Main Date: 29 Mar 2008 07:46:38 From: parrthenon@cs.com Subject: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math THESE ARE THE FACTS >Still, on the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak." > -- Taylor Kingston, June 5, 2005 On March 26, 2008, when he was asked which organization awarded him 2300+ Elo, Taylor Kingston replied: "That would be [from] the USCF, Larry. It was published in Chess Life while you were editor." On the same day I replied: "Cite the issue and page number showing the 2300+ Elo rating for Taylor Kingston." KINGSTON REPLIED <April 1986, Larry, as has been posted here many times. In the postal rating section. You can find it easily because the pages are yellow. You will find me at #45 in the Postal Master list, with a Harkness rating of 1806. I originally thought that converted to a 2300+ Elo, but found out a bit later that it was more like 2250. So I no longer claim 2300+, but as I said in my first post on this subject, I was a tad better than "weak." > -- Taylor Kingston Taking him at his word, I checked the general OTB list in Chess Life for April 1986 (page p4) and fouind "Taylor T Kingston (Ca) 1560" On the postal rating list in April 1986 Kingston's name is not even cited. among the top 50 postal players, not even with a magnifying glass. KINGSTON GOT THE YEAR WRONG <A correction: It was April 1985, page 36. > -- Taylor Kingston, March 26, 2008 Once again taking him at his word, in Chess Life, April 1985 his postal rating was indeed listed as #45 at 1806. Nowhere was 2300+ Elo to be found. In April 1985 iin the over-the-board section can be found Taylor T. Kingston (ca) 1806. In other words, Taylor Kingston lost 246 over-the-board rating points between April 1985 to April 1986 and was no longer listed among the top 50 postal players. For almost three years, since making his original 2300+ Elo claim, Taylor Kingston has labored mightily to justify a hike of 500 rating points by a "conversion" formula. However, the fact remains that in the April 1985 rating list Taylor Kingston's postal rating was listed as 1806 (not 2300+ Elo) while his OTB rating was 1806. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all use Taylor Kingston's magical math and add 500 rating points with a stroke of the pen?   Date: 07 Apr 2008 20:26:38 From: help bot Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math On Apr 7, 5:01 pm, J=FCrgen R. <jurg...@web.de > wrote: > As usual, your observation is wrong. You cannot see > that the majority of the points are below the line, because > it isn't so. The green line is drawn in such a way that > roughly as many points are above as there are below. > > The green line is not the 'diagonal' line. It is the graph > of the conversion function. The conversion adds points to > the FIDE rating to get a comparable USCF rating. > The correction is at most 50 points and is applied > to FIDE ratings above 2200. The link I clicked on rendered a graph so tiny that I could not make out diddledy-squat. It appeared that there was some sort of skewing, but the darned labels were too small for me to read! It is my understanding that the relation between FIDE ratings and USCF ratings may have fluctuated over time, so it would be unwise to leap to any conclusions regarding say, the peak rating of Taylor Kingston way back in the 1980s, based on such a graph. I was surprised to read -- in Chess Lies magazine, many years ago -- that the common belief that FIDE ratings were "normally" higher was mistaken; indeed, at the time of that article this mainly applied to GMs, and in fact when you got down to the Expert level, there was a reversal. The entry policies of some of the big-money tourneys were, therefore, out of tune with reality. -- help bot     Date: 08 Apr 2008 07:17:34 From: Tony M Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 20:26:38 -0700 (PDT), help bot <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote: > The link I clicked on rendered a graph so tiny >that I could not make out diddledy-squat. It >appeared that there was some sort of skewing, >but the darned labels were too small for me to >read! > Bot, bot, bot, bot, bot..... Just zoom in on the bloody thing. It's not that hard. Tony   Date: 05 Apr 2008 15:19:51 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math On Mar 31, 9:36 am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Mar 31, 8:44 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 31, 7:45 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > "KennethSloan" <KennethRSl...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > What is true is that 2300 FIDE does not equal 2400 USCF. > > > > No Ken. That again is not information, its contradiction which /witholds/ > > > information - which is sometimes denial, and from whatyouhave written so > > > far, indistinguishable from denial. > > > > What did 2300+ elo equate with in USCF ratings in 1985? If you don't know, > > > its okay to shut up. > > > > PI > > > Phil Innes, you have no idea to whom you are addressing. > > > Ken Sloan is THE AUTHORITY on this particular subject. He has done a > > specific and detailed analysis comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings. > > Nobody knows more about this subject than Ken Sloan. > > > And you, Mr. Innes, are an idiot. > > > Sam Sloan > > YES! YES! YES! Here is one of several charts comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings. http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/uscf_fide.jpg As you will see, a majority of the red crosses are below the green diagonal line. This means that most players with both a USCF Rating and a FIDE Rating have a higher FIDE Rating. However, at the upper right corner of the chart mapping the ratings of the top grandmasters, in those cases the USCF rating is higher. This is the source of the myth that USCF Ratings are higher than FIDE Ratings. Also, the extreme cases, where there is a big difference between the USCF Rating and the FIDE Rating, it is usually that the FIDE Rating is much higher. Here is one example: John Warlick of the US Virgin Islands has a USCF Rating of 1584. http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12403829 However, his last published FIDE Rating is 2205. (Mike Nolan should note this on the USCF Ratings website.) Sam Sloan     Date: 07 Apr 2008 23:01:50 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?= Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math "samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com > schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:d729ea82-e4eb-4465-a6e5-fbda80096803@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 31, 9:36 am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 31, 8:44 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > Here is one of several charts comparing USCF Ratings to FIDE Ratings. > > http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/uscf_fide.jpg > > As you will see, a majority of the red crosses are below the green > diagonal line. This means that most players with both a USCF Rating > and a FIDE Rating have a higher FIDE Rating. > > However, at the upper right corner of the chart mapping the ratings of > the top grandmasters, in those cases the USCF rating is higher. > > This is the source of the myth that USCF Ratings are higher than FIDE > Ratings. > >[...] > > Sam Sloan No wonder you flunked out of college. As usual, your observation is wrong. You cannot see that the majority of the points are below the line, because it isn't so. The green line is drawn in such a way that roughly as many points are above as there are below. The green line is not the 'diagonal' line. It is the graph of the conversion function. The conversion adds points to the FIDE rating to get a comparable USCF rating. The correction is at most 50 points and is applied to FIDE ratings above 2200.   Date: 01 Apr 2008 20:36:09 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math On Apr 1, 10:15 pm, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Apr 1, 12:28 pm, Chess Nuggets <spo...@speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > Nice rant. What is it you are trying to say? To me, 1800 USCF is a > > patzer. > > Just a quickie rant to "clue you in" to just how > silly you look here, going at TK while missing > the elephant in the room: nearly-an-IM Innes. > > -- help bot The "nearly an IM" who allegedly holds a "GM norm" in correspondence chess?   Date: 01 Apr 2008 20:15:59 From: help bot Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math On Apr 1, 12:28 pm, Chess Nuggets <spo...@speakeasy.net > wrote: > Nice rant. What is it you are trying to say? To me, 1800 USCF is a > patzer. Just a quickie rant to "clue you in" to just how silly you look here, going at TK while missing the elephant in the room: nearly-an-IM Innes. -- help bot   Date: 01 Apr 2008 17:18:17 From: Louis Blair Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math Can anyone find references to a Sloan-Kingston match proposal during the month BEFORE 5 Jun 2005 17:23:27 -0700 ? _ "... ... I will play Taylor Kingston a chess match for one thousand dollars cash money on the table. No electronic devices and no going to the restroom. Let us see how strong Taylor Kingston really is. ..." - sloan@ishipress.com (Fri, 10 Jun 2005 22:37:18 GMT) (NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.202.65.211) _ _ "I really would like to kick in $500 for the 1st Annual RGCP Invitational Grudge Match. I figure that if we can collect another $500, as Larry Parr suggests, the $1K figure will be compelling enough to attract all but the biggest windbags. _ The matchup in this First Grudge Match could be between Sam Sloan and Taylor Kingston. ..." - lttyroneslothrop@hotmail.com (16 Jun 2005 21:16:56 -0700) (NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.140.48.8)   Date: 01 Apr 2008 16:50:00 From: Louis Blair Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math On Mar 31, 7:26 pm, "parrthenon@cs.com" <parrthenon@cs.com > wrote: 7 ... 7 NMnot Kingston's lie about his rating occurred 7 at a time when he was prancing about with the proud 7 man's contumely when refusing to play a chess match 7 with Sam Sloan -- even after a third party had offered 7 four-figure money for said encounter. 7 7 We heard every excuse from NM Kingston for 7 refusing to play, including an inability to handle Mr. 7 Sloan's bodily odors or to handle his presence or, 7 possibly, his taste in shoewear or whatever. 7 7 Sam, whom we all know as Nemesis, was like a 7 bulldog. He just kept chewing on NMnot Kingston's 7 ego-pants leg and would not let go. Chew, chew, 7 chew, and then Taylor Kingston lashed on June 5, 7 2005, by writing in suave, mannered cadences: 7 7 "Still, on the subject of playing strength, I 7 have never claimed to be any great player, but I think 7 with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as I 7 recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than 'weak.'" 7 ... _ _ Some of what actually happened can be seen at: _ http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_thread/thread/1bd9cb0e4b7ec507/3c7446f2a12e9b1e?#3c7446f2a12e9b1e _   Date: 01 Apr 2008 09:48:13 From: samsloan Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math On Apr 1, 10:52 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 1, 1:39 am, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote in message > > >news:2902569e-30d4-43cd-9b00-f183338e11af@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be > > > 2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46 > > > at some time in the past, for which he did not provide > > > a date. His argument is that his reference to a past > > > undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when > > > NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must > > > really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some > > > 20 or 30 years ago." > > > I don't recall Kingston every making this argument. > > The correct argument, which I have made, is that > > no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and > > a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence, > > no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading. > > Quite so, Dave. The posts here in the immediate aftermath of my > statement show that no one was misled. Note particularly the dates and > times, which show how quickly Sloan was caught out: > > ** begin excerpts from June 2005 thread: > > Kingston, 5 June 2005. 8:23 PM: > > > Parr: Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing > > this kind of analysis. > > Sloan: Unfortunately, Taylor Kingston is such a weak player that he cannot > > understand these simple and obvious points. > > Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on > the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great > player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as > I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak." > > Sam Sloan, 5 June 2005, 11;07 PM: > You are a liar. > > ********************************************************* > Paul Rubin, 5 June 2005, 11:30 PM: > About 2 seconds of Google searching reveals that he's talking about > pre-1985 correspondence ratings, not OTB. > <http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_gst_wrtrs/ > taylor_kingston_bio.html>: > "He has ranked among USCF's top 50 correspondence masters, and is a > Class A OTB player." > ********************************************************* > > [I particularly stress Mr. Rubin's post above, since it shows how > easy it was to verify my claim. But of course Parr and Sloan were > interested only in smearing, not fact-checking -- TK] > > Sam Sloan, 6 June 2005, 7:29 AM: > Kingston does not now and has never had an Elo rating. > > Paul Rubin, 6 June 2005, 7:40 AM: > Correspondence ratings have been converted to the Elo system, as of > July 1, 1987. An explanation of the rating sytem is available on > request from the USCF office. Please include a stamped, self- > addressed > envelope."http://www.uschess.org/cc/cclist1298.html > > Tom Martinak, 6 June 2005, 1:47 PM: > The April 1985 issue contained the 1984 Yearbook. On page 36 on the > Top 50 Postal Players list: > 45. Taylor T Kingston CA 1806 > > Mark Houlsby, 6 June 2005, 2:02 PM: > Thanks, Tom. Further proof, Sam, that you are a complete imbecile. > > *** end excerpts. > > I could produce other supportive posts, but the above are quite > adequate to refute Sloan & Parr's claim that I intended deceit, or > that anyone (besides Sloan) ever was deceived. Sloan of course was > deceived because he almost always activates his mouth before engaging > his brain. > > It is only Sloan, Parr, and Innes who keep flogging this dead horse, > for reasons of personal animosity, not from any love of honesty and > accuracy. And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, all three of > them have claimed titles, ratings, rankings and/or achievements they > in fact do not have, have never had. For them to attack me about a > rating and title I actually did have, is the height of hypocrisy. No. This whole thing comes up because you, Taylor Kingston, have a ten- year history of attacking people and never contributing anything positive to chess. As an example there is a well known chess journalist who claims to be a 2300 player but his actual rating is about 1850. (This is NOT Taylor Kingston although it sounds like him). However, we never mention it because he does not come here to attack us. He just attacks us from his own website and does not come here, so we say little or nothing about him here. Sam Sloan     Date: 01 Apr 2008 18:40:30 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math God Sam! MIG is his name. He too radically improved from 1800 to 2300 just by contacting Garry. He writes a trash column about chess players. I never read it. Phil Innes "samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com > wrote in message news:608bbf18-c034-4fee-bece-f4e35ab1d671@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 1, 10:52 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Apr 1, 1:39 am, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> > <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:2902569e-30d4-43cd-9b00-f183338e11af@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > Instead, NMnot Kingston claimed baldly to be >> > > 2300+ Elo, while referencing a national ranking No. 46 >> > > at some time in the past, for which he did not provide >> > > a date. His argument is that his reference to a past >> > > undated year would have us thinking, "Aha, when >> > > NMnot Kingston is talking about 2300+ Elo, he must >> > > really be talking about a Harkness postal rating some >> > > 20 or 30 years ago." >> >> > I don't recall Kingston every making this argument. >> > The correct argument, which I have made, is that >> > no one could reasonably take a 2300 rating and >> > a #46 ranking as relating to OTB chess. Hence, >> > no lie, not even the minor sin of being misleading. >> >> Quite so, Dave. The posts here in the immediate aftermath of my >> statement show that no one was misled. Note particularly the dates and >> times, which show how quickly Sloan was caught out: >> >> ** begin excerpts from June 2005 thread: >> >> Kingston, 5 June 2005. 8:23 PM: >> >> > Parr: Mr. Kingston, a weak player, simply was incapable of doing >> > this kind of analysis. >> > Sloan: Unfortunately, Taylor Kingston is such a weak player that he >> > cannot >> > understand these simple and obvious points. >> >> Interesting, if not really relevant to historical issues. Still, on >> the subject of playing strength, I have never claimed to be any great >> player, but I think with a peak Elo of 2300+, and a top ranking of, as >> I recall, #46 in the country, I was a tad better than "weak." >> >> Sam Sloan, 5 June 2005, 11;07 PM: >> You are a liar. >> >> ********************************************************* >> Paul Rubin, 5 June 2005, 11:30 PM: >> About 2 seconds of Google searching reveals that he's talking about >> pre-1985 correspondence ratings, not OTB. >> <http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_gst_wrtrs/ >> taylor_kingston_bio.html>: >> "He has ranked among USCF's top 50 correspondence masters, and is a >> Class A OTB player." >> ********************************************************* >> >> [I particularly stress Mr. Rubin's post above, since it shows how >> easy it was to verify my claim. But of course Parr and Sloan were >> interested only in smearing, not fact-checking -- TK] >> >> Sam Sloan, 6 June 2005, 7:29 AM: >> Kingston does not now and has never had an Elo rating. >> >> Paul Rubin, 6 June 2005, 7:40 AM: >> Correspondence ratings have been converted to the Elo system, as of >> July 1, 1987. An explanation of the rating sytem is available on >> request from the USCF office. Please include a stamped, self- >> addressed >> envelope."http://www.uschess.org/cc/cclist1298.html >> >> Tom Martinak, 6 June 2005, 1:47 PM: >> The April 1985 issue contained the 1984 Yearbook. On page 36 on the >> Top 50 Postal Players list: >> 45. Taylor T Kingston CA 1806 >> >> Mark Houlsby, 6 June 2005, 2:02 PM: >> Thanks, Tom. Further proof, Sam, that you are a complete imbecile. >> >> *** end excerpts. >> >> I could produce other supportive posts, but the above are quite >> adequate to refute Sloan & Parr's claim that I intended deceit, or >> that anyone (besides Sloan) ever was deceived. Sloan of course was >> deceived because he almost always activates his mouth before engaging >> his brain. >> >> It is only Sloan, Parr, and Innes who keep flogging this dead horse, >> for reasons of personal animosity, not from any love of honesty and >> accuracy. And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, all three of >> them have claimed titles, ratings, rankings and/or achievements they >> in fact do not have, have never had. For them to attack me about a >> rating and title I actually did have, is the height of hypocrisy. > > No. This whole thing comes up because you, Taylor Kingston, have a ten- > year history of attacking people and never contributing anything > positive to chess. > > As an example there is a well known chess journalist who claims to be > a 2300 player but his actual rating is about 1850. (This is NOT Taylor > Kingston although it sounds like him). > > However, we never mention it because he does not come here to attack > us. He just attacks us from his own website and does not come here, so > we say little or nothing about him here. > > Sam Sloan   Date: 01 Apr 2008 09:46:31 From: Rob Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math On Mar 31, 8:33=A0pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Mar 31, 8:24 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: Taylor, He won't even admit to losing! Contact Bill Hall or Jerry Nash. Here is our pgn: Here is the PGN Mitchell <white > vs Sloan <black > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.d4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Nf6 5.Nc3 d5 6.f3 Bf5 7.fxe4 Nxe4 8.Nxe4 Bxe4 9.Bd3 h5 10.Bxe4 Qh4+ 11.Kf1 Qxe4 12.Qf3 Qxf3+ 13.Nxf3 Nc6 14.Bg5 Kf7 15.Ke2 Re8+ 16.Kd2 Re4 17.c3 Rg4 18.g3 Kg6 19.Bf4 Bd6 20.Ne5+ Nxe5 21.dxe5 Be7 22.h3 Rg5 23.Bxg5 Bxg5+ 24.Kd3 c5 25.Rhf1 Be7 26.Rae1 c4+ 27.Kc2 Kh6 28.Rf7 Re8 29.e6 b5 30.a3 a5 31.Rf5 Rd8 32.Ree5 g6 33.Rf7 1-0   Date: 01 Apr 2008 09:28:21 From: Chess Nuggets Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston's Magic Math On Mar 31, 1:09 am, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Mar 30, 5:55 pm, Chess Nuggets <spo...@speakeasy.net> wrote: > > > > I first mentioned all this in 2005 not to brag, but only to counter > > > the insults of Sloan and Parr that I was a "weak player" (see above > > > link). USCF Postal Masters are not all great players, but we are a tad > > > better than "weak." > > > Dude, you need to just give up. You are a 1800 chess patzer. Always > > have been, > > always will be. OK? All right now! > > Dude, you like need to get a grip; a "patzer" > is someone rated lower than you or that you > just beat; it isn't somebody rated 1800 USCF, > 'cause they would probably just *demolish* > someone as weak as you are! In fact, an > 1800 beats 80% of patzers like you, and 95% > of all players, including non-rated duffers. > > Okay, I just made those numbers up; but > the thing is, TK said he was "a tad" better > than weak, so he left his hind side covered > with a Kevlar fanny-pack. Meanwhile back at > the ranch, a poster known as nearly-IMnes > made a bald-faced claim to royal titles and a > 2450 rating that never even existed! Don't > you feel dumb for missing that? Here, let me > help you: click on this link and type in the > name "Innes, Sir Phillip, Esquire"; find any > titles? Or ratings? > > www.fide.corrupto.chess.org/ratings > > Nothing there, huh? Not to worry, here is > another link: > > www.uscf.goichbergrules!.org/ratings > > Look for Sir Phillip of Brattleboro; he'll be > near the very top of the rating list, just under > Bobby Fischer (deceased). Sir Phil was > given the nearly-an-IM title for defeating > the famous master, Anon, in a long match. > It turned out that Anon was actually Rob > Mitchell, but that is a mere technicality. > > -- help not Nice rant. What is it you are trying to say? To me, 1800 USCF is a patzer. EOF   Date: 01 Apr 2008 09:26:14 From: Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?) On Apr 1, 12:10=A0pm, "J.D. Walker" <j.d.wal...@comcast.net > wrote: > ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > ... > > > =A0 It is only Sloan, Parr, and Innes who keep flogging this dead horse,= > > for reasons of personal animosity, not from any love of honesty and > > accuracy. And as has been pointed out here repeatedly, all three of > > them have claimed titles, ratings, rankings and/or achievements they > > in fact do not have, have never had. For them to attack me about a > > rating and title I actually did have, is the height of hypocrisy. > > Taylor, > > All of the angry talk going back and forth reminds me of the press build > up between Muhammad Ali and Smokin' Joe Frazier. =A0I would sure like to > see an actual chess style conflict as a result. =A0The build up has been > great. =A0Is there any chance that you and Sam can put together a match > on, say, playchess.com tonight and we can have an actual chess result? The relevance of your suggestion eludes me completely, Reverend. The facts under dispute exist independently, they are matters of public record, they have nothing to do with any chess that might be played now or in the future, by anyone. Your suggestion strikes me as something like suggesting Burton and Speake should have settled the question of the source of the Nile by having a swimming race, or that Martin Luther and Pope Leo should have had a boxing match.     Date: 01 Apr 2008 09:34:10 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?) On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT), ttk5079@gmail.com wrote: >The >facts under dispute exist independently, they are matters of public >record, they have nothing to do with any chess that might be played >now or in the future, by anyone. Your suggestion strikes me as >something like suggesting Burton and Speake should have settled the >question of the source of the Nile by having a swimming race, or that >Martin Luther and Pope Leo should have had a boxing match. Come on, Taylor. Wouldn't you have liked to have seen Rummy and Saddam settle things in the cage? We're talkin' bread and circus here.       Date: 01 Apr 2008 10:03:55 From: J.D. Walker Subject: Re: Taylor Kingston vs Sam Sloan -- Tonight! (?) Mike Murray wrote: > On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 09:26:14 -0700 (PDT), ttk5079@gmail.com wrote: > >> The >> facts under dispute exist independently, they are matters of public >> record, they have nothing to do with any chess that might be played >> now or in the future, by anyone. Your suggestion strikes me as >> something like suggesting Burton and Speake should have settled the >> question of the source of the Nile by having a swimming race, or that >> Martin Luther and Pope Leo should have had a boxing match. > > Come on, Taylor. Wouldn't you have liked to have seen Rummy and > Saddam settle things in the cage? We're talkin' bread and circus > here. That's the spirit! Bread and circus... Christians vs lions... Let them eat cake... The whole shebang... Mel Gibson would do it! :) -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.         Date: 17 Apr 2008 14:50:14 From: Louis Blair Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com! border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com! nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.28.186.75.MISMATCH! hwmnpeer01.lga!news.highwinds-media.com!cycny01.gnilink.net! spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny02.POSTED!02fb8435!not-for- mail From: "Chess One" <innes8@verizon.net > Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics References: <1156596728.377381.142580@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com > <1156600140.738927.159310@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com > <1156635830.311533.120930@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com > <1156636061.073022.199990@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com > <KvlIg. 263$6E5.74@trndny05 > <1156712538.537883.310040@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com > <PRnIg. 650$wI5.160@trndny04 > <1156713170.813170.197510@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com > <mhIIg. 2104$aQ4.468@trndny06 > <1156800867.046461.123110@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com > <3IZIg. 179$XK4.127@trndny07 > <1156869965.038099.136770@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com > <9U0Jg. 2348$ag4.1077@trndny09 > <1156884458.692402.66660@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com > <Ba2Jg. 929$Xw6.827@trndny02 > <1156890339.934510.100230@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: The Innes Pledge - Revised and Updated Lines: 77 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 X-RFC2646: Format=3DFlowed; Original Message-ID: <IwlJg.1832$Xw6.1329@trndny02 > Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:19:04 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.222.104.188 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: trndny02 1156965544 64.222.104.188 (Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:19:04 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:19:04 EDT "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com > wrote in message news:1156890339.934510.100230@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > ** this is so, evdiently you never had a girl friend from Andaluthia <g> Andalus=EDa, with fields full of grain / I long to see you again and again. *** where is paradise, my shadow, you that were there? a silent question cities without answers rivers without speech, peaks without echoes, nute seas no one knows... -------- ay ay ay ay! Take this broken-waisted waltz said Lorca. In that case, I would suggest that you miscopied the penultimate line, and that it should read "=BFQu=E9 misterios los encierran?", which would give it the meaning indicated by this translation. Your rendering, "=BFQu=E9 misterios nos encerran?", has a word ("encerran") that afaik does not exist in Spanish, and "nos" means "us" as opposed to "los" meaning "them." *** it is not Spanish, it is Andean as might be supposed from the title, and is what language they took to themselves for themselves, not to thee, and not to thy understanding > And I think this traditional song has what Lorca called, duende - though > /la > duende/ is little known, and has no English equivalent. All things good > indeed, come to an end, while evil endures. Hard to square that POV with the general trend of history, which does seem to indicate overall if intermittent progress toward improvement. *** it is always difficult to admit the value of what is known to what is unknown as if we really had a preference, even knowing that the unknown is unknowable are our values changed? Or are you explaining your continued presence here on rgcp?! *** its a show about my neighbor in a loneliness, a light, walking the hour when every bed is a mouth, alleys of dark trash, exhaustion shaped into residences -- and what are the dogs so sure of that they shout like citizens driven from their minds in a stadium? in his fist he holds a note in his own handwriting, the same message everyone carries from place to place in the secret night, the one that nobody asks you for when you finally arrive, and the faces turn to you playing the national anthem and go blank, that's what the show is about, that message. Phil AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA         Date: 16 Apr 2008 08:29:15 From: Subject: Re: Kingston plays coy as usual On Apr 16, 11:09=A0am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Apr 16, 9:51 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > =A0 Phil, you're doing your usual clumsy evasions, a song-and-dance in > > cement overshoes. Interested readers can find your original "Andean" > > gaffe, from 30 August 2006, here: > > > =A0http://tinyurl.com/6n2pkk > > > and the group's reaction to it here: > > > =A0 =A0http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr > > > =A0 I guess when I get time I will have to scan the Viva Quetzal lyrics > > to Photobucket, and post them, along with your absurd comments from > > 2006, in another thread here, to show yet again just how ludicrous > > your Andean gaffe and subsequent frothings were. Mike Murray, Neil > > Innes, David Kane, Dr. Dowd, Dr. Blair, Rev. Walker, Help-bot and > > others who enjoy watching your pretensions get skewered will find it > > highly amusing, I am sure. > > Remind me to ask Taylor Parr who Neil Innes is. :-) Oops, sorry Neil -- I meant Brennen, of course. We ran out of straight coffee this morning, so I'm running on half-decaf. Also still a bit jet-lagged after my week in California. Or maybe I was thinking of Neil Innes, of Bonzo Dog Band/Monty Python and the Holy Grail/ Rutles fame. > Seriously, we should have a website to preserve some of P Innes' most > inane posts. We could open with the Nearly an IM 2450 nonsense, and > then move onto.... well, we could vote on favorites. To me the Andean gaffe has to be one of his best, especially since it all evolved from Phil's stiff-necked refusal to admit that he had made a tiny typo, "encerran" instead of "encierran." Instead of admitting such a trivial error, that he misread or mistyped lyrics in Spanish, a language he did not understand, Phil made the ludicrous claim that the lyrics actually were not Spanish. Rather like hitting his thumb with a hammer, and then explaining that his thumb is actually not a thumb.         Date: 16 Apr 2008 08:09:48 From: The Historian Subject: Re: Kingston plays coy as usual On Apr 16, 9:51 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > Phil, you're doing your usual clumsy evasions, a song-and-dance in > cement overshoes. Interested readers can find your original "Andean" > gaffe, from 30 August 2006, here: > > http://tinyurl.com/6n2pkk > > and the group's reaction to it here: > > http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr > > I guess when I get time I will have to scan the Viva Quetzal lyrics > to Photobucket, and post them, along with your absurd comments from > 2006, in another thread here, to show yet again just how ludicrous > your Andean gaffe and subsequent frothings were. Mike Murray, Neil > Innes, David Kane, Dr. Dowd, Dr. Blair, Rev. Walker, Help-bot and > others who enjoy watching your pretensions get skewered will find it > highly amusing, I am sure. Remind me to ask Taylor Parr who Neil Innes is. :-) Seriously, we should have a website to preserve some of P Innes' most inane posts. We could open with the Nearly an IM 2450 nonsense, and then move onto.... well, we could vote on favorites.         Date: 16 Apr 2008 07:51:50 From: Subject: Re: Kingston plays coy as usual Phil, you're doing your usual clumsy evasions, a song-and-dance in cement overshoes. Interested readers can find your original "Andean" gaffe, from 30 August 2006, here: http://tinyurl.com/6n2pkk and the group's reaction to it here: http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr I guess when I get time I will have to scan the Viva Quetzal lyrics to Photobucket, and post them, along with your absurd comments from 2006, in another thread here, to show yet again just how ludicrous your Andean gaffe and subsequent frothings were. Mike Murray, Neil Innes, David Kane, Dr. Dowd, Dr. Blair, Rev. Walker, Help-bot and others who enjoy watching your pretensions get skewered will find it highly amusing, I am sure. On Apr 16, 8:35=A0am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f18e8807-4987-490b-b353-d87e8677fd67@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 15, 10:07 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Kingston, try and think what you are arguing about. What is it? > > =A0 I know exactly what I'm arguing, > > **so state your point, and resist getting pissy! Let's see if you can do i= t > in what follows, since you may 'know' it, but you be unable to actually sa= y > it > > =A0Phil. But as usual, you try to > shift ground, hoping by misdirection to deflect attention from your > own self-inflicted wounds. > > ** so far, no point... > > > It is YOUR guffaw which denied there even was an Andean Spanish, and > > indeed > > an Andean language! This surely would annoy those who speak it. > > =A0 That is not at all the issue I raised, Phil, and you know it. At > issue was *_your_* claim that the song "Nazca" by Viva Quetzal was not > written in standard Spanish, when it plainly was. To claim that it is > 'not Spanish but Andean' > > **that is no quote! The /Spanish/ is Andean. And a native woman affirmed i= t. > You may not agree, but that is /your/ issue. > > ** you don't even understand what you are arguing with, you do not affirm = if > you admit these different Spanish creoles exist. your 'point' goes like > this: > > =A0is like claiming the Beatles' "I Want to Hold > Your Hand" is not English, but Merseyan. > > ** as if I had said that, or it was some analogy - and on the basis of you= r > 'interpretation' you then argue some point with me =A0;) > > > Then two clowns Kennedy and the infamous linguist Brennan picked this up= > > and > > paraded YOUR ignorance ever since, and you have not corrected them! > > =A0 No, Phil, they just joined in the fun of watching you froth. > > ** Really? I thought they were here to ensure no one spoke about chess and= > to stir the shit? And so Taylor Kingston continues to not- notice froth > makers, even if they utter disgusting remarks based on his own apprehensio= ns > of some side issue from years ago. Not dissimilar to his fights with Evans= > and Keene on chess. > > > So; if you have an issue, state it. > > =A0 Already have, several times, Phil. > > ** ROFL! Can't do it! Kingston wants to stir the shit based on his > misunderstanding, so that at any time clowns who know no better can practi= ce > their abuse? That is what he has written here > > ** And you are a nasty son of a bitch Kingston! You have said so 'several > times', but when asked what, you have nothing of substance to say - but ar= e > very ready to rubbish people. > > > If not, don't analogize or change your point of view, or weave 'creative= ' > > new threads to celebrate a few more reasons why you don't get on with > > people > > who know more than you do. > > > I don't want to play about with your strawmen > > =A0 No straw, Phil, but your own gaffe, greatly compounded by your > committing more gaffes in trying to cover up your initial gaffe. > > > - just state whatever you think about the existence of Andean languages > > or Andean Spanish - > > =A0 Wow, talk about straw men. > > ** Look! you refuse to answer a straight question about what you think - > caling that 'straw men'. =A0pfft! > > > That clear to you. Is that as clear as day? > > =A0 It's quite clear that you are a stiff-necked fool who has publicly > painted himself into a corner in an utterly ludicrous fashion. It > continually amazes me that you think this does you any good, > > ** maybe I don't want to appear pretty for all the other boys here, > Kingston. You have just blathered yet again - avoided any substance while > POSING that you are not only right, but have the right to rubbish others. > > =A0that you > think you can somehow wish away your own statements that are indelibly > recorded here on rgc. The only effect is to make yourself the butt of > running jokes over and over again. > > > If not you are called again, so come on, out with it! > > ** Nothing of substance was revealed by Vaguer Kingston in this message, > except his attitude, and how concerned he is to preserve it, at practially= > anyone's expense. What's new with that? > > Phil Innes > > > > > Phil Innes > > > <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:97a94531-535f-42a2-a22f-f3f411e73106@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com... > > > Ah, Phil, you never learn, do you? Your "Andean" gaffe was only > > about a year and a half ago, yet you expect us all to have forgotten > > it, so that you can get away with rewriting the facts? Sorry, bro, > > won't fly. Interested readers can consult this tember 2006 thread: > > >http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr > > > which presents the facts accurately. > > > On Apr 15, 8:14 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:3aaba5d6-98d8-457e-b02b-382ada06a103@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.= .. > > > On Apr 14, 7:49 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite > > > > tongues. > > > > "Navite"? > > > > ** Taylor - stop it! I put that in for Neil, because he loves that kin= d > > > of > > > stuff. > > > Ah yes, the old "I meant to do that!" ploy. Riiight. > > > > I told you before to let him find stuff himself, cuz he cant write > > > about chess. > > > > > You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who= > > > > you think you are, Cortez? > > > > > Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do y= ou > > > > get > > > > it? > > > I am very much aware of regional variations in Spanish. However, > > that has no bearing on the "Nazca" song lyrics. > > > > The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in > > > question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise. > > > > ** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there wa= s > > > any > > > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish. > > > Ahem, Phil -- as is shown in the above link, you were not talking > > about regional varieties of Spanish. You even denied that the lyric > > was Spanish at all. You said: "It is not Spanish, it is Andean ..." > > > > I rather thought you denied there was any > > > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish. > > > I have never said that. Fabricating again, Phil? > > > > I am sure your > > > opinions are fascinating, but a Californian friend of mine happens to = be > > > a > > > Spanish speaker, and she is also a native American! and she also happe= nd > > > to > > > have a PhD in English! > > > > ** SHE saw the differences in Mexican Spanish, from the high Andean > > > Creole > > > [if you understand that term properly, if you do not there is an > > > interesting > > > book, Bastard Languages, which I suggest you consult before challengin= g > > > yet > > > another term]. I am so sorry you personally couldn't tell any differen= ce > > > Taylor. > > > Did you consult this lady on the actual song in question? Did she > > actually say it was "not Spanish, but Andean"? I rather think the > > answer is "no" to both questions. > > > > ** But this is the danger, of taking on expert opinion such as Evans o= n > > > chess, and this S. American gal on Andean Spanish. Of course, I can't > > > prove > > > anything to you about Andean Spanish anymore than Evans can about high= > > > level > > > GM chess, for the same reason. You already know everything. > > > > It > > > was straight, standard Spanish, equally comprehensible to a Mexican, > > > Peruvian, Chilean, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Galician, or Castillian. > > > > ** While it may be 'understandable' that don't mean it is the same! An= d > > > I > > > think you rather lost track of what I said about the song - to get off= > > > on > > > your 'knowledge' of Spanish. And so you have to invent my opinion for > > > me, > > > in > > > order to rubbish it. I simply mentioned the existence of Andean Spanis= h, > > > much as Patrick O'Brian mentions it in Wine Dark Sea, set 200 years ag= o, > > > and > > > you seem to argue about its very existence - but I see you have now > > > CHANGED > > > your opinion on that to if it is 'comprehensible'. :)) > > > > ** I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, your point being occluded by your= > > > words. > > > > Phil Innes > > > > ---------- > > > > As comprehensible to any of them as BBC Standard is to a native > > > English speaker of London, Liverpool, Johannesburg, San Francisco, > > > Boston or Austin. You tried to demonstrate faux erudition by claiming > > > a misspelling ("encerran" instead of "encierran") was a regional > > > dialect, when it was simply a typographical error. > > > > *_YOUR OWN_* typographical error, in fact. > > > > Interested readers who, unlike Phil, can actually understand > > > Spanish, can verify that the song is in standard Spanish by listening > > > to the song ("Nazca," from the Viva Quetzal album "Mujeres de la > > > Puna") here: > > > >http://tinyurl.com/oj48k > > > > If need be I will post a scan of the actual album's lyric sheet on > > > Photobucket. com, and track down Phil's mistaken posts for > > > comparison. > > > Why not spare us the trouble, Phil? You wouldn't want to deny your > > > own mistake like a bigot, would you? Who do you think you are, Cortez?= > > > The Pope? President Bush? > > > > > "The Historian" <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.co= m... > > > > > > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <larry_tap...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > >> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and= > > > > >> > > Parr, > > > > >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned.= > > > > >> > > That > > > > >> > > one > > > > >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all > > > > >> > > surprising, > > > > >> > > when > > > > >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put > > > > >> > > Anderssen- > > > > >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time,= > > > > >> > > as > > > > >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller= > > > > >> > > was > > ... > > read more =BB- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -         Date: 15 Apr 2008 07:47:17 From: Subject: Re: Kingston plays coy as usual On Apr 15, 10:07=A0am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > Kingston, try and think what you are arguing about. What is it? I know exactly what I'm arguing, Phil. But as usual, you try to shift ground, hoping by misdirection to deflect attention from your own self-inflicted wounds. > It is YOUR guffaw which denied there even was an Andean Spanish, and indee= d > an Andean language! This surely would annoy those who speak it. That is not at all the issue I raised, Phil, and you know it. At issue was *_your_* claim that the song "Nazca" by Viva Quetzal was not written in standard Spanish, when it plainly was. To claim that it is 'not Spanish but Andean' is like claiming the Beatles' "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is not English, but Merseyan. > Then two clowns Kennedy and the infamous linguist Brennan picked this up a= nd > paraded YOUR ignorance ever since, and you have not corrected them! No, Phil, they just joined in the fun of watching you froth. > So; if you have an issue, state it. Already have, several times, Phil. > If not, don't analogize or change your point of view, or weave 'creative' > new threads to celebrate a few more reasons why you don't get on with peop= le > who know more than you do. > > I don't want to play about with your strawmen No straw, Phil, but your own gaffe, greatly compounded by your committing more gaffes in trying to cover up your initial gaffe. > =A0 =A0 - just state whatever you think about the existence =A0of Andean l= anguages > or Andean Spanish - Wow, talk about straw men. > That clear to you. Is that as clear as day? It's quite clear that you are a stiff-necked fool who has publicly painted himself into a corner in an utterly ludicrous fashion. It continually amazes me that you think this does you any good, that you think you can somehow wish away your own statements that are indelibly recorded here on rgc. The only effect is to make yourself the butt of running jokes over and over again. > If not you are called again, so come on, out with it! > > Phil Innes > > <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:97a94531-535f-42a2-a22f-f3f411e73106@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com... > > =A0 Ah, Phil, you never learn, do you? Your "Andean" gaffe was only > about a year and a half ago, yet you expect us all to have forgotten > it, so that you can get away with rewriting the facts? Sorry, bro, > won't fly. Interested readers can consult this tember 2006 thread: > > =A0http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr > > which presents the facts accurately. > > On Apr 15, 8:14 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:3aaba5d6-98d8-457e-b02b-382ada06a103@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...= > > On Apr 14, 7:49 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite > > > tongues. > > > "Navite"? > > > ** Taylor - stop it! I put that in for Neil, because he loves that kind = of > > stuff. > > =A0 =A0Ah yes, the old "I meant to do that!" ploy. Riiight. > > > I told you before to let him find stuff himself, cuz he cant write > > about chess. > > > > You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who > > > you think you are, Cortez? > > > > Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do you= > > > get > > > it? > > =A0 I am very much aware of regional variations in Spanish. However, > that has no bearing on the "Nazca" song lyrics. > > > The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in > > question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise. > > > ** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there was > > any > > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish. > > =A0 Ahem, Phil -- as is shown in the above link, you were not talking > about regional varieties of Spanish. You even denied that the lyric > was Spanish at all. You said: "It is not Spanish, it is Andean ..." > > > I rather thought you denied there was any > > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish. > > =A0 I have never said that. Fabricating again, Phil? > > > =A0I am sure your > > opinions are fascinating, but a Californian friend of mine happens to be= a > > Spanish speaker, and she is also a native American! and she also happend= > > to > > have a PhD in English! > > > ** SHE saw the differences in Mexican Spanish, from the high Andean Creo= le > > [if you understand that term properly, if you do not there is an > > interesting > > book, Bastard Languages, which I suggest you consult before challenging > > yet > > another term]. I am so sorry you personally couldn't tell any difference= > > Taylor. > > =A0 Did you consult this lady on the actual song in question? Did she > actually say it was "not Spanish, but Andean"? I rather think the > answer is "no" to both questions. > > > > > ** But this is the danger, of taking on expert opinion such as Evans on > > chess, and this S. American gal on Andean Spanish. Of course, I can't > > prove > > anything to you about Andean Spanish anymore than Evans can about high > > level > > GM chess, for the same reason. You already know everything. > > > It > > was straight, standard Spanish, equally comprehensible to a Mexican, > > Peruvian, Chilean, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Galician, or Castillian. > > > ** While it may be 'understandable' that don't mean it is the same! And = I > > think you rather lost track of what I said about the song - to get off o= n > > your 'knowledge' of Spanish. And so you have to invent my opinion for me= , > > in > > order to rubbish it. I simply mentioned the existence of Andean Spanish,= > > much as Patrick O'Brian mentions it in Wine Dark Sea, set 200 years ago,= > > and > > you seem to argue about its very existence - but I see you have now > > CHANGED > > your opinion on that to if it is 'comprehensible'. :)) > > > ** I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, your point being occluded by your > > words. > > > Phil Innes > > > ---------- > > > As comprehensible to any of them as BBC Standard is to a native > > English speaker of London, Liverpool, Johannesburg, San Francisco, > > Boston or Austin. You tried to demonstrate faux erudition by claiming > > a misspelling ("encerran" instead of "encierran") was a regional > > dialect, when it was simply a typographical error. > > > *_YOUR OWN_* typographical error, in fact. > > > Interested readers who, unlike Phil, can actually understand > > Spanish, can verify that the song is in standard Spanish by listening > > to the song ("Nazca," from the Viva Quetzal album "Mujeres de la > > Puna") here: > > >http://tinyurl.com/oj48k > > > If need be I will post a scan of the actual album's lyric sheet on > > Photobucket. com, and track down Phil's mistaken posts for > > comparison. > > Why not spare us the trouble, Phil? You wouldn't want to deny your > > own mistake like a bigot, would you? Who do you think you are, Cortez? > > The Pope? President Bush? > > > > "The Historian" <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com.= .. > > > > > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <larry_tap...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and > > > >> > > Parr, > > > >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. > > > >> > > That > > > >> > > one > > > >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprisin= g, > > > >> > > when > > > >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put > > > >> > > Anderssen- > > > >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, a= s > > > >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller w= as > > > >> > > to > > > >> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle. > > > > >> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder? > > > > >> Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen! > > > > > Is that Andean?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -           Date: 16 Apr 2008 08:35:59 From: Chess One Subject: Re: Kingston plays coy as usual <ttk5079@gmail.com > wrote in message news:f18e8807-4987-490b-b353-d87e8677fd67@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... On Apr 15, 10:07 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > Kingston, try and think what you are arguing about. What is it? I know exactly what I'm arguing, **so state your point, and resist getting pissy! Let's see if you can do it in what follows, since you may 'know' it, but you be unable to actually say it Phil. But as usual, you try to shift ground, hoping by misdirection to deflect attention from your own self-inflicted wounds. ** so far, no point... > It is YOUR guffaw which denied there even was an Andean Spanish, and > indeed > an Andean language! This surely would annoy those who speak it. That is not at all the issue I raised, Phil, and you know it. At issue was *_your_* claim that the song "Nazca" by Viva Quetzal was not written in standard Spanish, when it plainly was. To claim that it is 'not Spanish but Andean' **that is no quote! The /Spanish/ is Andean. And a native woman affirmed it. You may not agree, but that is /your/ issue. ** you don't even understand what you are arguing with, you do not affirm if you admit these different Spanish creoles exist. your 'point' goes like this: is like claiming the Beatles' "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is not English, but Merseyan. ** as if I had said that, or it was some analogy - and on the basis of your 'interpretation' you then argue some point with me ;) > Then two clowns Kennedy and the infamous linguist Brennan picked this up > and > paraded YOUR ignorance ever since, and you have not corrected them! No, Phil, they just joined in the fun of watching you froth. ** Really? I thought they were here to ensure no one spoke about chess and to stir the shit? And so Taylor Kingston continues to not- notice froth makers, even if they utter disgusting remarks based on his own apprehensions of some side issue from years ago. Not dissimilar to his fights with Evans and Keene on chess. > So; if you have an issue, state it. Already have, several times, Phil. ** ROFL! Can't do it! Kingston wants to stir the shit based on his misunderstanding, so that at any time clowns who know no better can practice their abuse? That is what he has written here ** And you are a nasty son of a bitch Kingston! You have said so 'several times', but when asked what, you have nothing of substance to say - but are very ready to rubbish people. > If not, don't analogize or change your point of view, or weave 'creative' > new threads to celebrate a few more reasons why you don't get on with > people > who know more than you do. > > I don't want to play about with your strawmen No straw, Phil, but your own gaffe, greatly compounded by your committing more gaffes in trying to cover up your initial gaffe. > - just state whatever you think about the existence of Andean languages > or Andean Spanish - Wow, talk about straw men. ** Look! you refuse to answer a straight question about what you think - caling that 'straw men'. pfft! > That clear to you. Is that as clear as day? It's quite clear that you are a stiff-necked fool who has publicly painted himself into a corner in an utterly ludicrous fashion. It continually amazes me that you think this does you any good, ** maybe I don't want to appear pretty for all the other boys here, Kingston. You have just blathered yet again - avoided any substance while POSING that you are not only right, but have the right to rubbish others. that you think you can somehow wish away your own statements that are indelibly recorded here on rgc. The only effect is to make yourself the butt of running jokes over and over again. > If not you are called again, so come on, out with it! ** Nothing of substance was revealed by Vaguer Kingston in this message, except his attitude, and how concerned he is to preserve it, at practially anyone's expense. What's new with that? Phil Innes > Phil Innes > > <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:97a94531-535f-42a2-a22f-f3f411e73106@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com... > > Ah, Phil, you never learn, do you? Your "Andean" gaffe was only > about a year and a half ago, yet you expect us all to have forgotten > it, so that you can get away with rewriting the facts? Sorry, bro, > won't fly. Interested readers can consult this tember 2006 thread: > > http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr > > which presents the facts accurately. > > On Apr 15, 8:14 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:3aaba5d6-98d8-457e-b02b-382ada06a103@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > > On Apr 14, 7:49 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite > > > tongues. > > > "Navite"? > > > ** Taylor - stop it! I put that in for Neil, because he loves that kind > > of > > stuff. > > Ah yes, the old "I meant to do that!" ploy. Riiight. > > > I told you before to let him find stuff himself, cuz he cant write > > about chess. > > > > You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who > > > you think you are, Cortez? > > > > Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do you > > > get > > > it? > > I am very much aware of regional variations in Spanish. However, > that has no bearing on the "Nazca" song lyrics. > > > The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in > > question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise. > > > ** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there was > > any > > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish. > > Ahem, Phil -- as is shown in the above link, you were not talking > about regional varieties of Spanish. You even denied that the lyric > was Spanish at all. You said: "It is not Spanish, it is Andean ..." > > > I rather thought you denied there was any > > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish. > > I have never said that. Fabricating again, Phil? > > > I am sure your > > opinions are fascinating, but a Californian friend of mine happens to be > > a > > Spanish speaker, and she is also a native American! and she also happend > > to > > have a PhD in English! > > > ** SHE saw the differences in Mexican Spanish, from the high Andean > > Creole > > [if you understand that term properly, if you do not there is an > > interesting > > book, Bastard Languages, which I suggest you consult before challenging > > yet > > another term]. I am so sorry you personally couldn't tell any difference > > Taylor. > > Did you consult this lady on the actual song in question? Did she > actually say it was "not Spanish, but Andean"? I rather think the > answer is "no" to both questions. > > > > > ** But this is the danger, of taking on expert opinion such as Evans on > > chess, and this S. American gal on Andean Spanish. Of course, I can't > > prove > > anything to you about Andean Spanish anymore than Evans can about high > > level > > GM chess, for the same reason. You already know everything. > > > It > > was straight, standard Spanish, equally comprehensible to a Mexican, > > Peruvian, Chilean, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Galician, or Castillian. > > > ** While it may be 'understandable' that don't mean it is the same! And > > I > > think you rather lost track of what I said about the song - to get off > > on > > your 'knowledge' of Spanish. And so you have to invent my opinion for > > me, > > in > > order to rubbish it. I simply mentioned the existence of Andean Spanish, > > much as Patrick O'Brian mentions it in Wine Dark Sea, set 200 years ago, > > and > > you seem to argue about its very existence - but I see you have now > > CHANGED > > your opinion on that to if it is 'comprehensible'. :)) > > > ** I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, your point being occluded by your > > words. > > > Phil Innes > > > ---------- > > > As comprehensible to any of them as BBC Standard is to a native > > English speaker of London, Liverpool, Johannesburg, San Francisco, > > Boston or Austin. You tried to demonstrate faux erudition by claiming > > a misspelling ("encerran" instead of "encierran") was a regional > > dialect, when it was simply a typographical error. > > > *_YOUR OWN_* typographical error, in fact. > > > Interested readers who, unlike Phil, can actually understand > > Spanish, can verify that the song is in standard Spanish by listening > > to the song ("Nazca," from the Viva Quetzal album "Mujeres de la > > Puna") here: > > >http://tinyurl.com/oj48k > > > If need be I will post a scan of the actual album's lyric sheet on > > Photobucket. com, and track down Phil's mistaken posts for > > comparison. > > Why not spare us the trouble, Phil? You wouldn't want to deny your > > own mistake like a bigot, would you? Who do you think you are, Cortez? > > The Pope? President Bush? > > > > "The Historian" <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <larry_tap...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and > > > >> > > Parr, > > > >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. > > > >> > > That > > > >> > > one > > > >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all > > > >> > > surprising, > > > >> > > when > > > >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put > > > >> > > Anderssen- > > > >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, > > > >> > > as > > > >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller > > > >> > > was > > > >> > > to > > > >> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle. > > > > >> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder? > > > > >> Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen! > > > > > Is that Andean?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -         Date: 15 Apr 2008 06:46:03 From: Subject: Phil plays a new Andean Gambit (was: What All the Evans Ratpackers Ah, Phil, you never learn, do you? Your "Andean" gaffe was only about a year and a half ago, yet you expect us all to have forgotten it, so that you can get away with rewriting the facts? Sorry, bro, won't fly. Interested readers can consult this tember 2006 thread: http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr which presents the facts accurately. On Apr 15, 8:14=A0am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3aaba5d6-98d8-457e-b02b-382ada06a103@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 14, 7:49 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite > > tongues. > > =A0 "Navite"? > > ** Taylor - stop it! I put that in for Neil, because he loves that kind of= > stuff. Ah yes, the old "I meant to do that!" ploy. Riiight. > I told you before to let him find stuff himself, cuz he cant write > about chess. > > > You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who > > you think you are, Cortez? > > > Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do you g= et > > it? I am very much aware of regional variations in Spanish. However, that has no bearing on the "Nazca" song lyrics. > =A0 The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in > question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise. > > ** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there was an= y > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish. Ahem, Phil -- as is shown in the above link, you were not talking about regional varieties of Spanish. You even denied that the lyric was Spanish at all. You said: "It is not Spanish, it is Andean ..." > I rather thought you denied there was any > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish. I have never said that. Fabricating again, Phil? > I am sure your > opinions are fascinating, but a Californian friend of mine happens to be a= > Spanish speaker, and she is also a native American! and she also happend t= o > have a PhD in English! > > ** SHE saw the differences in Mexican Spanish, from the high Andean Creole= > [if you understand that term properly, if you do not there is an interesti= ng > book, Bastard Languages, which I suggest you consult before challenging ye= t > another term]. I am so sorry you personally couldn't tell any difference > Taylor. Did you consult this lady on the actual song in question? Did she actually say it was "not Spanish, but Andean"? I rather think the answer is "no" to both questions. > ** But this is the danger, of taking on expert opinion such as Evans on > chess, and this S. American gal on Andean Spanish. Of course, I can't prov= e > anything to you about Andean Spanish anymore than Evans can about high lev= el > GM chess, for the same reason. You already know everything. > > =A0It > was straight, standard Spanish, equally comprehensible to a Mexican, > Peruvian, Chilean, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Galician, or Castillian. > > ** While it may be 'understandable' that don't mean it is the same! And I > think you rather lost track of what I said about the song - to get off on > your 'knowledge' of Spanish. And so you have to invent my opinion for me, = in > order to rubbish it. I simply mentioned the existence of Andean Spanish, > much as Patrick O'Brian mentions it in Wine Dark Sea, set 200 years ago, a= nd > you seem to argue about its very existence - but I see you have now CHANGE= D > your opinion on that to if it is 'comprehensible'. :)) > > ** I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, your point being occluded by your > words. > > Phil Innes > > ---------- > > As comprehensible to any of them as BBC Standard is to a native > English speaker of London, Liverpool, Johannesburg, San Francisco, > Boston or Austin. You tried to demonstrate faux erudition by claiming > a misspelling ("encerran" instead of "encierran") was a regional > dialect, when it was simply a typographical error. > > =A0 *_YOUR OWN_* typographical error, in fact. > > =A0 Interested readers who, unlike Phil, can actually understand > Spanish, can verify that the song is in standard Spanish by listening > to the song ("Nazca," from the Viva Quetzal album "Mujeres de la > Puna") here: > > =A0http://tinyurl.com/oj48k > > =A0 If need be I will post a scan of the actual album's lyric sheet on > Photobucket. com, and track down Phil's mistaken posts for > comparison. > =A0 Why not spare us the trouble, Phil? You wouldn't want to deny your > own mistake like a bigot, would you? Who do you think you are, Cortez? > The Pope? President Bush? > > > > > "The Historian" <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...= > > > > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <larry_tap...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Par= r, > > >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. Tha= t > > >> > > one > > >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising,= > > >> > > when > > >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put > > >> > > Anderssen- > > >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as > > >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was= > > >> > > to > > >> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle. > > > >> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder? > > > >> Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen! > > > > Is that Andean?           Date: 15 Apr 2008 09:49:30 From: Mike Murray Subject: Re: Phil plays a new Andean Gambit (was: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed) On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:46:03 -0700 (PDT), ttk5079@gmail.com wrote: Taylor: >>>   The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in >>> question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise. Phil: >> ** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there was any >> difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish. Taylor: > Ahem, Phil -- as is shown in the above link, you were not talking >about regional varieties of Spanish. You even denied that the lyric >was Spanish at all. You said: "It is not Spanish, it is Andean ..." This never ceases to amaze me. Phil keeps making these gaffes and boners, and then denies he committed 'em. He must know by now that the first thing people will do is invoke Google and rub his nose in his own words. For him, the old New Yorker cartoon caption, "On the Internet, nobody knows your a dog.", morphs into, "On the Internet, everybody knows you're a fraud."           Date: 15 Apr 2008 10:07:13 From: Chess One Subject: Kingston plays coy as usual Kingston, try and think what you are arguing about. What is it? It is YOUR guffaw which denied there even was an Andean Spanish, and indeed an Andean language! This surely would annoy those who speak it. Then two clowns Kennedy and the infamous linguist Brennan picked this up and paraded YOUR ignorance ever since, and you have not corrected them! So; if you have an issue, state it. If not, don't analogize or change your point of view, or weave 'creative' new threads to celebrate a few more reasons why you don't get on with people who know more than you do. I don't want to play about with your strawmen - just state whatever you think about the existence of Andean languages or Andean Spanish - That clear to you. Is that as clear as day? If not you are called again, so come on, out with it! Phil Innes <ttk5079@gmail.com > wrote in message news:97a94531-535f-42a2-a22f-f3f411e73106@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com... Ah, Phil, you never learn, do you? Your "Andean" gaffe was only about a year and a half ago, yet you expect us all to have forgotten it, so that you can get away with rewriting the facts? Sorry, bro, won't fly. Interested readers can consult this tember 2006 thread: http://tinyurl.com/5pcahr which presents the facts accurately. On Apr 15, 8:14 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3aaba5d6-98d8-457e-b02b-382ada06a103@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 14, 7:49 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite > > tongues. > > "Navite"? > > ** Taylor - stop it! I put that in for Neil, because he loves that kind of > stuff. Ah yes, the old "I meant to do that!" ploy. Riiight. > I told you before to let him find stuff himself, cuz he cant write > about chess. > > > You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who > > you think you are, Cortez? > > > Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do you > > get > > it? I am very much aware of regional variations in Spanish. However, that has no bearing on the "Nazca" song lyrics. > The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in > question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise. > > ** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there was > any > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish. Ahem, Phil -- as is shown in the above link, you were not talking about regional varieties of Spanish. You even denied that the lyric was Spanish at all. You said: "It is not Spanish, it is Andean ..." > I rather thought you denied there was any > difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish. I have never said that. Fabricating again, Phil? > I am sure your > opinions are fascinating, but a Californian friend of mine happens to be a > Spanish speaker, and she is also a native American! and she also happend > to > have a PhD in English! > > ** SHE saw the differences in Mexican Spanish, from the high Andean Creole > [if you understand that term properly, if you do not there is an > interesting > book, Bastard Languages, which I suggest you consult before challenging > yet > another term]. I am so sorry you personally couldn't tell any difference > Taylor. Did you consult this lady on the actual song in question? Did she actually say it was "not Spanish, but Andean"? I rather think the answer is "no" to both questions. > ** But this is the danger, of taking on expert opinion such as Evans on > chess, and this S. American gal on Andean Spanish. Of course, I can't > prove > anything to you about Andean Spanish anymore than Evans can about high > level > GM chess, for the same reason. You already know everything. > > It > was straight, standard Spanish, equally comprehensible to a Mexican, > Peruvian, Chilean, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Galician, or Castillian. > > ** While it may be 'understandable' that don't mean it is the same! And I > think you rather lost track of what I said about the song - to get off on > your 'knowledge' of Spanish. And so you have to invent my opinion for me, > in > order to rubbish it. I simply mentioned the existence of Andean Spanish, > much as Patrick O'Brian mentions it in Wine Dark Sea, set 200 years ago, > and > you seem to argue about its very existence - but I see you have now > CHANGED > your opinion on that to if it is 'comprehensible'. :)) > > ** I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, your point being occluded by your > words. > > Phil Innes > > ---------- > > As comprehensible to any of them as BBC Standard is to a native > English speaker of London, Liverpool, Johannesburg, San Francisco, > Boston or Austin. You tried to demonstrate faux erudition by claiming > a misspelling ("encerran" instead of "encierran") was a regional > dialect, when it was simply a typographical error. > > *_YOUR OWN_* typographical error, in fact. > > Interested readers who, unlike Phil, can actually understand > Spanish, can verify that the song is in standard Spanish by listening > to the song ("Nazca," from the Viva Quetzal album "Mujeres de la > Puna") here: > > http://tinyurl.com/oj48k > > If need be I will post a scan of the actual album's lyric sheet on > Photobucket. com, and track down Phil's mistaken posts for > comparison. > Why not spare us the trouble, Phil? You wouldn't want to deny your > own mistake like a bigot, would you? Who do you think you are, Cortez? > The Pope? President Bush? > > > > > "The Historian" <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <larry_tap...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and > > >> > > Parr, > > >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. > > >> > > That > > >> > > one > > >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising, > > >> > > when > > >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put > > >> > > Anderssen- > > >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as > > >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was > > >> > > to > > >> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle. > > > >> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder? > > > >> Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen! > > > > Is that Andean?         Date: 14 Apr 2008 23:05:30 From: help bot Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed On Apr 14, 10:14 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Peter Romanovsky was never World Correspondence Chess Champion. > > > Sorry. I got GM "Romanovsky" mixed up with > > GM "Ragozin". > Romanovsky was never a GM either. His two FIDE titles were IM (1950) > and IA (international arbiter, 1951). Boy, it takes hours of research just to please the pedants around here. I could have written "Mr. Romanovsky" and "Mr. Ragozin", but then I could be attacked for not recognizing any relevant titles. Not long ago, I messed up in referring to nearly-IMnes as a Class A or B player; then I went to the USCF Web site and what-the-heck, he's listed as a real live Expert! I am definitely slipping. -- hep blot         Date: 14 Apr 2008 17:45:19 From: Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed On Apr 14, 7:49=A0pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite > tongues. "Navite"? > You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who > you think you are, Cortez? > > Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do you get= > it? The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise. It was straight, standard Spanish, equally comprehensible to a Mexican, Peruvian, Chilean, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Galician, or Castillian. As comprehensible to any of them as BBC Standard is to a native English speaker of London, Liverpool, Johannesburg, San Francisco, Boston or Austin. You tried to demonstrate faux erudition by claiming a misspelling ("encerran" instead of "encierran") was a regional dialect, when it was simply a typographical error. *_YOUR OWN_* typographical error, in fact. Interested readers who, unlike Phil, can actually understand Spanish, can verify that the song is in standard Spanish by listening to the song ("Nazca," from the Viva Quetzal album "Mujeres de la Puna") here: http://tinyurl.com/oj48k If need be I will post a scan of the actual album's lyric sheet on Photobucket. com, and track down Phil's mistaken posts for comparison. Why not spare us the trouble, Phil? You wouldn't want to deny your own mistake like a bigot, would you? Who do you think you are, Cortez? The Pope? President Bush? > "The Historian" <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <larry_tap...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > > =A0 So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and P= arr, > >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That > >> > > one > >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising, > >> > > when > >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put > >> > > Anderssen- > >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as > >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was t= o > >> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle. > > >> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder? > > >> =A0 Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen! > > > Is that Andean?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -           Date: 15 Apr 2008 08:14:59 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed <ttk5079@gmail.com > wrote in message news:3aaba5d6-98d8-457e-b02b-382ada06a103@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... On Apr 14, 7:49 pm, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote: > Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite > tongues. "Navite"? ** Taylor - stop it! I put that in for Neil, because he loves that kind of stuff. I told you before to let him find stuff himself, cuz he cant write about chess. > You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who > you think you are, Cortez? > > Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do you get > it? The problem with your impassioned protest, Phil, is that the song in question was in no way any local dialect, "Andean" or otherwise. ** Did I ever say it was, Taylor? I rather thought you denied there was any difference between Castillian, Mexican and Andean Spanish. I am sure your opinions are fascinating, but a Californian friend of mine happens to be a Spanish speaker, and she is also a native American! and she also happend to have a PhD in English! ** SHE saw the differences in Mexican Spanish, from the high Andean Creole [if you understand that term properly, if you do not there is an interesting book, Bastard Languages, which I suggest you consult before challenging yet another term]. I am so sorry you personally couldn't tell any difference Taylor. ** But this is the danger, of taking on expert opinion such as Evans on chess, and this S. American gal on Andean Spanish. Of course, I can't prove anything to you about Andean Spanish anymore than Evans can about high level GM chess, for the same reason. You already know everything. It was straight, standard Spanish, equally comprehensible to a Mexican, Peruvian, Chilean, Venezuelan, Argentinian, Galician, or Castillian. ** While it may be 'understandable' that don't mean it is the same! And I think you rather lost track of what I said about the song - to get off on your 'knowledge' of Spanish. And so you have to invent my opinion for me, in order to rubbish it. I simply mentioned the existence of Andean Spanish, much as Patrick O'Brian mentions it in Wine Dark Sea, set 200 years ago, and you seem to argue about its very existence - but I see you have now CHANGED your opinion on that to if it is 'comprehensible'. :)) ** I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, your point being occluded by your words. Phil Innes ---------- As comprehensible to any of them as BBC Standard is to a native English speaker of London, Liverpool, Johannesburg, San Francisco, Boston or Austin. You tried to demonstrate faux erudition by claiming a misspelling ("encerran" instead of "encierran") was a regional dialect, when it was simply a typographical error. *_YOUR OWN_* typographical error, in fact. Interested readers who, unlike Phil, can actually understand Spanish, can verify that the song is in standard Spanish by listening to the song ("Nazca," from the Viva Quetzal album "Mujeres de la Puna") here: http://tinyurl.com/oj48k If need be I will post a scan of the actual album's lyric sheet on Photobucket. com, and track down Phil's mistaken posts for comparison. Why not spare us the trouble, Phil? You wouldn't want to deny your own mistake like a bigot, would you? Who do you think you are, Cortez? The Pope? President Bush? > "The Historian" <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <larry_tap...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Parr, > >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That > >> > > one > >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising, > >> > > when > >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put > >> > > Anderssen- > >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as > >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was > >> > > to > >> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle. > > >> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder? > > >> Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen! > > > Is that Andean?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -         Date: 14 Apr 2008 11:24:41 From: Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed On Apr 14, 10:07=A0am, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com > wrote: > > =A0 The question remains: *if* TK had bothered > to look over the fake-brilliancy, could he or > could he not have spotted the combination > pxR? =A0 GM Soltis insisted he had carefully > examined all his chosen games, but even so, > it was just too deep for the "grandmaster"... . In a phone conversation a few years ago, Soltis described himself to me as a "technophobe." He did not have an e-mail address, so he may not even have had a computer on which to run Fritz or some such program to check the games for tactical inaccuracies. Still may not today, for all I know. Checking Duras-Teichmann with Fritz8, it instantly brands 43.Rf5 as a mistake. Soltis wrote "Now [if] 43... gxf5 44. Nxf5+ Kh7 45. Nxh6 Kxh6 46.Qh4+ Kg7 47. Rf3 and wins," but Fritz immediately shows Black saving himself by either 47...Nxe4 or 47...f6. As I recall, at the time I reviewed the book I had Fritz4. Had I played through the Duras-Teichmann game, I would have used it rather than rely on my own analysis. While nowhere near as tactically fast or adept as Fritz8, Fritz4 probably would have found the correct defense for Black in short order. But Duras-Teichmann was merely #92 of the 100 games Soltis featured, and so I gave it little attention and did not play through it. I don't know of any reviewer who plays through *_every_* game of every book he reviews, and when it's a collection of 100 or more, such an expectation is quite unreasonable. One tries to play through a representative sample. The author, on the other hand, is very much under obligation to strive for accuracy on every move of every game.         Date: 14 Apr 2008 08:27:28 From: Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed On Apr 14, 10:24=A0am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <larry_tap...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > =A0 So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Pa= rr, > > > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That o= ne > > > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising, wh= en > > > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put Anderss= en- > > > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as > > > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was to= > > > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle. > > > > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder? > > > =A0 Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen! > > Is that Andean? It's post-Romantic anti-Baroque Schwarzwalder Kirschtort Weltschmerzian, aka Bavarian Plattdeutsch.         Date: 14 Apr 2008 07:24:37 From: The Historian Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed On Apr 14, 9:16 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <larry_tap...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: > > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Parr, > > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That one > > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising, when > > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put Anderssen- > > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as > > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was to > > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle. > > > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder? > > Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen! Is that Andean?           Date: 14 Apr 2008 19:49:44 From: Chess One Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed Hey Eyeore! Andeans speak Andean Spanish, as well as their navite tongues.You wouldn't actually want to deny that like a bigot, would you? who you think you are, Cortez? Mexicans speak Mexican Spanish, not Castillian. Get it? I mean, do you get it? Tell bot what to think next, cause he don't have no more ideas his own. Tell him about 'Old English is Dead', and how to argue about it. You 2 deserve each other, both can't play chess, and hate all who do. Of the two, which of you is closer to the FSS is unclear, as Sam would say. PI "The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com > wrote in message news:b0970bd3-8e0d-4f70-8957-5a2bb645d65d@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 14, 9:16 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Apr 14, 9:13 am, Larry Tapper <larry_tap...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > On Apr 13, 12:46 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> > > On Apr 11, 11:50 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > > > On Apr 10, 8:44 pm, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > So, when Raymond Keene, followed sycophantically by Innes and Parr, >> > > tried to disparage my analytical skills, I was not concerned. That >> > > one >> > > might miss something in Duras-Teichmann is not at all surprising, >> > > when >> > > one has not analyzed the game at all. In contrast, Keene put >> > > Anderssen- >> > > Kieseritzky at the head of his 12 greatest games of all time, as >> > > unwilling or unconcerned to detect its flaws as Hellen Keller was to >> > > distinguish Beethoven from Bullwinkle. >> >> > Was ist das, Verehrerpost von einer Flunder? >> >> Eeny meeny, chili beany, die Geisten werden jetzt sprechen! > > Is that Andean?         Date: 14 Apr 2008 07:16:48 From: Subject: Re: What All the Evans Ratpackers Missed On Apr 14, 9:13=A0am, Larry Tapper