Rabbits:
Against players rated significantly lower than yourself, avoid
complications in favor of technique.

How to Trap Heffalumps:
Against players rated significantly higher, go for complications
above all.

Fortune Favors the Lucky:
In inferior or losing positions, play actively and fearlessly.

How to Win Won Positions:
Keep the initiative
Stop your opponent's counterplay
Check complications carefully but don't fear them
Don't assume the game will win itself

What to do in Drawn Positions:
If your opponent is trying to win, play patiently and carefully
If you are trying to win, play patiently and carefully at first; go
for complications only as a last resort

Clock Control:
Go for positions in which you feel at home
Have confidence in your own ability
Don't be a perfectionist
Use your opponent's time
If your opponent is in time trouble, try to prepare two-move
sequences so that you can reply instantly after he moves.

How to Avoid Silly Mistakes
Write down your move before making it.

Are You Ready?
Get a good night's sleep before your game
Take a ten-minute walk just before the start of play

Chapters 13-15 offer various bits of advice for team play, quick TLs,
and postal play.

Nothing in the above constitutes cheating in any way, shape or form.

> But by the same
> token, when TK insists that nothing in this
> book can be construed as such, his claim
> is no less subject to fact-checking than my
> own, so it is rather embarrassing for me to
> have to point this obvious fact out for his
> benefit. =A0Let's just say that logical thinking
> is not TK's strong suit.

The only embarrassing things about this exchange, Greg, are: (1)
your sloppiness, (2) your laziness, (3) your irresponsible tendency to
disparage people and books about which you know nothing.

> =A0 This brings me right back to the failed
> attempt with regard to the GMs Botvinnik
> and Bronstein brouhaha, where a heroic
> effort was undertaken by TK, only to end in
> disaster in spite of considerable research.

I have no idea what you are referring to, Greg. I have never
undertaken "considerable reasearch," nor much of any research, on any
Botvinnik-Bronstein "brouhaha."



  
Date: 07 Jan 2008 11:11:27
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Chess for Tigers (was: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub)
The only book I know which openly advocates cheating is the Jonathan Maxwell
title, Blitz Theory - and Walter Browne in his forward to the 2nd edition on
behalf of the WBCA says of that:

"The only place where WBCA draws the line concerns the "pseudo check"
technique. This may be OK at coffee-houses, but will garner a penalty in
WBCA events! Otherwise I endorse this uniquely insightful book with open
arms!

Which is then signed by six-times US Champion, Walter Browne.

The pseudo check is when you deliberately play, for example, Rd1 to d7 and
say check! When, since there is no blocking more the Black king galvanicly
lurches forward from g8 where it was never in check, to f7 g7 or h7, and
/into/ check, whereas white claims the win!

Otherwise the book entails much as below, but with the specific and overall
focus on acute time management.

I maintain the meat of it, and remove the badinage - which had to do with
another altercation, and while interesting does not contribute to this one.

Phil Innes

"Taylor Kingston" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:9b77ed6f-03e8-4241-8510-61c1d7f1e7e1@e32g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 7, 12:16 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 8:23 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:



OK, then. Here are the main chapter titles from "Chess for Tigers,"
with a brief sumy of Webb's main recommendations:

Play the Man -- not the Board:
Against an old opponent, draw the game out to tire him, and play for
late-game complications.
Against a young opponent, avoid current opening theory and aim for
an early endgame.
Choose openings your opponent dislikes or is unfamiliar with.

Looking in the Mirror:
Go through your past games. Analyze your results in terms of what
openings and kinds of positions you tend to play well, and which
badly.

How to Improve your Opening Repertoire:
Study in greater depth the openings the preceding research indicates
are best for you.

How to Catch Rabbits:
Against players rated significantly lower than yourself, avoid
complications in favor of technique.

How to Trap Heffalumps:
Against players rated significantly higher, go for complications
above all.

Fortune Favors the Lucky:
In inferior or losing positions, play actively and fearlessly.

How to Win Won Positions:
Keep the initiative
Stop your opponent's counterplay
Check complications carefully but don't fear them
Don't assume the game will win itself

What to do in Drawn Positions:
If your opponent is trying to win, play patiently and carefully
If you are trying to win, play patiently and carefully at first; go
for complications only as a last resort

Clock Control:
Go for positions in which you feel at home
Have confidence in your own ability
Don't be a perfectionist
Use your opponent's time
If your opponent is in time trouble, try to prepare two-move
sequences so that you can reply instantly after he moves.

How to Avoid Silly Mistakes
Write down your move before making it.

Are You Ready?
Get a good night's sleep before your game
Take a ten-minute walk just before the start of play

Chapters 13-15 offer various bits of advice for team play, quick TLs,
and postal play.

Nothing in the above constitutes cheating in any way, shape or form.





  
Date: 07 Jan 2008 15:20:22
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chess for Tigers (was: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at
Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> OK, then. Here are the main chapter titles from "Chess for Tigers,"
> with a brief sumy of Webb's main recommendations: [...]
>
> How to Avoid Silly Mistakes
> Write down your move before making it.

Haha! So he *does* advocate cheating! ;-)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Carnivorous Tree (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ tree but it's full of teeth!


 
Date: 06 Jan 2008 21:16:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Jan 6, 8:23 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Can you state in your own words, what you believe
> > the book "Chess for Tigers" *does* advocate?
>
> Check my earlier post in this thread, Greg.
> More to the point, if you are going to insist that the book does
> advocate cheating, or coffee-house distraction tactics, etc., it is
> incumbent on you to cite relevant passages from it. Frankly, I get the
> impression you've never even seen the book.

To the contrary, my comments reflect my own
opinions, not some silly "debate" or courtroom
nonsense as you seem to have in mind.

Now, if TK is afraid to say in his own words
what the book advocates (in lieu of cheating),
I think that tells a tale unto itself. Note that I
rid myself of this tome at the first opportunity,
viewing it as unworthy of my meager collection.

I therefore have no quotations, no Blair-quips --
either in or out of context -- to offer; to me, what
is in the book is what is in the book, not what
TK or I say is in the book; let those who are
curious get a hold of one and read it, then cast
a vote; but remember, the term "cheating" is as
strictly defined by the USCF, not subject to
toying with for this purpose.

Logic tells us that when I say the book
advocates "cheating" -- interpreted strictly as
it is written in the USCF rulebook -- my
comment is subject to fact-checking by
others, which I welcome. But by the same
token, when TK insists that nothing in this
book can be construed as such, his claim
is no less subject to fact-checking than my
own, so it is rather embarrassing for me to
have to point this obvious fact out for his
benefit. Let's just say that logical thinking
is not TK's strong suit.

This brings me right back to the failed
attempt with regard to the GMs Botvinnik
and Bronstein brouhaha, where a heroic
effort was undertaken by TK, only to end in
disaster in spite of considerable research.
Apparently, the desire is there, but something
always goes amiss in the /application/ of logic
and reason; much like the above insistence
that my opinion be backed up with direct
quotes, while TK's own needs only huff and
puff, and maybe some polyester fiberfill... .

Aside from the failed attempt to tackle the
B/B brouhaha, we should not forget that it
was preceded by a "shot in the dark", sent
in for publication in Chess Lies magazine.
These reckless shots fired off in the heat of
confusion are tell-tale signs of something,
which the reader can no doubt figure out for
himself. It reminds me of nearly-Innes, who
often spouts off about things he cannot even
begin to comprehend; for instance, the likely
fact that Em. Lasker would clean his clock,
and the clocks of most modern GMs, and still
be home in time for tea (do Germans drink
tea?); make that beer then. It boggles the
mind than a nearly-an-IM could be so
astoundingly ignorant regarding a matter of
chess skill, but then, IM Innes breaks the
mold.


-- help bot




 
Date: 06 Jan 2008 05:23:29
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Jan 5, 9:17=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 9:51 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > =A0 Webb's book does not advocate what you describe.
>
> =A0 Can you state in your own words, what you believe
> the book "Chess for Tigers" *does* advocate? =A0

Check my earlier post in this thread, Greg.
More to the point, if you are going to insist that the book does
advocate cheating, or coffee-house distraction tactics, etc., it is
incumbent on you to cite relevant passages from it. Frankly, I get the
impression you've never even seen the book.



 
Date: 05 Jan 2008 18:17:14
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Jan 5, 9:51 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:

> Webb's book does not advocate what you describe.

Can you state in your own words, what you believe
the book "Chess for Tigers" *does* advocate? How
do you see the word "tiger" as befitting this book, in
particular?


----------------------------------------------------------

My early experiences with cheating in competitive
chess involved the discovery of "modified" clocks,
the occasional illegal move, deliberate knocking
over of pieces which were then politely set back up
on the opponent's time, etc.

Eventually, I came to realize that not all such
behavior was accidental, but rather, it fit a pattern
and indeed, aided the results of certain players
whose chess skills did not match their ambitions.

When I ran across this book, I was amazed that
anyone would publish such a book, but it certainly
explained why so many might think it OK to "push
the limits". As far as I can remember, I never ran
across another book which advocated cheating in
chess (although almost anything written about the
world championships will lean in that direction for
one of the two players, by way of "justification").

In particular, a close examination of the handling
of distracting the opponent should be made, first
how the laws of chess offer up a flat-out rejection,
then the author's re-interpretation, shall we say.

I won't hold my breath on this, for it is clear that
certain posters here are incapable of any unbiased
assessments. For instance, even after a laborious
effort to tackle the question of the GMs Bronstein
and Botvinnik brouhaha, in the end, Mr. Kingston
fell down, knuckling under to a psychological need
rather than holding fast to the cold, unyielding
realms of logic and reason with which he had
first begun. The result was that, while wild
speculators like Larry Evans and his ratpack were
embarrassed, their opposite, the purely rational
folk, were quite simply let down in the end-- and
that was a matter apparently of great interest to
Mr. Kingston, while this is but a trifle.


-- help bot










 
Date: 05 Jan 2008 06:51:27
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Jan 5, 1:54=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 26 2007, 8:31 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > > =A0 What is an "honest cheater"? =A0 You know, some guy
> > > wrote a book called "Chess for Tigers" many years ago,
> > > and apparently there were a lot of copies in circulation
> > > around these parts. =A0One fellow I never would have even
> > > imagined was a die-hard cheater, but it took me years
> > > to figure that out (with help from some other victims).
>
> > =A0 Are you saying that book advocates cheating? "Chess For Tigers" was
> > written by IM Simon Webb. I have a copy of the 2nd edition (Pergamon,
> > 1990). It does not deal with or advocate cheating at all. It has a lot
> > of good practical advice on how to play in different situations: in
> > time trouble, in winning positions, in drawish positions, against much
> > lower- or higher-rated opponents, etc., all written with amusing wit.
> > Nothing Webb advocates could be considered cheating, nor even mildly
> > unsportsmanlike.
>
> =A0 Well, that is precisely what the cheaters around these
> parts tell themselves! =A0It's not cheating; it's just a little
> bit of "gamesmanship".
>
> =A0 When I say cheating, I am thinking of a good read of
> the official rules of chess (as opposed to what many
> players consider to be "just part of the game", like
> steroids in baseball, fixing results to manipulate the
> "redistribution" of prize monies, etc.) =A0 =A0 To give an
> example, I consider a literal interpretation of the rules
> to be not-cheating, while a Walter Browne style re-
> interpretation to be cheating; to wit: it is forbidden to
> distract or annoy the opponent in any manner
> whatever, though some GMs make a habit of it as
> much as playing, say, the Queen's Indian Defense.
>
> =A0 Indeed, though appearances around these parts
> are few and far between, in my travels to other states,
> let's say Ohio, I have witnessed GM Anatoly Lein
> flat-out cheat by deliberately distracting his opponent,
> as well as discovered first-hand that reports from
> others regarding the behavior of Walter Browne were
> more than mere quirkiness on his part. =A0It appears to
> me that strong feelings of self-importance, in
> conjunction with the intimidation of local organizers,
> has led to certain folks feeling they are somehow
> above the rules, and perhaps even entitled to such
> wins by right of having been dubbed Sir or GM by
> the Queen (or by FIDE)... .
>
> =A0 Me, I prefer to fight on level turf, making it a true
> contest of *chess* skill. =A0The point is that I have no
> desire to measure or to develop my other skills, as
> in the area of distracting others so they play even
> worse than I do. =A0To me, that is an unworthy sport,
> reminiscent of the scene in Ben Hur where the
> heavy whips his rivals, sheers off their chariot
> wheels, and so forth. =A0That stuff is for wars, not
> board games.

Webb's book does not advocate what you describe.


 
Date: 04 Jan 2008 22:54:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Dec 26 2007, 8:31 am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] >
wrote:

> > What is an "honest cheater"? You know, some guy
> > wrote a book called "Chess for Tigers" many years ago,
> > and apparently there were a lot of copies in circulation
> > around these parts. One fellow I never would have even
> > imagined was a die-hard cheater, but it took me years
> > to figure that out (with help from some other victims).
>
> Are you saying that book advocates cheating? "Chess For Tigers" was
> written by IM Simon Webb. I have a copy of the 2nd edition (Pergamon,
> 1990). It does not deal with or advocate cheating at all. It has a lot
> of good practical advice on how to play in different situations: in
> time trouble, in winning positions, in drawish positions, against much
> lower- or higher-rated opponents, etc., all written with amusing wit.
> Nothing Webb advocates could be considered cheating, nor even mildly
> unsportsmanlike.

Well, that is precisely what the cheaters around these
parts tell themselves! It's not cheating; it's just a little
bit of "gamesmanship".

When I say cheating, I am thinking of a good read of
the official rules of chess (as opposed to what many
players consider to be "just part of the game", like
steroids in baseball, fixing results to manipulate the
"redistribution" of prize monies, etc.) To give an
example, I consider a literal interpretation of the rules
to be not-cheating, while a Walter Browne style re-
interpretation to be cheating; to wit: it is forbidden to
distract or annoy the opponent in any manner
whatever, though some GMs make a habit of it as
much as playing, say, the Queen's Indian Defense.

Indeed, though appearances around these parts
are few and far between, in my travels to other states,
let's say Ohio, I have witnessed GM Anatoly Lein
flat-out cheat by deliberately distracting his opponent,
as well as discovered first-hand that reports from
others regarding the behavior of Walter Browne were
more than mere quirkiness on his part. It appears to
me that strong feelings of self-importance, in
conjunction with the intimidation of local organizers,
has led to certain folks feeling they are somehow
above the rules, and perhaps even entitled to such
wins by right of having been dubbed Sir or GM by
the Queen (or by FIDE)... .

Me, I prefer to fight on level turf, making it a true
contest of *chess* skill. The point is that I have no
desire to measure or to develop my other skills, as
in the area of distracting others so they play even
worse than I do. To me, that is an unworthy sport,
reminiscent of the scene in Ben Hur where the
heavy whips his rivals, sheers off their chariot
wheels, and so forth. That stuff is for wars, not
board games.


-- help bot









 
Date: 26 Dec 2007 05:31:22
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Dec 18, 5:43=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 What is an "honest cheater"? =A0 You know, some guy
> wrote a book called "Chess for Tigers" many years ago,
> and apparently there were a lot of copies in circulation
> around these parts. =A0One fellow I never would have even
> imagined was a die-hard cheater, but it took me years
> to figure that out (with help from some other victims).

Are you saying that book advocates cheating? "Chess For Tigers" was
written by IM Simon Webb. I have a copy of the 2nd edition (Pergamon,
1990). It does not deal with or advocate cheating at all. It has a lot
of good practical advice on how to play in different situations: in
time trouble, in winning positions, in drawish positions, against much
lower- or higher-rated opponents, etc., all written with amusing wit.
Nothing Webb advocates could be considered cheating, nor even mildly
unsportsmanlike.


 
Date: 18 Dec 2007 14:43:19
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Dec 18, 8:18 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> >> The trouble is, if its so much fun, why spend time in say, a dominos
> >> newsgroup, dissing the natives, instead of enjoying your fascinating
> >> game?
>
> > Who said anything about chess being "fun"? I'm in
> > it for the babes, just like Bobby Fischer.
>
> Actually, we too. I came here looking for the elusive 'net-chicks', but
> wound up in Sergeant Sloan's Lonely Heart's Club Band. At least NatalieR
> spoke to me all those years ago - and that miffed Rolf since he became
> jealous ;))) And also miffed her main attacker, an antipodean, who
> admitted later that he was half in love with her. I thought that was sweet.

It's hard to believe anyone could prefer you over him;
as I recall, his wheelchair was chrome-plated, he still
had half his hair (bald in front and on top), and he spoke
near-perfect German in addition to some English through
his few remaining, crooked teeth.


> It was interesting; she was an honest cheater, and didn't apologize. A man
> would have done so, insincerely, or flipped us all off. But she didn't do
> either. That is more honest than any confession!

What is an "honest cheater"? You know, some guy
wrote a book called "Chess for Tigers" many years ago,
and apparently there were a lot of copies in circulation
around these parts. One fellow I never would have even
imagined was a die-hard cheater, but it took me years
to figure that out (with help from some other victims).


> What we need to do here is find an Amazing Mrs. Pritchard, for chess.

Every once in a while, I see a prospect on the cover
of Chess Lies magazine, but wouldn't you know it,
most of them go for the drunken-grandmaster types.
Besides, they would reject me on account of my
chess book collection being hopelessly out of date.

Fickle creatures, these female chess geniuses; one
minute they are all over some IM, the next they dump
him for a more-famous GM; I think they just want free
chess lessons... .


-- help bot


  
Date: 26 Dec 2007 07:28:30
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:6708c9bb-8b79-48b6-9df3-cfd206bfe070@e67g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18, 8:18 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Actually, we too. I came here looking for the elusive 'net-chicks', but
>> wound up in Sergeant Sloan's Lonely Heart's Club Band. At least NatalieR
>> spoke to me all those years ago - and that miffed Rolf since he became
>> jealous ;))) And also miffed her main attacker, an antipodean, who
>> admitted later that he was half in love with her. I thought that was
>> sweet.
>
> It's hard to believe anyone could prefer you over him;
> as I recall, his wheelchair was chrome-plated, he still
> had half his hair (bald in front and on top), and he spoke
> near-perfect German in addition to some English through
> his few remaining, crooked teeth.

Girls are very strange. Someone told me they ignore everything above the
ankles, and judge you on your shoes [shoes!] which is enough to make you
self-conscious. Anyway, she spoke two words to me:

"Nyet! Blondi."

And that was enough to make the whole newsgroup dislike me, and her main
opponent who now works in a zoo in new zealand as a parrot-feeder, to fall
head-over-heals in love with her. But Rolf was obviously jealous! Bob seemed
indifferent, and kept talking buses, and others made private intrigues to
find out... /laugh/

>> It was interesting; she was an honest cheater, and didn't apologize. A
>> man
>> would have done so, insincerely, or flipped us all off. But she didn't do
>> either. That is more honest than any confession!
>
> What is an "honest cheater"? You know, some guy
> wrote a book called "Chess for Tigers" many years ago,
> and apparently there were a lot of copies in circulation
> around these parts. One fellow I never would have even
> imagined was a die-hard cheater, but it took me years
> to figure that out (with help from some other victims).

Yeah- I am just trying to remember his name. Though I didn't know Indiana
wanted him, and he can't go back there.

>> What we need to do here is find an Amazing Mrs. Pritchard, for chess.
>
> Every once in a while, I see a prospect on the cover
> of Chess Lies magazine, but wouldn't you know it,
> most of them go for the drunken-grandmaster types.

To save them? I guess those are two very good excuses for becoming a drunk
and a grandmaster.

> Besides, they would reject me on account of my
> chess book collection being hopelessly out of date.

I think the oldest artifact I have is not a book, but my clock, its a white
plastic 'Bohemia' , and says 'West Germany'. Ah... those were the days my
friend!

> Fickle creatures, these female chess geniuses; one
> minute they are all over some IM, the next they dump
> him for a more-famous GM; I think they just want free
> chess lessons... .

Well, whatever they want is their business. Whereas their effect on us is
rekable! Where is Tim Hanke when you need him? He has a good story or
two... but for myself it definitely helped me become an almost-IM driving
around in the land of the yodelling lauffers in a cranky VW Beatle playing
dire-straits non-stop so loud you couldn't hear the engine, which is very
loud indeedy!

Phil Innes

> -- help bot




 
Date: 17 Dec 2007 17:52:27
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Dec 16, 10:20 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Lots of people understand Fahrenheit, even remember using it, and more
> people in England said Centigrade than Celsius when I was growing up

That must have been a very long time ago... .


> > Things could be worse; you might have tried to
> > communicate with people who only spoke Mandarin,
> > and who had never even seen the Greek alphabet.
> > They might even insist (in Manarin) that Go is the
> > better game.
>
> Go fish!
>
> The trouble is, if its so much fun, why spend time in say, a dominos
> newsgroup, dissing the natives, instead of enjoying your fascinating game?

Who said anything about chess being "fun"? I'm in
it for the babes, just like Bobby Fischer.


-- help bot




  
Date: 18 Dec 2007 08:18:13
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Dec 16, 10:20 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Lots of people understand Fahrenheit, even remember using it, and more
>> people in England said Centigrade than Celsius when I was growing up
>
> That must have been a very long time ago... .

Yes. It was in a previous century.

>> > Things could be worse; you might have tried to
>> > communicate with people who only spoke Mandarin,
>> > and who had never even seen the Greek alphabet.
>> > They might even insist (in Manarin) that Go is the
>> > better game.
>>
>> Go fish!
>>
>> The trouble is, if its so much fun, why spend time in say, a dominos
>> newsgroup, dissing the natives, instead of enjoying your fascinating
>> game?
>
> Who said anything about chess being "fun"? I'm in
> it for the babes, just like Bobby Fischer.

Actually, we too. I came here looking for the elusive 'net-chicks', but
wound up in Sergeant Sloan's Lonely Heart's Club Band. At least NatalieR
spoke to me all those years ago - and that miffed Rolf since he became
jealous ;))) And also miffed her main attacker, an antipodean, who
admitted later that he was half in love with her. I thought that was sweet.

--

It was interesting; she was an honest cheater, and didn't apologize. A man
would have done so, insincerely, or flipped us all off. But she didn't do
either. That is more honest than any confession!

What we need to do here is find an Amazing Mrs. Pritchard, for chess.

Phil Innes


>
> -- help bot
>
>




 
Date: 16 Dec 2007 05:36:23
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Dec 13, 10:14 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski suggested me that Help Bot
> should be awarded free games. So 225 Free Games
> worth ($20.00) will be awarded next month to Help Bot
> [...]

Help Bot, you owe me one.

Wlod


 
Date: 15 Dec 2007 16:27:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Dec 15, 7:56 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> why pay anyone anything at all?

Well, why do people pay $5 for a coffee at Starbucks? It's
a status thing, like playing golf or talking about expensive
wines.


> if you want live games try the free rybka-server either through their own
> site or via chessville - play people or the engine

At Queen odds we will have a fair fight, assuming
it's not blitz.


> i used to play speed games on a russian server [about 85% participants from
> eastern europe] which had the toughest clientele of any server i knew, and
> was absolutely fine unless you wanted a conversation, which would typically
> go like
>
> me: hi
> partner: hi
>
> me: cold here in USA, 20F today
> partner: hi

Wrong language. You should have told them the
temperature in degrees Celsius; only idiot Americans
refuse to learn the world-standard measuring systems.

The freezing point of water? Zero degrees.

The boiling point of water? 100 degrees.

Now, let's say you are eating some salted pretzels
and a few fall in, and the temperature is below freezing,
there is a high-pressure front and it's snowing (100%
humidity): how long before your fingers begin to freeze?
(Give the answer in both Farenheit and Celsius. Show
your work.)


Things could be worse; you might have tried to
communicate with people who only spoke Mandarin,
and who had never even seen the Greek alphabet.
They might even insist (in Manarin) that Go is the
better game.


-- help bot



  
Date: 16 Dec 2007 10:20:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Dec 15, 7:56 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> why pay anyone anything at all?
>
> Well, why do people pay $5 for a coffee at Starbucks?

Coz they need to make a star buck?

> It's
> a status thing, like playing golf or talking about expensive
> wines.

There is a cache to playing Sanny's engine? Not with real people with actual
skills?

>> if you want live games try the free rybka-server either through their own
>> site or via chessville - play people or the engine

>> me: cold here in USA, 20F today
>> partner: hi
>
> Wrong language. You should have told them the
> temperature in degrees Celsius; only idiot Americans
> refuse to learn the world-standard measuring systems.

Lots of people understand Fahrenheit, even remember using it, and more
people in England said Centigrade than Celsius when I was growing up,
despite what newscasters say, and since the net has heavy American use,
people understand degrees F. But in a 5 min game, multi-lingual badinage is
mercifully brief.

> The freezing point of water? Zero degrees.
>
> The boiling point of water? 100 degrees.

At sea or cornfield level, but here in the Mountains we think of you-all as
'flatlanders', which is not a term of endearment. For example, coffee here
freezes at 41 degrees, and the only thing boils at 100 is maple sap, which
flatlanders put on their pancakes, but we seal the roof with - sometimes
driveway too.

> Now, let's say you are eating some salted pretzels
> and a few fall in, and the temperature is below freezing,
> there is a high-pressure front and it's snowing (100%
> humidity): how long before your fingers begin to freeze?
> (Give the answer in both Farenheit and Celsius. Show
> your work.)

They coincide approximately at -60
[In Vermont we often cite the temperature in degrees above absolute zero.]
But for you plains people, with wind chill its 0F today in Vt., and we are
having Merry Freezing Rain on top of another 8 inches of snow.]

> Things could be worse; you might have tried to
> communicate with people who only spoke Mandarin,
> and who had never even seen the Greek alphabet.
> They might even insist (in Manarin) that Go is the
> better game.

Go fish!

The trouble is, if its so much fun, why spend time in say, a dominos
newsgroup, dissing the natives, instead of enjoying your fascinating game?

PI

>
> -- help bot
>




 
Date: 15 Dec 2007 08:12:14
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub

> Tell me best 5 features you like at FICS other than price. And what
> are the things that make you think that they offer good play.

1. Good range of human players/time limits and some competent computer
engines.
2. Several excellent, feature-rich interfaces available.
3. Tournaments (such as the nightly 5/0 and others).
4. Lectures/tutorials.
5. Large, active community.

There's more but you said five :)

Note that ICC, if you want to pay for it, is probably an order of
magnitude larger and adds additional features.


 
Date: 14 Dec 2007 22:38:16
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
> (Note: I'm not even that big a fan of ICC, although they offer a lot
> if you wish to pay the price. And FICS is free and offers good play
> too.)

Tell me best 5 features you like at FICS other than price. And what
are the things that make you think that they offer good play.

Bye
Sanny




 
Date: 14 Dec 2007 10:39:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Dec 14, 12:35 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:

> Sanny, your analysis does not stand up.

If you in fact play quite frequently, you can easily
win free games at GetClub, assuming you don't
lose all your games. Avoid the Beginner level if
you want to maximize your points toward winning
free games.

On big Web sites like ICC, you can play humans,
computers, unknowns, or computers /posing as/
humans. At GetClub what-you-see-is-what-you-get.
I recall a player whose moniker was "TooEasy", who
had a very low rating on ICC; but whenever he got
the urge, he apparently fired up his Chessmaster
program and beat the tar out of me, on a whim.
You don't that sort of behavior at GetClub. But the
real uniqueness is that this is one program which
does *not* have the titanic by-rote openings book
you find in virtually all other chess programs. In
fact, if you take Black, the display will show that
you have moved 0. "Q-d1", and the program starts
thinking on move one. You can practice up on your
traps and zaps, or pretend you have been teleported
back in time, before the creation of ECO... .


-- help bot


 
Date: 14 Dec 2007 10:25:11
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Dec 14, 1:35 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:

> I found you played a few games with Easy & Normal Levels and win them
> all. Hows that, were you using any help from computer or today you
> have eaten 100 calories extra???

If you ask me, the program was playing tougher chess
when I lost the other day. (Or maybe I was just having a
very bad day, but didn't realize it.)

Here's how you'll know if I am using a computer: your
program will be *crushed* game after game, in under 25
moves. "There are nice programs, and there are tough
players, and I'm a tough player." -- Fritz 5.32
I would guess that old Fritz is somewhere around 2600
strength, even without any openings book. Now, when a
2600 grandmaster plays a computer which is incapable
of "seeing" any tactics which Fritz cannot, the result is
always the same: devastation.

When I played at ChessWorld.com, IM Innes was on
there, rated around 2200+, yet there were many players
above 3000; this kind of gap indicates that no way was
he utilizing his brand new Rybka program, because he
would have climbed hundreds of rating points in just a
few weeks to somewhere above the 3000 k. By the
same token, if I were to use some program to defeat
the GetClub program, I would win every game and my
rating would be astronomical (i.e. 1500+), my win/loss
record unblemished. In addition, my wins would be
much quicker, so I could play far more games in the
same amount of time; there would be no complaints
of K&N vs. K endings, because Fritz would always be
at least a Queen ahead. : >D


-- help bot












 
Date: 14 Dec 2007 09:47:03
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
Here is a little more analysis, my final comments on the topic.

From GetClub website:

* Purchase 16 Games for US$ 2.00 only.
* Purchase 40 Games for US$ 5.00 only.
* Purchase 100 Games for US$ 10.00 only. !!!
* Purchase 225 Games for US$ 20.00 only.
* Purchase 600 Games for US$ 50.00 only.
* Purchase 1200 Games for US$ 100.00 only. !!!

That comes to 0.125, 0.125, 0.100, 0.089, 0.083, and 0.083 per game,
respectively. If you want to buy incrementally, you pay a premium of
up to 50%, and strangely, there is no tiering at the highest level
despite multiple exclamation points.

From ICC website:

Three year membership $149.95
One year membership $59.95
Six month membership $34.95
One year membership for students* $29.95

Leaving aside the student rate, we reach an equal price/lowest cost
crossover at $150. $150 gets you 1800 games on GetClub or 3 years on
ICC.

Which one would you choose? :)

(Note: I'm not even that big a fan of ICC, although they offer a lot
if you wish to pay the price. And FICS is free and offers good play
too.)


  
Date: 14 Dec 2007 12:40:32
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:47:03 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:


>Leaving aside the student rate, we reach an equal price/lowest cost
>crossover at $150. $150 gets you 1800 games on GetClub or 3 years on
>ICC.
>
>Which one would you choose? :)

Or the latest three versions of Fritz with three years' membership at
PlayChess.


   
Date: 15 Dec 2007 07:56:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
why pay anyone anything at all?

if you want live games try the free rybka-server either through their own
site or via chessville - play people or the engine

i used to play speed games on a russian server [about 85% participants from
eastern europe] which had the toughest clientele of any server i knew, and
was absolutely fine unless you wanted a conversation, which would typically
go like

me: hi
partner: hi

me: cold here in USA, 20F today
partner: hi

phil innes

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:47:03 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Leaving aside the student rate, we reach an equal price/lowest cost
>>crossover at $150. $150 gets you 1800 games on GetClub or 3 years on
>>ICC.
>>
>>Which one would you choose? :)
>
> Or the latest three versions of Fritz with three years' membership at
> PlayChess.




    
Date: 15 Dec 2007 07:11:59
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:56:47 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>why pay anyone anything at all?

>if you want live games try the free rybka-server either through their own
>site or via chessville - play people or the engine

Thanks, I'll try it.

>i used to play speed games on a russian server [about 85% participants from
>eastern europe] which had the toughest clientele of any server i knew, and
>was absolutely fine unless you wanted a conversation, which would typically
>go like

>me: hi
>partner: hi

>me: cold here in USA, 20F today
>partner: hi

Probably automated.


     
Date: 15 Dec 2007 11:55:46
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:56:47 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>why pay anyone anything at all?
>
>>if you want live games try the free rybka-server either through their own
>>site or via chessville - play people or the engine
>
> Thanks, I'll try it.
>
>>i used to play speed games on a russian server [about 85% participants
>>from
>>eastern europe] which had the toughest clientele of any server i knew, and
>>was absolutely fine unless you wanted a conversation, which would
>>typically
>>go like
>
>>me: hi
>>partner: hi
>
>>me: cold here in USA, 20F today
>>partner: hi
>
> Probably automated.

not. sometimes you only had to find a common language, and it was maybe
French or even Latin. ecce, ecce! do svidanya! phil




     
Date: 15 Dec 2007 07:49:36
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:11:59 -0800, Mike Murray
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:56:47 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>why pay anyone anything at all?
>
>>if you want live games try the free rybka-server either through their own
>>site or via chessville - play people or the engine
>
>Thanks, I'll try it.

OK. I registered, installed the interface and played a couple of
blitz games. Seems fine and one certainly can't beat the price. I
still like the playchess/Fritz interface better, but this may be just
because I'm used to it.

Good tip, Phil.


      
Date: 15 Dec 2007 11:58:31
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:11:59 -0800, Mike Murray
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:56:47 -0500, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>why pay anyone anything at all?
>>
>>>if you want live games try the free rybka-server either through their own
>>>site or via chessville - play people or the engine
>>
>>Thanks, I'll try it.
>
> OK. I registered, installed the interface and played a couple of
> blitz games. Seems fine and one certainly can't beat the price. I
> still like the playchess/Fritz interface better, but this may be just
> because I'm used to it.
>
> Good tip, Phil.

I can;t play faster than 10 mins any more, so now play correspondence, about
20 games at a time, maybe 600 games/yr for $25 ain't bad.

glad you like the interface the CV forum section for Convekta can advise,
fix your problems, if any

phil




 
Date: 14 Dec 2007 09:35:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
Sanny, your analysis does not stand up.

> GetClub Chess Purchase rate can be found at:http://www.getclub.com/PurchaseGames.html

And my calculated rate of $.08 per game is completely consistent with
this; in fact you later give the same figure yourself.

> From web Statistics at GetClub Chess I found In an year a Player Plays
> Just 150 Games on an Average. Most of them Play just 100 Games. They

From stats on GetClub? How can they be relevant for other sites? Do
you have stats for ICC or FICS, for instance?

> Players only play when they have good time and are free. They do not
> come daily but come randomly. And when they play they play 3-4 games
> together.

Based on this you say that a member will play less than 50 days out of
the year, or less than once a week. That is absurd. I am not a heavy
user of ICC and FICS, but I still play a few times a week.

> So $60 for 150 Games in an year at ICC is very costly as you pay $0.4
> per game at ICC. While at GetClub you have to pay only $0.08 per game.

On ICC if you pay for a membership you are very likely going to play
much more than 150 games a year. Even if you play only 10 games a
week (3 or 4 games, 3 times a week) that is going to be over 500
games. or $0.12 a game, which is more than GetClub. But that is very
low usage and then there are all the other features on ICC such as
tutorial lectures, relays of tournament games, etc.

> So GetClub Chess is 5 times cheaper to play. And also you can start
> with small amout as little as $5.00 and $10.00 as per your needs.

GetClub is hardly 5 times cheaper. (FICS for instance is free, you
can't beat that.) But you do raise the single point that is
advantageous, namely you can pay as you go and only pay for actual
usage.

> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html





 
Date: 13 Dec 2007 23:32:02
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
> I once asked why GetClub is, in the scheme of things, rather expensive
> at approximately US $0.089 per game.
>
> Consider one of the costliest options around, Internet Chess Club at
> US $60 per year. If you play just two games a day, ICC comes out to
> about US $0.082 per game, slightly less than GetClub, and ICC
> certainly has more to offer all around than GetClub.

GetClub Chess Purchase rate can be found at: http://www.getclub.com/PurchaseGames.html

From web Statistics at GetClub Chess I found In an year a Player Plays
Just 150 Games on an Average. Most of them Play just 100 Games. They
play 3-4 Games in a day then vanish for a week and come again after a
week to play 3-4 games in a day.

Players only play when they have good time and are free. They do not
come daily but come randomly. And when they play they play 3-4 games
together.

So $60 for 150 Games in an year at ICC is very costly as you pay $0.4
per game at ICC. While at GetClub you have to pay only $0.08 per game.
So GetClub Chess is 5 times cheaper to play. And also you can start
with small amout as little as $5.00 and $10.00 as per your needs.

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html




  
Date: 20 Dec 2007 03:06:07
From: caveman
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
Sanny wrote:
>> I once asked why GetClub is, in the scheme of things, rather expensive
>> at approximately US $0.089 per game.
>>
>> Consider one of the costliest options around, Internet Chess Club at
>> US $60 per year. If you play just two games a day, ICC comes out to
>> about US $0.082 per game, slightly less than GetClub, and ICC
>> certainly has more to offer all around than GetClub.
>
> GetClub Chess Purchase rate can be found at: http://www.getclub.com/PurchaseGames.html
>
> From web Statistics at GetClub Chess I found In an year a Player Plays
> Just 150 Games on an Average. Most of them Play just 100 Games. They
> play 3-4 Games in a day then vanish for a week and come again after a
> week to play 3-4 games in a day.
>
> Players only play when they have good time and are free. They do not
> come daily but come randomly. And when they play they play 3-4 games
> together.
>
> So $60 for 150 Games in an year at ICC is very costly as you pay $0.4
> per game at ICC. While at GetClub you have to pay only $0.08 per game.
> So GetClub Chess is 5 times cheaper to play. And also you can start
> with small amout as little as $5.00 and $10.00 as per your needs.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
>
>

It's a lot more expensive than FICS.


 
Date: 13 Dec 2007 22:35:47
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Dec 14, 8:25 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Dec 13, 2:29 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I once asked why GetClub is, in the scheme of things, rather expensive
> > at approximately US $0.089 per game.
>
> > Consider one of the costliest options around, Internet Chess Club at
> > US $60 per year. If you play just two games a day, ICC comes out to
> > about US $0.082 per game, slightly less than GetClub, and ICC
> > certainly has more to offer all around than GetClub.
>
> When I played on ICC, there were certain players
> who seemed to have a "special" connection; their
> moves were relayed instantly, giving them a titanic
> advantage in blitz and bullet chess. One person I
> knew, who was an admin there, told me that some
> of the other admins liked to play head-games, toy
> with people's ratings and such. It didn't sound like
> much fun except for the admins. :>D
>
> -- help bot

I found you played a few games with Easy & Normal Levels and win them
all. Hows that, were you using any help from computer or today you
have eaten 100 calories extra???

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html


 
Date: 13 Dec 2007 19:25:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Dec 13, 2:29 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I once asked why GetClub is, in the scheme of things, rather expensive
> at approximately US $0.089 per game.
>
> Consider one of the costliest options around, Internet Chess Club at
> US $60 per year. If you play just two games a day, ICC comes out to
> about US $0.082 per game, slightly less than GetClub, and ICC
> certainly has more to offer all around than GetClub.

When I played on ICC, there were certain players
who seemed to have a "special" connection; their
moves were relayed instantly, giving them a titanic
advantage in blitz and bullet chess. One person I
knew, who was an admin there, told me that some
of the other admins liked to play head-games, toy
with people's ratings and such. It didn't sound like
much fun except for the admins. : >D


-- help bot


 
Date: 13 Dec 2007 11:29:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Dec 13, 11:14 am, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> So 225 Free
> Games worth ($20.00) will be awarded next month to Help Bot for his

Is this a prize or punishment? :)

I once asked why GetClub is, in the scheme of things, rather expensive
at approximately US $0.089 per game.

Consider one of the costliest options around, Internet Chess Club at
US $60 per year. If you play just two games a day, ICC comes out to
about US $0.082 per game, slightly less than GetClub, and ICC
certainly has more to offer all around than GetClub.


 
Date: 13 Dec 2007 11:28:14
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Help Bot to be awarded 225 Free Games at GetClub
On Dec 13, 12:14 pm, Sanny <[email protected] > wrote:
> Help Bot has helped a lot in development of GetClub Chess. And today
> GetClub Chess is playing very good games and the credit goes to Help
> Bot (Nomorechess).
>
> For helping me in developing GetClub Chess. Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
> Suggested me that Help Bot should be awarded free games. So 225 Free
> Games worth ($20.00) will be awarded next month to Help Bot for his
> help & support in development of GetClub Chess.
>
> He was on Top at GetClub for 5 months, But Recently being overtaken by
> Zebediah. Earlier Taylor Kingston. was at the Top position at GetClub
> Chess.
>
> Now, It is very difficult to win even the Beginner Level.
>
> Bye
> Sanny
>
> Play Chess at:http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

What an honor.