| |
Main
Date: 25 Jul 2007 16:57:07
From: Chess One
Subject: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
Stop bothering me with these e-mails and public notices - I'm writing a very
important chess history as a commisioned project on the family-Sloan and
American Chess as we know it, featuring among other famous chess
personalities:
an early meeting by Josiah Smith-Sloan with Polgarhontas,
Ralph Waldo Sloan, who had a split personality, and sometimes thought he was
Johhny-Appleseedsloan, and oscillated between 'utterances' and going all
over the place planting things in people's gardens that they really didn't
want.
Then NostroDamSloan, who successfully predicted Fischer, and his triumphant
return in the following quatrain:
Those in a cage will see themselves face to face
The long-time dead alive in Crossville as roots ??
[A very uncertain reference - which I have translated from
Long temps mort vif en Cruxville comme souche]
Gollum menaces once more Garghburg ??
[also uncertainly from
Slogum menasse encor Gakbill]
Fishing is prohibited no longer!
Ezekial Sloan who saw Queens in the sky over Queens.
Nathaniel Hawsloan [author of the scarlet e-mail],
Adolphus Sloan, the first Sloan to come out wearing full uniform, and who
subsequently wrote the famous, 'My Camp.'
Carl Gustav Sloan who, as ani ful no, invented the collective substandard
and to J. R. R. Sloan, author of "Bored of the Board, and actually, everyone
else's opinion too".
Phil Innes
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 18:10:17
From: help bot
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
On Jul 30, 9:45 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net > wrote:
> > Check
> > this game out:
>
> > 1.e4 d5
>
> > 2.ed Qxd5
>
> > 3.Nc3 Qd6 (Um, are you planning to move anything
> > besides just your Queen, fella?)
>
> Yes, if you are going to make unusual moves which require say, lots of queen
> activity, you need to get something out of it, which will mean playing to
> win a pawn or to give one up. Otherwise this is numb, since 3. ... Qd6 is
> maybe tryable once, but surely every black player will have had to
> anticipate the third move. I wonder what computers like here for 3... ? I
Fritz 5.32 (sans opening book) likes 3. ...Qe6+ or ...Qa5
best. As for ...Qd6, it jumps from an equal evaluation to
slightly better for White; granted, its displayed analysis
is daft. For comparison, Rob Mitchell thinks 3. ...Qc6 --
keeping an eye on the g2 pawn -- is probably best. I like
...Qd8, because it gets the Queen onto her optimal square;
of course, then one must be willing to admit the folly of
having played 1. ...d5, 2. ...Qxd5.
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 14:46:10
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 3...Qd6 in the Scandinavian
|
On Jul 30, 11:13 am, Taylor Kingston <tkings...@chittenden.com > wrote:
> I've generally found that 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 players get a bit
> kerflummoxed when, after 3.c4 c6 4.d4 cxd5 5.Nc3 they find themselves
> defending against a Panov-Botvinnik Attack in the Caro-Kann. With
> 2...Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 that transposition cannot occur. And with 2...Qxd5
> one can reasonably expect 3.Nc3 to follow 99% of the time
Ha! In fact, I generally play the more positionally
justified d4 & c4, developing this Knight *behind* a
wall of pawns "the way God intended". But for some
reason, my opponent's lower rating, in conjunction with
corroborating evidence in the form of a premature Queen
foray, gave me a case of over-zealousness, so I went
with the most aggressive moves I could stomach.
> In any event, my point was not that 3...Qd6 is markedly better than
> other lines of the Scandinavian, but that, contrary to help-bot's
> insinuation, it is definitely an established line with a substantial
> body of theory behind it.
Um, I never insinuated that; what I wrote was a
comment on the repetitive moving of one's Queen
EARLY in the opening, and I required no insinuation
whatever. (In truth, the second Q-move was forced,
but that is hardly my problem!)
As far as I'm concerned, there could be a thousand
books on lines involving inferior moves (I have many
of them), but this is beside the point.
> > I further note that I stole the book from the Reverend P. Gustafson!
>
> Stealing from a man of God? Tut, tut, Phil.
IM Innes probably meant that in jest. Imagine a
scenario where you borrow a book from someone,
and then, for whatever reason, it never finds its
way home. Some of my books had this happen to
them over the years. Like the one I wrote on the
origins and importance of Andean language, the
one where I show a bust to the French Defense,
the one where I busted the King's Gambit, and so
forth. Strangely enough, more than a few of the
ideas contained in these works later appeared in
print or in rgc under other people's names... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 14:32:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: 3...Qd6 in the Scandinavian
|
On Jul 30, 10:01 am, Taylor Kingston <tkings...@chittenden.com > wrote:
> On Jul 29, 1:33 am, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But generally speaking, the majority of these
> > guys are hanging pieces, pawns, or as in one
> > game, an exchange for a pawn, and they are
> > clearly not getting any outside help. Check
> > this game out:
>
> > 1.e4 d5
>
> > 2.ed Qxd5
>
> > 3.Nc3 Qd6 (Um, are you planning to move anything
> > besides just your Queen, fella?)
>
> Actually this is an established book line of the Scandinavian
> Defense.
Okay, so it has a name and is in some books. What
does that have to do with my annotation above, where I
asked if the patzer was planning to move something
other than his Queen?
> The definite work on it is "Scandinavian Defense: The Dynamic
> 3...Qd6" by Michael Melts
Okay, somebody named Michael Melts wrote a book
and tossed out the term "dynamic" -- whatever that is
worth. I back my comments with real chess moves, like
say Nf3 or O-O, not silly terms like "dynamic", which
are so ubiquitous these days as to mean absolutely
nothing.
Here is the further course of play in that game, just
FYI:
1. e4 d5
2. ed Qxd5
3. Nc3 Qd6
4. Nf3 g6
5. Bc4 Bh6
6. Qe2 Be6
7. Bxe6 etc.
(I have deliberately stopped short so as not to risk
any comments here affecting the further course of the
game.)
Now, my question is this: how does use of the term
"dynamic" in any way lend support to the actual value
of such moves? I say it's hooey. : >D
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 14:03:37
From: help bot
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
On Jul 29, 7:57 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net > wrote:
> Someone wrote a novel a few years ago - one of these 'alternate futures'
> books, and if the South just had another 100 guys near the top of little big
> top... then the hill would have been taken, the battle won, the yankees
> driven back, Washington overrun, and Yankees forced to eat grits fer
> breakfast ferever.
>
> To be on topic, there are probably good chess anecdotes to illustrate both
> points above - if only I was bright enough to think of them at 7am...
Every "documentary" I have seen regarding the Civil
War had you damned Yanks blundering again and
again -- not unlike Rob Mitchell -- until finally, Robert
E. SloanLee ran out of... everything.
> > But I know this is really not about that; it's really
> > about rubbing it in Mr. Sloan's face that he lost.
>
> No its not - its the voice of We, The Peasants, confronting the bull-horn
> mentality of a Politico, by a little allegory. I assume you know the
> difference between an allegory and a crocodile?
Of course I do. An allegatory has different eyes and nostrils;
it's hard to explain, but show me a picture and I can easily tell
which is which. K-men are smaller that either one. A crock's
snout is much narrower, and you can see their teeth better.
The word alligator is derived from the Andean phrase
"el lagarto", meaning the lizard. This is because many
Andeans weren't very bright, and could not tell them apart
until after they were torn apart by one of the el lagartos,
(when it no longer mattered how scientists classified
anything).
Just remember, with regard to Sam Sloan and the USCF:
he could one day return; if members were stupid enough
to elect him once, there is little reason to believe they
couldn't do it again. As President Bush might put it: "never
misunderestimate voters; they elected me, didn't they?"
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 31 Jul 2007 14:11:13
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
"help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1185829417.063792.111070@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Every "documentary" I have seen regarding the Civil
> War had you damned Yanks blundering again and
> again -- not unlike Rob Mitchell -- until finally, Robert
> E. SloanLee ran out of... everything.
Lee ran out of French. Tactically the south had better esprit-de-corps, and
won most every early battle - but strategically they placed their Queen on
d6 at move 3 on the fatal advice of Taylor E. Lee, a Californian who
tragically got his military strategy all from books.
The North was far better organised overall, like Steinitz! while the South
were no Tal's and won things which didn't prove decisive, like Sloan. In the
end they fought the good fight for bad reasons*, also like Sloan.
*good to not succumb to northern bullies and their inhuman factories forcing
a Statist unity
*bad reason to choose the inhuman slave-plantation culture as any status-quo
to preserve
---
>> No its not - its the voice of We, The Peasants, confronting the bull-horn
>> mentality of a Politico, by a little allegory. I assume you know the
>> difference between an allegory and a crocodile?
>
> Of course I do. An allegatory has different eyes and nostrils;
> it's hard to explain, but show me a picture and I can easily tell
> which is which. K-men are smaller that either one. A crock's
> snout is much narrower, and you can see their teeth better.
I understood difrunt. A gator bites your leg off, while a crock is content
to gnaw. I learned that from a James Bond movie, the one with the
dang-nabbit! sherriff with veHICKal problems.
> The word alligator is derived from the Andean phrase
> "el lagarto", meaning the lizard. This is because many
> Andeans weren't very bright, and could not tell them apart
> until after they were torn apart by one of the el lagartos,
Amazing for me to learn that Gators climbed up on the altiplano - where they
feathered gators? In fact, flying gators from the age of Dinosloans?
There is one of those Creation Museums which features the remarkable sight
of a Dinosaur with a saddle on it! And from only abt. 5,000 years ago.
> (when it no longer mattered how scientists classified
> anything).
Didn't matter to the Smithsonian, but to themselves you have distinctive
languages based on Chavin, Chimor, Chinchorro, Inka, Moche, Nazca, Norte
Chico, Tiwanaku, Wari, even Apache. The written records are most unreliable,
howsomever, especially the Spanish on the Inka.
California alone was home to 86 tongues. Dr. Greenburgh is rather good on
the details of the 3 main families of native speech. Though reading on this
subject is often surrounded with the still controversial Clovis-culture, the
ice-free corridor, and the 3 migrations... The TV program Discovery even
showed a migration from Europe - in fact from Britanny... [not Spears, but
spear-heads, its the way they were chipped you see]
So, over large periods of recorded time and movements of people, the normal
blending and/or seperating of languages elements provide an ancient basis
for modern speech - such as the varieties of Anglo Saxon sponsor many
different forms of our own, of which we have little difficulty these days in
locating any varians to place.
> Just remember, with regard to Sam Sloan and the USCF:
> he could one day return; if members were stupid enough
> to elect him once, there is little reason to believe they
> couldn't do it again. As President Bush might put it: "never
> misunderestimate voters; they elected me, didn't they?"
Well, he is a special person. And what such people say they, no doubt,
sincerely believe, must be mediated therefore by just normal common sense to
assess if the speaker's wit compasses the world as we know it, which is
often a rather bigger place than the 100-acre wood.
I am reading a biography of the Waugh family, and understand E. Waugh was a
chess player, and also a friend of W. Churchill - Ray Keene wrote recently
of a club where Winston likely played, though for the benefit of you Yanks
[sui-generis], he would not have met another member, C. Dickens, for similar
reasons mentioned just a few moments ago.
Neither Waugh nor Churchill appear to have met any proto-Sloans, but I am
digging into it, since I'm sure one of them put Staunton off playing Morphy.
Riva!! El Yanqui Norte
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 08:13:11
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: 3...Qd6 in the Scandinavian
|
On Jul 30, 10:33 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net > wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185804060.228348.303880@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 29, 1:33 am, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> But generally speaking, the majority of these
> >> guys are hanging pieces, pawns, or as in one
> >> game, an exchange for a pawn, and they are
> >> clearly not getting any outside help. Check
> >> this game out:
>
> >> 1.e4 d5
>
> >> 2.ed Qxd5
>
> >> 3.Nc3 Qd6 (Um, are you planning to move anything
> >> besides just your Queen, fella?)
>
> > Actually this is an established book line of the Scandinavian
> > Defense. The definite work on it is "Scandinavian Defense: The Dynamic
> > 3...Qd6" by Michael Melts (2001 Russell Enterprises; see
> >http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=15&PID=97)
>
> O! Russell Enterprises!
>
> Personally I like the CCCP published title by R. B. Edwards, 1987 [Can.]
> which is not on the possibly counter-intuitively named 'dynamic' 3....Qd6,
> and spends 160 pages on 2... Nf6, the Modern var which Hans Jung recommends.
>
> Basically, this is an opening that you don't need much preparation for as
> black, even with Qd6!?, and is therefore good
I've generally found that 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 players get a bit
kerflummoxed when, after 3.c4 c6 4.d4 cxd5 5.Nc3 they find themselves
defending against a Panov-Botvinnik Attack in the Caro-Kann. With
2...Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 that transposition cannot occur. And with 2...Qxd5
one can reasonably expect 3.Nc3 to follow 99% of the time, whereas
with 2...Nf6 one must be prepared not only for 3.c4, but 3.Bb5+, 3.d4
or 3.Nf3. Therefore I would submit that playing 2...Nf6 requires no
less preparation than 2...Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6.
In any event, my point was not that 3...Qd6 is markedly better than
other lines of the Scandinavian, but that, contrary to help-bot's
insinuation, it is definitely an established line with a substantial
body of theory behind it.
> I further note that I stole the book from the Reverend P. Gustafson!
Stealing from a man of God? Tut, tut, Phil.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 21:36:31
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 3...Qd6 in the Scandinavian
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com > wrote in message
news:1185808391.986624.238410@b79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 30, 10:33 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Taylor Kingston" <tkings...@chittenden.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185804060.228348.303880@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jul 29, 1:33 am, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> But generally speaking, the majority of these
>> >> guys are hanging pieces, pawns, or as in one
>> >> game, an exchange for a pawn, and they are
>> >> clearly not getting any outside help. Check
>> >> this game out:
>>
>> >> 1.e4 d5
>>
>> >> 2.ed Qxd5
>>
>> >> 3.Nc3 Qd6 (Um, are you planning to move anything
>> >> besides just your Queen, fella?)
>>
>> > Actually this is an established book line of the Scandinavian
>> > Defense. The definite work on it is "Scandinavian Defense: The Dynamic
>> > 3...Qd6" by Michael Melts (2001 Russell Enterprises; see
>> >http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=15&PID=97)
>>
>> O! Russell Enterprises!
>>
>> Personally I like the CCCP published title by R. B. Edwards, 1987 [Can.]
>> which is not on the possibly counter-intuitively named 'dynamic'
>> 3....Qd6,
>> and spends 160 pages on 2... Nf6, the Modern var which Hans Jung
>> recommends.
>>
>> Basically, this is an opening that you don't need much preparation for as
>> black, even with Qd6!?, and is therefore good
>
> I've generally found that 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Nf6 players get a bit
> kerflummoxed when, after 3.c4 c6 4.d4 cxd5 5.Nc3 they find themselves
> defending against a Panov-Botvinnik Attack in the Caro-Kann.
Probly Ribli-Torre, Candidates 1983, illustrates or defines real chances by
both sides in this line:
5. Nc3 Nc6
6. Bg5 Qa5
7 Qd2 Be6 [interesting!]
8 c5 Ne4
9 Ne4 de
10 Qa5 Na5
11 Bd2 Nc6
12 Bc3 0-0-0
13 Ne2 Bc4
14 Ng3 =
Of Course, Alekhine liked to essay th balck side
Keres-Alekhine AVRO 1938 was better for black
But there is also the Alekhine - Sultan Khan game
4... nc6
5 Nc3 Nc6
6 Nf3 Bg4
7 cd5 Nd5
8 Bb5 a6
interesting, no?
But here is the defeat of Nimzovich with this line:
Nimzovitch // Alekine 1931
5 ... Nc6
6 nf3 Bg4
7 cd Nd5
8 Bb5 Qa5 [?!]
9 Qb3 Bf3
10 gf Nc3
11 Bc6 bc
12 Qb7 Nd5
13 Bd2 Qb6
14 Qa8 Kd7
15 0-0 Nc7
0-1
> With
> 2...Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 that transposition cannot occur. And with 2...Qxd5
> one can reasonably expect 3.Nc3 to follow 99% of the time, whereas
Whereas playing against a Caro Kan set-up is to play against a reilient
defence - the question is, who is better?
> with 2...Nf6 one must be prepared not only for 3.c4, but 3.Bb5+, 3.d4
> or 3.Nf3. Therefore I would submit that playing 2...Nf6 requires no
> less preparation than 2...Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6.
Would depend on the level of opponent and any desire to win
> In any event, my point was not that 3...Qd6 is markedly better than
> other lines of the Scandinavian, but that, contrary to help-bot's
> insinuation, it is definitely an established line with a substantial
> body of theory behind it.
Sure it is established, but in terms of 'better than other' is not founded
in the comments you cite, since preparation could reasonably be expected to
go a tad deeper than 4 moves. Well, at my exalted level.
>> I further note that I stole the book from the Reverend P. Gustafson!
>
> Stealing from a man of God? Tut, tut, Phil.
Not a man of god, just a guy made his living by preachin'
Lots of people do that.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 07:01:00
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: 3...Qd6 in the Scandinavian
|
On Jul 29, 1:33 am, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> But generally speaking, the majority of these
> guys are hanging pieces, pawns, or as in one
> game, an exchange for a pawn, and they are
> clearly not getting any outside help. Check
> this game out:
>
> 1.e4 d5
>
> 2.ed Qxd5
>
> 3.Nc3 Qd6 (Um, are you planning to move anything
> besides just your Queen, fella?)
Actually this is an established book line of the Scandinavian
Defense. The definite work on it is "Scandinavian Defense: The Dynamic
3...Qd6" by Michael Melts (2001 Russell Enterprises; see
http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=15&PID=97)
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 14:33:03
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: 3...Qd6 in the Scandinavian
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com > wrote in message
news:1185804060.228348.303880@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 29, 1:33 am, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But generally speaking, the majority of these
>> guys are hanging pieces, pawns, or as in one
>> game, an exchange for a pawn, and they are
>> clearly not getting any outside help. Check
>> this game out:
>>
>> 1.e4 d5
>>
>> 2.ed Qxd5
>>
>> 3.Nc3 Qd6 (Um, are you planning to move anything
>> besides just your Queen, fella?)
>
> Actually this is an established book line of the Scandinavian
> Defense. The definite work on it is "Scandinavian Defense: The Dynamic
> 3...Qd6" by Michael Melts (2001 Russell Enterprises; see
> http://uscfsales.com/item.asp?cID=15&PID=97)
O! Russell Enterprises!
Personally I like the CCCP published title by R. B. Edwards, 1987 [Can.]
which is not on the possibly counter-intuitively named 'dynamic' 3....Qd6,
and spends 160 pages on 2... Nf6, the Modern var which Hans Jung recommends.
Basically, this is an opening that you don't need much preparation for as
black, even with Qd6!?, and is therefore good
I further note that I stole the book from the Reverend P. Gustafson!
Phil Innes
ps: one wacky line goes
1 e4 d5
2 ed Nf6
3. Bb5 Bd7
4 Bc4 b5
5. Bb3
which continued Dohner - Palme, 1957
5 .. Bf5
6 Qe2 a6
7 c4 c6
8 dc6 Nc6
9 cb5 Nd4
10 Qc4 Rc8
11 Qf7 kd7
12 Nf3 Rc1
13 Bd1 Nf3
14 gf3 Be6
0-1
although the white b can retreat to e2 which i note Bronstei liked to play a
line against ...
|
| |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 05:52:39
From: Rob
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
On Jul 29, 12:05 am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> help bot wrote:
> > On Jul 28, 11:06 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > This is obviously the fake Brennan pretending to be a netwit, since surely
> > > even he can't think I would be jealous of people with lesser ratings
>
> > Poseur 2450 nearly-an-IM proclaims superiority
> > of chess rating, possibly offending sole supporter
> > Rob Mitchell alter-identity in the process.
>
> Poseur is the best description of Innes I've come across.
>
> > > who presumably didn't do so much?
>
> > Adds question mark to end of presumptions. Very
> > odd.
>
> > > The real Brennan is much nutter,
>
> > Probably meant to write nuttier, as in "a Snickers
> > bar is nuttier than a Milky Way". The same problem
> > with spelling of simple words appears in the alter
> > identities, such as RM.
>
> Without accepting that Mitchell and the Nearly an IM 2450 are one and
> the same, I agree they are both English-challenged.
>
> > > and on the
> > > record [!] convinced himself I was the auto-responder, Zed.
>
> > Ridiculous! Zed may be unintelligent, but his
> > program is severely limited in scope. IM Innes
> > is the superior A.I., buy a wide margin. The
> > sole area where Zed has an edge is in playing
> > chess (and who cares about that?).
>
> Hmm, the Nearly an IM 2450 Innes believes I took part in those endless
> Zed exchanges that his remora Mitchell spammed the group with a year
> ago? More misinformation from the Innes/Mitchell 'fact' factory.
>
> > > > Probably. The Nearly an IM's obsession with the male posterior is well-
> > > > known.
>
> > > Why don't you girls talk it over then share with the whole fish market. Is
> > > it okay to mention girls? You never do, and, that's ok...a....y....
>
> > IM Innes wants to be known for his peculiar
> > attitude towards some posters who are believed
> > to be female. The last one I saw had him acting
> > *very uncomfortable* while insisting that he was
> > not merely sucking up because she was a woman.
> > (In truth, she seemed completely disinterested in
> > the nearly-an-IM poseur, so his queer behavior
> > was moot.)
>
> Did he protest too much?
>
> > > > Why not just consider him insane and be done?
>
> > And be done, as in give up on him, write him
> > off as incurable, a basket case? You heartless
> > scumbag! You cold, icy, lowdown... say, you
> > wouldn't happen to be a lawyer, would you?
> > Or worse, a tax collector?
>
> Yes, write him off as a nutter, and be done.
>
> > > The real Brennan would have started yet another pledge drive, like the one
> > > he has recently got going elsewhere - what's the net if you can't act like
> > > McCarthy and have a little fun with black-lists?? And you gotta keep doing
> > > it, since looked what happened to McCarthy the moment he stopped! Deadern a
> > > fishwife.
>
> > McCarty this, McCarthy that. It's almost as
> > if nearly-an-insane Innes wants to exact revenge
> > for the Commies, never mind how many years
> > have passed since these events occurred.
>
> His knowledge of the subject, like his knowledge of all subjects, has
> been gleaned from the back cover of books he looks over on his shift
> as server in the coffee bar of the Brattleboro Barnes and Noble.
If you want to mention me, do it directly. I will do the same to you
at chessnews@mindspring.com
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 21:05:18
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
"Rob" <robmtchl@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1185713559.399973.86320@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> His knowledge of the subject, like his knowledge of all subjects, has
>> been gleaned from the back cover of books he looks over on his shift
>> as server in the coffee bar of the Brattleboro Barnes and Noble.
>
> If you want to mention me, do it directly. I will do the same to you
> at chessnews@mindspring.com
Brennan is some numb brain who doesn't even know if there /is/ a B&N in
Brattleboro. He is that sorta American Hysterian :)
It is typical of a certain type of net-twit, which is to say that if he says
it, it is to believe himself, or suggest to others they believe it, as if
they would - there are no further 'thoughts'. It seems impossibly stupid,
but the evidence is that it really is! :)))
He is a character which could only exist as a netwit, and apart from writing
the biographies of B players for PA correspondence chess, circ, 37 people,
has not added a wit of wisdom during his 5 years of appearances here. In
another newsgroup his contribution to the understand of the works of
Shakespeare has recently included banning discussion of the works of
Shakespeare - a little McCarthy-type 'action'.
His defence is that these areunworthy forums, yet he spares no degree of
attention to it - under his own name or as .... :))))) ROFL!
But he is understandable! He just wants to be respected, and get a [better]
job for it in chess. What he doesn't understand is that reader's orientation
to chess is almost entirely to /playing/ it, and if you can't invoke the
hustle, as a writer, you might as well be called Taylor Winter.
You don't get no respect if you don't do that.
This hound-dog ain't goinna hunt! He is happy squeezing his fat carcass into
some oversized kennel, while stirring up the neighbourhood by barking loudly
causethe kind o hell can you raise between people, if you are not very
bright, and dunno how to be, at least reduces them to your level, so you
don't seem so dead.
Though to finish on a positive note; at least he is brave enough to post his
'comments' from the perspective of the last virgin on newsnet.
PI
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 23:05:47
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
help bot wrote:
> On Jul 28, 11:06 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > This is obviously the fake Brennan pretending to be a netwit, since surely
> > even he can't think I would be jealous of people with lesser ratings
>
> Poseur 2450 nearly-an-IM proclaims superiority
> of chess rating, possibly offending sole supporter
> Rob Mitchell alter-identity in the process.
Poseur is the best description of Innes I've come across.
> > who presumably didn't do so much?
>
> Adds question mark to end of presumptions. Very
> odd.
>
>
> > The real Brennan is much nutter,
>
> Probably meant to write nuttier, as in "a Snickers
> bar is nuttier than a Milky Way". The same problem
> with spelling of simple words appears in the alter
> identities, such as RM.
Without accepting that Mitchell and the Nearly an IM 2450 are one and
the same, I agree they are both English-challenged.
> > and on the
> > record [!] convinced himself I was the auto-responder, Zed.
>
> Ridiculous! Zed may be unintelligent, but his
> program is severely limited in scope. IM Innes
> is the superior A.I., buy a wide margin. The
> sole area where Zed has an edge is in playing
> chess (and who cares about that?).
Hmm, the Nearly an IM 2450 Innes believes I took part in those endless
Zed exchanges that his remora Mitchell spammed the group with a year
ago? More misinformation from the Innes/Mitchell 'fact' factory.
> > > Probably. The Nearly an IM's obsession with the male posterior is well-
> > > known.
> >
> > Why don't you girls talk it over then share with the whole fish market. Is
> > it okay to mention girls? You never do, and, that's ok...a....y....
>
> IM Innes wants to be known for his peculiar
> attitude towards some posters who are believed
> to be female. The last one I saw had him acting
> *very uncomfortable* while insisting that he was
> not merely sucking up because she was a woman.
> (In truth, she seemed completely disinterested in
> the nearly-an-IM poseur, so his queer behavior
> was moot.)
Did he protest too much?
> > > Why not just consider him insane and be done?
>
> And be done, as in give up on him, write him
> off as incurable, a basket case? You heartless
> scumbag! You cold, icy, lowdown... say, you
> wouldn't happen to be a lawyer, would you?
> Or worse, a tax collector?
Yes, write him off as a nutter, and be done.
> > The real Brennan would have started yet another pledge drive, like the one
> > he has recently got going elsewhere - what's the net if you can't act like
> > McCarthy and have a little fun with black-lists?? And you gotta keep doing
> > it, since looked what happened to McCarthy the moment he stopped! Deadern a
> > fishwife.
>
> McCarty this, McCarthy that. It's almost as
> if nearly-an-insane Innes wants to exact revenge
> for the Commies, never mind how many years
> have passed since these events occurred.
His knowledge of the subject, like his knowledge of all subjects, has
been gleaned from the back cover of books he looks over on his shift
as server in the coffee bar of the Brattleboro Barnes and Noble.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 13:51:38
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
"The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1185689147.714654.202920@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hmm, the Nearly an IM 2450 Innes believes I took part in those endless
> Zed exchanges that his remora Mitchell spammed the group with a year
> ago? More misinformation from the Innes/Mitchell 'fact' factory.
Hmm, some paranoid has been [successfully] emulating 'old english is dead'
Brennan!
Actually, it would be worth putting them up here again for two reasons. We
could
(a) assess if the emulation was, say 100% <ggg > and
(b) Brennan's reporting of all subjects makes Sam Sloan's seem
Pulitzer-level.
[maybe he is trying to get into the book?]
PI
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 22:33:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
On Jul 28, 11:06 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net > wrote:
> This is obviously the fake Brennan pretending to be a netwit, since surely
> even he can't think I would be jealous of people with lesser ratings
Poseur 2450 nearly-an-IM proclaims superiority
of chess rating, possibly offending sole supporter
Rob Mitchell alter-identity in the process.
> who presumably didn't do so much?
Adds question mark to end of presumptions. Very
odd.
> The real Brennan is much nutter,
Probably meant to write nuttier, as in "a Snickers
bar is nuttier than a Milky Way". The same problem
with spelling of simple words appears in the alter
identities, such as RM.
> and on the
> record [!] convinced himself I was the auto-responder, Zed.
Ridiculous! Zed may be unintelligent, but his
program is severely limited in scope. IM Innes
is the superior A.I., buy a wide margin. The
sole area where Zed has an edge is in playing
chess (and who cares about that?).
> > Probably. The Nearly an IM's obsession with the male posterior is well-
> > known.
>
> Why don't you girls talk it over then share with the whole fish market. Is
> it okay to mention girls? You never do, and, that's ok...a....y....
IM Innes wants to be known for his peculiar
attitude towards some posters who are believed
to be female. The last one I saw had him acting
*very uncomfortable* while insisting that he was
not merely sucking up because she was a woman.
(In truth, she seemed completely disinterested in
the nearly-an-IM poseur, so his queer behavior
was moot.)
> > Why not just consider him insane and be done?
And be done, as in give up on him, write him
off as incurable, a basket case? You heartless
scumbag! You cold, icy, lowdown... say, you
wouldn't happen to be a lawyer, would you?
Or worse, a tax collector?
> The real Brennan would have started yet another pledge drive, like the one
> he has recently got going elsewhere - what's the net if you can't act like
> McCarthy and have a little fun with black-lists?? And you gotta keep doing
> it, since looked what happened to McCarthy the moment he stopped! Deadern a
> fishwife.
McCarty this, McCarthy that. It's almost as
if nearly-an-insane Innes wants to exact revenge
for the Commies, never mind how many years
have passed since these events occurred.
As I read articles and magazines the "other
side" is still bashing away at the Commies, still
angry about something or other. They lash out,
as if in dire pain, toward names like Hugo
Chavez, Mr. Putin and anybody who wreaks
havoc apart from their own man, President
Bush. It's almost as though someone were
paying them to do this, because their attacks
are so lame.
> International Correspondence Grand Farmer, Phil Innes
Right now, I am playing a game at RedHot
where it feels like the guy may be using some
chess program. But get this: his rating is only
1600 or 1700, just like mine! I have to wonder
what goes on at the higher levels, where the
players are rated nearly double my rating.
But generally speaking, the majority of these
guys are hanging pieces, pawns, or as in one
game, an exchange for a pawn, and they are
clearly not getting any outside help. Check
this game out:
1.e4 d5
2.ed Qxd5
3.Nc3 Qd6 (Um, are you planning to move anything
besides just your Queen, fella?)
4.Nf3 g6 (No way is this in any book.)
5.Bc4 (Sets a cheap trap.) ...Bh6 (Yowie! Whatta plan.)
And White (That's me, stupid!) will undoubtedly go on
to win. Hey, this guy doesn't even have a checkers
program, let alone Fritz, MCO, or even a Reinfeld primer.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 30 Jul 2007 13:45:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
"help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1185687239.403841.56690@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 28, 11:06 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> International Correspondence Grand Farmer, Phil Innes
>
>
> Right now, I am playing a game at RedHot
> where it feels like the guy may be using some
> chess program. But get this: his rating is only
> 1600 or 1700, just like mine! I have to wonder
> what goes on at the higher levels, where the
> players are rated nearly double my rating.
In a recent tournament the 13xx player was doing better than the 18xx ones,
much better, and I couldn't find much against him in 25 moves, whereas I had
won positions against the others, mostly 1700-1900. Probably the 13xx was
Sargon or something. So he either stopped using the progam or it messed up
at #26.
I have also just joined a tournament where I am the lowest rated player by
200 points, and some of them are 3,000+
Its just boring playing computers, especially at cc, where it goes so l o o
o n g, but this is a fast-mover. While I can credit big rating advantages
from having time to assess play, 3,000? pfft! Those are DBs and
Chess-Engines.
> But generally speaking, the majority of these
> guys are hanging pieces, pawns, or as in one
> game, an exchange for a pawn, and they are
> clearly not getting any outside help.
That's right. Almost as soon as you can get into a tactical matrix of
engagement, and provoke a sequence requiring maybe 6 to 8 moves look-aheads,
people keel over.
> Check
> this game out:
>
> 1.e4 d5
>
> 2.ed Qxd5
>
> 3.Nc3 Qd6 (Um, are you planning to move anything
> besides just your Queen, fella?)
Yes, if you are going to make unusual moves which require say, lots of queen
activity, you need to get something out of it, which will mean playing to
win a pawn or to give one up. Otherwise this is numb, since 3. ... Qd6 is
maybe tryable once, but surely every black player will have had to
anticipate the third move. I wonder what computers like here for 3... ? I
met its not Dd8, and why not make a ghost-pin form the a-file?
> 4.Nf3 g6 (No way is this in any book.)
>
> 5.Bc4 (Sets a cheap trap.) ...Bh6 (Yowie! Whatta plan.)
>
> And White (That's me, stupid!) will undoubtedly go on
> to win. Hey, this guy doesn't even have a checkers
> program, let alone Fritz, MCO, or even a Reinfeld primer.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 21:52:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
On Jul 28, 7:01 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net > wrote:
> Actually, it refers to Robert E. Sloan, and is part of my new
> work-in-progress, A Hystery of the Sloans in American Chess.
>
> Finding himself in Crossville Tennessee at the outbreak, Sloan became a
> free-lance corporal during the civil war, and became locally famous for
> making Yankee traps. His idea was to dig holes everywhere and then cover
> them over, run out, taunt some damn Yankees to get them to chase him, then
> leap the trap...
>
> Unfortunately Sloan was never promoted since the traps became a nuisance and
> more southern boys fell in em, than bluecoats, and one day he foolishly
> taunted a whole company of Vermont cavalry on an open road, who then
> charged, flattening him into the mud.
>
> He survived this incident relatively unharmed except he became a little hard
> of hearing.
>
> While Cpl. Sloan is now forgotten by the annals of history, they term
> 'Sloanism' survives, and they did make a famous song about the incident
>
> The night they rode Dixie Sloan down
> His ears were ringin'
Ah, this stuff makes me pine for the good old days.
Back before we were driven south of the border,
patiently biding our time and just waiting for the
right time to attack you damn Yankees. You do
realize that it's not over? Not until the fat man sings.
This time there will be no mistakes. We will hit
you-all with everything we've got -- including
cavalry and cannons! I'll wager that just one of
ourn is worth any two of your men. And what's this--
ain't you-all got most of yourn a way over there in
Irabia someplace, fightin' fereigners? We'll likely
have you-all blue coats outnumbered.
But I know this is really not about that; it's really
about rubbing it in Mr. Sloan's face that he lost.
You-all Yankees never were much for winning
graceful like. Got to rub it in when you get lucky,
doncha? Just can't help yerselves, can ya? Just
you wait -- we'll be back. You'll see.
-- Col. gray bot
|
| | |
Date: 29 Jul 2007 11:57:46
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
"help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1185684724.245348.94440@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> While Cpl. Sloan is now forgotten by the annals of history, they term
>> 'Sloanism' survives, and they did make a famous song about the incident
>>
>> The night they rode Dixie Sloan down
>> His ears were ringin'
>
>
> Ah, this stuff makes me pine for the good old days.
> Back before we were driven south of the border,
> patiently biding our time and just waiting for the
> right time to attack you damn Yankees. You do
> realize that it's not over? Not until the fat man sings.
Jerry Hanken is msuical
> This time there will be no mistakes. We will hit
> you-all with everything we've got -- including
> cavalry and cannons! I'll wager that just one of
> ourn is worth any two of your men. And what's this--
> ain't you-all got most of yourn a way over there in
> Irabia someplace, fightin' fereigners? We'll likely
> have you-all blue coats outnumbered.
Sounds like another Afghanistan or Vietnam. Peasant armies always beat the
big-army guys in tanks, it just takes awhile.
Someone wrote a novel a few years ago - one of these 'alternate futures'
books, and if the South just had another 100 guys near the top of little big
top... then the hill would have been taken, the battle won, the yankees
driven back, Washington overrun, and Yankees forced to eat grits fer
breakfast ferever.
To be on topic, there are probably good chess anecdotes to illustrate both
points above - if only I was bright enough to think of them at 7am...
> But I know this is really not about that; it's really
> about rubbing it in Mr. Sloan's face that he lost.
No its not - its the voice of We, The Peasants, confronting the bull-horn
mentality of a Politico, by a little allegory. I assume you know the
difference between an allegory and a crocodile?
> You-all Yankees never were much for winning
> graceful like. Got to rub it in when you get lucky,
> doncha?
Not usually, Vermont Yankees don't even talk to the other ones much - New
Hampshire one's are too dumb to understand when they're being insulted.
> Just can't help yerselves, can ya? Just
> you wait -- we'll be back. You'll see.
You and whose army? I hear you Southerners are all Wussies now, with your
condos and your Audis, and your great big Malls.
I guess we Green Mountain Boys, could send our Woman's team...?
Corporal Clegg, the IV
5th Light Foot and Mouth.
> -- Col. gray bot
>
>
>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 07:25:46
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
On Jul 27, 6:40 pm, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Jul 27, 4:10 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > No its not! You have no hom to ad. You are an anonymous mouth
>
> Resentful. Desperate. Needs something
> concrete to ad hominize.
Agreed.
> > who finds it
> > very difficult to not resent those who can own their words.
>
> Seems obsessed with personalities, like SS,
> NB, etc., etc., and feels helpless when faced
> with unknowns.
I think the Nearly an IM 2450 is jealous of people who actually DO
things. Which is part and parcel of being a poseur. I do wish he'd
stop seeing me in every poster who disagrees with him.
> > This is no
> > dispute between us - it is the plainest fact. YOU insist on making all
> > personal, while you lack the balls to write your name
>
> Projects imagined sex of what he calls an
> anon., or unknown. Likes to talk about sex
> organs of same. Repressed homosexual?
Probably. The Nearly an IM's obsession with the male posterior is well-
known.
> > O Ha ha Ha
>
> Exhibits very strange laugh, with randomized
> capitalization and oddly lacking in any punctuation.
> Note: possible mild case of encephalitis.
Why not just consider him insane and be done?
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 15:06:02
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
"The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1185632746.675646.150140@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> I think the Nearly an IM 2450 is jealous of people who actually DO
> things. Which is part and parcel of being a poseur. I do wish he'd
> stop seeing me in every poster who disagrees with him.
This is obviously the fake Brennan pretending to be a netwit, since surely
even he can't think I would be jealous of people with lesser ratings, who
presumably didn't do so much? The real Brennan is much nutter, and on the
record [!] convinced himself I was the auto-responder, Zed.
>> > This is no
>> > dispute between us - it is the plainest fact. YOU insist on making all
>> > personal, while you lack the balls to write your name
>>
>> Projects imagined sex of what he calls an
>> anon., or unknown. Likes to talk about sex
>> organs of same. Repressed homosexual?
>
> Probably. The Nearly an IM's obsession with the male posterior is well-
> known.
Why don't you girls talk it over then share with the whole fish market. Is
it okay to mention girls? You never do, and, that's ok...a....y....
>> > O Ha ha Ha
>>
>> Exhibits very strange laugh, with randomized
>> capitalization and oddly lacking in any punctuation.
>> Note: possible mild case of encephalitis.
>
> Why not just consider him insane and be done?
The real Brennan would have started yet another pledge drive, like the one
he has recently got going elsewhere - what's the net if you can't act like
McCarthy and have a little fun with black-lists?? And you gotta keep doing
it, since looked what happened to McCarthy the moment he stopped! Deadern a
fishwife.
International Correspondence Grand Farmer, Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 16:40:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
On Jul 27, 4:10 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net > wrote:
> No its not! You have no hom to ad. You are an anonymous mouth
Resentful. Desperate. Needs something
concrete to ad hominize.
> who finds it
> very difficult to not resent those who can own their words.
Seems obsessed with personalities, like SS,
NB, etc., etc., and feels helpless when faced
with unknowns.
> This is no
> dispute between us - it is the plainest fact. YOU insist on making all
> personal, while you lack the balls to write your name
Projects imagined sex of what he calls an
anon., or unknown. Likes to talk about sex
organs of same. Repressed homosexual?
> O Ha ha Ha
Exhibits very strange laugh, with randomized
capitalization and oddly lacking in any punctuation.
Note: possible mild case of encephalitis.
-- doc bot
|
| | |
Date: 28 Jul 2007 11:01:28
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
Kindly note that the "Sloanism" reference by Phil Innes above refers
not to me but to Kenneth Sloan, the USCF Ratings guru.
Kenneth Sloan and I are not related.
Sam Sloan
--
Actually, it refers to Robert E. Sloan, and is part of my new
work-in-progress, A Hystery of the Sloans in American Chess.
Finding himself in Crossville Tennessee at the outbreak, Sloan became a
free-lance corporal during the civil war, and became locally famous for
making Yankee traps. His idea was to dig holes everywhere and then cover
them over, run out, taunt some damn Yankees to get them to chase him, then
leap the trap...
Unfortunately Sloan was never promoted since the traps became a nuisance and
more southern boys fell in em, than bluecoats, and one day he foolishly
taunted a whole company of Vermont cavalry on an open road, who then
charged, flattening him into the mud.
He survived this incident relatively unharmed except he became a little hard
of hearing.
While Cpl. Sloan is now forgotten by the annals of history, they term
'Sloanism' survives, and they did make a famous song about the incident
The night they rode Dixie Sloan down
His ears were ringin'
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 10:43:43
From: help bot
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
On Jul 26, 10:33 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net > wrote:
> > This obsession with Sam Sloan is not particularly
> > healthy, Mr. Innes.
>
> I am not obsessed with Sloan, I am 'obsessed' with issues which smokin' Sam
> smears-over in his great rush to be noticed everywhere.
So, from now on you are going to talk about *issues*,
right? Not about personalities. (Click. That's me
starting my stopwatch so I can determine how many
*seconds* before you revert to your normal state.)
> > For one thing, it lends the
> > general impression that SS is worthy of obsessing
> > over (which is not true).
>
> I wonder if in your reading you have noticed an odd insistence I have had to
> address issues, standards, measurements, and such things?
Only in certain limited areas. On the whole, your
approach seems to be that of an ad hominist, and
a very opinionated one I would venture to say.
> > And just as bad, it surely
> > highlights one of your many foibles: a double
> > standard whereby you have frequently attacked
> > others for writing about people and personalities
>
> You mean, people like yourself, who can't admit their own name?
That's ad hom. all righty. That was what -- about
five seconds, give or take?
> > instead of "chess", while all the time you yourself
> > continue to do just that -- very unflattering, my dear
> > boy.
>
> All the time, really?
Okay, at the same time then.
> But I am sure he has noticed the, some would say, objective feedback by
> voters
Objective?
> who did not appreciate his whatever-that-was to the degree that they
> want to see any more of it.
As I understand it, the voters were the members of
the USCF -- a very ignorant group of people who don't
even know how to mate with a Bishop and Knight, let
alone what might be the consequences of electing
one random candidate over another. Their failure to
re-elect SS is about as meaningful as their having
elected him in the first place (i.e. zilch meaning).
These elections are more of a popularity contest
than anything else. Arnold Swartzenegger would
be a shoe-in. And Paris Hilton, but the promoters
need to place her in scanty clothes and have her
fondling a Bishop for the campaign posters.
> I am thinking that by comparing Sloan's words with his achievements for the
> last year, I have illustrated something about business-as-usual politiking
> at USCF. I have to ask myself what he achieved? And I cannot say where his
> talents begin in that respect.
I would like to see an *objective* assessment of
what SS achieved at the USCF, but there is no one
qualified for that job here.
Personally, I think he amused supporters like LP
because he caused disruption and annoyed certain
of the powers-that-be, but nothing more and nothing
substantive. In other words, it was the best of times;
it was the worst of times; it was business as usual.
> Now, Sam Sloan is merely an exxxageration of the business-as-usual attitude,
> which in short, is one of self-seeking agggrandisement without any object
> measures applied at all. Sloan says out-loud what others have done in
> secret. That is the only substantive difference between himself and other
> board members who effect deafness.
I agree. The famous comedian Budddy Hackettt was
like this, and as far as I can tell, so are most of the
other successful comedians. Their comic routines
are not really funny, but rather, it is amusing that they
can get up in front of a large crowd of people and say
things which most have been forbiddden throughout
their lives from discusssing in private. Now they call
such people "shock-jocks".
> These recent votes are calling for something radically different, in fact,
> decency!
Bah! You give the voters far too much credit.
> > Here's a better idea for a book: why not write a
> > thoughtful treatise on how such men as held slaves
> > and down-trod women could produce such wonders
> > as the Constitution of the USA and the Bill of Rights?
>
> Professor Needleman already wrote it, with great scholarship, passion,
> understanding, and most of all, a refusal to denigrate 'Greats' because they
> were all too human, and he wrote that while each of them were flawed, they
> also had great gifts - and together they put this country together! And this
> is the only country in the history of the world, so constructed.
It sure sounds an awful lot like straining to me.
Straining to hang onto preconceptions, to not be
objective, to denigrate all other countries by
suggesting that "we" are somehow risen above
them, and we alone! Self-worship, basically. I
can see how this fits well with your beliefs, but
it doesn't suit me at all.
One of the stories relating to chess has it that
George Washington won a decisive battle mainly
on account of his counterpart on the British side
being preoccupied with chess. Now, true or not,
I think this is one example of how we 'Muricans
can twist sheer luck into divinely-determined fate.
If God is on our side (and he must be, since we
have always won), then we are special, no?
And since we are so special, then everyone else
must be below us in importance, right? So we
can trample and exploit and rule over them, ha,
ha, ha, ha! At any rate this sort of mentality
would explain how the framers of such works
could at the same time hold slaves for profit,
treat women as property, and yet boldly proclaim
Freedom, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
One more thing: this country was modeled
after those same tyrants' guv'ment, and even
our flag closely resembles that of Great Britain.
So what was really objectionable was the fact
that "they" were taxing "us", and the powerful,
rich folks didn't much like it, 'cause it was bad
for them financially. Recounting our history, the
same pattern plays out again and again, all the
way up to today. It would seem that the whole
world agrees that the worst problems are those
in Africa, but where are our troops, pray tell?
They can be found by typing words like "big oil
reserves" into a Google search box, and then
clicking on any map that appears. Tralala.
> While struggles for outer democracy continue, somewhat lost is its
> springboard, its fons et origo,
All very nice, but if you have anything substantive
to say, you might try spitting it out, man. You could
choke to death on your own tongue, and wouldn't
you feel silly!
I am reminded of a Mel Brooks movie (hey, how
was I supposed to know his movies weren't very
funny?) in which the star (if you have to ask, you
don't know Mel Brooks) goes up to collect a welfare
check from the Roman's clerk, TV's "Maude". She
asks what is his occupation, and he replies that he
"coalesces the vapors of human existence", etc.,
etc., whereupon she eventually figures out that he
is what they commonly call a "bullshitter".
> which he says is its inner or spiritual
> democracy, which is preciely equal in importance, and without which the
> outer one cannot be realised.
Uh-huh. And you are probably impressed by this
kind of talk!
> Now, some people I can think of like to put down greats as if they felt
> oppressed by them
Er, TJ and friends are long dead; I think SS likes
to bring this up because, as he tells us, he once
wrote a book after being stranded in some library
which just happened to have a lot of stuff on this.
> but they might relieve themselves to understand that only
> when sufficient individual wherewithall [differentiation] has been achieved,
> can these individuals then act as a group to evolve the nation itself.
Sure; consider the differentiation of the Confederacy.
> This is your heritage, Mr. Cornfed, and its the rest of the world's too, and
> both friends and foes alike have the same aspiration for this country.
I am a citizen of the world -- not just my own back
yard (with its crabgrass, dandelions, and clay soil).
> > In any case, books about Mr. Sloan will not make you
> > any money (if they would, Ray Keene would already
> > have jumped on it).
>
> We're sorry. Englishmen don't jump.
I think you may have meant to say: "Fat men can't
jump". Nor can elephants, for that matter.
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 27 Jul 2007 20:10:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
"help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1185471823.309576.160230@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 26, 10:33 am, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> > This obsession with Sam Sloan is not particularly
>> > healthy, Mr. Innes.
>>
>> I am not obsessed with Sloan, I am 'obsessed' with issues which smokin'
>> Sam
>> smears-over in his great rush to be noticed everywhere.
>
>
> So, from now on you are going to talk about *issues*,
> right?
No. I have always tried to address issues and standards here - it is not any
revelation moment, and I will carry on as before - even though some people
don't know what standards are.
> Not about personalities. (Click. That's me
That's not you, since you are a coward can't own his own name, but insistent
on what other names say!
> starting my stopwatch so I can determine how many
> *seconds* before you revert to your normal state.)
Who cares what you click <snigger. - is there anyone else even responding to
your stuff, but me? pfft! :))))
>> > For one thing, it lends the
>> > general impression that SS is worthy of obsessing
>> > over (which is not true).
>>
>> I wonder if in your reading you have noticed an odd insistence I have had
>> to
>> address issues, standards, measurements, and such things?
>
>
> Only in certain limited areas. On the whole, your
> approach seems to be that of an ad hominist, and
> a very opinionated one I would venture to say.
"I", but who are you to comment? Literally someone can't own his own words.
The back of my hand to your opinion, corn-fed. What would it be to agree
with it ?
>> > And just as bad, it surely
>> > highlights one of your many foibles: a double
>> > standard whereby you have frequently attacked
>> > others for writing about people and personalities
>>
>> You mean, people like yourself, who can't admit their own name?
>
>
> That's ad hom. all righty.
No its not! You have no hom to ad. You are an anonymous mouth who finds it
very difficult to not resent those who can own their words. This is no
dispute between us - it is the plainest fact. YOU insist on making all
personal, while you lack the balls to write your name
O Ha ha Ha
Think on it, if it ain't too hot, then come on back with the thinking, not
the other stuff.
Phil Innes
|
| |
Date: 25 Jul 2007 10:40:53
From: help bot
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
On Jul 25, 12:57 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net > wrote:
> Stop bothering me with these e-mails and public notices - I'm writing a very
> important chess history as a commisioned project on the family-Sloan and
> American Chess as we know it, featuring among other famous chess
> personalities:
>
> an early meeting by Josiah Smith-Sloan with Polgarhontas,
>
> Ralph Waldo Sloan, who had a split personality, and sometimes thought he was
> Johhny-Appleseedsloan, and oscillated between 'utterances' and going all
> over the place planting things in people's gardens that they really didn't
> want.
>
> Then NostroDamSloan, who successfully predicted Fischer, and his triumphant
> return in the following quatrain:
>
> Those in a cage will see themselves face to face
> The long-time dead alive in Crossville as roots ??
> [A very uncertain reference - which I have translated from
> Long temps mort vif en Cruxville comme souche]
> Gollum menaces once more Garghburg ??
> [also uncertainly from
> Slogum menasse encor Gakbill]
> Fishing is prohibited no longer!
>
> Ezekial Sloan who saw Queens in the sky over Queens.
>
> Nathaniel Hawsloan [author of the scarlet e-mail],
>
> Adolphus Sloan, the first Sloan to come out wearing full uniform, and who
> subsequently wrote the famous, 'My Camp.'
>
> Carl Gustav Sloan who, as ani ful no, invented the collective substandard
>
> and to J. R. R. Sloan, author of "Bored of the Board, and actually, everyone
> else's opinion too".
>
> Phil Innes
This obsession with Sam Sloan is not particularly
healthy, Mr. Innes. For one thing, it lends the
general impression that SS is worthy of obsessing
over (which is not true). And just as bad, it surely
highlights one of your many foibles: a double
standard whereby you have frequently attacked
others for writing about people and personalities
instead of "chess", while all the time you yourself
continue to do just that -- very unflattering, my dear
boy.
Here's my prediction: Sam Sloan will go down in
history as a man who popularized Pokemon in
chess, and who more-or-less was forgotten as to
his considerable work regarding Thomas Jefferson's,
ahem, extracurricular activities. So who will take
all the credit(??!) for Mr. Sloan's promotion of the
Grob Debacle, Damiano's Suicide Defense, and the
rest? Others, I'm afraid; people like Eric Schiller or
whoever it is that writes popular tomes on these
atrocities will likely take the lion's share. But all is
not lost, for Mr. Sloan's many, many progeny may
yet contribute something of real value to the world,
and so it would be wrong to close the book on him
just yet.
Here's a better idea for a book: why not write a
thoughtful treatise on how such men as held slaves
and down-trod women could produce such wonders
as the Constitution of the USA and the Bill of Rights?
That might make for fairly interesting reading. Or how
about this: did Nostrodamus really predict the coming
of the greatest chessplayer of all time? And if so, then
why did he not warn us he would be exploited by the
Nazis, collect women's shoes, or, if you are really in a
Cold War mentality, simply quit chess and take up
lunacy as his religion?
In any case, books about Mr. Sloan will not make you
any money (if they would, Ray Keene would already
have jumped on it).
-- help bot
|
| | |
Date: 26 Jul 2007 14:33:10
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: I have a new book out on the hystery of chess
|
"help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1185385253.452172.23680@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 25, 12:57 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> This obsession with Sam Sloan is not particularly
> healthy, Mr. Innes.
I am not obsessed with Sloan, I am 'obsessed' with issues which smokin' Sam
smears-over in his great rush to be noticed everywhere.
> For one thing, it lends the
> general impression that SS is worthy of obsessing
> over (which is not true).
I wonder if in your reading you have noticed an odd insistence I have had to
address issues, standards, measurements, and such things?
> And just as bad, it surely
> highlights one of your many foibles: a double
> standard whereby you have frequently attacked
> others for writing about people and personalities
You mean, people like yourself, who can't admit their own name?
> instead of "chess", while all the time you yourself
> continue to do just that -- very unflattering, my dear
> boy.
All the time, really?
> Here's my prediction: Sam Sloan will go down in
> history as a man who popularized Pokemon in
> chess, and who more-or-less was forgotten as to
> his considerable work regarding Thomas Jefferson's,
> ahem, extracurricular activities. So who will take
> all the credit(??!) for Mr. Sloan's promotion of the
> Grob Debacle, Damiano's Suicide Defense, and the
> rest? Others, I'm afraid; people like Eric Schiller or
> whoever it is that writes popular tomes on these
> atrocities will likely take the lion's share.
"Lion's share!" I am not sure the diet you offer above would feed a healthy
house-cat, nermind a lion.
> But all is
> not lost, for Mr. Sloan's many, many progeny may
> yet contribute something of real value to the world,
> and so it would be wrong to close the book on him
> just yet.
I am sure he has learned something from his 12 months of experience of a
board member, where he seemed not to attend too closely, or at all, to what
anyone said to him - they are, after all, less well placed that he is to put
others down and continuously laud himself and blame them.
But I am sure he has noticed the, some would say, objective feedback by
voters, who did not appreciate his whatever-that-was to the degree that they
want to see any more of it.
I am thinking that by comparing Sloan's words with his achievements for the
last year, I have illustrated something about business-as-usual politiking
at USCF. I have to ask myself what he achieved? And I cannot say where his
talents begin in that respect.
Now, Sam Sloan is merely an exxageration of the business-as-usual attitude,
which in short, is one of self-seeking aggrandisement without any object
measures applied at all. Sloan says out-loud what others have done in
secret. That is the only substantive difference between himself and other
board members who effect deafness.
These recent votes are calling for something radically different, in fact,
decency!
> Here's a better idea for a book: why not write a
> thoughtful treatise on how such men as held slaves
> and down-trod women could produce such wonders
> as the Constitution of the USA and the Bill of Rights?
Professor Needleman already wrote it, with great scholarship, passion,
understanding, and most of all, a refusal to denigrate 'Greats' because they
were all too human, and he wrote that while each of them were flawed, they
also had great gifts - and together they put this country together! And this
is the only country in the history of the world, so constructed.
While struggles for outer democracy continue, somewhat lost is its
springboard, its fons et origo, which he says is its inner or spiritual
democracy, which is preciely equal in importance, and without which the
outer one cannot be realised.
Now, some people I can think of like to put down greats as if they felt
oppressed by them, but they might relieve themselves to understand that only
when sufficient individual wherewithall [differentiation] has been achieved,
can these individuals then act as a group to evolve the nation itself.
This is your heritage, Mr. Cornfed, and its the rest of the world's too, and
both friends and foes alike have the same aspiration for this country.
> That might make for fairly interesting reading. Or how
> about this: did Nostrodamus really predict the coming
> of the greatest chessplayer of all time? And if so, then
> why did he not warn us he would be exploited by the
> Nazis, collect women's shoes, or, if you are really in a
> Cold War mentality, simply quit chess and take up
> lunacy as his religion?
Because he could tell the difference between a spoof and the serious
business of running the nation. Spoofing is necessary otherwise politicians
become kings with mammoth egos, and serious impartial public action is
necessary, unless we delude ourselves that what we do or fail to do will bot
be measured in blood.
> In any case, books about Mr. Sloan will not make you
> any money (if they would, Ray Keene would already
> have jumped on it).
We're sorry. Englishmen don't jump.
Phil Innes
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>
|
|
