Promoting chess discussion.
|
|
Chess Forum Promoting chess discussion. |
After reviewing your posted games, and the considerable doscourse as to if you are (or, are not) an alter ego of Robert James Fischer, I would be honoured to engage you for a game in which the moves are posted to this forum. For my part, I plan to ignore the kibbitzers. Feel free to take the White pieces, and post your opening move. Otherwise, I move 1. e4. I am comfortable with the possibility of two games simultaneously (one each with White and Black). As a forewarning, I should let you know that I have studied chess on and off in my sparetime for years. Although I have an aversion to tournament playing conditions, I do regard myself as a fully capable player. In the style and intensity of my approach to our game, I won't manifest in any way a casual approach to the experience. If we are men of honour, then there is no need for any time rules; the goal is to play great chess, and to post when a firm decision as to each move has been made. Sincerely, Michael Sayers |
> Greetings to Goran Tomic, > > After reviewing your posted games, and the considerable doscourse as > to if you are (or, are not) an alter ego of Robert James Fischer, I > would be honoured to engage you for a game in which the moves are > posted to this forum. > > For my part, I plan to ignore the kibbitzers. > > Feel free to take the White pieces, and post your opening move. > Otherwise, I move 1. e4. I am comfortable with the possibility of two > games simultaneously (one each with White and Black). > > As a forewarning, I should let you know that I have studied chess on > and off in my sparetime for years. Although I have an aversion to > tournament playing conditions, I do regard myself as a fully capable > player. In the style and intensity of my approach to our game, I > won't manifest in any way a casual approach to the experience. > > If we are men of honour, then there is no need for any time rules; the > goal is to play great chess, and to post when a firm decision as to > each move has been made. > > > Sincerely, > Michael Sayers<< You're on Michael Sayers. I cannot be beaten on my favorite opening. Bring on the world to be with you on this if you like. Let's play! Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 It's your move! Best Regards, Goran Fischer |
GOran has disappeared once again...just as we were onto him. Before he would not let a fischer post go by unargued. Just to mention Fischer on the group was a crime according to Goran. Goran is Bobby Fischer. And Goran Fischer is an imposter! . |
> You see what has happened? > > GOran has disappeared once again...just as we were onto him. Before he > would not let a fischer post go by unargued. Just to mention Fischer on > the group was a crime according to Goran. > > Goran is Bobby Fischer. > > And Goran Fischer is an imposter!<< Maybe, but Goran Fischer is using AOL and signing in from the Philippines, in the city of Bagiuo. |
Philippines, in the city of Bagiuo. " Is this true or were you joking? Did you really trace back the post? . |
message news:<[email protected] >... > Eric Hicks <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:<[email protected]>...(about Goran Tomic): > > You see what has happened? > > GOran has disappeared once again...just as we were onto him. > > Before he would not let a fischer post go by unargued. > > Just to mention Fischer on the group was a crime according to Goran. > > Goran is Bobby Fischer. In the interest of clarity, Eric Hicks was referring (above) to Goran Tomic, *not* 'Goran Fischer'. > > And Goran Fischer is an imposter! > > Maybe, but Goran Fischer is using AOL and signing in from the Philippines, > in the city of Bagiuo. For a while in this thread, 'Goran Fischer' seemed willing to allow Michael Sayers to believe that he was playing a game against Goran Tomic, who was writing as 'Goran Fischer'. Later in this thread, however, Goran Tomic wrote and denied being 'Goran Fischer'. Then Lance Smith ('Liam Too') evidently admitted to writing here as 'Goran Fischer'. In the thread "ISO PLAYING PARTNER IN MANHATTAN KANSAS" (11 December 2003), Lance Smith ('Liam Too') wrote to 'MIKEM385': "If you like to travel to Kansas City, Missouri, I'll be available. Lance Smith" Evidently, Lance Smith wrote that he resides (as of December 2003) in or near Kansas City, Missouri, United States. Unless Lance Smith has moved (since December 2003) to the Philippines, his assertion (above) that "Goran Fischer is using AOL and signing in from the Philippines, in the city of Bagiuo" seems inconsistent with his previously disclosed location near Kansas City, Missouri, United States. Some readers may construe what Lance Smith ('Liam Too') has written as another of his many evident trolling falsehoods in this thread. --Nick |
> You're on Michael Sayers. I cannot be beaten on my favorite opening. > Bring on the world to be with you on this if you like. Let's play! > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 > > It's your move! > > Best Regards, > > Goran Fischer Greetings, I wish you the best with this game. I prefer not have assistance from other players, as there will be more satisfaction in the game if I rely on my own resources. I love chess, but not the methods of most chess players - out of the players whom I admire enough to respect their advice, all but a few are long since dead. I proceed thus: 1. ... e5 Regards, Michael Sayers |
> [email protected] (Goran Fischer) wrote: >> You're on Michael Sayers. I cannot be beaten on my favorite opening. >> Bring on the world to be with you on this if you like. Let's play! >> >> Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers >> >> 1.e4 > > I wish you the best with this game. I prefer not have assistance from > other players, as there will be more satisfaction in the game if I > rely on my own resources. If you don't want the participation of the group, please take this to E-mail. Dave. -- David Richerby Love Toy (TM): it's like a fun child's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ toy that you can share with someone special! |
> If you don't want the participation of the group, please take this to > E-mail. > > > Dave. Greetings, As I infer from his email, Goran Fischer may support group participation. Feel free to offer advice to him as the game proceeds. For my part, I feel that the Black piece army will function better with one general at the top. The moves so far in Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers: 1. e4 e5 Regards, Michael Sayers |
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Richerby is right, we are in a chess forum therefore he should be able to participate in the discussion. I don't have any problems with that. Goran |
> Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 > > Richerby is right, we are in a chess forum therefore he should be able > to participate in the discussion. I don't have any problems with that. > > Goran I am sorry about the mistake in not having seen your post. Also, I have no objection to any group discussion of the game. Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 Over to you..... Michael |
> > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 As long as group discussion is invited.... :) There is a convention of providing IF .... THEN..... conditional moves in order to speed up the opening play. So, something like: 2..Nc6 if 3.Bb5 then (pick a move) if 3.Bc4 then (pick a move) etc. Back to my cave. David -- CaissaWas__SPAMHater__INTP@adelphia__ANTIV__.net without the block |
> There is a convention of providing IF .... THEN..... conditional moves in > order to speed up the opening play. > > So, something like: > > 2..Nc6 > if 3.Bb5 then (pick a move) > if 3.Bc4 then (pick a move) > > etc. > > Back to my cave. > > David Greetings, This may make sense for forced lines in which the opponent has a single legal response, but not otherwise. The moves so far in Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 Michael |
message news:<[email protected] >... > "David" <[email protected]> wrote in > message news:<[email protected]>... > > There is a convention of providing IF .... THEN..... > > conditional moves in order to speed up the opening play. > > ... > > This may make sense for forced lines in which the opponent has a > single legal response, but not otherwise.... Mr Sayers, David is correct. There *is* a common (though not universal) convention among experienced correspondence chess players of specifying conditional moves even when the opponent has more than one possible legal move in response. --Nick |
> Mr Sayers, David is correct. There *is* a common (though not universal) > convention among experienced correspondence chess players of specifying > conditional moves even when the opponent has more than one possible > legal move in response. > > --Nick Greetings, Whether or not there is a convention is not what is being examined: it is the applicability and timelessness (or, rather, "universality", as you described it) of the convention that is being examined. The moves so far in Goran Tomic vs. Michael Sayers: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 Regards, Michael Sayers |
>Whether or not there is a convention is not what is being examined: it >is the applicability and timelessness (or, rather, "universality", as >you described it) of the convention that is being examined. > >The moves so far in Goran Tomic vs. Michael Sayers: > >1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 It's dejavu, all over again! The Englishman, Michael Sayers, has apparently accidentally kill-filed his opponent, as he never seems to receive Goran's moves: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 {if ...Nf6, then 4.Ng5} {or if ...Bc5, then 4.b4} IMO, if-then moves are purely optional. (Did anyone else notice how Nick cleverly sidesteped any analytical entanglements, while focusing solely upon protocol?) :-) The reason MS is getting beat-up over this, is because of his arrogance in demanding his opponent meet some arbitrary deadline, after railing against time limits and so forth. The sequence of events not only made such a "demand" seem very hypocritical, but laughable, to boot. Now, put down that silly Ruy Lopez book and get out your BCO. I recommend heading into Captain Evans' harbor, keeping hard to port and steering clear of rocks and kelp. As another Evans aptly put it: "the onus is on Goran Fischer." :-) |
message news:<[email protected] >... > [email protected] (Nick) wrote in > message news:<[email protected]>... > > (The context was snipped by Michael Sayers.) > > Mr Sayers, David is correct. There *is* a common (though not universal) > > convention among experienced correspondence chess players of specifying > > conditional moves even when the opponent has more than one possible > > legal move in response. > > Whether or not there is a convention is not what is being examined: it > is the applicability and timelessness (or, rather, "universality", as > you described it) of the convention that is being examined. Mr Sayers, David made a well-meaning *suggestion* to you (who seem to be a comparatively inexperienced player) that you consider using conditional moves 'in order to speed up the opening play'. You have the right to ignore his suggestion, but your opponent, Goran Tomic, has decided to follow it. You replied to David: 'This (conditional moves) may *make sense* for forced lines in which the opponent has a single legal response, *but not otherwise*.' My post was simply intended to point out to you that your claim of 'but not otherwise' is mistaken. Conditional moves are not obligatory, but they also are *not* necessarily nonsensical in non-'forced lines in which the opponent has a single legal response', as you have contended. Goran Tomic evidently can understand David's suggestion about conditional moves. Mr Sayers, I could not care less about the outcome of your game with Goran Tomic. By the way, you may notice, if you have not already done so, that Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') is a well-known troll in the chess newsgroups. > The moves so far in Goran Tomic vs. Michael Sayers: > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 I am not the only reader who has noticed that Michael Sayers seems 'gormless'. --Nick |
> I am not the only reader who has noticed that Michael Sayers seems > 'gormless'. And I cannot be the only reader who has noticed that Goran Tomic posts from a machine in htnet.hr, using Outlook Express and the E-mail address [email protected] , whereas Goran Fischer posts through Google from an AOL account and uses the E-mail address [email protected] . Dave. -- David Richerby Flammable Cat (TM): it's like a cat www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ but it burns really easily! |
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am not the only reader who has noticed that Michael Sayers seems > > 'gormless'. > > And I cannot be the only reader who has noticed that Goran Tomic posts > from a machine in htnet.hr, using Outlook Express and the E-mail address > [email protected] , whereas Goran Fischer posts through Google from an AOL > account and uses the E-mail address [email protected] . > Dave.<< I'm not the only reader then who knows that Nick has been hopping from library to library in and around Sacramento, California, to post in chess newsgroups in order to call other posters "trolls". Lance Smith |
message news:<KFo*[email protected] >... > Nick <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am not the only reader who has noticed that Michael Sayers seems > > 'gormless'. > > And I cannot be the only reader who has noticed that Goran Tomic posts > from a machine in htnet.hr, using Outlook Express and the E-mail address > [email protected] , whereas Goran Fischer posts through Google from an AOL > account and uses the E-mail address [email protected] . 'Goran Fischer' may or may not be Goran Tomic, but if Michael Sayers feels happier, as he evidently does, believing that his opponent is Goran Tomic, then how much harm could there be in that belief? Jason Repa has posted countless attacks against Mike Leahy and his chess product 'Bookup'. Perhaps a few particularly ignorant or gullible readers might actually believe Jason Repa's nonsense (or the nonsense that's often posted to attack other persons in the chess newsgroups), but otherwise his continuing attacks do not seem to have harmed Mike Leahy or his business. --Nick |
news:[email protected]... > 'Goran Fischer' may or may not be Goran Tomic, but if Michael Sayers feels > happier, as he evidently does, believing that his opponent is Goran Tomic, > then how much harm could there be in that belief? "Goran Ficher" doesn't exist. It' fabricated name from another member. So, Mr. Michael Seyers would know that he don't play with me (internet grandmaster) but with another reader of this newsgroup. I don't know the chess strength of "Goran Fischer". But, I can assure you that "Goran Fischer" is not World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer, nor Goran Tomic (internet grandmaster). Regards, Goran Tomic |
> "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > > 'Goran Fischer' may or may not be Goran Tomic, but if Michael Sayers feels > > happier, as he evidently does, believing that his opponent is Goran Tomic, > > then how much harm could there be in that belief? > > "Goran Ficher" doesn't exist. It' fabricated name from another member. So, > Mr. Michael Seyers would know that he don't play with me (internet > grandmaster) but with another reader of this newsgroup. I don't know the > chess strength of "Goran Fischer". But, I can assure you that "Goran > Fischer" is not World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer, nor Goran Tomic > (internet grandmaster). > > Regards, > Goran Tomic Greetings, I appreciate the information that you are not authoring posts as "Goran Fischer". Goran Fischer, we may therefore conclude, is a nom de plume for a person other than yourself. The moves so far in Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 I await GF's 6th move. Regards, Michael Sayers |
> "Goran Tomic" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > > "Nick" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > > > 'Goran Fischer' may or may not be Goran Tomic, but if Michael Sayers feels > > > happier, as he evidently does, believing that his opponent is Goran Tomic, > > > then how much harm could there be in that belief? > > > > "Goran Ficher" doesn't exist. It' fabricated name from another member. So, > > Mr. Michael Seyers would know that he don't play with me (internet > > grandmaster) but with another reader of this newsgroup. I don't know the > > chess strength of "Goran Fischer". But, I can assure you that "Goran > > Fischer" is not World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer, nor Goran Tomic > > (internet grandmaster). > > > > Regards, > > Goran Tomic > > Greetings, > > I appreciate the information that you are not authoring posts as > "Goran Fischer". Goran Fischer, we may therefore conclude, is a nom > de plume for a person other than yourself. > > The moves so far in Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers: > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 > > I await GF's 6th move. > > > Regards, > Michael Sayers<< Michael, The 6th move was a subject of discussions by early Grandmasters. The issue was whether White should castle first before playing d4. In Morphy's annotations of the 6.0-0, he said, "This was considered White's best play until after the death of these (MacDonnell and LaBourdonnais) illustrious chess athletes. Later analysis has proved 6. P. to Q. fourth followed by 7. Castles, etc. to be the strongest line of attack as this juncture." However, Anderssen, Zukertort, and Chigorin thought that an early d4 was premature since it allowed the Compromised Defense. Although I was able to find an internet connection, I need to know what they're talking about and make my own analysis. I'm still thinking and will post my move soon. Best regards, GF |
> Michael, > > The 6th move was a subject of discussions by early Grandmasters. The > issue was whether White should castle first before playing d4. > > In Morphy's annotations of the 6.0-0, he said, "This was considered > White's best play until after the death of these (MacDonnell and > LaBourdonnais) illustrious chess athletes. Later analysis has proved > 6. P. to Q. fourth followed by 7. Castles, etc. to be the strongest > line of attack as this juncture." > > However, Anderssen, Zukertort, and Chigorin thought that an early d4 > was premature since it allowed the Compromised Defense. > > Although I was able to find an internet connection, I need to know > what they're talking about and make my own analysis. > > I'm still thinking and will post my move soon. > > Best regards, GF Message noted. I look forward to your 6th move. Regards, Michael Sayers |
|
. |
news:[email protected]... > Man...you guys are really nuts. Stick around a while........it only gets worse! :) Regards, Matt |
Nick-the-liar has posted yet another "brilliant contribution" to this thread, in effect, calling me a "troll" for noting that conditional moves are *not* obligatory,and calling Michael Sayers dimwitted for daring to disagree about the usefulness of conditional moves. Regulars here are already quite familiar with Nick's little problem, where he throws a hissyfit and starts name-calling, whenever people dare to disagree with his personal opinions on any matter whatever. I happen to agree with Goran Fischerov and Nick that conditional moves can often be used to speed-up the opening phase, but I strongly believe that it is every player's right to choose whether or not to use them. I also note that there is no way Nick-the-liar could know for certain that MS is a "comparatively inexperienced player," simply because he doesn't want to *give away his intentions* with regard to the opening (unlike Goran Fischer). I think Nick simply overlooked this variation. This is where Nick comes back with a "disclaimer," noting that he included the waffle-word, "seems." But he forgot to include the maple syrup. If there is one thing worse than a puerile name-caller, it's a puerile name-caller who insists upon waffling, instead of showing a little backbone, now and then. I reiterate my earlier recommendation: go for the toothless Evans' Gambit! The other line is actually dangerous. :-) |
Greg Kennedy (aka 'NoMoreChess'). [email protected] (NoMoreChess) wrote: > Nick-the-liar has posted yet another "brilliant contribution" to this thread, That's more characteristic name-calling--which, of course, is unsupported by any evidence of my alleged 'lies'--from Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess'). > in effect, calling me a "troll" for noting that conditional moves are > *not* obligatory, No, I was reminding any readers here with shorter memories than mine that Greg Kennedy has a long record of writing dishonest distortions, fabrications, and outright lies in order to make trolling personal attacks against at least several writers (including me) in the chess newsgroups. Long ago, John Macnab observed that Greg Kennedy's evident favourite motive for writing was 'trolling for a flame war' in the chess newsgroups. Experienced readers (who evidently have good memories) of the chess newsgroups such as Mark Houlsby and Simon ('chapman billy') (who have had their share of differences on other issues) would concur that Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') is a deeply dishonest inveterate troll. > and calling Michael Sayers dimwitted for daring to disagree about > the usefulness of conditional moves. Any minimally literate reader should be able to read my original post (which, of course, Greg Kennedy has completely snipped in his evident attempt to make his distortions or lies about what I wrote seem less transparent) and find that I wrote to Michael Sayers: "You have *the right* to ignore his (David's) suggestion (about conditional moves)." > Regulars here are already quite familiar with Nick's little problem, > where he throws a hissyfit and starts name-calling, whenever people dare > to disagree disagree with his personal opinions on any matter whatever. That's another characteristic lie by Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') about me. In the RGCP thread, "Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)" (3 May 2004), Matt Nemmers wrote: "Take Nick Bourbaki, for example. He and I probably only agree on one or two issues out of the plethora of topics that've been discussed here over the years, yet I've always been able to communicate in a very civil manner with him because neither has ever resorted to 'name-calling'." --Matt Nemmers (3 May 2004) --Nick |
Greg Kennedy (aka 'NoMoreChess'). [email protected] (NoMoreChess) wrote: > Nick-the-liar has posted yet another "brilliant contribution" to this thread, That's more characteristic name-calling--which, of course, is unsupported by any evidence of my alleged 'lies'--from Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess'). > in effect, calling me a "troll" for noting that conditional moves are > *not* obligatory, No, I was reminding any readers here with shorter memories than mine that Greg Kennedy has a long record of writing dishonest distortions, fabrications, and outright lies in order to make trolling personal attacks against at least several writers (including me) in the chess newsgroups. Long ago, John Macnab observed that Greg Kennedy's evident favourite motive for writing was 'trolling for a flame war' in the chess newsgroups. Experienced readers (who evidently have good memories) of the chess newsgroups such as Mark Houlsby and Simon ('chapman billy') (who have had their share of differences on other issues) would concur that Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') is a deeply dishonest inveterate troll. > and calling Michael Sayers dimwitted for daring to disagree about > the usefulness of conditional moves. Any minimally literate reader should be able to read my original post (which, of course, Greg Kennedy has completely snipped in his evident attempt to make his distortions or lies about what I wrote seem less transparent) and find that I wrote to Michael Sayers: "You have *the right* to ignore his (David's) suggestion (about conditional moves)." > Regulars here are already quite familiar with Nick's little problem, > where he throws a hissyfit and starts name-calling, whenever people dare > to disagree disagree with his personal opinions on any matter whatever. That's another characteristic lie by Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') about me. In the RGCP thread, "Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidate's Statement (This is final.)" (3 May 2004), Matt Nemmers wrote: "Take Nick Bourbaki, for example. He and I probably only agree on one or two issues out of the plethora of topics that've been discussed here over the years, yet I've always been able to communicate in a very civil manner with him because neither has ever resorted to 'name-calling'." --Matt Nemmers (3 May 2004) --Nick |
Greg Kennedy (aka 'NoMoreChess'). (I had a technical problem when I previously attempted to post this, so this could be a repost.) [email protected] (NoMoreChess) wrote: > Nick-the-liar has posted yet another "brilliant contribution" to this thread, That's more characteristic name-calling--which, of course, is unsupported by any evidence of my alleged 'lies'--from Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess'). > in effect, calling me a "troll" for noting that conditional moves are *not* > obligatory, No, I was reminding any readers here with shorter memories than mine that Greg Kennedy has a long record of writing dishonest distortions, fabrications, and outright lies in order to make trolling personal attacks against at least several writers (including me) in the chess newsgroups. Long ago, John Macnab observed that Greg Kennedy's evident favourite motive for writing was 'trolling for a flame war' in the chess newsgroups. Experienced readers (who evidently have good memories) of the chess newsgroups such as Mark Houlsby and Simon ('chapman billy') (who have had their share of differences on other issues) would concur that Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') is a deeply dishonest inveterate troll. > and calling Michael Sayers dimwitted for daring to disagree about > the usefulness of conditional moves. Any minimally literate reader should be able to read my original post (which, of course, Greg Kennedy has completely snipped in his evident attempt to make his distortions or lies about what I wrote seem less transparent) and find that I wrote to Michael Sayers: "You have *the right* to ignore his (David's) suggestion (about conditional moves)." > Regulars here are already quite familiar with Nick's little problem, > where he throws a hissyfit and starts name-calling, whenever people dare > to disagree with his personal opinions on any matter whatever. That's another characteristic lie by Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') about me. In the RGCP thread, "Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidates Statement (This is final.)" (3 May 2004), Matt Nemmers wrote: "Take Nick Bourbaki, for example. He and I probably only agree on one or two issues out of the plethora of topics that've been discussed here over the years, yet I've always been able to communicate in a very civil manner with him because neither has ever resorted to 'name-calling'." --Matt Nemmers (3 May 2004) --Nick |
Greg Kennedy (aka 'NoMoreChess'). (I had a technical problem when I previously attempted to post this, so this could be a repost.) [email protected] (NoMoreChess) wrote: > Nick-the-liar has posted yet another "brilliant contribution" to this thread, That's more characteristic name-calling--which, of course, is unsupported by any evidence of my alleged 'lies'--from Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess'). > in effect, calling me a "troll" for noting that conditional moves are *not* > obligatory, No, I was reminding any readers here with shorter memories than mine that Greg Kennedy has a long record of writing dishonest distortions, fabrications, and outright lies in order to make trolling personal attacks against at least several writers (including me) in the chess newsgroups. Long ago, John Macnab observed that Greg Kennedy's evident favourite motive for writing was 'trolling for a flame war' in the chess newsgroups. Experienced readers (who evidently have good memories) of the chess newsgroups such as Mark Houlsby and Simon ('chapman billy') (who have had their share of differences on other issues) would concur that Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') is a deeply dishonest inveterate troll. > and calling Michael Sayers dimwitted for daring to disagree about > the usefulness of conditional moves. Any minimally literate reader should be able to read my original post (which, of course, Greg Kennedy has completely snipped in his evident attempt to make his distortions or lies about what I wrote seem less transparent) and find that I wrote to Michael Sayers: "You have *the right* to ignore his (David's) suggestion (about conditional moves)." > Regulars here are already quite familiar with Nick's little problem, > where he throws a hissyfit and starts name-calling, whenever people dare > to disagree with his personal opinions on any matter whatever. That's another characteristic lie by Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') about me. In the RGCP thread, "Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidates Statement (This is final.)" (3 May 2004), Matt Nemmers wrote: "Take Nick Bourbaki, for example. He and I probably only agree on one or two issues out of the plethora of topics that've been discussed here over the years, yet I've always been able to communicate in a very civil manner with him because neither has ever resorted to 'name-calling'." --Matt Nemmers (3 May 2004) --Nick |
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > [email protected] (NoMoreChess) wrote: > > > Nick-the-liar has posted yet another "brilliant contribution" to this thread, > > That's more characteristic name-calling--which, of course, is unsupported by > any evidence of my alleged 'lies'--from Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess'). > Evidence? Here you go: "Benjamin Jordan . . . has just evidently concluded . . . that naturally I *must* be a 'flag-waving' British nationalist. Benjamin Jordan's ignorant presumption about me is absurdly false" - Nick (2004-5-2) "When was Fischer no longer the strongest player? (OT)" "After reading 'Haaretz' (if he does), Benjamin Jordan might feel slightly less enthusiastic about waving a United States flag over the Middle East." - Nick (2004-04-26) "Should we get out?" So, Nick accused me of doing what *he* actually did, but can neither quote the evidence of my "conclusion", nor where I have *ever* stated an opinion here about the Middle East or the war in Iraq. I still await the apology. |
>> > Nick-the-liar has posted yet another "brilliant contribution" to this >thread, >> That's more characteristic name-calling--which, of course, is unsupported >by >> any evidence of my alleged 'lies'--from Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess'). >Evidence? Here you go: > >"Benjamin Jordan . . . has just evidently concluded . . . that naturally I >*must* be a 'flag-waving' British nationalist. Benjamin Jordan's ignorant >presumption about me is absurdly false" >- Nick (2004-5-2) "When was Fischer no longer the strongest player? (OT)" > >"After reading 'Haaretz' (if he does), Benjamin Jordan might feel slightly >less enthusiastic about waving a United States flag over the Middle East." >- Nick (2004-04-26) "Should we get out?" > >So, Nick accused me of doing what *he* actually did, but can neither quote >the evidence of my "conclusion", nor where I have *ever* stated an opinion >here about the Middle East or the war in Iraq. I still await the apology. Apparently, Nick-the-liar's greatest "contribution" thus far to these newsgroups has been an attempt to redefine the word "troll" to mean "anyone who does not automatically agree with Nick Bourbaki." And while I seriously doubt that Nick's singular desire to redefine such a word will ever catch on widely, it could be useful here in distinguishing those who can think independently from those who just mindlessly ape what the self-described "academics" might endorse. Nick has a long history of *ad hominem* attacks in retaliation for pointing out any of his many gaffes. If anyone has ever earned the moniker, it is Nick-the-liar Bourbaki. My "great offense" in this last (of innumerable instances) was to opin here that the use of if-then moves was purely *optional,* and in fact, can be disadvantageous in that the player reveals his intentions in advance, (thus giving his opponent more info to work with). This may have seemed (to a paranoid loon, anyway) to confute Nick's previously stated opinion, which was that if-thens speeded up the play, and therefore were quite desireable. I had even agreed with the arrogant one, *in part,* but that was not sufficient to ward off his anger. Hence, his idiotic retaliations. "His stupidity was exceeded only by his arrogance." -- Anon |
> > . > >> > Nick-the-liar has posted yet another "brilliant contribution" to this > >thread, > > >> That's more characteristic name-calling--which, of course, is unsupported > >by > >> any evidence of my alleged 'lies'--from Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess'). > > >Evidence? Here you go: > > > >"Benjamin Jordan . . . has just evidently concluded . . . that naturally I > >*must* be a 'flag-waving' British nationalist. Benjamin Jordan's ignorant > >presumption about me is absurdly false" > >- Nick (2004-5-2) "When was Fischer no longer the strongest player? (OT)" > > > >"After reading 'Haaretz' (if he does), Benjamin Jordan might feel slightly > >less enthusiastic about waving a United States flag over the Middle East." > >- Nick (2004-04-26) "Should we get out?" > > > >So, Nick accused me of doing what *he* actually did, but can neither quote > >the evidence of my "conclusion", nor where I have *ever* stated an opinion > >here about the Middle East or the war in Iraq. I still await the apology. > > Apparently, Nick-the-liar's greatest "contribution" thus far to these > newsgroups has been an attempt to redefine the word "troll" to mean "anyone who > does not automatically agree with Nick Bourbaki." > > And while I seriously doubt that Nick's singular desire to redefine such a > word will ever catch on widely, it could be useful here in distinguishing those > who can think independently from those who just mindlessly ape what the > self-described "academics" might endorse. > > Nick has a long history of *ad hominem* attacks in retaliation for pointing > out any of his many gaffes. If anyone has ever earned the moniker, it is > Nick-the-liar Bourbaki. > > My "great offense" in this last (of innumerable instances) was to opin here > that the use of if-then moves was purely *optional,* and in fact, can be > disadvantageous in that the > player reveals his intentions in advance, (thus giving his opponent more info > to work with). > > This may have seemed (to a paranoid loon, anyway) to confute Nick's > previously stated opinion, which was that if-thens speeded up the play, and > therefore were quite desireable. > I had even agreed with the arrogant one, *in part,* but that was not sufficient > to ward off his anger. Hence, his idiotic retaliations. > > "His stupidity was exceeded only by his arrogance." -- Anon Careful nomo' you might scare the snake off, it's best to know what goes on in their camp.. |
message news:<[email protected] >... > (snipped) > By the way, you may notice, if you have not already done so, that > Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') is a well-known troll in the chess newsgroups. Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') has an long record of writing dishonest distortions (including flagrant snipping out-of-context), fabrications, and outright lies in order to make trolling personal attacks against me and at least several other writers in the chess newsgroups. Long ago, John Macnab observed that Greg Kennedy's evident favourite motive for writing was 'trolling for a flame war' in the chess newsgroups. I can recall reading complaints by Louis Blair, Mark Houlsby, John Macnab, Ed Seedhouse, 'Southpaw' (far from a complete list) that Greg Kennedy has seriously and evidently dishonestly misrepresented their writings. Here's an earlier post wherein I addressed some of Greg Kennedy's lies: http://makeashorterlink.com/?X5D821A16 Every so often, when memories have faded slightly, Greg Kennedy appears to challenge someone to reiterate all the evidence (it's on Google) of his many past distortions, fabrications, and lies. Of course, everyone else has better things to do than to respond to his tireless trolling. Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') is an inveterate troll and an evident pathological liar who warrants no further response beyond disdain. --Nick |
"Nick" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > [email protected] (Nick) wrote in > message news:<[email protected]>... > > (snipped) > > By the way, you may notice, if you have not already done so, that > > Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') is a well-known troll in the chess newsgroups. > > Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') has an long record of writing dishonest > distortions (including flagrant snipping out-of-context), fabrications, > and outright lies in order to make trolling personal attacks against me > and at least several other writers in the chess newsgroups. I have been able to determine that he is also a foreigner, originally Georg Krennadi, possibly an Armenian immigrant. > Long ago, John Macnab observed that Greg Kennedy's evident favourite motive > for writing was 'trolling for a flame war' in the chess newsgroups. This is almost certainly a genius loci; 'burning the cornstalks' as he might remember from his homeland. The point from his perspective would be to reduce the chaff, and re-access fertile soil. > I can recall reading complaints by Louis Blair, Mark Houlsby, John Macnab, > Ed Seedhouse, 'Southpaw' (far from a complete list) that Greg Kennedy has > seriously and evidently dishonestly misrepresented their writings. Less a Troll, more of an Orc, you think? > Here's an earlier post wherein I addressed some of Greg Kennedy's lies: > http://makeashorterlink.com/?X5D821A16 > > Every so often, when memories have faded slightly, Greg Kennedy appears > to challenge someone to reiterate all the evidence (it's on Google) of > his many past distortions, fabrications, and lies. Of course, everyone > else has better things to do than to respond to his tireless trolling. Except us! > Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') is an inveterate troll and an evident > pathological liar who warrants no further response beyond disdain. If it weren't for his comments on chess these sorts of comments alone would be as dismissable as my own views on virtually any subject. As it is, and to be on-topic, the game is pretty boring so far - I was hoping for a 4 knights to put a little pressure on black to deviate from the symmetry, but Krennadi has mentioned the Petrov, which is psychologically of more interest... ....I think it makes a difference if you are playing Karpov who intends to win with it, perhaps in 15 moves time when you have entirely run out of ideas with white or just got an idea of what you should have done 5 moves ago. OR if you are playing a patzer who has never looked beyond 15 moves and who thinks it is an 'easy draw with black, especially with the Queens removed'. :) What do you think of these factors? Since we are in almost every way superior to Krennadi, do we have an obligation to demonstrate our superiority in actually discussing chess topics. We have already got ourselves a bit dirty just responding here... but at least we proved we can come down from our Ivory or Ebony Towers... no one can call us stuck-up! And dirt is good - things often grow in it, properly fertilised. Cornstalks, Phil Innes > --Nick |
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > > > There is a convention of providing IF .... THEN..... conditional moves in > > order to speed up the opening play. > > > > So, something like: > > > > 2..Nc6 > > if 3.Bb5 then (pick a move) > > if 3.Bc4 then (pick a move) > > > > etc. > > > > Back to my cave. > > > > David > > Greetings, > > This may make sense for forced lines in which the opponent has a > single legal response, but not otherwise. > > The moves so far in Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers: > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 > > Michael<< Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 I'll follow David's advice and post IF moves as follows: IF 3...Bc5 THEN 4.b4 The Evans Gambit. Black is a pawn up. If you check the analysis of Fritz, Junior, or Shredder, they're saying that Black is winning. IF 3...Nf6 THEN 4.Ng5 The Two Knights. Black is favored to win as published in most books and in the analysis of chessplayers in the Correspondence World. OR if you like, we can play both variations. Regards, Goran |
>IF 3...Nf6 THEN 4.Ng5 >The Two Knights. Black is favored to win as published in most books >and in the analysis of chessplayers in the Correspondence World. Bah -- what do they know? You, Garan "Fischer" Tomic, are an internet Grandmaster, and virtuoso of bullet-chess! This far outweighs whatever stodgy correspondence chessplayers may think they know. Did you say "most books," as in not *all*? :-) |
> . > >IF 3...Nf6 THEN 4.Ng5 > >The Two Knights. Black is favored to win as published in most books > >and in the analysis of chessplayers in the Correspondence World. > > >Bah -- what do they know? You, Garan "Fischer" Tomic, are an internet >Grandmaster, and virtuoso of bullet-chess! This far outweighs whatever stodgy >correspondence chessplayers may think they know.<< What would Tolya (Karpov to outsiders) say. I know that you are a supporter of Tolya way back in your discussions with Larry Parr. BTW, Goran Tomic is Goran Tomic and Goran Fischer is somebody else. I wish that Goran Tomic would post here and confirm this fact to avoid confusion. >Did you say "most books," as in not *all*? :-)<< Yeh, I'm not the kind of person who would say "all", "never", etc. At least the publications/books are Chess Mail Magazine, The Giuoco Piano by Gufeld and Stetsko, and The Italian Game by Harding and Botterill. Regards, GF |
Identity probe misses target. Try again. What would Tolya say about this opening? He might say Black should have tried the Petroff. BTW, I don't see how Karpov is, in any way, connected to correspondence players, except that real correspondence chessplayers use postcards, with STAMPS on them. Larry Parr might say that five-time U.S. Champion, GM Larry Evans, often recommended snatching gambit pawns, the onus being upon White to demonstrate adequate compensation. He would probably find some tie-in to Josef Stalin, Communism, and Campomanes. If you take the pawn and lose, he would invariably find a way to blame it all on FIDE, (which we all know, granted Karpov more favorable conditions than Fischer ever dreamed of asking for). Now then, about drug-testing.... |
> . >Identity probe misses target. Try again.<< Richerby and Smith know their IP (Internet Protocol) and NNTP (News Network Transport Protocol) stuff. They can trace people's postings. What they are saying is that Goran Tomic is different from Goran Fischer. > What would Tolya say about this opening? He might say Black should have > tried the Petroff. BTW, I don't see how Karpov is, in any way, connected to > correspondence players, except that real correspondence chessplayers use > postcards, with STAMPS on them.<< I agree, Gazza and Leko have more experience in Correspondence chess than Tolya. Postcards are pre-email. Email are post postcards. IMO, they're the same correspondence chess. >>Larry Parr might say that five-time U.S. Champion, GM Larry Evans, often recommended snatching gambit pawns, the onus being upon White to demonstrate adequate compensation. He would probably find some tie-in to Josef Stalin, Communism, and Campomanes. If you take the pawn and lose, he would invariably find a way to blame it all on FIDE, (which we all know, granted Karpov more favorable conditions than Fischer ever dreamed of asking for). Now then, about drug-testing....<< Yes, it was because of FIDE that Larry Parr was canned as editor of Chess Life. From then on, it became his passion to destroy FIDE and Campo. GM Evans was just a front of course, Larry Parr did all the writing. Drug-testing...What about about it? I believe that John Fernandez can fight it out with Larry Parr until kingdom come and the result is still as clear as mud, the same way as the discussions started. As for me, I don't have an opinion on it. Even though I can tell you that I didn't inhale in those hippy and groovy days, drug-testing will always be a toss up issue, the same way as politics, religion, and the pro-choice...pro-life issues. Outside of FIDE, Tolya could have agreed to play Bobby but the KGB succeeded in preventing Tolyafrom accepting Bobby's very reasonable demands. There were precedents. Even Gazza's book, ...Predecessors... talked about the 5-5 draw clause in the Capa-Alekhine championship match. Bobby didn't make it up. Just ask Louis Blair, he read Gazza's book. Nice to talk to a well informed poster like you, NoMoreChess. Goran Fischer |
> Richerby and Smith know their IP (Internet Protocol) and NNTP (News > Network Transport Protocol) stuff. They can trace people's postings. I'd prefer the phrase `read the headers of people's postings'. `Trace' implies that I might be somehow obtaining access to private information, which I'm not. Dave. -- David Richerby Mouldy Happy Toy (TM): it's like a fun www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ child's toy that makes your troubles melt away but it's starting to grow mushrooms! |
> ... the KGB succeeded in preventing Tolyafrom accepting > Bobby's very reasonable demands. _ The demand that was a problem in 1974-5 was Fischer's rule that would have required Karpov to finish two or more points ahead of Fischer in order to cause Fischer to lose his title. > There were precedents. Even Gazza's book, ...Predecessors... > talked about the 5-5 draw clause in the Capa-Alekhine > championship match. _ Does Goran Fischer maintain that something should be taken as a historical fact because it appeared in "Gazza's book"? Can Goran Fischer give any exhamples of blindfold simultaneous displays by Morphy between the ober 1858 end of the Harrwitz match and the December 1858 beginning of the Anderssen match? (See page 39 of My Great Predecessors Part I.) > Bobby didn't make it up. _ That does not make it "very reasonable". > Just ask Louis Blair, _ My opinion is that it is unwise to take a claim about the 1927 match as historical fact as long as the only known sources for the claim are ones that were written decades after the event by individuals who gave no information about the discovery of evidence. |
> Goran Fischer wrote: > > > ... the KGB succeeded in preventing Tolyafrom accepting > > Bobby's very reasonable demands. > > _ > The demand that was a problem in 1974-5 was Fischer's rule > that would have required Karpov to finish two or more points > ahead of Fischer in order to cause Fischer to lose his title. > > > > There were precedents. Even Gazza's book, ...Predecessors... > > talked about the 5-5 draw clause in the Capa-Alekhine > > championship match. > > _ > Does Goran Fischer maintain that something should be taken > as a historical fact because it appeared in "Gazza's book"? > Can Goran Fischer give any exhamples of blindfold simultaneous > displays by Morphy between the ober 1858 end of the > Harrwitz match and the December 1858 beginning of the > Anderssen match? (See page 39 of My Great Predecessors Part > I.) > > > > Bobby didn't make it up. > > _ > That does not make it "very reasonable". > > > > Just ask Louis Blair, > > _ > My opinion is that it is unwise to take a claim about > the 1927 match as historical fact as long as the only > known sources for the claim are ones that were written > decades after the event by individuals who gave no > information about the discovery of evidence.<< Dr. Blair, How can we define "very reasonable" to make it accepted by all? If it appeared in numerous Russian books, a chess encyclopeadia, Gazza's book, chess magazines, and adopted by well knowm chess journalists like Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans, isn't that good enough to become reasonable? What about the opposition, do they have proof that there never was a 5-5 Capa-Alehkine clause? Lance Smith |
> There were precedents. Even Gazza's book, ...Predecessors... > talked about the 5-5 draw clause in the Capa-Alekhine > championship match. I wrote (2004-05-21 13:31:48 PST): > My opinion is that it is unwise to take a claim about > the 1927 match as historical fact as long as the only > known sources for the claim are ones that were written > decades after the event by individuals who gave no > information about the discovery of evidence. Lance Smith wrote (2004-05-22 07:01:07 PST): > How can we define "very reasonable" to make it > accepted by all? _ What is needed is for one of the advocates of this claim to identify and present the original evidence. Lance Smith wrote (2004-05-22 07:01:07 PST): > If it appeared in numerous Russian books, a > chess encyclopeadia, Gazza's book, chess magazines, > and adopted by well knowm chess journalists like > Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans, isn't that good > enough to become reasonable? No. (1) I have only heard about "Russian books" (with the 5-5 claim) that were written decades after the event, and I have not seen anyone tell us about a book that identified the original evidence for the claim. It could easily be that one Russian book made a false claim (possibly as a mistake or possibly for propaganda reasons) and other Russian books copied the claim without making any effort to check the facts. This sort of thing has happened before in historical writing. (2) The only "chess encyclopeadia" (with the 5-5 claim) that I heard about is Shakhmaty Ehntskilopedicheskij Slovar. I see no reason to believe that the authors did anything other than copy what they saw in other Russian or Soviet chess books. Encyclopedia writers often feel that they do not have the time to do independent research on a specialized topic. (3) In the case of "Gazza's book", we have a pretty good idea about what happened. "I didn't in fact ask Linder, but it's something I always read in the books about this match when I was a child." - Garry Kaparov (2003) Kasparov's childhood was several decades after the 1927 match, and he seems to have understood that the results of such reading would be far from conclusive. "In Volume One we have been dealing with the facts that were outside of the Soviet Union and the Soviet chess school; that's why we had less opportunities to analyze then and to search for the documents. Also, I was not part of that. So Volume One is sort of probably the weakest part historically and I would be delighted to see more documents, letters, personal exchanges between Alekhine and Capablanca, Steinitz and Lasker because I hope there will be another edition and then we can actually add it and make it more precise. Volume One we had to deal with sort of rumors or second hand information." - Garry Kasparov (2003) Referring specifically to the matter of the supposed 5-5 clause in the 1927 match, Kasparov said, "I would not be surprised if I am wrong". (4) The only "chess magazine" (with the 5-5 claim) that I know of is Chess Life (again decades after the match), and again I see no reason to believe that anyone did anything other than choose to believe one of those Russian books. (5) Larry Parr currently characterizes the evidence as "murky". (6) GM Evans is careful to attach the word, "apparently", to the claim. Lance Smith wrote (2004-05-22 07:01:07 PST): > What about the opposition, do they have proof > that there never was a 5-5 Capa-Alehkine clause? _ A 1927 description of the conditions of the match without any statement about a 5-5 clause is presented in Edward Winter's Chess Notes (#3253). Capablanca had complained vigorously about the proposal that he might have to finish two points ahead of Lasker and publicly advocated the London rules that contained no 5-5 condition. Judge for yourself how likely it would be that Capablanca could subsequently seek a two-point rule without creating a storm of controversy that would be well remembered in western chess history books. Alekhine himself wrote a lot about the match with Capablanca, and these writings are well known. |
I understand that you revere the wisdom of Edward Winter. If one of these he were able to find proof that the 5-5 clause is indeed true, would you charaterize the claim then as "very reasonable"? Lance Smith Louis Blair <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > Goran Fischer wrote (2004-05-21 03:02:10 PST): > > There were precedents. Even Gazza's book, ...Predecessors... > > talked about the 5-5 draw clause in the Capa-Alekhine > > championship match. > > I wrote (2004-05-21 13:31:48 PST): > > My opinion is that it is unwise to take a claim about > > the 1927 match as historical fact as long as the only > > known sources for the claim are ones that were written > > decades after the event by individuals who gave no > > information about the discovery of evidence. > > > Lance Smith wrote (2004-05-22 07:01:07 PST): > > > How can we define "very reasonable" to make it > > accepted by all? > > _ > What is needed is for one of the advocates of this > claim to identify and present the original evidence. > > > Lance Smith wrote (2004-05-22 07:01:07 PST): > > > If it appeared in numerous Russian books, a > > chess encyclopeadia, Gazza's book, chess magazines, > > and adopted by well knowm chess journalists like > > Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans, isn't that good > > enough to become reasonable? > > > No. > > (1) I have only heard about "Russian books" (with the > 5-5 claim) that were written decades after the event, > and I have not seen anyone tell us about a book > that identified the original evidence for the > claim. It could easily be that one Russian book > made a false claim (possibly as a mistake or > possibly for propaganda reasons) and other Russian > books copied the claim without making any effort > to check the facts. This sort of thing has > happened before in historical writing. > > (2) The only "chess encyclopeadia" (with the 5-5 > claim) that I heard about is Shakhmaty > Ehntskilopedicheskij Slovar. I see no reason > to believe that the authors did anything other > than copy what they saw in other Russian or > Soviet chess books. Encyclopedia writers often > feel that they do not have the time to do > independent research on a specialized topic. > > (3) In the case of "Gazza's book", we have a > pretty good idea about what happened. > > "I didn't in fact ask Linder, but it's > something I always read in the books > about this match when I was a child." > - Garry Kaparov (2003) > > Kasparov's childhood was several decades after > the 1927 match, and he seems to have understood > that the results of such reading would be far > from conclusive. > > "In Volume One we have been dealing with > the facts that were outside of the Soviet > Union and the Soviet chess school; that's > why we had less opportunities to analyze > then and to search for the documents. > Also, I was not part of that. So Volume > One is sort of probably the weakest part > historically and I would be delighted to > see more documents, letters, personal > exchanges between Alekhine and Capablanca, > Steinitz and Lasker because I hope there > will be another edition and then we can > actually add it and make it more precise. > Volume One we had to deal with sort of > rumors or second hand information." - > Garry Kasparov (2003) > > Referring specifically to the matter of the > supposed 5-5 clause in the 1927 match, Kasparov > said, "I would not be surprised if I am wrong". > > (4) The only "chess magazine" (with the 5-5 > claim) that I know of is Chess Life (again > decades after the match), and again I see no > reason to believe that anyone did anything > other than choose to believe one of those > Russian books. > > (5) Larry Parr currently characterizes the > evidence as "murky". > > (6) GM Evans is careful to attach the word, > "apparently", to the claim. > > > Lance Smith wrote (2004-05-22 07:01:07 PST): > > > What about the opposition, do they have proof > > that there never was a 5-5 Capa-Alehkine clause? > > _ > A 1927 description of the conditions of the match > without any statement about a 5-5 clause is > presented in Edward Winter's Chess Notes (#3253). > Capablanca had complained vigorously about the > proposal that he might have to finish two points > ahead of Lasker and publicly advocated the London > rules that contained no 5-5 condition. Judge for > yourself how likely it would be that Capablanca > could subsequently seek a two-point rule without > creating a storm of controversy that would be well > remembered in western chess history books. > Alekhine himself wrote a lot about the match with > Capablanca, and these writings are well known. |
> Dr. Blair, > > I understand that you revere the wisdom of Edward > Winter. If one of these he were able to find proof > that the 5-5 clause is indeed true, would you > charaterize the claim then as "very reasonable"? _ It strikes me as unwise to dwell on reactions to hypothetical evidence that may or may not ever appear. Suffice to say that, if "proof" by anyone is produced, I like to believe that I would come to the conclusion that was justified by that "proof". Of course, this does not mean that I am automatically going to go along with anyone who simply CLAIMS to have proof. No two people agree on all things, and I am not going to make an in advance commitment to agree with any person prior to the presentation of the evidence involved. |
message news:<[email protected] >... > Goran Fischer wrote (2004-05-21 03:02:10 PST): > > There were precedents. Even Gazza's book, ...Predecessors... talked > > about the 5-5 draw clause in the Capa-Alekhine championship match. > > I wrote (2004-05-21 13:31:48 PST): > > My opinion is that it is unwise to take a claim about the 1927 match as > > historical fact as long as the only known sources for the claim are ones > > that were written decades after the event by individuals who gave no > > information about the discovery of evidence. > > Lance Smith wrote (2004-05-22 07:01:07 PST): > > How can we define "very reasonable" to make it accepted by all? > > What is needed is for one of the advocates of this claim to identify > and present the original evidence. Yes, sound historical research is not done by holding a popularity contest among the ignorant, say, by asking the readers of 'Chess Life' to vote on whether or not there was a '5-5 draw clause' in the 1927 match. > Lance Smith wrote (2004-05-22 07:01:07 PST): > > If it appeared in numerous Russian books, a chess encyclopeadia, > > Gazza's book, chess magazines, and adopted by well knowm chess journalists > > like Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans, isn't that good enough to become > > reasonable? > > No. Some historical myths remain quite popular, but that does not make them true. > (1) I have only heard about "Russian books" (with the 5-5 claim) that were > written decades after the event, and I have not seen anyone tell us about a > book that identified the original evidence for the claim. It could easily be > that one Russian book made a false claim (possibly as a mistake or possibly > for propaganda reasons) and other Russian books copied the claim without > making any effort to check the facts. This sort of thing has happened > before in historical writing. Or, perhaps to put it more accurately, in pseudo-historical writing. Unfortunately, when an 'official source' (such as a government) makes a false claim (whether as an error or for purposes of propaganda) and that false claim becomes widely reiterated in the 'mainstream' news media or in 'patriotic' textbooks, most people tend to believe that false claim even after nearly all scholarly historians have concluded that it's false. 'Historians are not accountable for the difficulty of learning to read.' --Jane Austen (Northanger Abbey) --Nick |
FYI, adoption by some of those listed below in no way *adds* to the credibility or reasonableness of any given claim: >If it appeared in numerous Russian books, a chess encyclopeadia, >Gazza's book, chess magazines, and adopted by well knowm chess >journalists like Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans, isn't that good enough >to become reasonable? >What about the opposition, do they have proof that there never was a >5-5 Capa-Alehkine clause? "Proof" would require indisputable evidence refuting all evidence to the contrary. This seems to be a very high standard for someone who just finished listing such names as "Gazza," "Parr," and "Evans" in *support* of a claim. I would ask you to try using the standard of "proof" on the claim which follows: >> > ... the KGB succeeded in preventing Tolya from accepting >> > Bobby's very reasonable demands. IMO, not only is there no proof of this claim, but the evidence is so flimsy as to require the glues of *extreme bias* and *imagination* to keep the shambles held together long enough to be mistaken for an explanation of real-world events! "Bobby's very reasonable demands" -- this part *alone* requires the agility of a professional contortionist, along with such low regard for FIDE's authority over its own World Championship cycle as to make one wonder why on Earth Mr. Fischer would even *want* such a worthless title in the first place. |
>Nice to talk to a well informed poster like you, NoMoreChess. You seem to have missed one crucial point when claiming (perhaps toungue-in-cheek) that Larry Parr "did all the writing" (including GM Evans'). Spelling and punctuation -- these two areas create a clear demarcation line between Mr. Parr and GM Evans, the latter of which these days cannot seem to spell any better than many of those Mr. Parr has often described as "illiterate." In addition, GM Evans is in no way obsessed with Stalin, while Mr. Parr probably blames him (and Botvinnik) for the current high price of gas in Malaysia. >Yes, it was because of FIDE that Larry Parr was canned as editor of >Chess Life. From then on, it became his passion to destroy FIDE and >Campo. GM Evans was just a front of course, Larry Parr did all the >writing. Mr. Parr was *already* bashing FIDE and Campomanes, well before he got canned from editing Chess Life. I just threw-in the bit about drug-testing, because that seemed to be Mr. Parr's latest pet peeve, having nearly replaced Karpov-bashing and FIDE-bashing as his new favorite topic. Of course, that was before Edward Winter dared to point out some flaws in GM Evans' works! That "messenger" must be KILLED before returning back to work, beating the drug-testing issue to death. It's a tough job, but *somebody* has to do it. |
> Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 > > I'll follow David's advice and post IF moves as follows: > > IF 3...Bc5 THEN 4.b4 > The Evans Gambit. Black is a pawn up. If you check the analysis > of Fritz, Junior, or Shredder, they're saying that Black is > winning. > > IF 3...Nf6 THEN 4.Ng5 > The Two Knights. Black is favored to win as published in most books > and in the analysis of chessplayers in the Correspondence World. > > OR if you like, we can play both variations. > > Regards, Goran In spite of Morphy's and Tchigorin's successes, I am not overly confident in the Two Knights' Defence. Therefore, proceeding thus, the latest moves in Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers are: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 In regard to some of posters at this group, and specifically David Richerby, it is my message to you that I am appalled at your stalking-like desire to monitor from where contributors post. This group is about chess, not about monitoring the whereabouts of others. If you ever stalk me, you will find out that chess playing is not my only skill. Goran, it's your turn to move.... Regards, Michael S. |
>>In spite of Morphy's and Tchigorin's successes, I am not overly > confident in the Two Knights' Defence. > > Therefore, proceeding thus, the latest moves in Goran Fischer vs. > Michael Sayers are: > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 > > In regard to some of posters at this group, and specifically David > Richerby, it is my message to you that I am appalled at your > stalking-like desire to monitor from where contributors post. This > group is about chess, not about monitoring the whereabouts of others. > If you ever stalk me, you will find out that chess playing is not my > only skill. > > Goran, it's your turn to move.... > > > Regards, > Michael S.<< Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 There's no other continuation but 5.c3. At this point, I believe that Black is already lost.<bg > Would you like to play another game or are we going to show everybody how black is lost? I'll be travelling to another country beginning tomorrow and passing and staying in different small cities. If I don't find an internet connection, I'm declaring a leave and will not post my move until I return on 01-June-2004. In the meantime, perhaps others would like to talk about it? Best regards, GF |
> Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers: > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 > > There's no other continuation but 5.c3. At this point, I believe that > Black is already lost.<bg> Would you like to play another game or are > we going to show everybody how black is lost? > > I'll be travelling to another country beginning tomorrow and passing > and staying in different small cities. If I don't find an internet > connection, I'm declaring a leave and will not post my move until I > return on 01-June-2004. > > In the meantime, perhaps others would like to talk about it? > > Best regards, GF Greetings, I only resign in lost positions, of which this is not one. If for any reason you are dissatisfied with the outcome of this game, I promise that I will be available to play games in sequence (alternating the colours back and forth, of course) until you have a plus score against me with which you are satisfied - which is not to imply that you will be able to achieve a plus score. From now, the evening of Friday, May 21st, until Saturday night, May 22nd, I am out of town. I will decide on a move, and post that move, at the latest, Sunday morning. In 1894, Blackburne won a game from this position - he played 5. ... f5 , rather than the established Ba5. I should point out that in 1858, in one of the games between Paul Morphy, who had the White pieces, and Adolf Anderssen, Morphy played 5. O-O - so, 5. c3 is not the only tenable continuation (at least, not in Morphy's eyes). The game continued 5. ... Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O Nf6 8. e5 d5 9. Bb5 Ne4 10. cxd4 O-O 11. Bxc6 bxc6 12. Qa4 Bb6 13. Qxc6 Bg4 14. Bb2 Bxf3 15. gxf3 Ng5 16. Nd2 Re8 17. Kh1 ... , with vigorous play on both sides. Black won. My replay to 5. c3 will be posted shortly. In the meanwhile, here is the 1894 game with Blackburne. I don't remember the name of the player with the White pieces. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 f5 6. Bxg8 fxe4 7. Qb3 Qf6 8. Ng5 Qxg5 9. Qf7+ Kd8 10. cxb4 d6 11. O-O Bh3 12. g3 Nd4 13. Nc3 Be6 14. Qf8+ Kd7 15. Qxa8 Rxg8 16. Qxb7 Nf3+ 17. Kh1 Qh5 18. h4 Qg4 19. Qb5+ Ke7 20. Nd5+ Kf7 0-1 Regards, Michael Sayers |
>> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 >> >> There's no other continuation but 5.c3. At this point, I believe that >> Black is already lost.<bg> Would you like to play another game or are >> we going to show everybody how black is lost? >In 1894, Blackburne won a game from >this position - he played 5. ... f5 , I hope that was just an exhibition game. After all, how many of us can play well after capturing four or five brandys, en passant? >I should point out that in 1858, in one of the games between Paul >Morphy, who had the White pieces, and Adolf Anderssen, Morphy played >5. O-O - so, 5. c3 is not the only tenable continuation (at least, not >in Morphy's eyes). Today we know more about how best to play the Evans Gambit than even Morphy knew in 1858. In fact, in some early games in this line, Morphy played rather poorly. For example, his silly N-g5 (vs. ...Na5, hitting White's loose Bishop on c4). If only Alekhine or I could have been there, to show Paul the obviously correct way to play this kind of position (B-d3). Sigh. > In the meanwhile, here is >the 1894 game with Blackburne. I don't remember the name of the >player with the White pieces. > >1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 f5 6. Bxg8 fxe4 7. Qb3 >Qf6 8. Ng5 Qxg5 9. Qf7+ Kd8 10. cxb4 d6 11. O-O Bh3 12. g3 Nd4 13. Nc3 >Be6 14. Qf8+ Kd7 15. Qxa8 Rxg8 16. Qxb7 Nf3+ 17. Kh1 Qh5 18. h4 Qg4 >19. Qb5+ Ke7 20. Nd5+ Kf7 0-1 And even by 1894, there were still a few woodpushers who could manage to lose against virtually ANY opening moves, as that game clearly demonstrated! (I don't know his name either, but I'll bet he was closely related to famous patzer, "Anon.") One interesting thing to note about this opening is that White can often "look" brilliant, if he wins. If Black wins, it may be a ninty-mover, where nobody will particularly care that you defended brilliantly against a multitude of (unseen) attacks, and then demonstrated superb technique to convert in the endgame. I almost forgot:: "guarde le Bishop!" |
> Today we know more about how best to play the Evans Gambit than even Morphy > knew in 1858. In fact, in some early games in this line, Morphy played rather > poorly. For example, his silly N-g5 (vs. ...Na5, hitting White's loose Bishop > on c4). If only Alekhine or I could have been there, to show Paul the > obviously correct way to play this kind of position (B-d3). Sigh. It should be pointed out that Morhpy adapted his playing to the circumstances and the opponent. I am certain that, as RJF said, were Morphy to return today, he could vanquish even the very best 20th century players. > One interesting thing to note about this opening is that White can often > "look" brilliant, if he wins. If Black wins, it may be a ninty-mover, where > nobody will particularly care that you defended brilliantly against a multitude > of (unseen) attacks, and then demonstrated superb technique to convert in the > endgame. White goes out on a limb in move three of this opening - to maintain winning chances against strong play, he must go out further on the limb. > I almost forgot:: "guarde le Bishop!" Black's King Bishop has long term mission assignment, unless play from the White pieces makes an abrupt immolation of the piece the better option. Regards, M.S. |
>> Today we know more about how best to play the Evans >>Gambit than even Morphy knew in 1858. In fact, in some >>early games in this line, Morphy played rather poorly. >>For example, his silly N-g5 (vs. ...Na5, hitting White's >>loose Bishop on c4). If only Alekhine or I could have >>been there, to show Paul the obviously correct way to >>play this kind of position (B-d3). Sigh. >It should be pointed out that Morhpy adapted his playing to the >circumstances and the opponent. I am certain that, as RJF said, were >Morphy to return today, he could vanquish even the very best 20th >century players. As a zombie or a vampire (with the strength of twenty men), or even as a werewolf, Morphy would be a formidable opponent today. But as a corpse, his sight of the board and combinational vision would be, objectively speaking, even inferior to my own. >White goes out on a limb in move three of this opening - to maintain >winning chances against strong play, he must go out further on the >limb. The panther must go out on a limb in order to leap upon its hapless prey! >Black's King Bishop has long term mission assignment, unless play from >the White pieces makes an abrupt immolation of the piece the better >option. I've seen some poor chessplay in my time, but never so bad as to cause me to want to set any pieces on fire! Maybe that is why they always considered me a conservative, positional player. Looking back now, I kindof like the Evans Gambit, and I no doubt would have had lots of fun playing it against relative weakies. But I don't like the idea of being forced to find winning attacks against very strong defenders, particularly under time pressure. Worse yet, I despise the idea of showing up at the local club to play an opponent who knows that I am going to try this gambit, and who has prepared his defense in advance. After all, a gambit like this one has gobs of theory, and if I just wanted a book-monkey battle, I could play something perfectly sound, landing safely in a book ending or at worst, a late middlegame with the Queens off. Of course, playing this game here, the way you and Goran-somebody are doing, can turn into a mere contest of research skill/effort. OTOH, you are guaranteed an audience, whereas many of my very best games had but one observerver -- my hapless opponent! |
> Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers: > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 > > There's no other continuation but 5.c3. At this point, I believe that > Black is already lost.<bg> Would you like to play another game or are > we going to show everybody how black is lost? > > I'll be travelling to another country beginning tomorrow and passing > and staying in different small cities. If I don't find an internet > connection, I'm declaring a leave and will not post my move until I > return on 01-June-2004. > > In the meantime, perhaps others would like to talk about it? > > Best regards, GF Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 I look forward to experiencing, in the course of this game, how it is that Black is already lost. The conclusion towards which I incline, is one in which White does not win. Regards, Michael Sayers |
>I look forward to experiencing, in the course of this game, how it is >that Black is already lost. The conclusion towards which I incline, >is one in which White does not win. I take it you've never played the Black side of this against Chigorin. :-) |
> . > >I look forward to experiencing, in the course of this game, how it is > >that Black is already lost. The conclusion towards which I incline, > >is one in which White does not win. > > > I take it you've never played the Black side of this against Chigorin. :-) Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 Unless Tchigorn takes over the White pieces, Black will win :-) Michael Sayers |
> [email protected] (NoMoreChess) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > > . > > >I look forward to experiencing, in the course of this game, how it is > > >that Black is already lost. The conclusion towards which I incline, > > >is one in which White does not win. > > > > > > I take it you've never played the Black side of this against Chigorin. :-) > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 > > Unless Tchigorn takes over the White pieces, Black will win :-) > > Michael Sayers<< Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 I'll go with the recommendation of Morphy with 6.d4. Bring on the Compromised Defense! Bobby Fischer adopted the Evans Gambit in informal games like blitz. However, in 1963, he was involved in playing an obscure variation of the Compromised Defense and won against Reuben Fine. I don't have my database with me. Can anyone supply the entire score of this? I mulled over the recommendations of Harding and Botterill with 6.Q-N3!? (Qb3) in 1977, in which they said, "Judging by the treatment in most other opening books, this move is practically unknown at the moment. But it seems to us a good idea, because playing the attack in this order avoids Panov's Variation and the Lasker Defence, and forces Black to defend KB2 (f7) with his queen. I didn't even consider the recommendations of Anderssen, Zukertort, and later Chigorin of 6.0-0. All the best, GF |
news:[email protected]... > [email protected] (Michael Sayers) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > > [email protected] (NoMoreChess) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > > > . > > > >I look forward to experiencing, in the course of this game, how it is > > > >that Black is already lost. The conclusion towards which I incline, > > > >is one in which White does not win. > > > > > > > > > I take it you've never played the Black side of this against Chigorin. :-) > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 > > > > Unless Tchigorn takes over the White pieces, Black will win :-) > > > > Michael Sayers<< > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 > > I'll go with the recommendation of Morphy with 6.d4. Bring on the > Compromised Defense! > > Bobby Fischer adopted the Evans Gambit in informal games like blitz. > However, in 1963, he was involved in playing an obscure variation of > the Compromised Defense and won against Reuben Fine. I don't have my > database with me. Can anyone supply the entire score of this? If this is the game you mean, it's one of my favorites: [Event "?"] [Site "New York (FS"] [Date "1963.??.??"] [Round "245.0"] [White "Fischer R"] [Black "Fine"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.O-O dxc3 8.Qb3 Qe7 9.Nxc3 Nf6 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.exd5 Ne5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 13.Bb2 Qg5 14.h4 [14. Qa3 is also strong] Qxh4 [14...Qe7 15.Qf3 Kf8 (15...f6!? 16.d6 Qxd6 17.Qh5+ Kd8 18.Qxa5 Qb6 19.Qa3 d6 20. Rfd1 +-) 16.d6 cxd6 17.Qd5 Bb4 18.a3 Bc5 19.Rfe1+-; 14...Qf4 15.Bxg7+-; 14...Qg4 15.Qa3+-; 14...Qg6 15.Qa3+-] 15.Bxg7 Rg8 16.Rfe1+ Kd8 17.Qg3 1-0 Matt |
>> Bobby Fischer adopted the Evans Gambit in informal games like blitz. >> However, in 1963, he was involved in playing an obscure variation of >> the Compromised Defense and won against Reuben Fine. I don't have my >> database with me. Can anyone supply the entire score of this? >If this is the game you mean, it's one of my favorites: > >[Event "?"] >[Site "New York (FS"] >[Date "1963.??.??"] >[Round "245.0"] >[White "Fischer R"] >[Black "Fine"] >[Result "1-0"] >[ECO "C52"] > >1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.O-O dxc3 >8.Qb3 Qe7 9.Nxc3 Nf6 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.exd5 Ne5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 13.Bb2 Qg5 >14.h4 [14. Qa3 is also strong] Qxh4 [14...Qe7 15.Qf3 Kf8 (15...f6!? 16.d6 >Qxd6 17.Qh5+ Kd8 18.Qxa5 Qb6 19.Qa3 d6 20. Rfd1 +-) 16.d6 cxd6 17.Qd5 Bb4 >18.a3 Bc5 19.Rfe1+-; >14...Qf4 15.Bxg7+-; >14...Qg4 15.Qa3+-; >14...Qg6 15.Qa3+-] 15.Bxg7 Rg8 16.Rfe1+ Kd8 17.Qg3 1-0 ----------------------------------------------------------- Corrections: the "event" was a mere skittles game; and the "round" number was certainly not "245.0" (whatever that means). The inclusion of such fields tends to mislead one to believe this was a formal game, from some actual tournament. The psychological need to puff-up a mere skittles victory into something more significant, suggests it is very likely that Bobby probably hated his father, and wanted to do unmentionable things with his mother. Of course, if Dr. Fine had won instead, he would only have mentioned his victory in passing, not feeling any similar need to puff himself up. Fine's exceeding modesty became overwhelmingly apparent when he later authored a modest piece for Chess Life, in which he dutifully explained how he, (along with Paul Keres), should be posthumously given the world championship title, on account of having been by far the greatest chessplayer alive, having won one strong tournament in a row. >> I'll go with the recommendation of Morphy with 6.d4. Bring on the >> Compromised Defense! You should be so lucky. Even a Londoner would, these days, know beter than to bite-off more (pawns) than he can chew. |
news:[email protected]... > . > Corrections: the "event" was a mere skittles game; and the "round" number was > certainly not "245.0" (whatever that means). > > The inclusion of such fields tends to mislead one to believe this was a > formal game, from some actual tournament. The psychological need to puff-up a > mere skittles victory into something more significant, suggests it is very > likely that Bobby probably hated his father, and wanted to do unmentionable > things with his mother. Of course, if Dr. Fine had won instead, he would only > have mentioned his victory in passing, not feeling any similar need to puff > himself up. Fine's exceeding modesty became overwhelmingly apparent when he > later authored a modest piece for Chess Life, in which he dutifully explained > how he, (along with Paul Keres), should be posthumously given the world > championship title, on account of having been by far the greatest chessplayer > alive, having won one strong tournament in a row. The PGN headers came from some other source (might have been ChessBase, though I can't remember) but in any case I know nothing historical (chess.misc, I guess) about the game. When I said it was one of my favorites, I was referring to the actual moves of the game. My feeling was that it must have been a prepared variation. How had Bobby "puffed up" this victory? Just curious. Matt |
>How had Bobby "puffed up" this victory? Just curious. I believe Fischer included this game -- which was only a skittles game and would not even have been recorded (except mentally) -- in his book, MSMG. Other such skittles massacres would, of course, not be considered worthy of inclusion, but this one was against Dr. Fine -- in his prime, a well-booked openings specialist. >When I said it was one of my >favorites, I was referring to the actual moves of the game. My corrections were aimed squarely at the (misleading) headers, not at you, but I must admit I had some mischievous fun with Dr. Fine and with Fischer near the end. :-) |
This is the game that I was at least looking for. All the best, GF "mdamien" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<vgdsc.34951$l%[email protected]>... > "Goran Fischer" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > [email protected] (Michael Sayers) wrote in message > news:<[email protected]>... > > > [email protected] (NoMoreChess) wrote in message > news:<[email protected]>... > > > > . > > > > >I look forward to experiencing, in the course of this game, how it is > > > > >that Black is already lost. The conclusion towards which I incline, > > > > >is one in which White does not win. > > > > > > > > > > > > I take it you've never played the Black side of this against > Chigorin. :-) > > > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 > > > > > > Unless Tchigorn takes over the White pieces, Black will win :-) > > > > > > Michael Sayers<< > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 > > > > I'll go with the recommendation of Morphy with 6.d4. Bring on the > > Compromised Defense! > > > > Bobby Fischer adopted the Evans Gambit in informal games like blitz. > > However, in 1963, he was involved in playing an obscure variation of > > the Compromised Defense and won against Reuben Fine. I don't have my > > database with me. Can anyone supply the entire score of this? > > If this is the game you mean, it's one of my favorites: > > [Event "?"] > [Site "New York (FS"] > [Date "1963.??.??"] > [Round "245.0"] > [White "Fischer R"] > [Black "Fine"] > [Result "1-0"] > [ECO "C52"] > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.O-O dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qe7 9.Nxc3 Nf6 10.Nd5 Nxd5 11.exd5 Ne5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5 13.Bb2 Qg5 > 14.h4 [14. Qa3 is also strong] Qxh4 [14...Qe7 15.Qf3 Kf8 (15...f6!? 16.d6 > Qxd6 17.Qh5+ Kd8 18.Qxa5 Qb6 19.Qa3 d6 20. Rfd1 +-) 16.d6 cxd6 17.Qd5 Bb4 > 18.a3 Bc5 19.Rfe1+-; > 14...Qf4 15.Bxg7+-; > 14...Qg4 15.Qa3+-; > 14...Qg6 15.Qa3+-] 15.Bxg7 Rg8 16.Rfe1+ Kd8 17.Qg3 1-0 > > > Matt |
> Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 > > I'll go with the recommendation of Morphy with 6.d4. Bring on the > Compromised Defense! > > Bobby Fischer adopted the Evans Gambit in informal games like blitz. > However, in 1963, he was involved in playing an obscure variation of > the Compromised Defense and won against Reuben Fine. I don't have my > database with me. Can anyone supply the entire score of this? > > I mulled over the recommendations of Harding and Botterill with > 6.Q-N3!? (Qb3) in 1977, in which they said, "Judging by the treatment > in most other opening books, this move is practically unknown at the > moment. But it seems to us a good idea, because playing the attack in > this order avoids Panov's Variation and the Lasker Defence, and forces > Black to defend KB2 (f7) with his queen. > > I didn't even consider the recommendations of Anderssen, Zukertort, > and later Chigorin of 6.0-0. > > All the best, GF Greetings, At the base of this post are all the games which I have obtained of Robert James Fischer playing the Evans Gambit Accepted. Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 If you have no objection to me activating a page at my website, where web surfers can find and follow the moves of our game, please tell me, as I would like to set up the page for its entertainment and educational value. Regards, Michael Sayers P.S. - Here is that game assembly: [Event "New York (USA)"] [Site "New York (USA)"] [Date "1963.??.??"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "?"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Fischer Robert J (USA)"] [Black "Reuben Fine"] [ECO "C52"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "34"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O dxc3 8. Qb3 Qe7 9. Nxc3 Nf6 10. Nd5 Nxd5 11. exd5 Ne5 12. Nxe5 Qxe5 13. Bb2 Qg5 14. h4 Qxh4 15. Bxg7 Rg8 16. Rfe1+ Kd8 17. Qg3 1-0 [Event "Fischer Simul Exhibition Tour"] [Site "Chicago"] [Date "1964.03.23"] [EventDate "1964.03.22"] [Round "?"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Robert James Fischer"] [Black "F Panzer"] [ECO "C51"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "48"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Bc5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O d6 8. cxd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Bg4 10. Qa4 Bxf3 11. d5 Nge7 12. dxc6 Bg4 13. cxb7+ Bd7 14. b8=Q Qxb8 15. Bxf7+ Kxf7 16. Qxd7 Rd8 17. Qh3 Kg8 18. Qe6+ Kf8 19. Bg5 Re8 20. Nd5 Nxd5 21. Qxd5 Qc8 22. Rac1 Bc5 23. Rc3 Re5 24. Rf3+ 1-0 [Event "Fischer Simul Exhibition Tour"] [Site "Toledo"] [Date "1964.03.19"] [EventDate "1964.03.19"] [Round "?"] [Result "0-1"] [White "Robert James Fischer"] [Black "W Dillard"] [ECO "C51"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "58"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Be7 6. d4 d6 7. dxe5 dxe5 8. Qb3 Nf6 9. Bxf7+ Kf8 10. Ng5 Bd6 11. O-O b6 12. Nd2 Na5 13. Qb5 a6 14. Qd3 Qe7 15. Bd5 Nxd5 16. Qxd5 Bb7 17. Ne6+ Ke8 18. Nxg7+ Qxg7 19. Qe6+ Qe7 20. Qh3 Bc8 21. Qh6 Kd7 22. Nf3 Kc6 23. Bg5 Qe6 24. Qh4 Qg6 25. Be7 Bg4 26. Nd2 Bxe7 27. Qxe7 Bh3 28. g3 Bxf1 29. Rxf1 Qd6 0-1 [Event "Fischer Simul Exhibition Tour"] [Site "Houston"] [Date "1964.03.28"] [EventDate "1964.03.28"] [Round "?"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Robert James Fischer"] [Black "J Boatner"] [ECO "C51"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "20"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Be7 6. d4 d6 7. Qb3 Nh6 8. Bxh6 gxh6 9. Bxf7+ Kf8 10. Bh5 1-0 [Event "Fischer Simul Exhibition Tour"] [Site "Chicago"] [Date "1964.03.23"] [EventDate "1964.03.22"] [Round "?"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [White "Robert Fisher"] [Black "C Garwin"] [ECO "C51"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "110"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O Bb6 8. cxd4 d6 9. Nc3 Na5 10. Bg5 Qd7 11. Bd3 h6 12. Be3 Ne7 13. Na4 Nac6 14. Nxb6 axb6 15. d5 Ne5 16. Nxe5 dxe5 17. f4 Ng6 18. f5 Nf8 19. a4 Qd6 20. Qg4 g5 21. h4 Rg8 22. hxg5 hxg5 23. Rf3 Bd7 24. Bc2 Qb4 25. Rh3 Qb2 26. Rc1 O-O-O 27. Rh6 Ng6 28. Bd3 Rh8 29. Qxg5 Rxh6 30. Qxh6 Nf4 31. Bxf4 exf4 32. Qxf4 Qd4+ 33. Qf2 Qxd3 34. Qxb6 Qd1+ 35. Rxd1 cxb6 36. Kf2 Bxa4 37. Rd4 b5 38. g4 Re8 39. g5 Rg8 40. Kf3 Rxg5 41. Kf4 Rg1 42. Ke5 Rd1 43. Rb4 Kd7 44. Kf6 Ke8 45. Rb2 Rd4 46. e5 Rxd5 47. Rh2 b4 48. Rh4 Rb5 49. e6 fxe6 50. fxe6 Kd8 51. e7+ Kc7 52. e8=Q Rb6+ 53. Qe6 Rxe6+ 54. Kxe6 Bd7+ 55. Ke5 1/2-1/2 [Event "Davis sim"] [Site "Davis sim"] [Date "1964.??.??"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "?"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Fischer Robert J"] [Black "E Osbun"] [ECO "C52"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "90"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O d6 8. Qb3 Qd7 9. cxd4 Bb6 10. Bb5 Kf8 11. d5 Na5 12. Qa4 c6 13. dxc6 bxc6 14. Bd3 Nb7 15. Nc3 Nc5 16. Qc2 Ne7 17. Ba3 Ng6 18. Rfd1 Nf4 19. Bf1 Kg8 20. Ne5 Qc7 21. Nc4 Be6 22. Nxd6 Rd8 23. e5 f6 24. Bxc5 Bxc5 25. Nce4 Bxd6 26. exd6 Qc8 27. Nc5 Bd5 28. d7 Qc7 29. g3 Ne6 30. Nxe6 Bxe6 31. Bc4 Kf7 32. Bxe6+ Kxe6 33. Re1+ Kf7 34. Qc4+ Kg6 35. Re7 Rhg8 36. Rae1 h5 37. Qf7+ Kh6 38. R1e6 Rdf8 39. Rxf6+ gxf6 40. Qh7+ Kg5 41. h4+ Kg4 42. Re4+ Kh3 43. Qf5+ Rg4 44. Rxg4 hxg4 45. Qd3 1-0 [Event "Fischer Simul Exhibition Tour"] [Site "New Orleans"] [Date "1964.03.26"] [EventDate "1964.03.26"] [Round "?"] [Result "0-1"] [White "Robert James Fischer"] [Black "P Parham"] [ECO "C52"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "72"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 d6 7. Qb3 Qd7 8. dxe5 Bb6 9. exd6 Na5 10. Qb4 Nxc4 11. Qxc4 cxd6 12. O-O Nf6 13. Ba3 O-O 14. e5 14... Qg4 $1 15. Nbd2 Nh5 16. Qxg4 Bxg4 17. Bxd6 Rfc8 18. c4 Nf4 19. Rab1 Bf5 20. Rb3 Be6 21. g3 Ne2+ 22. Kg2 Bxc4 23. Nxc4 Rxc4 24. Re1 Rc2 25. Rf1 Rxa2 26. Ng5 Rc8 27. Rf3 Nd4 28. Rd3 Rcc2 29. Ne4 Nf5 30. g4 Ne3+ 31. Rxe3 Bxe3 32. Kg3 Rc1 33. Rxc1 Bxc1 34. f4 Re2 35. Nc5 b5 36. f5 Ba3 0-1 [Event "Fischer Simul Exhibition Tour"] [Site "Chicago"] [Date "1964.03.22"] [EventDate "1964.03.22"] [Round "?"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Robert James Fischer"] [Black "A Lococo"] [ECO "C52"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "56"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O Nge7 8. Ng5 d5 9. exd5 Ne5 10. Bb3 O-O 11. Nxf7 Kxf7 12. Qh5+ Kg8 13. Qxe5 dxc3 14. Nxc3 Bxc3 15. Qxc3 Nxd5 16. Qd3 c6 17. Bb2 h6 18. Bc2 Be6 19. Qg6 Nf6 20. Rae1 Qd6 21. Bc1 Nd5 22. Qh7+ Kf7 23. Bg6+ Ke7 24. Qxg7+ Kd8 25. Qxb7 Rb8 26. Qxa7 Rh8 27. g3 Rf8 28. Ba3 1-0 [Event "Fischer Simul Exhibition Tour"] [Site "Davis"] [Date "1964.??.16"] [EventDate "1964.04.16"] [Round "?"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Robert James Fischer"] [Black "O Celle"] [ECO "C51"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "54"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Be7 6. d4 d6 7. dxe5 Nxe5 8. Nxe5 dxe5 9. Qh5 g6 10. Qxe5 Nf6 11. Ba3 Rf8 12. O-O Ng4 13. Qg3 Bxa3 14. Nxa3 Qe7 $1 15. Bb5+ c6 16. Nc4 Qe6 17. Rad1 cxb5 18. Qc7 Bd7 19. Nd6+ Ke7 20. Nf5+ gxf5 21. exf5 Rac8 22. Rxd7+ Qxd7 23. f6+ Nxf6 24. Re1+ Ne4 25. Rxe4+ Kf6 26. Qxd7 Rfd8 27. Qg4 1-0 [Event "Davis sim"] [Site "Davis sim"] [Date "1964.??.??"] [EventDate "?"] [Round "?"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Fischer Robert J"] [Black "A Janushkovsky"] [ECO "C52"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "58"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O d6 8. Qb3 Qe7 9. e5 dxe5 10. Ba3 Qf6 11. cxd4 e4 12. Ne5 Nh6 13. Nxc6 bxc6 14. Qa4 Bb6 15. Nc3 Bd7 16. Nxe4 Qf4 17. Nc5 Bxc5 18. Bxc5 Nf5 19. Rfe1+ Kd8 20. Bxf7 Nd6 21. Be6 Re8 22. g3 Qf6 23. Bxd7 Kxd7 24. d5 Nb5 25. Red1 Kc8 26. Qa6+ Kd8 27. dxc6+ Nd6 28. Bxd6 cxd6 29. Qb7 1-0 [Event "Simultaneous Exhinition"] [Site "Chicago"] [Date "1964.03.23"] [EventDate "1964.03.23"] [Round "?"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Robert James Fischer"] [Black "R Sugerman"] [ECO "C52"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "24"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O d6 8. Qb3 Bb6 9. Bxf7+ Kf8 10. Bxg8 Rxg8 11. Ng5 Ne5 12. Nxh7+ 1-0 [Event "Fischer Simul Exhibition Tour"] [Site "Houston"] [Date "1964.03.28"] [EventDate "1964.03.28"] [Round "?"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Robert James Fischer"] [Black "Peil"] [ECO "C52"] [WhiteElo "?"] [BlackElo "?"] [PlyCount "60"] 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O dxc3 8. Qb3 Qf6 9. e5 Nxe5 10. Re1 Ne7 11. Rxe5 O-O 12. Bg5 Qg6 13. Bxe7 c2 14. Nbd2 Bxd2 15. Nxd2 Re8 16. Bd6 Rxe5 17. Bxe5 Qg5 18. Qe3 Qxe3 19. fxe3 d6 20. Bb2 Bg4 21. Rc1 Bd1 22. Bd3 Re8 23. e4 c6 24. Bxc2 Bxc2 25. Rxc2 f6 26. Kf2 Kf7 27. Kf3 d5 28. exd5 cxd5 29. Rc7+ Re7 30. Rxe7+ Kxe7 1-0 |
>>If you have no objection to me activating a page at my website, where web surfers can find and follow the moves of our game, please tell me, as I would like to set up the page for its entertainment and educational value. Regards, Michael Sayers<< Michael, I have no objection for you to activate a page at your website. Just let us know the URL. Thanks for the Fischer games. I'll move my post shortly. Regards, GF |
> Michael, > > I have no objection for you to activate a page at your website. Just > let us know the URL. > > Thanks for the Fischer games. > > I'll move my post shortly. > > Regards, GF Greetings, Here is the URL. It has not yet been indexed by google. Let me know if you object to the interpolations of "Bobby" on the page, which were done to increase the number of people who who get to play through the game. The page links to the discussions here, which should even further increase the number of people who get to improve on their understanding of the Evans Gambit, and on the total level of enjoyment which is generated as a result of the game. http://www.geocities.com/mjsayers/bobbyfischer.html The page is lagging a little behind the game in progress, which wouldn't be the case were I not busy attending to so many other things. Regards, Michael Sayers |
I've been to the website and saw your picture too. Now I can see who I'm playing with. I almost got into trouble when I used the name Goran. Mr. Tomic sent me an email and asked me my motivations in sending a post in this thread. I honestly told him that it is for educational purposes. He didn't send me another email to object. IMO, if we don't hear from Bobby, then he's not going to object as well. I sent my move of 7.0-0 with my notes in another post. Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Regards, GF [email protected] (Michael Sayers) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > [email protected] (Goran Fischer) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > > Michael, > > > > I have no objection for you to activate a page at your website. Just > > let us know the URL. > > > > Thanks for the Fischer games. > > > > I'll move my post shortly. > > > > Regards, GF > > > Greetings, > > Here is the URL. It has not yet been indexed by google. Let me know > if you object to the interpolations of "Bobby" on the page, which were > done to increase the number of people who who get to play through the > game. The page links to the discussions here, which should even > further increase the number of people who get to improve on their > understanding of the Evans Gambit, and on the total level of enjoyment > which is generated as a result of the game. > > http://www.geocities.com/mjsayers/bobbyfischer.html > > The page is lagging a little behind the game in progress, which > wouldn't be the case were I not busy attending to so many other > things. > > > Regards, > Michael Sayers |
news:[email protected]... > Greetings, > > I've been to the website and saw your picture too. Now I can see who > I'm playing with. > > I almost got into trouble when I used the name Goran. Mr. Tomic sent > me an email and asked me my motivations in sending a post in this > thread. I honestly told him that it is for educational purposes. He > didn't send me another email to object. > > IMO, if we don't hear from Bobby, then he's not going to object as > well. > > I sent my move of 7.0-0 with my notes in another post. > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > No problem from my side. I accepted your explanation. Best wishes, Goran Tomic |
> Greetings, > > I've been to the website and saw your picture too. Now I can see who > I'm playing with. > > I almost got into trouble when I used the name Goran. Mr. Tomic sent > me an email and asked me my motivations in sending a post in this > thread. I honestly told him that it is for educational purposes. He > didn't send me another email to object. > > IMO, if we don't hear from Bobby, then he's not going to object as > well. > > I sent my move of 7.0-0 with my notes in another post. > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 > > Regards, GF Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 The web page is supplemental: I recommend that we follow the same procedure we have so far of posting moves to this thread. Goran Tomic can not prevent others from having the name "Goran Tomic". Having the same name as another does not imply in any way impersonation. Perhaps you are educating him, by making him aware of this fact? I am still tabulating evidence and analysis as to whether you are, or are not, Bobby Fischer, so perhaps we can just leave it as an open question. I look forward to your 8th move... Regards, Michael Sayers |
news:[email protected]... > [email protected] (Goran Fischer) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > > Greetings, > > > > I've been to the website and saw your picture too. Now I can see who > > I'm playing with. > > > > I almost got into trouble when I used the name Goran. Mr. Tomic sent > > me an email and asked me my motivations in sending a post in this > > thread. I honestly told him that it is for educational purposes. He > > didn't send me another email to object. > > > > IMO, if we don't hear from Bobby, then he's not going to object as > > well. > > > > I sent my move of 7.0-0 with my notes in another post. > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 > > > > Regards, GF > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > > The web page is supplemental: I recommend that we follow the same > procedure we have so far of posting moves to this thread. > > Goran Tomic can not prevent others from having the name "Goran Tomic". > Having the same name as another does not imply in any way > impersonation. Perhaps you are educating him, by making him aware of > this fact? > > I am still tabulating evidence and analysis as to whether you are, or > are not, Bobby Fischer, so perhaps we can just leave it as an open > question. > For the record, since I already stated that I found this game interesting, I hold no illusion whatsoever that Bobby Fischer (or anyone near such playing strength, sans computer assistance) is playing either side of it. While it would be extremely interesting if it were true, the prospect actually detracts from my interest, since it's not. Matt |
>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 IMO, Black has just compromised his defense, by unwisely gobbling a pawn. Even so, this hardly proves that Goran is Fischer. >I am still tabulating evidence and analysis as to whether you are, or >are not, Bobby Fischer, so perhaps we can just leave it as an open >question. You may know soon enough: if you win, he is definitely not Fischer. If you lose, you are definitely not Fischer. "Fischer is Fischer. But a Knight is a Knight." "A pawn is a pawn, in any country in the world." |
Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Here we go... Harding and Botterill said, "It still retains a few secrets and it is by no means proven that there is a path to mate perforce for White. But we should not recommend the Compromised Defence to anyone who wishes to live to play a middlegame!" Best regards, GF [email protected] (Michael Sayers) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > [email protected] (Goran Fischer) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > > Greetings, > > > > I've been to the website and saw your picture too. Now I can see who > > I'm playing with. > > > > I almost got into trouble when I used the name Goran. Mr. Tomic sent > > me an email and asked me my motivations in sending a post in this > > thread. I honestly told him that it is for educational purposes. He > > didn't send me another email to object. > > > > IMO, if we don't hear from Bobby, then he's not going to object as > > well. > > > > I sent my move of 7.0-0 with my notes in another post. > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 > > > > Regards, GF > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > > The web page is supplemental: I recommend that we follow the same > procedure we have so far of posting moves to this thread. > > Goran Tomic can not prevent others from having the name "Goran Tomic". > Having the same name as another does not imply in any way > impersonation. Perhaps you are educating him, by making him aware of > this fact? > > I am still tabulating evidence and analysis as to whether you are, or > are not, Bobby Fischer, so perhaps we can just leave it as an open > question. > > I look forward to your 8th move... > > > Regards, > Michael Sayers |
> Greetings, > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 > > Here we go... > > Harding and Botterill said, "It still retains a few secrets and it is > by no means proven that there is a path to mate perforce for White. > But we should not recommend the Compromised Defence to anyone who > wishes to live to play a middlegame!" > > Best regards, GF Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 The reasons this opening works so well for White, have more to do with chess psychology than with chess. There is no known refutation of Black's play. I am still accumulating evidence as to whether or not you are Bobby Fischer. The findings might strike you as amusing. I am a firm believer in the power of reason to surmount all antinomies, and this is no exception. Shall I disclose them? Regards, Michael Sayers |
>>I am still accumulating evidence as to whether or not you are Bobby > Fischer. The findings might strike you as amusing. I am a firm > believer in the power of reason to surmount all antinomies, and this > is no exception. Shall I disclose them? > > Regards, > Michael Sayers<< Greetings, I already divulged my true identity in another thread. However, if you still believe that I'm Bobby Fischer without disclosing your accumulated evidence, please let me know. My move will follow shortly. I have the book that refutes 8...Qf6 Lance Smith AKA Goran Fischer |
> Greetings, > > I already divulged my true identity in another thread. However, if you > still believe that I'm Bobby Fischer without disclosing your > accumulated evidence, please let me know. > > My move will follow shortly. I have the book that refutes 8...Qf6 > > Lance Smith AKA Goran Fischer Nonsense! There is not a refutation. The book is incorrect. I look forward to your 9th move. I am going to refute your book. Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.O-O dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 One thing which points to Goran Fischer = Bobby Fischer, is the format of dating... "I'm declaring a leave and will not post my move until I return on 01-June-2004." Identical with that on Fischer score sheets... Regards, Michael Sayers |
news:[email protected]... > Nonsense! There is not a refutation. The book is incorrect. I look > forward to your 9th move. I am going to refute your book. NCO gives 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 O-O 12.Rad1+-. I'm looking forward to your improvement. Matt |
> "Michael Sayers" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > Nonsense! There is not a refutation. The book is incorrect. I look > > forward to your 9th move. I am going to refute your book. > > NCO gives 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 O-O 12.Rad1+-. > > I'm looking forward to your improvement. > > Matt That line was (to my knowledge) first compiled in a book by Tarrasch, in his excited declamations on the weakness of the "compromised defence". No doubt there are older opening compilations which document that line (such as those which Morphy is thought to have studied). Tarrasch wrote that exd4 throws the game positively 100% in White's favour. Tarrasch's views in many things have held, owing to his influence on chessplayers - some of those things still have merit (often not for the reasons he supposed), and some are without merit. I have devised an improvement in the 9.e5 line. I often have intense dreams about chess, which yield new ideas: the method of refutation came to me in one of those dreams. White's attack must disintegrate. If Goran Fischer proceeds down that line, he will arrive at a losing disadvantage both in material and position early in the middlegame (all things being equal, -2 pawns is a severe material disadvantage). In essence, White's position was already lost when Black captured White's Queen Knight pawn. Michael Sayers |
Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 The book, The Evans Gambit Revolution by Richard Moody, with massive analyses and revisions by GM Lev Alburt said, "... a psychological reason for World Champion Lasker's opposing the Evans Gambit is that he, like Steinitz, lost to it. The above game, Mortimer - Lasker, London, 1891, is a good case of the best bested by the Evans." Lasker put up a good fight but lost the above game. Regards, Lance Smith ========================================== [email protected] (Michael Sayers) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > [email protected] (Goran Fischer) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > > Greetings, > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > > 8.Qb3 > > > > Here we go... > > > > Harding and Botterill said, "It still retains a few secrets and it is > > by no means proven that there is a path to mate perforce for White. > > But we should not recommend the Compromised Defence to anyone who > > wishes to live to play a middlegame!" > > > > Best regards, GF > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 > > The reasons this opening works so well for White, have more to do with > chess psychology than with chess. There is no known refutation of > Black's play. > > I am still accumulating evidence as to whether or not you are Bobby > Fischer. The findings might strike you as amusing. I am a firm > believer in the power of reason to surmount all antinomies, and this > is no exception. Shall I disclose them? > > > Regards, > Michael Sayers |
Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 I don't have the NCO of Matt, but I'll follow his advise. My book, The Italian Game and The Evans Gambit Revolution say 9.e5 as well. As I was saying, Lasker lost on this variation in the game Mortimer-Lasker, London, 1891. One of your evidences, the formatting of dates, doesn't hold water. Regards, Lance Smith aka GF |
> Greetings, > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 > > I don't have the NCO of Matt, but I'll follow his advise. My book, The > Italian Game and The Evans Gambit Revolution say 9.e5 as well. As I > was saying, Lasker lost on this variation in the game Mortimer-Lasker, > London, 1891. > > One of your evidences, the formatting of dates, doesn't hold water. > > Regards, > > Lance Smith aka GF Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 As I am sure you know, 9.Bg5 also could have been played, with the continuation 9. ... Qg6 10.Nxc3 Bxc3 11.Qxc3, and then d6 (Janowski vs. Lasker, 1901), Nf6 (Steinitz vs Zukertort, 1872), or Nge7 (Zytogorski vs Adolf Anderssen, 1851). It's your turn. Regards, Michael Sayers |
news:[email protected]... > [email protected] (Liam Too) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 Interesting, Michael. Matt |
> "Goran Fischer" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > Greetings, > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3. > > > > 9...Qf5 is something new, however, I'll follow the normal moves as if it > is Qg6. > > > > Best regards, GF > > > I've been looking at this line. Now, 10. ... Bb6 is interesting. White is > dominant after 10. ... Bxc3 or 10. ... Nge7, but perhaps Black has some > chances to equalize in the 10. ... Bxc3 line. Looking forward to see what > Michael plays ... > > Matt<< I agree. 10...Bb6 is to give the Bishop the protection now because the impending move of 10.Nd5 Nge7 11.Nxe7 Nxe7 etc... will be next. 10...Nge7 looks like the normal move and 10...Bxc3 is a loss for Black. I'm at the airport and will analyze more when I get home. GF |
news:[email protected]... > "mdamien" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > > "Goran Fischer" <[email protected]> wrote in message > > news:[email protected]... > > > Greetings, > > > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > > > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3. > > > > > > 9...Qf5 is something new, however, I'll follow the normal moves as if it > > is Qg6. > > > > > > Best regards, GF > > > > > > I've been looking at this line. Now, 10. ... Bb6 is interesting. White is > > dominant after 10. ... Bxc3 or 10. ... Nge7, but perhaps Black has some > > chances to equalize in the 10. ... Bxc3 line. Looking forward to see what > > Michael plays ... > > > > Matt<< > > I agree. 10...Bb6 is to give the Bishop the protection now because the > impending move of 10.Nd5 Nge7 11.Nxe7 Nxe7 etc... will be next. > > 10...Nge7 looks like the normal move and 10...Bxc3 is a loss for > Black. > > I'm at the airport and will analyze more when I get home. These are incredibly intense lines. I play the Evans once in a while in offhand games so this is very interesting, but I think I'd fall apart playing either side of this over the board in a serious game. Another point to 10. ... Bb6 was the possibility of playing Na5 in some lines. Now that Michael has played 10. ... Nge7, I was looking primarily at 11. Ba3 when 11. ... Ng6 would be consistent with the 9. ... Qf5 idea, but Black is really walking a tightrope and is probably already lost (maybe there's some life in the 12. Nd5 Ncxe5 line). Again, though, 11. Ba3 Bb6 is interesting/unclear at the moment. I guess there's also 11. Ba3 O-O and 11. Ba3 a6 to consider: as a disclaimer, I haven't looked at these moves much! Looking forward to your move. Matt |
Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3. 9...Qf5 is something new, however, I'll follow the normal moves as if it is Qg6. Best regards, GF |
news:[email protected]... > Greetings, > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3. > > 9...Qf5 is something new, however, I'll follow the normal moves as if it is Qg6. > > Best regards, GF I've been looking at this line. Now, 10. ... Bb6 is interesting. White is dominant after 10. ... Bxc3 or 10. ... Nge7, but perhaps Black has some chances to equalize in the 10. ... Bxc3 line. Looking forward to see what Michael plays ... Matt |
> Greetings, > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3. > > 9...Qf5 is something new, however, I'll follow the normal moves as if it is Qg6. > > Best regards, GF Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 Over to you..... Regards, Michael Sayers |
> Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 > > Over to you..... > > > Regards, > Michael Sayers I've been following this game with much interest, and now I'm even more interested. I found this game, but waited till you departed from it before posting it. Priepke,W - Karassek,J [C52] Oberliga Ost A9596 Germany, 1996 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Bxc3 11.Qxc3 Nge7 12.Re1 0-0 13.Bd3 Qh5 14.Re4 f5 15.exf6 Rxf6 16.Rh4 Qa5 17.Qb3+ d5 18.Bxh7+ Kf8 19.Be3 Be6 20.Ng5 b5 21.Bd3 Rd8 22.Nh7+ Kf7 23.Qd1 Nf5 24.Nxf6 Nxh4 25.Qh5+ g6 26.Qxh4 Qc3 27.Qh7+ Kxf6 28.Qxg6+ Ke7 29.Rc1 Bf7 30.Bg5+ Ke8 31.Rxc3 Bxg6 32.Bxg6+ Kd7 33.Bf5+ Kd6 34.Rxc6+ 1-0 |
news:[email protected]... > Michael Sayers wrote: > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 > > > > Over to you..... > > > > > > Regards, > > Michael Sayers > > > I've been following this game with much interest, and now I'm even more > interested. I found this game, but waited till you departed from it > before posting it. > > > Priepke,W - Karassek,J [C52] > Oberliga Ost A9596 Germany, 1996 > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Bxc3 11.Qxc3 Nge7 12.Re1 0-0 13.Bd3 Qh5 > 14.Re4 f5 15.exf6 Rxf6 16.Rh4 Qa5 17.Qb3+ d5 18.Bxh7+ Kf8 19.Be3 Be6 > 20.Ng5 b5 21.Bd3 Rd8 22.Nh7+ Kf7 23.Qd1 Nf5 24.Nxf6 Nxh4 25.Qh5+ g6 > 26.Qxh4 Qc3 27.Qh7+ Kxf6 28.Qxg6+ Ke7 29.Rc1 Bf7 30.Bg5+ Ke8 31.Rxc3 > Bxg6 32.Bxg6+ Kd7 33.Bf5+ Kd6 34.Rxc6+ 1-0 Was surely dangerous for Black to take the c3 pawn at move 10. I couldn't quite decide which I preferred, 12. Ba3 or 12. Re1 as in this game you posted. I think probably 12. Re1. Matt |
> Michael Sayers wrote: > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 > > > > Over to you..... > > > > > > Regards, > > Michael Sayers > > > I've been following this game with much interest, and now I'm even more > interested. I found this game, but waited till you departed from it > before posting it. > > > Priepke,W - Karassek,J [C52] > Oberliga Ost A9596 Germany, 1996 > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Bxc3 11.Qxc3 Nge7 12.Re1 0-0 13.Bd3 Qh5 > 14.Re4 f5 15.exf6 Rxf6 16.Rh4 Qa5 17.Qb3+ d5 18.Bxh7+ Kf8 19.Be3 Be6 > 20.Ng5 b5 21.Bd3 Rd8 22.Nh7+ Kf7 23.Qd1 Nf5 24.Nxf6 Nxh4 25.Qh5+ g6 > 26.Qxh4 Qc3 27.Qh7+ Kxf6 28.Qxg6+ Ke7 29.Rc1 Bf7 30.Bg5+ Ke8 31.Rxc3 > Bxg6 32.Bxg6+ Kd7 33.Bf5+ Kd6 34.Rxc6+ 1-0 Do you know where this game was published? I am trying to determine if 9. ... Qf5 is an opening novelty in competitive circles. |
>>Priepke,W - Karassek,J [C52] >>Oberliga Ost A9596 Germany, 1996 >> >>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 >>8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Bxc3 11.Qxc3 Nge7 12.Re1 0-0 13.Bd3 Qh5 >>14.Re4 f5 15.exf6 Rxf6 16.Rh4 Qa5 17.Qb3+ d5 18.Bxh7+ Kf8 19.Be3 Be6 >>20.Ng5 b5 21.Bd3 Rd8 22.Nh7+ Kf7 23.Qd1 Nf5 24.Nxf6 Nxh4 25.Qh5+ g6 >>26.Qxh4 Qc3 27.Qh7+ Kxf6 28.Qxg6+ Ke7 29.Rc1 Bf7 30.Bg5+ Ke8 31.Rxc3 >>Bxg6 32.Bxg6+ Kd7 33.Bf5+ Kd6 34.Rxc6+ 1-0 > > > Do you know where this game was published? I am trying to determine > if 9. ... Qf5 is an opening novelty in competitive circles. I found it on my Mega 2000 CDROM. I couldn't find any games at www.chesslab.com and I tried chessbase, but it was taking too long and I got tired of waiting. The unfortunate thing about the game is that Black's 21st and White's 22nd moves are horrible blunders. |
news:[email protected]... > Michael Sayers wrote: > > >>Priepke,W - Karassek,J [C52] > >>Oberliga Ost A9596 Germany, 1996 > >> > >>1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > >>8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Bxc3 11.Qxc3 Nge7 12.Re1 0-0 13.Bd3 Qh5 > >>14.Re4 f5 15.exf6 Rxf6 16.Rh4 Qa5 17.Qb3+ d5 18.Bxh7+ Kf8 19.Be3 Be6 > >>20.Ng5 b5 21.Bd3 Rd8 22.Nh7+ Kf7 23.Qd1 Nf5 24.Nxf6 Nxh4 25.Qh5+ g6 > >>26.Qxh4 Qc3 27.Qh7+ Kxf6 28.Qxg6+ Ke7 29.Rc1 Bf7 30.Bg5+ Ke8 31.Rxc3 > >>Bxg6 32.Bxg6+ Kd7 33.Bf5+ Kd6 34.Rxc6+ 1-0 > > > > > > Do you know where this game was published? I am trying to determine > > if 9. ... Qf5 is an opening novelty in competitive circles. > > I found it on my Mega 2000 CDROM. I couldn't find any games at > www.chesslab.com and I tried chessbase, but it was taking too long and I > got tired of waiting. > > The unfortunate thing about the game is that Black's 21st and White's > 22nd moves are horrible blunders. Chessbase has four or five games with 9. ... Qf5, but none above master level. Matt |
> Chessbase has four or five games with 9. ... Qf5, but none above master > level. > > Matt Could you post them if you have them? I don't know why, but it's taking me ages. |
news:[email protected]... > mdamien wrote: > > > Chessbase has four or five games with 9. ... Qf5, but none above master > > level. > > > > Matt > > Could you post them if you have them? I don't know why, but it's taking > me ages. I guess a few more than "four or five," now that I take a second look. I think the innovation here is 9. ... Qf5 in combination with 11. ... Rb8, though I still think it's at least +=. [Event "Oberliga Ost-A 9596"] [Site "Germany"] [Date "1995.10.??"] [Round "0"] [White "Priepke,Wolfgang"] [Black "Karassek,Juergen"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Bxc3 11.Qxc3 Nge7 12.Re1 0-0 13.Bd3 Qh5 14.Re4 f5 15.exf6 Rxf6 16.Rh4 Qa5 17.Qb3+ d5 18.Bxh7+ Kf8 19.Be3 Be6 20.Ng5 b5 21.Bd3 Rd8 22.Nh7+ Kf7 23.Qd1 Nf5 24.Nxf6 Nxh4 25.Qh5+ g6 26.Qxh4 Qc3 27.Qh7+ Kxf6 28.Qxg6+ Ke7 29.Rc1 Bf7 30.Bg5+ Ke8 31.Rxc3 Bxg6 32.Bxg6+ Kd7 33.Bf5+ Kd6 34.Rxc6+ 1-0 [Event "EM/C/A073"] [Site "ICCF Email"] [Date "1998.??.??"] [Round "0"] [White "Engelen,Rene"] [Black "Campoy Moreno,Alfonso"] [Result "0-1"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Bb2 0-0 12.Ne2 Bb6 13.Bd3 Qg4 14.Qc2 Ng6 15.Ba3 d6 16.exd6 cxd6 17.Bxd6 Rd8 18.h3 Qh5 19.Bxg6 hxg6 20.Ng3 Qa5 21.Bf4 Be6 22.Be3 Bd5 23.Bxb6 axb6 24.Qd3 Qa3 25.Qxa3 Rxa3 26.Rfb1 Ra6 27.a4 Bxf3 28.gxf3 Nd4 29.f4 Rda8 30.Rd1 Rxa4 31.Rxa4 Rxa4 32.Rc1 b5 33.Rc8+ Kh7 34.Rc7 f5 35.Rxb7 Rc4 36.Kg2 b4 37.Rb6 b3 0-1 [Event "ICCF email"] [Site "ICCF email"] [Date "1998.??.??"] [Round "0"] [White "Rasmussen,Per Arnt"] [Black "Wengler,Joerg"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Bb6 11.Ba3 Nge7 12.Rad1 Na5 13.Qa4 Qf4 14.Bxf7+ Qxf7 15.e6 Qxe6 16.Rfe1 Qc6 17.Rxe7+ Kd8 18.Ne5 1-0 [Event "POR CPXE corr"] [Site ""] [Date "1998.??.??"] [Round "0"] [White "Simoes,Vitor"] [Black "Gomes,Diogo"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Qh5 13.Nxc7+ Bxc7 14.Bxf7+ Kd8 15.e6 Qg4 16.Rfe1 d6 17.h3 Qf4 18.Rad1 Nge7 19.Qc3 Qf6 20.Bxd6 Bxd6 21.Rxd6+ Kc7 22.Nd4 Qg5 23.Nxc6 Nxc6 24.Rdd1 Bxe6 25.Rxe6 Rhd8 26.Rb1 Rac8 27.g4 1-0 [Event "POR T corr"] [Site ""] [Date "1998.??.??"] [Round "0"] [White "Wilhelms,Diego"] [Black "Gomes,Diogo"] [Result "0-1"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nh4 Qxe5 11.Bxf7+ Kf8 12.Ba3+ d6 13.Bg6 Qf6 14.Be8 Kxe8 15.Nxc3 Bxc3 0-1 [Event "Theme S1 corr"] [Site ""] [Date "1998.??.??"] [Round "0"] [White "Domenche Redondo,Francesco"] [Black "Wengler,Joerg"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Bb6 12.Nd5 Ng6 13.Bd3 Qg4 14.h3 Qh5 15.Kh2 Ngxe5 16.Nxe5 Nxe5 17.Rae1 d6 18.f4 Be6 19.fxe5 c6 20.Nf4 1-0 [Event "Theme S1 corr"] [Site ""] [Date "1998.??.??"] [Round "0"] [White "Doplmayr,Fritz"] [Black "Wengler,Joerg"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Bb6 11.Ba3 Nge7 12.Rad1 Na5 13.Qa4 Nxc4 14.Qxc4 Qe6 15.Qb4 a5 16.Qe4 h6 17.Bxe7 Qxe7 18.Nd5 Qe6 19.Nd4 Qg6 20.Nf5 d6 21.exd6+ Be6 22.Nxb6 cxb6 23.d7+ Kd8 24.Qxb7 1-0 [Event "C3"] [Site "IECG email"] [Date "1999.??.??"] [Round "1"] [White "Breis Abellan,Jesualdo"] [Black "McGrath,Tom"] [Result "0-1"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Re1 a6 12.Nh4 Qh5 13.Re4 Bxc3 14.Qxc3 Qd1+ 15.Bf1 Nd5 16.Qc5 b6 17.Qc4 b5 18.Qc5 Nde7 19.Bb2 Qd2 20.Ba3 0-0 21.Nf5 Ng6 22.Be2 Re8 23.Rd1 Qxa2 24.Bh5 Ngxe5 25.f4 d6 26.Nxd6 cxd6 27.Qxd6 Bf5 28.Re2 Qb3 29.fxe5 Rad8 30.Qxc6 Qxd1+ 0-1 [Event "Fax BF1-051"] [Site ""] [Date "1999.??.??"] [Round "0"] [White "Lukas,Maritta"] [Black "Reichardt,Ewald"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Nf4 13.Nxf4 Qxf4 14.Bd5 Nd8 15.Rac1 Ne6 16.Rc4 Qf5 17.g4 1-0 [Event "Theme GT"] [Site "ICCF email"] [Date "1999.??.??"] [Round "1"] [White "Roelofszen,Tom"] [Black "Adamczyk,Wieslaw"] [Result "0-1"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Bb2 0-0 12.Rfd1 a6 13.Ne2 b5 14.Bd3 Qg4 15.h3 Qa4 16.Qxa4 bxa4 17.Bc2 Rb8 18.Rab1 Re8 19.Bxa4 Rb6 20.Ned4 Nxd4 0-1 [Event "CP.1999.P.00074"] [Site "IECG Email"] [Date "1999.10.01"] [Round "0"] [White "Poretti,Ennio"] [Black "Crnic,Narcis"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Rb8 13.Ne3 Qf4 14.Nd5 Qh6 15.Nc3 Nd8 16.Ne4 Bb6 17.Bc1 Qh5 18.Ng3 Qg4 19.Re1 Nf4 20.Re4 g5 21.Kf1 Bxf2 22.Kxf2 b5 23.Nxg5 Qxg5 24.Rxf4 Qe7 25.Be3 a6 26.Bd5 Ne6 27.Nf5 Qg5 28.Rf3 1-0 [Event "IECC M"] [Site "IECC email"] [Date "2000.??.??"] [Round "0"] [White "Corbat,Philippe"] [Black "Nagley,Tim"] [Result "1/2"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.Qb3 Qf6 8.0-0 dxc3 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 h6 13.Ne3 Qf4 14.Nd5 Qf5 15.Ne3 Qf4 1/2 [Event "IECC TH-M"] [Site "IECC email"] [Date "2000.??.??"] [Round "0"] [White "Dambacher,Andreas"] [Black "Cherner,Lyle"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Ngxe5 13.Nxe5 Qxe5 14.f4 Qd4+ 15.Kh1 b5 16.Qxb5 f5 17.Rad1 a6 18.Qxa5 Nxa5 19.Rxd4 Kf7 20.Nxc7+ Nxc4 21.Rxc4 Rb8 22.Re1 Bb7 23.Re7+ 1-0 [Event "L1.2000.0.00016"] [Site "IECG Email"] [Date "2000.08.14"] [Round "0"] [White "Ottenweller,Wolfgang"] [Black "Baer,Werner"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Ng6 12.Nd5 Qh5 13.Rae1 a6 14.Re4 b5 15.Nxc7+ Bxc7 16.Bxf7+ Kd8 17.e6 b4 18.Bxb4 Qf5 19.Rfe1 1-0 |
Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 11.Ba3 is the normal move if the black Queen is on g6. I'll move it anyway and see what happens. I believe that it will not just continue the attack, it will also intensify it. Regards, GF |
news:[email protected]... > Greetings, > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 > > 11.Ba3 is the normal move if the black Queen is on g6. I'll move it > anyway and see what happens. I believe that it will not just continue > the attack, it will also intensify it. Agreed! This is the line Tarrasch gave, as Michael noted. NCO gives the same, as does MCO. MCO also cites the following correspondence game as its model (though with the spelling "Schoder"): [Event "W-ch M498 corr"] [Date "1990.??.??"] [White "Schroeder,Frank"] [Black "Feher Polgar,Pal"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 0-0 12.Rad1 Rb8 13.Bd3 Qe6 14.Bxh7+ Kh8 15.Nd5 d6 16.exd6 Nxd5 17.Rxd5 Rd8 18.Ng5 Qe8 19.Rxa5 Nxa5 20.Nxf7+ Kxh7 21.Qc2+ g6 22.dxc7 Bf5 23.cxb8=Q Rxb8 24.Qc7 Nc6 25.Ng5+ Kh6 26.Qf4 Qe2 27.Ne6+ 1-0 Andersson sure seemed fond of 11. Ne2 and I suppose that's fallen out of favor, but I wonder if there are any implications for this move with the queen at f5. It looked like 11. Re1 also had some merits. Here are a few other games with the queen at g6, for anyone interested: [Event "Leipzig"] [Site "Leipzig"] [Date "1877.07.16"] [Round "8"] [White "Paulsen,Wilfried"] [Black "Zukertort,Johannes Hermann"] [Result "0-1"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 0-0 12.Rad1 b5 13.Nxb5 Rb8 14.Bxe7 Nxe7 15.Qa3 Nc6 16.Nbd4 Bb4 17.Qc1 Bb7 18.Bd3 Nxd4 19.Nh4 Qxd3 20.Rxd3 Ne2+ 21.Kh1 Nxc1 22.Rxc1 Bc6 23.h3 Rfe8 24.f4 g6 25.Nf3 Ba5 26.Nd4 Be4 27.Rg3 Rb2 28.Nb3 Rxa2 29.Nxa5 Rxa5 30.Rxc7 Bc6 31.Kh2 Ra2 32.h4 Rf2 33.h5 Rxf4 34.h6 Rh4+ 35.Rh3 Rxh3+ 36.Kxh3 a5 37.g4 a4 38.Kg3 a3 39.Ra7 Ra8 0-1 [Event "St George's corr"] [Date "1879.??.??"] [Round "5"] [White "Zukertort,Johannes"] [Black "Minchin,James"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 0-0 12.Rad1 a6 13.Nd5 Nxd5 14.Bxd5 d6 15.exd6 cxd6 16.Bxd6 Rd8 17.Bxc6 bxc6 18.Ne5 Qf6 19.Be7 Qxe5 20.Bxd8 Be6 21.Qd3 Bf5 22.Qg3 Qxg3 23.fxg3 Bxd8 24.Rxf5 g6 25.Re5 Kg7 26.Kf1 Bb6 27.Re7 Rd8 28.Rxd8 Bxd8 29.Rd7 Bb6 30.Rd6 1-0 [Event "DSB-02.Kongress"] [Site "Berlin"] [Date "1881.08.29"] [Round "6"] [White "Chigorin,Mikhail"] [Black "Riemann,Fritz"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 0-0 12.Ne2 d6 13.Bd3 Bf5 14.Nh4 Qe6 15.Nxf5 Nxf5 16.Qc2 g6 17.exd6 Nxd6 18.Rab1 Rad8 19.Rb3 Rfe8 20.Bb2 Nc8 21.Bc4 Qe4 22.Rf3 Rd7 23.Re3 Nd6 24.Rxe4 Nxe4 25.Ng3 Nd2 26.Rd1 Red8 27.Nf1 Nd4 28.Bxd4 Rxd4 29.Nxd2 Rxd2 30.Rxd2 Rxd2 31.Qb3 Bb6 32.Bxf7+ Kf8 33.Qb4+ Rd6 34.Bb3 Kg7 35.Qc4 Rf6 36.h4 Bxf2+ 37.Kh2 c6 38.Qb4 Kh6 39.Kh3 b5 40.g4 g5 41.Qc3 Rf8 42.hxg5+ Kg6 43.Bc2+ Kf7 44.Qf6+ Ke8 45.Qxc6+ 1-0 [Event "London"] [Site "London"] [Date "1883.??.??"] [Round "10"] [White "Chigorin,Mikhail"] [Black "Mortimer,James"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 b5 14.Rad1 b4 15.e6 fxe6 16.Bxc6 dxc6 17.Ne5 Qf5 18.Nxc6 0-0 19.Ne7+ 1-0 [Event "London"] [Site "London"] [Date "1883.??.??"] [Round "25"] [White "Zukertort,Johannes Hermann"] [Black "Mortimer,James"] [Result "0-1"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 Nd8 14.Rad1 b5 15.Rd4 b4 16.Nh4 Qb6 17.Bb2 Ne6 18.Nf5 g6 19.Bxe6 fxe6 20.Ng7+ Kd8 21.Nxe6+ Ke7 22.Nf4 Bb7 23.Rxd7+ Kxd7 24.Qf7+ Kc8 25.e6 Ba6 26.Rc1 Rd8 27.e7 Kb7 28.exd8=Q Rxd8 29.Ne6 Rd5 30.Bf6 Qc6 31.Ra1 Bc4 32.Qe7 Qd6 33.Qxd6 Rxd6 34.Nc5+ Kc6 35.Ne4 Re6 36.f3 Bb6+ 37.Kh1 Bd5 38.Rc1+ Kb5 39.Bg5 Bxe4 40.fxe4 Rxe4 41.h4 h6 42.Bd8 c5 0-1 [Event "Boston corr"] [Site ""] [Date "1884.??.??"] [Round "0"] [White "Zukertort,Johannes"] [Black "Payne"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 0-0 12.Rad1 b5 13.Bd3 Qe6 14.Bxh7+ Kh8 15.Nd5 b4 16.Bc1 Nxd5 17.Rxd5 Ne7 18.Ng5 Qxd5 19.Qh3 1-0 [Event "London sim"] [Site "London"] [Date "1891.??.??"] [Round "0"] [White "Mortimer,James"] [Black "Lasker,Emanuel"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 b5 12.Nxb5 Rb8 13.Bxe7 Kxe7 14.Qe3 Bb6 15.Qa3+ Kd8 16.Rad1 Re8 17.Bd5 Nxe5 18.Nxe5 Rxe5 19.Nxa7 Bxa7 20.Qxa7 Rb5 21.Qa3 Rbxd5 22.Rxd5 Bb7 23.Qf8+ Re8 24.Rxd7+ Kxd7 25.Rd1+ Bd5 26.Rxd5+ Ke6 27.Qxe8+ Kxd5 28.Qd7+ Ke4 29.Qxc7 Qe6 30.f3+ Kd3 31.Qd8+ Ke2 32.Qd4 f5 33.Qb2+ Kd3 34.Qb3+ Qxb3 35.axb3 Kc3 36.Kf2 Kxb3 37.Ke3 Kc4 38.Kf4 g6 39.g4 fxg4 40.fxg4 Kd4 41.Kg5 Ke4 42.Kh6 Kf4 43.h3 Kg3 44.Kxh7 Kxh3 45.g5 1-0 [Event "Shakhmatnoe Obozrenie theme 16th corr"] [Site ""] [Date "1905.??.??"] [Round "0"] [White "Manko,VM"] [Black "Alekhine,Alexander"] [Result "1-0"] [Eco "C52"] 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 0-0 12.Rad1 b5 13.Bd3 Qe6 14.Bxh7+ Kh8 15.Nd5 b4 16.Ng5 Qg4 17.Bc1 Ba6 18.h3 Qh4 19.Nxe7 Nxe7 20.Be4 Bxf1 21.Kxf1 Rad8 22.g3 Qh5 23.g4 Qh4 24.Nxf7+ Rxf7 25.Qxf7 Bb6 26.Ke2 c6 27.Bb2 Qg5 28.Rxd7 Rxd7 29.Qe8+ Ng8 30.Qxd7 c5 31.Qf7 c4 32.Bd5 Ne7 33.Bxc4 1-0 |
> Greetings, > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 > > 11.Ba3 is the normal move if the black Queen is on g6. I'll move it > anyway and see what happens. I believe that it will not just continue > the attack, it will also intensify it. > > Regards, GF Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 Michael Sayers |
news:[email protected]... > [email protected] (Goran Fischer) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > > Greetings, > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 > > > > 11.Ba3 is the normal move if the black Queen is on g6. I'll move it > > anyway and see what happens. I believe that it will not just continue > > the attack, it will also intensify it. > > > > Regards, GF > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 A nice finesse, Michael. Now, with the queen on f5, the line 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.Bxd5 b5 14.e6 fxe6 15.Bxc6 dxc6 16.Ne5 doesn't work. That must have been one heck of a dream. :) Matt |
> "Michael Sayers" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > [email protected] (Goran Fischer) wrote in message > news:<[email protected]>... > > > Greetings, > > > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > > > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 > > > > > > 11.Ba3 is the normal move if the black Queen is on g6. I'll move it > > > anyway and see what happens. I believe that it will not just continue > > > the attack, it will also intensify it. > > > > > > Regards, GF > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 > > A nice finesse, Michael. Now, with the queen on f5, the line 12.Nd5 Nxd5 > 13.Bxd5 b5 14.e6 fxe6 15.Bxc6 dxc6 16.Ne5 doesn't work. That must have been > one heck of a dream. :) > > Matt The dream was very intense. In such dreams I see a chess board, with all the pieces laid out before me. A voice begins to speak, and the pieces move. In this particular one I was told that it is 100% certain that the Evans Gambit is a losing opening for White. For all variations which are not spelt out in these dreams, I am made to feel the strategic content thereof, in a very intense, compressed way. It is similar to a sensation of epiphany and revelation. Instead of just analyzing the Evans Gambit one variation and move at a time, it was a colossal experience of contact with (in the end) all positions of the opening, and the plans for how to proceed to victory from all the final opening/middlegame positions, simultaneously. I am convinced that this is similar to the way Morphy experienced chess, while awake. Michael Sayers |
news:[email protected]... > The dream was very intense. In such dreams I see a chess board, with > all the pieces laid out before me. A voice begins to speak, and the > pieces move. In this particular one I was told that it is 100% > certain that the Evans Gambit is a losing opening for White. For all > variations which are not spelt out in these dreams, I am made to feel > the strategic content thereof, in a very intense, compressed way. It > is similar to a sensation of epiphany and revelation. Instead of just > analyzing the Evans Gambit one variation and move at a time, it was a > colossal experience of contact with (in the end) all positions of the > opening, and the plans for how to proceed to victory from all the > final opening/middlegame positions, simultaneously. > > I am convinced that this is similar to the way Morphy experienced > chess, while awake. The Zen of Chess ... very interesting. I hope you were able to jot down a lot of notes when you awoke! ;) Matt |
Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 Here comes the cavalry! I still believe that Nd5 works even if the Queen is on f5. Regards, GF |
news:[email protected]... > Greetings, > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 > > Here comes the cavalry! I still believe that Nd5 works even if the Queen is on f5. > > Regards, GF Yes, I agree, though the queen at f5 would have to be considered an improvement for Black. White can't push e6 at move 14, but there are other options. Not so convincing was 12 Rad1 in light of 12 ... b5 13. Nxb5 and Black gets in 13. ... a6 before White can shift the queen to e3. 12. Ne2 didn't seem to do much either, but I looked at it for Andersson's sake. :) Matt |
> Greetings, > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 > > Here comes the cavalry! I still believe that Nd5 works even if the Queen is on f5. > > Regards, GF Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 Nxd5 Half the calvary has been slayed. Regards, Michael Sayers |
news:[email protected]... > [email protected] (Goran Fischer) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > > Greetings, > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 > > > > Here comes the cavalry! I still believe that Nd5 works even if the Queen is on f5. > > > > Regards, GF > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 Nxd5 > > Half the calvary has been slayed. Lest it be buried in the players' individual analyses, here are a couple of past nuances regarding the queen at f5: 1. Following the book (F.Schroeder-F.Polgar, 1990) where the queen is normally at g6, after 11.Ba3 0-0 12.Rad1 Rb8 13.Bd3, Black has only the choice 13. ... Qf4 to preserve the significance of his 9th move, since other potential squares (e.g., 13. ... Qe6 transposing back into the book line) are reachable from g6. As it turns out, though, the queen is well-placed at f4 at this point, guarding the fourth rank and the square g5. 2. White, though, can take advantage of the queen's position on f5 and deviate at move 13, when Nd5 is winning. One pretty line is 13. Nd5 Nxd5 14. Rxd5 Rd8 15. e6 Qxe6 16. Ng5+-. So, Black deviates first with 11. ... Rb8. Nice stuff. Matt |
> Lest it be buried in the players' individual analyses, here are a couple of > past nuances regarding the queen at f5: > > 1. Following the book (F.Schroeder-F.Polgar, 1990) where the queen is > normally at g6, after 11.Ba3 0-0 12.Rad1 Rb8 13.Bd3, Black has only the > choice 13. ... Qf4 to preserve the significance of his 9th move, since other > potential squares (e.g., 13. ... Qe6 transposing back into the book line) > are reachable from g6. As it turns out, though, the queen is well-placed at > f4 at this point, guarding the fourth rank and the square g5. > > 2. White, though, can take advantage of the queen's position on f5 and > deviate at move 13, when Nd5 is winning. One pretty line is 13. Nd5 Nxd5 14. > Rxd5 Rd8 15. e6 Qxe6 16. Ng5+-. So, Black deviates first with 11. ... Rb8. > > Nice stuff. > > Matt Interesting notes. But in the first one, it should read "Black has only the choice 13...Qg4", since the Queen can't move to f4, and would still be en prise. |
news:[email protected]... > mdamien wrote: > > > Lest it be buried in the players' individual analyses, here are a couple of > > past nuances regarding the queen at f5: > > > > 1. Following the book (F.Schroeder-F.Polgar, 1990) where the queen is > > normally at g6, after 11.Ba3 0-0 12.Rad1 Rb8 13.Bd3, Black has only the > > choice 13. ... Qf4 to preserve the significance of his 9th move, since other > > potential squares (e.g., 13. ... Qe6 transposing back into the book line) > > are reachable from g6. As it turns out, though, the queen is well-placed at > > f4 at this point, guarding the fourth rank and the square g5. > > > > 2. White, though, can take advantage of the queen's position on f5 and > > deviate at move 13, when Nd5 is winning. One pretty line is 13. Nd5 Nxd5 14. > > Rxd5 Rd8 15. e6 Qxe6 16. Ng5+-. So, Black deviates first with 11. ... Rb8. > > > > Nice stuff. > > > > Matt > > Interesting notes. But in the first one, it should read "Black has only > the choice 13...Qg4", since the Queen can't move to f4, and would still > be en prise. I did mean that Black has only the choice 13. ... Qf4 (considering that it was presently at f5) since it's the only reasonable square the queen *couldn't* have also reached from g6. The move13. ... Qg4 would have also been possible in the Schroeder-F.Polgar game, so in that case 9. ... Qf5 would not have independent significance. Matt |
> I did mean that Black has only the choice 13. ... Qf4 (considering that it > was presently at f5) since it's the only reasonable square the queen > *couldn't* have also reached from g6. The move13. ... Qg4 would have also > been possible in the Schroeder-F.Polgar game, so in that case 9. ... Qf5 > would not have independent significance. > > Matt > I can't figure out when you're talking about the Schroeder-Polgar game, and when you're talking about the Fischer/Smith-Sayers one. But never mind... |
news:[email protected]... > mdamien wrote: > > > I did mean that Black has only the choice 13. ... Qf4 (considering that it > > was presently at f5) since it's the only reasonable square the queen > > *couldn't* have also reached from g6. The move13. ... Qg4 would have also > > been possible in the Schroeder-F.Polgar game, so in that case 9. ... Qf5 > > would not have independent significance. > > > > Matt > > > > I can't figure out when you're talking about the Schroeder-Polgar game, > and when you're talking about the Fischer/Smith-Sayers one. But never > mind... Yeah, I was being confusing, sorry. The thing is that GF was following the Schroeder-Polgar game for a few moves (actually, a much earlier recommendation, but MCO gave that game as the latest word on it), even though the queen was at f5 rather than g6. So the question was: at what point would/might it make a difference that the queen is actually on f5? My point was that after move 13, it would no longer make a difference unless Black played 13. ... Qf4. Matt |
news:[email protected]... > [email protected] (Goran Fischer) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > > Greetings, > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 > > > > Here comes the cavalry! I still believe that Nd5 works even if the Queen is on f5. > > > > Regards, GF > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 Nxd5 > > Half the calvary has been slayed. > Maybe the two of you could start a new thread with the remainder of the game? Quite a lot to sift through now, for the moves ... Matt |
> "Michael Sayers" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > [email protected] (Goran Fischer) wrote in message > news:<[email protected]>... > > > Greetings, > > > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > > > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 > > > > > > Here comes the cavalry! I still believe that Nd5 works even if the Queen > is on f5. > > > > > > Regards, GF > > > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 dxc3 > > 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qf5 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3 Rb8 12.Nd5 Nxd5 > > > > Half the calvary has been slayed. > > > > Maybe the two of you could start a new thread with the remainder of the > game? Quite a lot to sift through now, for the moves ... > > Matt<< Agreed. I posted a new thread, The Evans Gambit. GF |
>>I am still tabulating evidence and analysis as to whether you are, or > are not, Bobby Fischer, so perhaps we can just leave it as an open > question. > > I look forward to your 8th move... > > Regards, > Michael Sayers<< Greeting Michael, Sorry to deceive you and everybody else, but Goran Fischer is AKA Lance Smith. If you are disappointed, you don't have to continue the game. I beleive that a lot of internet gurus know that fact already by now and it's time to come out. Lance Smith AKA Goran Fischer |
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 Greetings, Castling is the most sensible move to do at this point. While analyzing, I toyed with the idea of 7.Bg5 Nge7, however, it needs further investigation. I'll definitely test this line more to see if it holds water. I take it that even if you create a page in your website, we'll still post the moves here? Regards, GF |
news:[email protected]... > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 > > Greetings, > > Castling is the most sensible move to do at this point. > > While analyzing, I toyed with the idea of 7.Bg5 Nge7, however, it > needs further investigation. I'll definitely test this line more to > see if it holds water. > > I take it that even if you create a page in your website, we'll still > post the moves here? I hope you do. I, for one, find it more interesting than 99% of the posts here. Also, you've chosen a line that's rich with ideas. Matt |
> "Goran Fischer" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 > > > > Greetings, > > > > Castling is the most sensible move to do at this point. > > > > While analyzing, I toyed with the idea of 7.Bg5 Nge7, however, it > > needs further investigation. I'll definitely test this line more to > > see if it holds water. > > > > I take it that even if you create a page in your website, we'll still > > post the moves here? > > I hope you do. > > I, for one, find it more interesting than 99% of the posts here. Also, > you've chosen a line that's rich with ideas. > > Matt<< Thanks! I was gonna try the 7.Bg5 Nge7 to paralyze momentarily the Black Queen early, but I thought in the end that castling was more reasonable. GF |
>This >group is about chess, not about monitoring the whereabouts of others. >If you ever stalk me, you will find out that chess playing is not my >only skill. The last thing Mr. Bond said (before Richerby killed him) was this: "If you kill me, they'll just send Michae--er, they'll just send *006* to replace me...uhhhhhhhhh." Just then, I noted the presence of an evil grin, and a slight nodding of Richerby's head, as if in eager anticipation of another such challenge. >> The Evans Gambit. Black is a pawn up. If you check the analysis >> of Fritz, Junior, or Shredder, they're saying that Black is >> winning. There you have it: even powerful chessplayers, like Fritz and Shredder, can see that White's "attack" is vacuous. The fact that it took them longer than me only goes to show which of us is the better player. |
> In regard to some of posters at this group, and specifically David > Richerby, it is my message to you that I am appalled at your > stalking-like desire to monitor from where contributors post. This > group is about chess, not about monitoring the whereabouts of others. > If you ever stalk me, you will find out that chess playing is not my > only skill. That's a very big `if': I have no intention of ever stalking anyone and, frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that you interpret my careful reading of somebody's post in a public forum as a `stalking-like desire'. Posting to a newsgroup and objecting to somebody reading the headers is like sending a letter to someone and objecting when they read the postmark. Dave. -- David Richerby Zen Tree (TM): it's like a tree that www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ puts you in touch with the universe! |
Gazza's book, chess magazines, and adopted by well known chess journalists like Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans, isn't that good enough to become reasonable? What about the opposition, do they have proof that there never was a 5-5 Capa-Alehkine clause? >> From Larry Evans On Chess, Chess Life, ober 2003, page 43: THOUGHT FOR THE MONTH: "The Capa-Alekhine ma ch [in 1927] did have a draw clause at 5-5. Yes, Alekhine had to win by 6-4 to take the title just the same as my match proposal [requiring 10 wins with a 9-9 tie clause vs. Karpov in 1975]." -- Bobby Fischer in Chess Life, November 1974, page 715. The evidence for this claim is murky, which is why GM Evans tacked on the word APPARENTLY at the end of his reply to a reader's question: <<How many people realize that Lasker evaded Capa before WW1 by requiring his challenger to win by a margin of two points in a 30-game match? The "fair" London rules of 1922 required six wins yet Capa apparently tacked on a 5-5 tie clause vs. Alekhine in 1927, in effect forcing his challenger also to win by two points. >> |
That last, brief posting by Larry Parr gives the distinct impression that Fischer made a proposal for a 1975 match against a specific challenger (Karpov). In fact, no such challenger had yet been selected, and Fischer's proposal laid down terms which would have been effective against Kortchnoi, Spassky, or even Tal, had someone else made it through the FIDE selection process instead of Karpov. In addition, the oft-repeated, *yet never researched,* claim about Capablanca doing in Alekhine by requiring that he win by two points, is beside the point. It was enough that Alekine was himself required to raise a massive prize fund, in the face of insurmountable odds (everyone "knew" that nobody could possibly beat Capa in a match). Hence, it was not enough to merely become a better chessplayer than the man who defeated the great Lasker *without losing a single game,* one also needed to be an expert fundraiser, and a master of the art of negotiation. Only such a man (a triple-grandmaster, of sorts) would even get a shot at the covetted world championship title. The simple truth is that such issues as these only serve to cloud the (real) issue: should FIDE have simply succumbed to Fischer's multitudinous "demands," weakly knuckling-under in order to (hopefully) guarantee the participation of America's greatest chess talent? Or should they have done what they did, which was to examine those demands, and if necessary, reject any or all which failed to live up to the standards of fairness or sportsmanship? The "correct" answer seems to make little difference to those who are myopicly searching for a scapegoat to blame for America's fall from the great ivory throne, only to be replaced by yet another Russian. If only Larsen had timed his peak better.... IMO, a "journalist" should not simply make guesses, and then slyly tack-on weaselwords in case he is eventually caught. Instead, he should try to be reasonable objective, and every now and then, do just a little bit of research, no matter how much it hurts! :-) |
>>IMO, a "journalist" should not simply make guesses, and then slyly tack-on >weaselwords in case he is eventually caught. Instead, he should try to be >reasonable objective, and every now and then, do just a little bit of research, >no matter how much it hurts! :-)<< What are you saying NoMoreChess, journalists shouldn't flip-flop their opinions especially in their writings when they change political affiliations? I know that Kasparov will not change his opinion for politics. GF |
>>>IMO, a "journalist" should not simply make guesses, and then slyly >tack-on >>weaselwords in case he is eventually caught. Instead, he should try >to be >>reasonable objective, and every now and then, do just a little bit of >research, >>no matter how much it hurts! :-)<< > >What are you saying NoMoreChess, journalists shouldn't flip-flop their >opinions especially in their writings when they change political >affiliations? That is not quite what I was saying in that post. GM Evans "apparently" made a rather careless guess as to the facts, without bothering to do any research as to what the real facts were. His insertion of that weasel-word essentially transfered the burden of determining these facts to others -- a very lazy approach for someone who is being well paid to write about chess matters. Imagine, if you will, a chess column by "IM Anonymous" in which the writer analyses thus: 1.e4 (been tried before, or so I've been told) ...e5 (copies White?) 2.Nf3 (develops a piece, I suppose) ...Nf6 (copies White again) 3. Nc3 (check the books, it's probably in there) ...Nc6 (Fritz might find something better -- I didn't bother to check) 4. d3 (seems okay) ...d6 (are we there yet?) etc., and White eventually blundered. 0-1 Please send my $500 check for this to: Fatboy Anonymous Hotel Central Miami, FL PS: I just started on the next one -- should be done in ten minutes or less. Will fax ASAP. Regards, Fatboy (sipping pinacollatas by the pool) |
fighting against Dr. Blair is now MURKY. He must have seen the abrasive post of Goran Fischer, whoever he is, regarding the writings of Larry Parr and GM Evans. [email protected] (NoMoreChess) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > . > >>>IMO, a "journalist" should not simply make guesses, and then slyly > tack-on > >>weaselwords in case he is eventually caught. Instead, he should try > to be > >>reasonable objective, and every now and then, do just a little bit of > research, > >>no matter how much it hurts! :-)<< > > > >What are you saying NoMoreChess, journalists shouldn't flip-flop their > >opinions especially in their writings when they change political > >affiliations? > > > That is not quite what I was saying in that post. > GM Evans "apparently" made a rather careless guess as to the facts, without > bothering to do any research as to what the real facts were. His insertion of > that weasel-word essentially transfered the burden of determining these facts > to others -- a very lazy approach for someone who is being well paid to write > about chess matters. > Imagine, if you will, a chess column by "IM Anonymous" in which the writer > analyses thus: > > 1.e4 (been tried before, or so I've been told) > ...e5 (copies White?) > 2.Nf3 (develops a piece, I suppose) > ...Nf6 (copies White again) > 3. Nc3 (check the books, it's probably in there) > ...Nc6 (Fritz might find something better -- I didn't bother to check) > 4. d3 (seems okay) > ...d6 (are we there yet?) > > etc., and White eventually blundered. > 0-1 > > Please send my $500 check for this to: > > Fatboy Anonymous > Hotel Central > Miami, FL > > > > PS: I just started on the next one -- should be done in ten minutes or less. > Will fax ASAP. > > Regards, > > Fatboy (sipping pinacollatas by the pool) |
> From Larry Evans On Chess, Chess Life, ober 2003, > page 43: > > THOUGHT FOR THE MONTH: "The Capa-Alekhine ma ch > [in 1927] did have a draw clause at 5-5. Yes, > Alekhine had to win by 6-4 to take the title > just the same as my match proposal [requiring > 10 wins with a 9-9 tie clause vs. Karpov in > 1975]." -- Bobby Fischer in Chess Life, November > 1974, page 715. > > The evidence for this claim is murky, which is why > GM Evans tacked on the word APPARENTLY at the end > of his reply to a reader's question: > > <<How many people realize that Lasker evaded > Capa before WW1 by requiring his challenger to > win by a margin of two points in a 30-game > match? The "fair" London rules of 1922 required > six wins yet Capa apparently tacked on a 5-5 tie > clause vs. Alekhine in 1927, in effect forcing > his challenger also to win by two points.>> NoMoreChess wrote (2004-05-22 19:07:29 PST): > IMO, a "journalist" should not simply make guesses, > and then slyly tack-on weaselwords in case he is > eventually caught. Instead, he should try to be > reasonable objective, and every now and then, do > just a little bit of research, no matter how much > it hurts! :-) Goran Fischer wrote (2004-05-23 08:53:29 PST): > What are you saying NoMoreChess, journalists > shouldn't flip-flop their opinions especially in > their writings when they change political > affiliations? NoMoreChess wrote (2004-05-23 22:40:47 PST): > That is not quite what I was saying in that post. > > GM Evans "apparently" made a rather careless > guess as to the facts, without bothering to do > any research as to what the real facts were. His > insertion of that weasel-word essentially > transfered the burden of determining these facts > to others -- a very lazy approach for someone who > is being well paid to write about chess matters. > > Imagine, if you will, a chess column by "IM > Anonymous" in which the writer analyses thus: > > 1.e4 (been tried before, or so I've been told) > ...e5 (copies White?) > 2.Nf3 (develops a piece, I suppose) > ...Nf6 (copies White again) > 3. Nc3 (check the books, it's probably in there) > ...Nc6 (Fritz might find something better -- I didn't bother to check) > 4. d3 (seems okay) > ...d6 (are we there yet?) > > etc., and White eventually blundered. > 0-1 > > Please send my $500 check for this to: > > Fatboy Anonymous > Hotel Central > Miami, FL > > PS: I just started on the next one -- should be > done in ten minutes or less. Will fax ASAP. > > Regards, > > Fatboy (sipping pinacollatas by the pool) Lance Smith wrote (2004-05-24 08:05:15 PST): > I can't blame Larry Parr for saying that 5-5 > clause that he's been fighting against Dr. Blair > is now MURKY. He must have seen the abrasive post > of Goran Fischer, whoever he is, regarding the > writings of Larry Parr and GM Evans. _ As far as I can tell, nobody is blaming Larry Parr for his recent (2004-05-22 10:23:22 PST) comment about "murky" evidence. I thought NoMoreChess was writing about the ober 2003 GM Evans sentence that used the word, "apparently". By the way, at http://www.chesschamps.com/, it has been indicated that Kasparov may deal with the 5-5 issue "shortly" in the "Garry's Diary" section. |
> Larr Parr wrote (2004-05-22 10:23:22 PST): Or Larry Parry? As long as it works on average :-) Wlod |
concerned, here's the score on the 5-5 issue: Edward Winter and Louis Blair = 1 Gazza Kasparov, Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans = 0 GF [email protected] (Liam Too) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > I can't blame Larry Parr for saying that 5-5 clause that he's been > fighting against Dr. Blair is now MURKY. He must have seen the > abrasive post of Goran Fischer, whoever he is, regarding the writings > of Larry Parr and GM Evans. > > [email protected] (NoMoreChess) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > > . > > >>>IMO, a "journalist" should not simply make guesses, and then slyly > tack-on > > >>weaselwords in case he is eventually caught. Instead, he should try > to be > > >>reasonable objective, and every now and then, do just a little bit of > research, > > >>no matter how much it hurts! :-)<< > > > > > >What are you saying NoMoreChess, journalists shouldn't flip-flop their > > >opinions especially in their writings when they change political > > >affiliations? > > > > > > That is not quite what I was saying in that post. > > GM Evans "apparently" made a rather careless guess as to the facts, without > > bothering to do any research as to what the real facts were. His insertion of > > that weasel-word essentially transfered the burden of determining these facts > > to others -- a very lazy approach for someone who is being well paid to write > > about chess matters. > > Imagine, if you will, a chess column by "IM Anonymous" in which the writer > > analyses thus: > > > > 1.e4 (been tried before, or so I've been told) > > ...e5 (copies White?) > > 2.Nf3 (develops a piece, I suppose) > > ...Nf6 (copies White again) > > 3. Nc3 (check the books, it's probably in there) > > ...Nc6 (Fritz might find something better -- I didn't bother to check) > > 4. d3 (seems okay) > > ...d6 (are we there yet?) > > > > etc., and White eventually blundered. > > 0-1 > > > > Please send my $500 check for this to: > > > > Fatboy Anonymous > > Hotel Central > > Miami, FL > > > > > > > > PS: I just started on the next one -- should be done in ten minutes or less. > > Will fax ASAP. > > > > Regards, > > > > Fatboy (sipping pinacollatas by the pool) |
concerned, here's the score on the 5-5 issue. >> -- Goran Fischer Hey, buddy! It was your namesake who made this claim, neither Parr nor Evans -- he was virtually the only writer in Chess Life who opposed Fischer's 9-9 tie clause. All the evidence about 1927 is still murky but Capa wrote a letter about the possibility of a drawn match, which would not be possible if the title went to the first player who won five games. So something is obviously fishy here. Even Louis Blair and Edward Winter are baffled. "The Capa-Alekhine match [in 1927] did have a draw clause at 5-5. Yes, Alekhine had to win by 6-4 to take the title just the same as my match proposal [requiring 10 wins with a 9-9 tie clause vs. Karpov in 1975]." -- Bobby Fischer in Chess Life, November 1974, page 715. |
> As far as I'm concerned, here's the score on the > 5-5 issue: > > Edward Winter and Louis Blair = 1 > Gazza Kasparov, Larry Parr and GM Larry Evans = 0 Larry Parr replied to Goran Fischer: > It was your namesake who made this claim, neither > Parr nor Evans -- he was virtually the only writer > in Chess Life who opposed Fischer's 9-9 tie clause. _ It seems to me that Larry Parr DID make the 5-5 claim. For example: "If Alekhine were leading 5-4 in games won and Capa won a fifth game, then Capa would have kept the title." - Larry Parr (2002-06-13 23:35:29 PST) Larry Parr wrote: > All the evidence about 1927 is still murky but > Capa wrote a letter about the possibility of a > drawn match, which would not be possible if > the title went to the first player who won five > games. _ A draw would be completely possible if the participants had agreed to halt the match. Larry Parr wrote: > So something is obviously fishy here. Even > Louis Blair and Edward Winter are baffled. _ I can not imagine why Larry Parr thinks that I am baffled. My position on this matter has not changed: "the players could agree to a drawn match just as players can agree to a drawn game." - Louis Blair (2003-05-05 19:19:48 PST) Looking at the last paragraph of Edward Winter's Chess Notes #3253, I do not get the impression that his opinion is very different from mine on the matter. |
continues at http://www.chesschamps.com/. See "Feedback on chesschamps" in the "Discussion Forum" and "Garry's Diary". |
So something is obviously fishy here. Even Louis Blair and Edward Winter are baffled. I can not imagine why Larry Parr thinks that I am baffled. My position on this matter has not changed: "the players could agree to a drawn match just as players can agree to a drawn game." - Louis Blair (2003-05-05 19:19:48 PST) Looking at the last paragraph of Edward Winter's Chess Notes #3253, I do not get the impression that his opinion is very different from mine on the matter. >> So is Mr. Blair saying that Bobby Fischer was wrong and that there was no 5-5 tie clause? Or does he agree that the situation is murky and that he doesn't know whether or not there was a tie clause? |
> All the evidence about 1927 is still murky but > Capa wrote a letter about the possibility of a > drawn match, which would not be possible if > the title went to the first player who won five > games. I wrote (2004-05-25 23:12:40 PST): > A draw would be completely possible if the > participants had agreed to halt the match. Larry Parr wrote (2004-05-25 20:58:16 PST): > So something is obviously fishy here. Even > Louis Blair and Edward Winter are baffled. I wrote (2004-05-25 23:12:40 PST): > I can not imagine why Larry Parr thinks that I > am baffled. My position on this matter has > not changed: > > "the players could agree to a drawn > match just as players can agree to a > drawn game." - Louis Blair (2003-05-05 > 19:19:48 PST) > > Looking at the last paragraph of Edward Winter's > Chess Notes #3253, I do not get the impression > that his opinion is very different from mine > on the matter. Larry Parr wrote (2004-05-25 23:57:20 PST): > So is Mr. Blair saying that Bobby Fischer was > wrong and that there was no 5-5 tie clause? > > Or does he agree that the situation is murky > and that he doesn't know whether or not there > was a tie clause? _ Neither of these suggestions properly describes my views. It seems to me to be unlikely that a 5-5 condition (imposed by Capablanca on Alekhine in 1927) would be overlooked by the chess world for decades and only eventually discovered by Soviet authors who (1) showed no interest in describing how the discovery was made and (2) did not even indicate that a discovery had been made. Based on the evidence that I have seen presented so far by the 5-5 clause advocates, I would say that: (1) the best guess is that one Soviet author put incorrect information in a book (either because of a mistake or propaganda motives) and other Soviet and Russian authors unwisely believed the claim without making any effort to do independent checking; (2) the best guess is that (in the letter mentioned by Larry Parr) Capablanca was simply referring to the possibility that he and Alekhine might agree to stop their match; (3) the best guess is that Fischer had unwisely believed what he had read in a Soviet chess book. Of course, new evidence might change all of this, but, so far, I have seen nothing that would change my assessment above. I had no objection to Larry Parr's statement: "The evidence for [the 5-5 claim] is murky" - Larry Parr (2004-05-22 10:23:22 PST) I DO disagree with the idea that the Capablanca letter indicates that "something is obviously fishy". I also believe that, contrary to what was indicated in the 2004-05-25 20:58:16 PST Larry Parr note, Larry Parr DID make the 5-5 claim. For example: "If Alekhine were leading 5-4 in games won and Capa won a fifth game, then Capa would have kept the title." - Larry Parr (2002-06-13 23:35:29 PST) |
What happened to your satatement of "Capa-Alekhine was a 5-5 affair and a clear precedent" below? It was clear then, why did it become murky now? Best regards, GF ============================================================ From: [email protected] (Parrthenon) Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics Date: 19 Jun 2002 04:02:26 GMT Subject: Re: Fischer & Karpov MORE COMMENT RE BLAIR By Larry Parr [[[[[Parr wrote]]]]] > Karpov did not have to be in that position. Capa > > had to be in that position because he had to hustle > > for money. But there were huge offers everywhere > > for Fischer to play. [[[[[Mr. Blair]]]]] > As I recall, Fischer turned down a great many > huge monetary offers. How much money would > it have taken to get Fischer to play under the sort > of rules that Lasker agreed to in 1921? Who can > say? Also, can we be sure how much money there > would have been for a match with "asinine" rules?> [[[[[Parr: We know how much money WAS available for a match with asinine rules. Five million dollars for Fischer-Spassky II in 1992. The 9-9 clause was in effect in that match. The point is that Karpov would not have had to raise money, and Mr. Blair's point was, well, asinine. Fischer was the big spectator draw. Would he have played? No one will ever know.]]]]] [[[[[Parr wrote]]]]] > > > "Fischer's 9-9 proposal had historical precedent."> > [[[[[Mr. Blair]]]]] > > > > "I know of no match where a defending world > > champion had a rule that specified that he would > > remain champion in the event of a 9-9 score." >> [[[[[Parr: a meaningless statement that is parsed for security. Capa-Alekhine was a 5-5 affair and a clear precedent. Another excellent precedent was Lasker-Schlechter, the 30-game would-be match.]]]]] [[[[[Parr]]]]] > > The second S-T match had a 9-9 provision with a > > supplementary match for the first to win three games.> [[[[[Mr. Blair]]]]] > That is not the same as a provision specifying that > the champion would retain his title if the score reached 9-9.>> [[[[[Parr: Dishonest snipping by Mr. Blair. I specifically noted that the direct historical comparison was Capa-Alekhine and another excellenet precedent was Lasker-Schlechter. I was evidently filling in historical detail.]]]]] [[[[[Parr]]]]] > > > The initial proposal for a 30-game match between > > Schlechter and Lasker required that the former had > > to win by two points. > [[[[[Mr. Blair, making a meaningless point]]]]] > That match never took place. Lasker managed to get > Schlechter to agree to the terms, but nobody was willing > to fund the match. [[[[[Parr: So what on both points? Lasker-Schlechter was an agreed-upon match, and its failure had nothing to do with Lasker demanding and getting a larger advantage mathematically than what Fischer demanded from FIDE in 1974. Schlechter agreed to play, period. By any reasonable understanding of what constitutes historical precedent, this successful negotiation is an indication of what some players of that period regarded as a reasonable prerogative for the champion. Fischer's asinine conditions were liberal in comparison to Schlechter having to score 16-14 in a 30 game match. Snipper Blair has yanked the discussion out of the context of sportsmanship. My point was that both Alekhine and Schlechter (Spassky,too) were willing to play for the sake of having a match against the perceived greatest player of their era. Karpov hid behind bloc voting by the Soviets and some support in the West, lacking the courage either to speak out or defect as Korchnoi did.]]]]] [[[[[Parr]]]]] > > It remains unclear whether the actual match of 10 > > games had a similar provision. True, Lasker wrote > > in a newspaper article on the eve of the 10th game > > that unless he could even the score, he would lose > > the title. But that does not speak to the actual contents > > of the contract, and Lasker may have been bowing to > > the will of the general chess public in an era when the > > champion had no organizational legitimacy or any other > > kind of legitimacy beyond being the match tough guy > > on the block. In short he may have been acting the > > nice guy to get an early rematch. [[[[[Mr. Blair, writing beside the point]]]]] > There were a number of quotes by both Lasker and > Schlechter made either before or during the match > that indicated that Schlechter only needed one point > more than Lasker. If Lasker and Schlechter had > secret rules, how could they have hoped to excuse > deceiving the public if the secret rules were invoked? > > All we have here is a secret conspiracy theory, which > certainly does not count as a "historical precedent."> [[[[[Parr: typical of Mr. Blair to drag in the word conspiracy. My point was to fill in historical detail and note a possibility, a way of reading what happened that violates Occam's Razor but might still be true. The odds are against my version. Another point: in an age when the champion owed his legitimacy only to his preeminence, I counted a Lasker-Janowski match, which was not for the world title, among world title matches in my chronology at www.worldchessnetwork.com. That's because if Janowski had won that match by the score that Lasker won it, then he would have been free to claim the title and would have carried the day in an age with organizational sanctions for titles. Of course, in my essay on the match, I filled in the details,noting that the event was not formally a title battle.]]]]] |
> Michael Sayers <[email protected]> wrote: > > In regard to some of posters at this group, and specifically David > > Richerby, it is my message to you that I am appalled at your > > stalking-like desire to monitor from where contributors post. This > > group is about chess, not about monitoring the whereabouts of others. > > If you ever stalk me, you will find out that chess playing is not my > > only skill. > > That's a very big `if': I have no intention of ever stalking anyone and, > frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that you interpret my careful reading of > somebody's post in a public forum as a `stalking-like desire'. Posting > to a newsgroup and objecting to somebody reading the headers is like > sending a letter to someone and objecting when they read the postmark. > > > Dave. Greetings, I am familiar with the defences to stalking; they do not make much of an impression on me. The use of a literary and rhetorical device is irrelevant, and does not change the facts. An analogy contrary to your's can be readily devised. I would say that lucubrating on the whereabouts of a google group poster, based on the post headers, is equivalent to writing down a woman's license plate number in the desire to obtain her address. Stalking is not solely about actions, but also about the intentions which connect the actions together. I would bet that you have tried to determine wherefrom more of us have posted, than merely Goran Tomic, Goran Fischer, and the man who (allegedly) posts from California libraries. I don't care where anyone posts from, or where anyone is located. I do not read the headers. This is because I am not a stalker. I can't speak for others, but only for myself: for you to stalk me would be error, as you would discover that chess sets are not allowed in a county jail cell. Regards, Michael Sayers |
> David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: >> Michael Sayers <[email protected]> wrote: >>> In regard to some of posters at this group, and specifically David >>> Richerby, it is my message to you that I am appalled at your >>> stalking-like desire to monitor from where contributors post. >> >> That's a very big `if': I have no intention of ever stalking anyone >> and, frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that you interpret my careful >> reading of somebody's post in a public forum as a `stalking-like >> desire'. > > I am familiar with the defences to stalking; they do not make much of > an impression on me. I was mainly planning on using the `I didn't do it' defence rather than one of the more technical ones. Dave. -- David Richerby Hilarious Cyber-Smokes (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a pack of cigarettes that exists only in your computer but it's a bundle of laughs! |
> Michael Sayers <[email protected]> wrote: > > David Richerby <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Michael Sayers <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> In regard to some of posters at this group, and specifically David > >>> Richerby, it is my message to you that I am appalled at your > >>> stalking-like desire to monitor from where contributors post. > >> > >> That's a very big `if': I have no intention of ever stalking anyone > >> and, frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that you interpret my careful > >> reading of somebody's post in a public forum as a `stalking-like > >> desire'. > > > > I am familiar with the defences to stalking; they do not make much of > > an impression on me. > > I was mainly planning on using the `I didn't do it' defence rather than > one of the more technical ones. --Dave.<< I didn't do it too on the others, except with reasons on Nick, Repa, Haller, Goran Fischer and TMB, because he asked me to. Nick was calling me an illiterate troll. I found that his email address says Yahoo.UK. I was curious where this guy coming from when he calls me "illiterate troll" for just disagreeing with his discourse. I needed to know. On the others, the reasons are apparent. IMO, when you post a message in the internet, it belongs to the internet community. It's not a crime if others know how to read headers. Lance Smith |
Lance Smith ('Liam Too'), and I hope that it will be my final word. [email protected] (Liam Too) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > Michael Sayers <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am familiar with the defences to stalking; > > they do not make much of an impression on me. > > I didn't do it too on the others, except with reasons on Nick, > Repa, Haller, Goran Fischer and TMB, because he asked me to. I doubt that 'The Masked Bishop' enjoys being harassed by Lance Smith, who, as I recall, has definitely identified TMB how many times by now? > Nick was calling me an illiterate troll. That's another distortion by Lance Smith ('Liam Too'). In the RGCP thread, 'Dazed and Confused' (6 ober 2003), Mark Houlsby (who had carefully read my exchanges with Lance Smith) wrote to Lance Smith: "He (Nick) *didn't* call you (Lance Smith) 'an illiterate troll'. He called you a '...*nearly* illiterate troll...', you illiterate troll." --Mark Houlsby (6 ober 2003, writing to Lance Smith) Anyone who's interested in examples of Lance Smith's trolling (which includes *reiterating the same false statements* about me *after* they have been confuted in other threads, or perhaps even the same thread, by evidence cited by, say, Louis Blair, Mark Houlsby, or me) may read the RGCP thread 'Dazed and Confused' or the thread 'The Great Annotated Empty Moving Boxes Robbery' or the thread 'The Bobby Fischer Interviews: are they legitimate sources of information?' (not to mention some other threads). Here's a link to one of my posts that points out one of Lance Smith's *false statements* about me and Louis Blair: http://makeashorterlink.com/?I2C221DF5 For the record, Louis Blair concurred with me (in that thread) that Lance Smith made a *false statement* about what Mr Blair and I wrote there. Here's a link to my response to another dishonest attack by Lance Smith against me, wherein he distorted my statement by snipping its first half in order to attack its second half out of context: http://makeashorterlink.com/?N28225DF5 > I found that his email address says Yahoo.UK. > I was curious where this guy coming from when he calls me "illiterate troll" "He (Nick) called you (Lance Smith) a '...*nearly* illiterate troll...', you illiterate troll." --Mark Houlsby (6 ober 2003, writing to Lance Smith) "Unlike you (Lance Smith), Nick has been *absolutely consistent* (the asterisks were Mark Houlsby's) and, in my view, much too tolerant of your idiocy and illiteracy." --Mark Houlsby (6 ober 2003, writing to Lance Smith) > for just disagreeing with his discourse. That's another falsehood by Lance Smith. I tend to have no personal objection to someone who 'just disagree(s) with (my) discourse' in civil terms. I do have a personal objection to someone who keeps distorting what I write and making false statements about me in order to attack me personally. That's a vital distinction that Lance Smith evidently would prefer that his readers ignore. In the RGCP thead, "Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidates Statement (This is final.)" (3 May 2004), Matt Nemmers wrote: "Take Nick Bourbaki, for example. He and I probably only agree on one or two issues out of the plethora of topics that've been discussed here over the years, yet I've always been able to communicate in a very civil manner with him because neither has ever resorted to 'name-calling'." --Matt Nemmers (3 May 2004) In the thread, "Rubinstein's Wartime Experiences (OT)" (25 November 2003), Simon ('chapman billy') wrote to me: "Your posts are amongst the most rewarding in RGCM, even though we do differ on some things." --Simon (25 November 2003) > I needed to know. On the others, the reasons are apparent. I have no doubt that Lance Smith can rationalise anything that he could do even more easily than he apparently can rationalise nearly anything that his evident hero, Bobby Fischer, has done. http://makeashorterlink.com/?O10321DF5 "Then Bobby Fischer is a very normal politician." --Lance Smith (9 September 2003) I think that anyone who believes that "Bobby Fischer is a very normal politician" (in a United States context) is beyond rational discussion. So I hope to waste no more of my time on Lance Smith ('Liam Too'). In the RGCP thread, 'Dazed and Confused' Mark Houlsby made some understandable comments to Lance Smith ('Liam Too'): "...I'm pointing out that you (Lance Smith) are trolling for a flame war. ...You want me to demonstrate that your post was trolling nonsense? I'm your Huckleberry!..." --Mark Houlsby (12 ober 2003) "Shut up and go away then, illiterate troll." --Mark Houlsby (6 ober 2003, writing to Lance Smith) "Folly does not amuse, or even employ one's notice long." --John Cleland (Memoirs of a Coxcomb) PLONK! --Nick |
This last post from Nick came from the library of the California State University, Sacramento. PTR record: cat08.liblab.csus.edu So Nick, where is your Mr. Houlsby now. Didn't he call you, "Not the sharpest tool in the box?" TMB asked me to post his initials so that he can authenticate if it's right or wrong and I did. Maybe several times, but I did. Ask him. I'm standing by my post that "Bobby Fischer is a normal politician", if compared to the politicians that you mentioned in the entire exchange of messages, which of course you omitted, the reason why almost everyone now believes what StanB and others say about you, "Intellectually Dishonest." You did concur with Neil Brennen that Bobby Fischer is crazy. LOL! I already told you that the word "crazy" is very mild as compared to the words that posters like you and Neil Brennen used. Lance Smith ==================================== [email protected] (Nick) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > This post is being written at the risk of feeding the troll, > Lance Smith ('Liam Too'), and I hope that it will be my final word. > > [email protected] (Liam Too) wrote in > message news:<[email protected]>... > > Michael Sayers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I am familiar with the defences to stalking; > > > they do not make much of an impression on me. > > > > I didn't do it too on the others, except with reasons on Nick, > > Repa, Haller, Goran Fischer and TMB, because he asked me to. > > I doubt that 'The Masked Bishop' enjoys being harassed by Lance Smith, > who, as I recall, has definitely identified TMB how many times by now? > > > Nick was calling me an illiterate troll. > > That's another distortion by Lance Smith ('Liam Too'). > > In the RGCP thread, 'Dazed and Confused' (6 ober 2003), Mark Houlsby > (who had carefully read my exchanges with Lance Smith) wrote to Lance Smith: > "He (Nick) *didn't* call you (Lance Smith) 'an illiterate troll'. > He called you a '...*nearly* illiterate troll...', you illiterate troll." > --Mark Houlsby (6 ober 2003, writing to Lance Smith) > > Anyone who's interested in examples of Lance Smith's trolling (which includes > *reiterating the same false statements* about me *after* they have been confuted > in other threads, or perhaps even the same thread, by evidence cited by, say, > Louis Blair, Mark Houlsby, or me) may read the RGCP thread 'Dazed and Confused' > or the thread 'The Great Annotated Empty Moving Boxes Robbery' or the thread > 'The Bobby Fischer Interviews: are they legitimate sources of information?' > (not to mention some other threads). > > Here's a link to one of my posts that points out one of Lance Smith's > *false statements* about me and Louis Blair: > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?I2C221DF5 > > For the record, Louis Blair concurred with me (in that thread) that > Lance Smith made a *false statement* about what Mr Blair and I wrote there. > > Here's a link to my response to another dishonest attack by Lance Smith > against me, wherein he distorted my statement by snipping its > first half in order to attack its second half out of context: > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?N28225DF5 > > > I found that his email address says Yahoo.UK. > > I was curious where this guy coming from when he calls me "illiterate troll" > > "He (Nick) called you (Lance Smith) a '...*nearly* illiterate troll...', > you illiterate troll." > --Mark Houlsby (6 ober 2003, writing to Lance Smith) > > "Unlike you (Lance Smith), Nick has been *absolutely consistent* (the > asterisks were Mark Houlsby's) and, in my view, much too tolerant of > your idiocy and illiteracy." > --Mark Houlsby (6 ober 2003, writing to Lance Smith) > > > for just disagreeing with his discourse. > > That's another falsehood by Lance Smith. > > I tend to have no personal objection to someone who 'just disagree(s) > with (my) discourse' in civil terms. I do have a personal objection to > someone who keeps distorting what I write and making false statements > about me in order to attack me personally. That's a vital distinction > that Lance Smith evidently would prefer that his readers ignore. > > In the RGCP thead, "Sam Sloan's 500 Words Candidates Statement > (This is final.)" (3 May 2004), Matt Nemmers wrote: > "Take Nick Bourbaki, for example. He and I probably only agree on one or two > issues out of the plethora of topics that've been discussed here over the years, > yet I've always been able to communicate in a very civil manner with him > because neither has ever resorted to 'name-calling'." > --Matt Nemmers (3 May 2004) > > In the thread, "Rubinstein's Wartime Experiences (OT)" (25 November 2003), > Simon ('chapman billy') wrote to me: > "Your posts are amongst the most rewarding in RGCM, > even though we do differ on some things." > --Simon (25 November 2003) > > > I needed to know. On the others, the reasons are apparent. > > I have no doubt that Lance Smith can rationalise anything that he could do > even more easily than he apparently can rationalise nearly anything that his > evident hero, Bobby Fischer, has done. > > http://makeashorterlink.com/?O10321DF5 > > "Then Bobby Fischer is a very normal politician." > --Lance Smith (9 September 2003) > > I think that anyone who believes that "Bobby Fischer is a very normal > politician" (in a United States context) is beyond rational discussion. > So I hope to waste no more of my time on Lance Smith ('Liam Too'). > > In the RGCP thread, 'Dazed and Confused' Mark Houlsby made > some understandable comments to Lance Smith ('Liam Too'): > > "...I'm pointing out that you (Lance Smith) are trolling for a flame war. > ...You want me to demonstrate that your post was trolling nonsense? > I'm your Huckleberry!..." > --Mark Houlsby (12 ober 2003) > > "Shut up and go away then, illiterate troll." > --Mark Houlsby (6 ober 2003, writing to Lance Smith) > > "Folly does not amuse, or even employ one's notice long." > --John Cleland (Memoirs of a Coxcomb) > > PLONK! > > --Nick |
>This last post from Nick came from the library of the California State >University, Sacramento. I think I may have seen Nick and Trollsby on the seventh green at the Del Paso C.C. the other day. Divots kept flying through the air, until one of them finally figured out what the putter was for. The following day I was floating down the American River on my plastic raft, when lo and behold, I see the same two bozos pass me in a flimsy canoe -- heading straight for the rapids! I was going to warn them, but I saw that they had a cooler full of beer in tow, and as it was a hot day, I was getting rather thirsty. Needless to say, when their canoe capsized, the beer cans were left hanging, and like Blackburne, I was compelled to cature a few, "en passant." >So Nick, where is your Mr. Houlsby now. Didn't he call you, "Not the >sharpest tool in the box?" Here is a link where Nick proves that everyone in the whole world is a troll, who has lied about him: http://www.babblebabble.html And besides, everyone knows that Mark Houlsby is an inveterate troll. >> This post is being written at the risk of feeding the troll, >> Lance Smith ('Liam Too'), and I hope that it will be my final word. I seriously doubt that we could find another poster on rgc who is quite so dimwitted as to not realize just how stupid he sounds, calling so many different posters here "trolls." I could be wrong: Repa and Houlsby are pretty dimwitted, I must admit. "His stupidity was exceeded only by his arrogance." -- Anon |
(NoMoreChess) wrote: > And besides, everyone knows that Mark Houlsby is an inveterate troll. What must one do to become a veterate troll ? |
> What must one do to become a veterate troll ? Learn how to heal sick animals and flame Nick. Dave. (Actually, it turns out that `veterate' and `inveterate' both mean the same thing, just like `flammable' and `inflammable'. Becoming an invertebrate troll could be much more interesting.) -- David Richerby Incredible Love Chainsaw (TM): it's www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a lethal weapon that you can share with someone special but it'll blow your mind! |
<[email protected] > wrote: >Becoming an >invertebrate troll could be much more interesting. Naahhh. They're not offensive enough to be interesting. I prefer trolls with more backbone. |
Mike Murray asked: >What must one do to become a veterate troll ? There is no such thing as a "veterate" troll. However, if you agree with Nick-the-liar on any- and every-thing, you may get your name deleted from the "inveterate trolls" list, and added to the list he has composed for "testimonials" -- a listing of all those who have ever said anything good about his postings here. Currently topping this list is the familiar name, Mark Trollsby, despite that fact that he once dared to note that Nick was "not the sharpest tool in the box." In addition, you will then be recognised as one of Nick's so-called "wide variety" of posters, even though a much greater variety remain on his "trolls" list, having at some time, dared to criticise or disagree with Nick's rumblings from on high. Don't balme me: this veterate/inveterate confusion arises from the original Latin, and I only speak 'Murican. If it had been up to me, there would be none of this: "i before e, except after c, crap. I believe in the KISS system. |
>Latin, and I only speak 'Murican. If it had been up to me, there would be >none >of this: "i before e, except after c, crap. I believe in the KISS system. > Can you believe some are tryin' to change 'Murican to Statesian. |
>Can you believe some are tryin' to change >'Murican to Statesian. I'm not sure, but my guess is that it could require ten years or more for a newbie here to determine exactly what Mr. Bibuld is always babbling about, with his many references to "United Statesians" and "colonnials," and so on. One of the problems is that, contrary to what you might expect, he seems to relish the obscureness of his eccentric viewpoints, and simply ignores queries asking him to better explain what he means with such strange language. Why certain posters here relish obscurity is baffling. Do they actually think they will be regarded as "intellectuals" because they cannot readilly be clearly understood? Are they hiding behind a cloud of smoke, afraid for their ideas to be "seen" by the light of day? Translation from Nickish to 'Murican: inveterate troll: an annoying poster, who simply won't knuckle-under to Nick-the-liar-ation. troll: a first or second offender. Someone who has not yet been subjected to Nick-the-liar-ation, to see if they meet strict, "inveterate troll" standards. "wide-variety" posters: a small, elite group of well-trained posters, who have responded in accordance with the set standards of worship toward Nick-the-lair. (syn.: Houlsby) (antonym: troll) |
> I'm not sure, but my guess is that it could require ten years or more for a >newbie here to determine exactly what Mr. Bibuld is always babbling about, >with >his many references to "United Statesians" and "colonnials," and so on I agree, there must be some history, and even reason, behind these views, but who can tell what it is. It is a amazing what will send some people off. I was shopping with my wife and daughter at the local J.C. Penny store. They were looking a various garments and I said, "I wouldn't wear that to rob a bank." Some woman came up to me and said, "Well, I work in a bank and I don't think that that is funny." Maybe the woman had actually been robbed while she worked at the bank one never knows the history behind such out bursts. I know I wasn't trying to be funny, but that was the first and last time I ever said that. |
> Mike Murray asked: >> What must one do to become a veterate troll ? > > There is no such thing as a "veterate" troll. As I posted elsewhere in the thread, `veterate' in fact means exactly the same as `inveterate'. The OED notes that `veterate' is obsolete and rare but it's still a word. Dave. -- David Richerby Radioactive Aluminium Spoon (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a piece of cutlery that's really light but it'll make you glow in the dark! |
>As I posted elsewhere in the thread, `veterate' in fact means exactly the >same as `inveterate'. The OED notes that `veterate' is obsolete and rare >but it's still a word. Combining obsolete words with modern inventions like the newsgroup troll, makes about as much sense as hitching up a team of mules to pull one's SUV. I won't argue that this (now obsolete) word still exists in fat, dusty, old dictionaries, yet somehow I think that using what is generally recognised as an obsolete term, in conjuction with newborns, while insisting that their definitions are exactly the same, fails to recognise what the term "obsolete" really means. If then, we *must* use "veterate" in conjunction with "troll," I suggest we restrict ourselves to the old meaning: a hideous creature of legend, who waits under a bridge. We can phrase our sentences such that no one notices they are of modern origin, thus: Forsooth! Doth the troll pursue us, or is he yet fast asleep, patrolling yonder bridge only in his dreams? I knoweth not, but soon enough will tell, if ended up inside his hideous bowels! >The OED notes that `veterate' is obsolete and rare >but it's still a word. My original claim was not that "veterate" is no longer a word. My claim was that there is no such thing as a "veterate" [newsgroup] troll. I won't deny that there may have existed veterate bridge trolls, at some time, however. They are always discovering new dinosaur species, so why not trolls? After all, how often do they really dig deep, underneath bridges? :-) |
(NoMoreChess) wrote: > My original claim was not that "veterate" is no longer a word. My claim was >that there is no such thing as a "veterate" [newsgroup] troll. I won't deny >that there may have existed veterate bridge trolls, at some time, however. >They are always discovering new dinosaur species, so why not trolls? After >all, how often do they really dig deep, underneath bridges? :-) Interesting, the shift in meaning between the original analogy of "trolling" derived from fishing, to *a* troll (a post which was) an instance of trolling, to the the fairy-tale "troll" or ogre-like creature. |
The verb, troll, has to do with "fishing." But the noun, troll, refers to someone who engages in certain, undesirable activities, only one of which is "fishing" the internet. If Nick-the-liar wanted to communicate the idea that someone was an "internet fisherman," dragging a shiny lure across the internet in hopes of making a catch, he might prefer to desparage the *act* of trolling, rather than the person doing it. As it is, he generally prefers to disparage the person, as his motive is to "ad hominize" them, and hence (in his bizarre little world), to render their criticisms of him "invalid." Of course, name-calling cannot actually render such criticisms invalid, but as they say: "you can fool some of the people, some of the time." Experiment: slide over to dictionary.com and type this in their search box, to see what pops up: "veterate" Now try: "obsessive-compulsive disorder" :-) |
(NoMoreChess) wrote: > Experiment: slide over to dictionary.com and type this in their search box, >to see what pops up: "veterate" > Now try: "obsessive-compulsive disorder" You mean, I gotta pay to find out? But I gotta know. I gotta know. I gotta know. I gotta know. I gotta know. Blue Rose Blue Rose Blue Rose Blue Rose.... |
> Experiment: slide over to dictionary.com and type this in their search > box, to see what pops up: "veterate" Your point being? It's in the OED. Dave. -- David Richerby Aquatic Pointy-Haired Game (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a family board game that's completely clueless but it lives in the sea! |
>>I seriously doubt that we could find another poster on rgc who is quite so dimwitted as to not realize just how stupid he sounds, calling so many different posters here "trolls."<< He doesn't even realize that nearly all posters here know that when Nick calls another poster a troll, he's been outsmarted. "His stupidity was exceeded only by his arrogance." -- Anon |
Sayers) wrote: >I don't care where anyone posts from, or where anyone is located. I >do not read the headers. This is because I am not a stalker. Neither am I. Yet, in common with so many people, I often glance at the headers of posts (which are displayed in their entirety for me by default). Does that make you nervous? :) >I can't speak for others, but only for myself: for you to stalk me >would be error, as you would discover that chess sets are not allowed >in a county jail cell. I doubt that, given that "county jail cells" are something that we don't have in the UK. If you looked at the headers of David's posts you would have instantly noticed that he's not posting the USA. See how useful it can be not to have to assume everyone is in America?! -- Chris Cowley |
news:<[email protected] >...(to Michael Sayers): > [email protected] (Michael Sayers) wrote: > > I don't care where anyone posts from, or where anyone is located. > > I do not read the headers. This is because I am not a stalker. > (snipped) > See how useful it can be not to have to assume everyone is in America?! But perhaps there could be a way to have everyone appear *virtually* to be in the United States. :-) As I recall from last year, some American(s) were demanding that Mark Houlsby (whom I know), who had criticised the United States, reveal his 'homeland' and location. Mark Houlsby decided to appease that demand (or so he might have thought) by identifying his current town of residence (I could locate his home on a local map) in the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, some American(s) apparently concluded (perhaps based on tracking his Usenet post headers) that Mark Houlsby, most likely, must be in the United States. --Nick |
> (snipped) > I don't care where anyone posts from, or where anyone is located. > I do not read the headers. This is because I am not a stalker. > I can't speak for others, but only for myself: for you to stalk me would > be error, as you would discover that chess sets are not allowed in a county > jail cell. Mr Sayers, I don't believe that David Richerby is a 'stalker'. But there have been several American writers who have demanded to know or who evidently have made some determined efforts to identify the nationality, 'homeland', or location of some perceived foreign critics of the United States, who have written some criticisms here of the United States to which those Americans would object. Would those Americans know that 'Grosvenor' seems almost always 'mispronounced' in London? :-) 'I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.' --George Bernard Shaw --Nick |
message news:<[email protected] >... > (snipped) > Therefore, proceeding thus, the latest moves in > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers are: > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 Mr Sayers, I hope that both you and Goran Fischer may enjoy playing an interesting game together. Unfortunately, playing a game in public on Usenet seems to attract some of the endemic trolling in the chess newsgroups. Whether or not you choose to believe that "Goran Fischer is using AOL and signing in from the Philippines, in the city of Bagiuo", as Lance Smith ('Liam Too') has asserted in this thread, it seems evident by now that 'Goran Fischer' is *not* Goran Tomic, who has denied being 'Goran Fischer'. There has been a hypothesis that I could be Goran Tomic, and that we could be someone else. So could I be an 'internet grandmaster' without knowing it yet? In the thread "OT: Core Values" (29 July 2003), Stan Booz ('StanB') wrote: "In case anyone wonders why Bruce Draney doesn't post as much as he used to, it is because he is devoting his time to posting as Nick and Tomic." Then in his response to Stan Booz, Lance Smith ('Liam Too') wrote: "Bruce is signing in from the Midwest, USA. Nick is signing in from the UK, sometimes from France and Tomic is signing in from Germany. I cannot see the corelation (sic)." Then Stan Booz wrote to Lance Smith: "Are you sure they're signing in from there?" Then Lance Smith wrote to Stan Booz: "Of course I'm sure. If I tell you my secret, then I'll have to kill(file) you." > In regard to some of posters at this group, and specifically David Richerby, > it is my message to you that I am appalled at your stalking-like desire to > monitor from where contributors post. This group is about chess, not about > monitoring the whereabouts of others. In the thread "Should we get out?" (29 April 2004), Lance Smith ('Liam Too') wrote to Harry Haller, who had wondered why Lance Smith had concluded that he was Dutch: "Even if you are signing in from the North Holland province of the Netherlands, your country is not really the Netherlands. Which country is it?" In his response to Lance Smith, Harry Haller wrote: "I am not Dutch, nor do I reside in the Netherlands. I currently reside in the UK....You seriously assume that you can tell what country someone is in (or even _from_) by the pathway of their usenet posts? Amazing." (In an RGCP thread with a heading offensive to Lance Smith--so it shall not be mentioned here--on 27 February 2004, Lance Smith wrote to Jason Repa: "Jason, You are signing in from Calgary, Alberta, Canada. You cannot hold a permanent job so you resort to spamming..." Jason Repa has written that he's actually in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.) Later, Harry Haller wrote to Lance Smith: "(Furthermore, I do know what IP addresses are and how usenet headers are coded. You seem a bit over-eager to display your net 'skills'.) Would the concept of opening a web account in a country other than one you reside in, or residing in a country other than one of your birth or the one in which you hold citizenship be a concept a bit, well, difficult for you to comprehend? How about the concept of not feeling particularly connected to any one country? A bit too complex/far-fetched for you as well?" > If you ever stalk me, you will find out that chess playing is not > my only skill. I happen to know a woman who writes on Usenet only by using a gender-neutral pseudonym in part because she's afraid of her obsessive former husband. If someone were living in Northern Ireland and writing controversial posts on 'The Troubles', then I should hardly be surprised if he or she were to take care not to reveal his or her real name and location. In the RGCP thread 'Pseudonyms' (12 January 2004) "The Masked Bishop" wrote: "I'll say it again: authenticating users on the Usenet is smoke and mirrors." In his response to "The Masked Bishop", Paul Rubin wrote: "In the end, just about any type of ID can be forged, online or offline. It's simply a question of how much of a nuisance you want to make it. There's nothing special about usenet." Salman Rushdie reportedly has played chess on the internet. --Nick |
> message news:<[email protected]>... > > (snipped) > > Therefore, proceeding thus, the latest moves in > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers are: > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 Mr. Sayers, You know now why posters here point out Nick's "Intellectual Dishonesty." He dwells on outdated postings of other people, re-posts them here again and again, without stating that the messages have been updated. It's been a long time that I've been posting the fact that Nick has been hopping from library to library in and around Sacramento, CA in order to call other posters "trolls" (he calls me illiterate troll for the simple reason that I disagreed with his opinion). I have accepted the whereabout of Jason Repa as posted by him, for a long time. I even posted his exact address in Winnepeg, CA. Your game with GF is is not only entertaining but also educational. I for one, like to see the end of it. Regards, Lance Smith |
> Mr. Sayers, > > You know now why posters here point out Nick's "Intellectual > Dishonesty." > > He dwells on outdated postings of other people, re-posts them here > again and again, without stating that the messages have been updated. > > It's been a long time that I've been posting the fact that Nick has > been hopping from library to library in and around Sacramento, CA in > order to call other posters "trolls" (he calls me illiterate troll for > the simple reason that I disagreed with his opinion). > > I have accepted the whereabout of Jason Repa as posted by him, for a > long time. I even posted his exact address in Winnepeg, CA. > > Your game with GF is is not only entertaining but also educational. I > for one, like to see the end of it. > > Regards, > > Lance Smith Greetings, For my part, while I do admit that Nick may operate according to some sort of an internal logic, his posts appear quite incoherent and disoriented. As an example, one may take the post which attempts to correlate the question of whether or not David Richery is a stalker, with the proposition that "several American writers have...made some determined efforts to identify the nationality, 'homeland', or location of some perceived foreign critics of the United States, who have written some criticisms here of the United States to which those Americans would object". Setting aside that the nationality of some writers is claimed by both Americans and Britons (for instance, that of Henry James), here are some of the American writers I have read, none of whom have engaged in the behaviour Nick describes: Thomas Wolfe, Henry David Thorea, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Mark Twain, Henry James, Henry Louis Menken, Brann (also a journalist), Sanborn (also a journalist), Edgar Allen Poe, William Faulkner, Hemingway. The most prominent foreign critic of the United States probably is Alexis de Tocqueville, who visited in the 1800s and authored a timeless critique in his "Democracy in America". As he is profoundly under read, there is no U.S. consensus on the merits or demerits of his work. I can not think of any American writers who made a determined effort to identify where he lived. Thomas Jefferson was fond of Bordeaux wines (in particular, chateau Margaux), was the first person in the U.S. to own a copy of Diderot's Encyclopedia, and was an associate envoy to France in 1784, and I vaguelly recall having read an anecdote about a visit of his to France. But he does not fully (in my view) qualify as a writer, and he died several years before the publication of Tocqueville's book. Another major foreign critique would be Ortega y Gasset, via his "Revolt of the Masses" published in 1929. It is conceivable that some American writers may have attempted to arrive at his whereabouts, but I am not aware of any specific instances. What he writes is true, so I don't see how anyone can disagree with him unless the person has some sort of a compulsion that won't allow for agreement. I believe that Nick is attempting to fashion an argument, but precisely what the argument is which he has posited, I can not yet ascertain. Some steps of the argument were left out, and it is not presented in such a way as for one to know what are the premisses, and what is the conlusion. By the way, I should mention that through an analysis of certain variables, I have determined with 100% certainty that Goran Tomic is not an alter ego for Bobby Fischer, although it is possible that they know each other. It is impossible for Goran Tomic to be an RJF alter ego, for various reasons. Meditation has not yet made it clear if they know each other or not. Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 Regards, Michael Sayers P.S. for Nick - H. L. Mencken was an American writer who would know the pronunciation of "Grosvenor" in London, vs. the U.S. I suggest reading his "The American Language" book. |
Regarding Nick, I totally agree with you. In one of his posts above, he disagrees that he called me "illiterate troll". However, he said that he called me, "*nearly* illiterate troll." At any rate, if you were me, wouldn't you like to know where he's coming from, literally? Nick comes here and examines all of the messages and points out incorrect spellings by putting "sic" to them. Who cares about spelling and grammar in the Net, I don't have time for them. Regarding Goran Tomic, he's probably a friend of Fischer. I know for sure though that his friend, GM Bielicka is a friend of Fischer. Good game so far with GF! Regards, Lance Smith [email protected] (Michael Sayers) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >... > [email protected] (Liam Too) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > > Mr. Sayers, > > > > You know now why posters here point out Nick's "Intellectual > > Dishonesty." > > > > He dwells on outdated postings of other people, re-posts them here > > again and again, without stating that the messages have been updated. > > > > It's been a long time that I've been posting the fact that Nick has > > been hopping from library to library in and around Sacramento, CA in > > order to call other posters "trolls" (he calls me illiterate troll for > > the simple reason that I disagreed with his opinion). > > > > I have accepted the whereabout of Jason Repa as posted by him, for a > > long time. I even posted his exact address in Winnepeg, CA. > > > > Your game with GF is is not only entertaining but also educational. I > > for one, like to see the end of it. > > > > Regards, > > > > Lance Smith > > Greetings, > > For my part, while I do admit that Nick may operate according to some > sort of an internal logic, his posts appear quite incoherent and > disoriented. As an example, one may take the post which attempts to > correlate the question of whether or not David Richery is a stalker, > with the proposition that "several American writers have...made some > determined efforts to identify the nationality, 'homeland', or > location of some perceived foreign critics of the United States, who > have written some criticisms here of the United States to which those > Americans would object". > > Setting aside that the nationality of some writers is claimed by both > Americans and Britons (for instance, that of Henry James), here are > some of the American writers I have read, none of whom have engaged in > the behaviour Nick describes: > > Thomas Wolfe, Henry David Thorea, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Mark Twain, > Henry James, Henry Louis Menken, Brann (also a journalist), Sanborn > (also a journalist), Edgar Allen Poe, William Faulkner, Hemingway. > > The most prominent foreign critic of the United States probably is > Alexis de Tocqueville, who visited in the 1800s and authored a > timeless critique in his "Democracy in America". As he is profoundly > under read, there is no U.S. consensus on the merits or demerits of > his work. I can not think of any American writers who made a > determined effort to identify where he lived. > > Thomas Jefferson was fond of Bordeaux wines (in particular, chateau > Margaux), was the first person in the U.S. to own a copy of Diderot's > Encyclopedia, and was an associate envoy to France in 1784, and I > vaguelly recall having read an anecdote about a visit of his to > France. But he does not fully (in my view) qualify as a writer, and > he died several years before the publication of Tocqueville's book. > > Another major foreign critique would be Ortega y Gasset, via his > "Revolt of the Masses" published in 1929. It is conceivable that some > American writers may have attempted to arrive at his whereabouts, but > I am not aware of any specific instances. What he writes is true, so > I don't see how anyone can disagree with him unless the person has > some sort of a compulsion that won't allow for agreement. > > I believe that Nick is attempting to fashion an argument, but > precisely what the argument is which he has posited, I can not yet > ascertain. Some steps of the argument were left out, and it is not > presented in such a way as for one to know what are the premisses, and > what is the conlusion. > > By the way, I should mention that through an analysis of certain > variables, I have determined with 100% certainty that Goran Tomic is > not an alter ego for Bobby Fischer, although it is possible that they > know each other. It is impossible for Goran Tomic to be an RJF alter > ego, for various reasons. Meditation has not yet made it clear if > they know each other or not. > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Ba5 6.d4 exd4 > > > Regards, > Michael Sayers > > P.S. for Nick - H. L. Mencken was an American writer who would know > the pronunciation of "Grosvenor" in London, vs. the U.S. I suggest > reading his "The American Language" book. |
> [email protected] (Liam Too) wrote: > > (snipped) > > I have accepted the whereabout of Jason Repa as posted by him, > > for a long time. I even posted his exact address in Winnepeg, CA. Why might Michael Sayers not construe that as (by his evident standards) an example of 'stalking' someone else? > For my part, while I do admit that Nick may operate according to some sort > of an internal logic, his posts appear quite incoherent and disoriented. "People who can read appreciate Nick's posts." --Mark Houlsby (10 December 2003) None of my acquaintances in scholarly or literary circles has ever regarded me as a 'quite incoherent or disoriented' writer of English. Mr Sayers, as far as I can tell, you seem to be a new writer here and a comparatively recent reader in the chess newsgroups. Given the limits of my time and space in writing here, my posts tend to assume (in order to avoid reiterating what many experienced readers already should know) that the reader has more familiarity with the 'cultural' context and a longer memory of the posts in the chess newsgroups than you seem to have. For example, in the thread "GOran is Bobby Fischer hiding his identity" (15 May 2004), you wrote to Eric Hicks: "Goran Tomic *only* demonstrated belligerence *after* his integrity was questioned - and it is plain that this was the reason for his departure from group postings. His phraseology does not, in any way, suggest even a remotely similar background to that of Bobby Fischer. He is only interested in chess, and not in fending off a pack of wild hyenas." --Michael Sayers (15 May 2004) Here are my comments on what Michael Sayers has written (above): 1) I already have pointed out to Eric Hicks that his hypothesis that Goran Tomic is Bobby Fischer seems absurd, so I concur with Michael Sayers on that point. 2) Michael Sayers's assertion that "Goran Tomic *only* demonstrated belligerence *after* his integrity was questioned" is simply untrue. I believe that there should be no shortage of experienced readers who would corroborate that Goran Tomic has 'demonstrated belligerence' long *before* 'his integrity was questioned' on reasonable grounds of evidence. For example, in the RGCP thread "When was Fischer no longer the strongest player?", I recently wrote a post in defence of Ken Albin, who had become the target of an unwarranted offensive personal attack by Goran Tomic. I do *not* believe that Michael Sayers was dishonest when he made his assertion in defence of Goran Tomic; I believe that Michael Sayers simply was quite ignorant of Goran Tomic's record of 'belligerent' posts here. 3) It seems to me that Goran Tomic's temporary 'departure from group postings' was occasioned by his recent visit to Central Asia (which presumably curtailed his access to the internet), which he himself has described here. 4) *If* Goran Tomic were '*only* interested in chess', as Michael Sayers has claimed, then it seems inconsistent to me that Goran Tomic would make so many undeclared off-topic posts about politics and become deeply embroiled in so many personal 'flame wars'. Again, experienced readers here should be able to corroborate what I have just written. 5) Mr Sayers, could you please name all the writers here who belong to the 'pack of wild hyenas' that you seem to believe have been unfairly attacking Goran Tomic? Some of us might appreciate knowing that we could be such beasts in order to contemplate our prospects for domestication. :-) Mr Sayers, in short, I happen to know that some experienced readers here consider what you wrote about Goran Tomic to be ignorantly risible. My advice to you is to learn how to read more carefully and to read much more broadly in the chess newsgroups before you jump to more conclusions about the relations among the writers here. It seems to me that the (often pathological) 'culture' of the chess newsgroups is unfamiliar and disorienting to you. Here are some comments about my posts from a broad variety of readers: Jerome Bibuld: "The general tenor of your posts has been so heartwarmingly human and winningly intelligent." Paul Buswell: "I am wary about challenging you on a matter of language, in view of your obvious erudition on such matters, but I take issue on this." (Of course, I thanked Mr Buswell for helping me to learn something new.) Mark Houlsby: "Nick's post is typically lucid and balanced." Phil Innes: "Nick, you are a fair writer." Matt Nemmers: "I believe you're an intelligent individual, and I respect your opinions." Susan Polgar: "Nick, Thank you....I am glad to see posters like you." Simon ('chapman billy'): "Your posts are amongst the most rewarding in RGCM, even though we do differ on some things." Larry Tapper: "I've been enjoying your scholarly digressions, Latin epigrams, etc." > As an example, one may take the post which attempts to correlate the question I have to say that Michael Sayers has misconstrued my post when he he made his mistaken claim that I had attempted such a 'correlation'. > of whether or not David Richery is a stalker, His name is *Richerby*, David Richerby (though not with quite the same ring as 'Bond. James Bond.'). :-) Here's *all* that I wrote about that: "Mr Sayers, I don't believe that David Richerby is a 'stalker'." I do *not* have to *prove* that David Richerby *could not* be a 'stalker'. All that was I saying is that, based on my experiences of communicating with him (presumably more experiences than Michael Sayers has had with him), "I don't believe that David Richerby is a 'stalker'." As I recall, David Richerby and I have had a few misunderstandings, and we might have some differences on some issues. But I have found nothing in his behaviour that would lead me to conclude that David Richerby has been 'stalking' anyone. Mr Sayers, it seems to me that you could build a stronger case (based on more evidence) against Lance Smith ('Liam Too') as a 'stalker'. > with the proposition that "several American writers have...made some Mr Sayers, your 'quotation' of me is *not* quite accurate and your snipping of it could be considered rather misleading. For the record, I wrote in this thread (parenthetical comments are added now): "But there have been several American writers (in the chess newsgroups) *who have demanded to know* or who *evidently* have made some determined efforts to identity the nationality, 'homeland', or location of some perceived foreign critics (who write in the chess newsgroups) of the United States, who have written some criticisms *here* (in the chess newsgroups, my emphasis) of the United States to which those Americans would object." > determined efforts to identify the nationality, 'homeland', or location of > some perceived foreign critics of the United States, who have written some > criticisms here of the United States to which those Americans would object". Evidently, Michael Sayers *failed to understand* that my statement (which I can support by citing the evidence of past posts if required) about 'some perceived foreign critics' and 'several American writers' pertained *only* to those persons *who have written in the chess newsgroups*. The 'perceived foreign critics' of the United States who have written in the chess newsgroups would include Harry Haller, Mark Houlsby, and me. The 'American writers who have demanded to know' information about our nationalities, 'homelands', or locations would include Stan Booz ('StanB'), Lance Smith ('Liam Too'), and 'Briarroot'. (These lists may not be complete.) > Setting aside that the nationality of some writers is claimed by both > Americans and Britons (for instance, that of Henry James), here are > some of the American writers I have read, none of whom have engaged in > the behaviour Nick describes: > > Thomas Wolfe, Henry David Thorea, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Mark Twain, > Henry James, Henry Louis Menken, Brann (also a journalist), Sanborn > (also a journalist), Edgar Allen Poe, William Faulkner, Hemingway. Can Michael Sayers read well enough to understand my context? Evidently not. As far as I know, none of those writers ever has *written on Usenet in the chess newsgroups*, which was *my complete context* for my comment (above). > The most prominent foreign critic of the United States probably is > Alexis de Tocqueville, who visited in the 1800s and authored a > timeless critique in his "Democracy in America". As he is profoundly > under read, there is no U.S. consensus on the merits or demerits of > his work. I can not think of any American writers who made a > determined effort to identify where he lived. As far as I know, Alexis de Tocqueville never wrote "some criticisms *here*" (my emphasis in my quoted post) in the chess newsgroups. > Thomas Jefferson was fond of Bordeaux wines (in particular, chateau > Margaux), was the first person in the U.S. to own a copy of Diderot's > Encyclopedia, and was an associate envoy to France in 1784, and I > vaguelly recall having read an anecdote about a visit of his to > France. But he does not fully (in my view) qualify as a writer, and > he died several years before the publication of Tocqueville's book. > > Another major foreign critique would be Ortega y Gasset, via his > "Revolt of the Masses" published in 1929. It is conceivable that some > American writers may have attempted to arrive at his whereabouts, but > I am not aware of any specific instances. What he writes is true, so > I don't see how anyone can disagree with him unless the person has > some sort of a compulsion that won't allow for agreement. > > I believe that Nick is attempting to fashion an argument, but precisely > what the argument is which he has posited, I can not yet ascertain. > Some steps of the argument were left out, and it is not presented in such a > way as for one to know what are the premisses, and what is the conlusion. Or the *premises* and the *conclusion*. > ... > P.S. for Nick - H. L. Mencken was an American writer who would > know the pronunciation of "Grosvenor" in London, vs. the U.S. > I suggest reading his "The American Language" book. I made a little joke about a trans-Atlantic difference in English, and Michael Sayers apparently responded as though I were putting down all Americans or American English. I happen to know quite well how 'Grosvenor' is pronounced in London. I also happen to know that some, though not most, Americans would know how it's pronounced there. Did Michael Sayers presume that I thought that no Americans have ever visited Grosvenor Square, London--where the United States Embassy is located? What I (and some other readers here of my acquaintance) have yet to ascertain, however, is how well (or not) Michael Sayers can read and comprehend English. --Nick |
>>What I (and some other readers here of my acquaintance) have yet to ascertain, however, is how well (or not) Michael Sayers can read and comprehend English.--Nick<< The person calling himself Nick Bourbaki may be able to read and comprehend English, however, can he match wits with the intellectual posters here in RGC? Here are the testimonials of other posters about Nick: "His posts appear quite incoherent and disoriented."--Michael Sayers "Nick is not the sharpest tool in the box."--Mark Houlsby "Nick is a dimwit." --NoMoreChess "Nick is intellectually dishonest." --StanB "Nick is a dimwit." --Mike Murray "My garden gnome is smarter that Nick." --Tim Hanke "Nick is a dimwit." --Briarroot "Nick is a leftist just like Jerome Bibuld." --Matt Nemmers "Nick is a dimwit." --Sam Sloan |
> [email protected] (Nick) wrote in message news:<[email protected] > > >>>What I (and some other readers here of my acquaintance) have yet to > > ascertain, however, is how well (or not) Michael Sayers can read and > comprehend English.--Nick<< > > The person calling himself Nick Bourbaki may be able to read and > comprehend English, however, can he match wits with the intellectual > posters here in RGC? > > Here are the testimonials of other posters about Nick: > > "His posts appear quite incoherent and disoriented."--Michael Sayers > > "Nick is not the sharpest tool in the box."--Mark Houlsby > > "Nick is a dimwit." --NoMoreChess > > "Nick is intellectually dishonest." --StanB > > "Nick is a dimwit." --Mike Murray > > "My garden gnome is smarter that Nick." --Tim Hanke > > "Nick is a dimwit." --Briarroot > > "Nick is a leftist just like Jerome Bibuld." --Matt Nemmers > > "Nick is a dimwit." --Sam Sloan This is funny coming from a guy who a) accuses me of being Jason Repa, and b) cannot distinguish a google search that finds the text "Jason repairs...) from one that finds the above named target. Relax, play some chess. Ignore those who think their posts are important... GBFPU |
>"Nick is a dimwit." --Sam Sloan Wait a second. I never wrote that. I have never written anything like that about anybody on this group. Sam Sloan |
wrote: >On 26 May 2004 12:05:58 -0700, [email protected] (Liam Too) wrote: > > >>"Nick is a dimwit." --Sam Sloan > >Wait a second. I never wrote that. I have never written anything like >that about anybody on this group. > >Sam Sloan I don't remember saying that either. I think that precise phrase was just a "placeholder", where Liam Too hadn't looked up the actual derogatory remark. Sometime, I'll go back and look up what I really said. I think I said he was a propagandist who made bigoted remarks. As usual, Nick didn't address this claim directly, but instead defended himself against anti-Semitism, a charge I hadn't made. |
> On 26 May 2004 12:05:58 -0700, [email protected] (Liam Too) wrote: > > > >"Nick is a dimwit." --Sam Sloan > > Wait a second. I never wrote that. I have never written anything like > that about anybody on this group. --Sam Sloan<< Of course you didn't say that Sam. I just paraphrased what you said. Mike understood that and wrote what he actually said. Even Tim Hanke didn't say about the garden gnome, however, I remember him putting Nick's and Houlsby's names on the gnomes in his website. Do you remember what you said? Lance Smith |
wrote: >[email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... >> On 26 May 2004 12:05:58 -0700, [email protected] (Liam Too) wrote: >> >> >> >"Nick is a dimwit." --Sam Sloan >> >> Wait a second. I never wrote that. I have never written anything like >> that about anybody on this group. --Sam Sloan<< > >Of course you didn't say that Sam. I just paraphrased what you said. >Mike understood that and wrote what he actually said. I strongly object to anybody who claims to paraphrase what I wrote and then puts quotation remarks around it. I have no objection to anybody who quotes what I actually did write. The worst offender was Bruce Draney, who constantly claimed that I had written things that I had never written. Then, when I called him on it, he would claim that what I wrote amounted to the same thing, when in reality what I had written was often exactly the opposite. I have posted thousands of words on this group and there is no excuse for misquoting me. Sam Sloan |
> On 27 May 2004 07:23:26 -0700, [email protected] (Goran Fischer) > wrote: > > >>[email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... >> >>>On 26 May 2004 12:05:58 -0700, [email protected] (Liam Too) wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>"Nick is a dimwit." --Sam Sloan >>> >>>Wait a second. I never wrote that. I have never written anything like >>>that about anybody on this group. --Sam Sloan<< >> >>Of course you didn't say that Sam. I just paraphrased what you said. >>Mike understood that and wrote what he actually said. > > > I strongly object to anybody who claims to paraphrase what I wrote and > then puts quotation remarks around it. > > I have no objection to anybody who quotes what I actually did write. > > The worst offender was Bruce Draney, who constantly claimed that I had > written things that I had never written. Then, when I called him on > it, he would claim that what I wrote amounted to the same thing, when > in reality what I had written was often exactly the opposite. > > I have posted thousands of words on this group and there is no excuse > for misquoting me. > > Sam Sloan > Bravo!!! GBFPU |
>>I have posted thousands of words on this group and there is no excuse for misquoting me.<< --Sam Sloan I really did misqoute you Sam, although I'm still searching. It was Nick who did all the attacks on you as written on your exchanges with him as follows: Lance Smith ==================================================== From: [email protected] (Nick) Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics Subject: Re: Who is Nick? Date: 25 Mar 2004 15:27:38 -0800 >>When Nick started posting here, I thought he was somebody new. > Now, I believe that he is one of these anonymous posters who keep > reappearing under different names and personalities. One reason > why I feel this way is that he attacks me every day<<--Sam Sloan "For the record, it's *not* been 'every day', *not* even on 'most days'. Sam Sloan's evident paranoia seems to be coming out again."--Nick >>without apparently knowing me and without any reason that I can think of.<<--Sam Sloan "Here's a hint for the 'intellectually inquisitive' Sam Sloan: 1) Sam Sloan has written many false statements. 2) Like many other readers here, I tend to object to his false statements. 3) Sometimes I have cited sufficient evidence to prove that Sam Sloan has made another false statement. 4) Sam Sloan seems to regard any writer who does (3) as 'attacking' him. My advice to Sam Sloan is for him to stop making false statements. Then he should be able to complain less about other writers who cite evidence to prove that he has been making those false statements."--Nick |
> I really did misqoute you Sam, _ How about NoMoreChess, Mike Murray, Tim Hanke, Briarroot, and Matt Nemmers? |
>How about NoMoreChess, Mike Murray, Tim Hanke, >Briarroot, and Matt Nemmers? I already gave my assessment of this line: Black is being rather greedy, and has compromised his defense. White should, well, attack! :-) |
> Lance Smith wrote: > > > I really did misqoute you Sam, > > _ > How about NoMoreChess, Mike Murray, Tim Hanke, > Briarroot, and Matt Nemmers?<< Dr. Blair, You must be kidding, I thought that are smarter than this, asking a question like above. Here are their exact words: "Nick, You are a wordy and disingenuous SOB who disguises his ad hominem attacks under a cloak of high-minded superiority. Even your name "Nick Bourbaki" is not your own, but a curtain behind which you take pot shots at me. In short, you are a fake and a coward from beginning to end." --Tim Hanke 13-June-2003 "These humorless guys have no lives. Nick and his lickspittle, Houlsby, are desperate to prove their worth to themselves and r.g.c.m. But no one else cares! ;-)"�-Briarroot 11-June-2003 "I posted a complete proof of your lies about me, Nick. When can I expect your apology?" �-Briarroot 27-July-2003 "Nick is a dimwit" --NoMoreChess saying something else but will not object to what I quoted. "Nick is a dimwit" --Mike Murray saying something else but will not object to what I quoted. The words leftist, leftish, and left-wing are all the same. I can be put in these categories as well. There's nothing bad about the words though. Sam Sloan said he never said the word idiot as well in the internet. He must have forgotten that he called me idiot in March 2003 and I called him the word back. The whole point Dr. Blair is that if you google Nick, you'll find out that he is the flamer and attacker in RGC and not Tim Hanke, StanB, Briarroot, Sam Sloan, NoMoreChess, Mike Murray, Benjamin Jordan, and others. Lance Smith |
> The whole point Dr. Blair is that if you google > Nick, you'll find out that ... _ My whole point is about the practice of putting quotation marks around things that are not quotes. Is Lance Smith the sort of person who considers that to be acceptable? |
> Lance Smith wrote: > >> The whole point Dr. Blair is that if you google >> Nick, you'll find out that ... > > _ > My whole point is about the practice of putting > quotation marks around things that are not > quotes. Is Lance Smith the sort of person who > considers that to be acceptable? I have to agree with Louis Blair. I have had my share of differences with Nick Bourbaki; but I have never knowingly misquoted him, nor am I aware of being intentionally misquoted by him. Deliberate misrepresentation is a characteristic of a bounder, Lance Smith should disavow the contents of his post. Regards, Simon. |
> Louis Blair wrote: > > > Lance Smith wrote: > > > >> The whole point Dr. Blair is that if you google > >> Nick, you'll find out that ... > > > > _ > > My whole point is about the practice of putting > > quotation marks around things that are not > > quotes. Is Lance Smith the sort of person who > > considers that to be acceptable? > > I have to agree with Louis Blair. > > I have had my share of differences with Nick Bourbaki; but I have never > knowingly misquoted him, nor am I aware of being intentionally misquoted by > him. Deliberate misrepresentation is a characteristic of a bounder, Lance > Smith should disavow the contents of his post. > > > Regards, Simon. Simon, you are condoning Nick's behavior. Is it acceptable to you if Nick has been calling me an illiterate troll? Here's Nick's post on 24-June-04 somewhere in this subject: In the RGCP thread, 'Dazed and Confused' (6 ober 2003), Mark Houlsby (who had carefully read my exchanges with Lance Smith) wrote to Lance Smith: "He (Nick) *didn't* call you (Lance Smith) 'an illiterate troll'. He called you a '...*nearly* illiterate troll...', you illiterate troll." --Mark Houlsby (6 ober 2003, writing to Lance Smith)" But putting the word NEARLY doesn'y make me feel better. He is proud of it and you and Dr. Blair are applauding him. Lance Smith |
> The whole point Dr. Blair is that if you google > Nick, you'll find out that ... I wrote: > My whole point is about the practice of putting > quotation marks around things that are not > quotes. Is Lance Smith the sort of person who > considers that to be acceptable? chapman Billy wrote: > I have to agree with Louis Blair. > > I have had my share of differences with Nick > Bourbaki; but I have never knowingly misquoted > him, nor am I aware of being intentionally > misquoted by him. Deliberate misrepresentation > is a characteristic of a bounder, Lance Smith > should disavow the contents of his post. > > Regards, Simon. Lance Smith now writes: > Simon, you are condoning Nick's behavior. Is > it acceptable to you if Nick has been calling > me an illiterate troll? > > Here's Nick's post on 24-June-04 somewhere in > this subject: > > In the RGCP thread, 'Dazed and Confused' (6 > ober 2003), Mark Houlsby (who had carefully > read my exchanges with Lance Smith) wrote to > Lance Smith: > > "He (Nick) *didn't* call you (Lance Smith) > 'an illiterate troll'. He called you a > '...*nearly* illiterate troll...', you > illiterate troll."--Mark Houlsby (6 ober > 2003, writing to Lance Smith)" > > But putting the word NEARLY doesn'y make me > feel better. He is proud of it and you and Dr. > Blair are applauding him. _ Another false statement from Lance Smith. I have written NOTHING to applaud any "nearly illiterate troll" comment. My subject has been and is the practice of putting quotation marks around things that are not quotes. My (so far unanswered) question remains: Is Lance Smith the sort of person who considers that to be acceptable? |
Your last statement was a "false statement". I did not write that you wrote something to APPLAUD Nick. What I've written was my opionion and observation about you and Chapman Billy. You seem to be applauding Nick instead of castigating him about his unacceptable writings like the following: "5) Lance Smith ('Liam Too'), who has referred to 'Time' magazine as a 'Jew-rag', seems to be an obsessive admirer of Bobby Fischer."--Nick 09-May-04 "Lance Smith is a nearly illiterate troll" --Nick And more... Why don't you write him and ask if what he's been writing is acceptable? I never wrote that the Time Magazine is a Jew-rag. I was talking to Tim Hanke and Nomorechess and I told them that Bobby Fischer wrote those statements in his website. Lance Smith Louis Blair <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > Lance Smith wrote: > > The whole point Dr. Blair is that if you google > > Nick, you'll find out that ... > > I wrote: > > My whole point is about the practice of putting > > quotation marks around things that are not > > quotes. Is Lance Smith the sort of person who > > considers that to be acceptable? > > chapman Billy wrote: > > I have to agree with Louis Blair. > > > > I have had my share of differences with Nick > > Bourbaki; but I have never knowingly misquoted > > him, nor am I aware of being intentionally > > misquoted by him. Deliberate misrepresentation > > is a characteristic of a bounder, Lance Smith > > should disavow the contents of his post. > > > > Regards, Simon. > > > Lance Smith now writes: > > > Simon, you are condoning Nick's behavior. Is > > it acceptable to you if Nick has been calling > > me an illiterate troll? > > > > Here's Nick's post on 24-June-04 somewhere in > > this subject: > > > > In the RGCP thread, 'Dazed and Confused' (6 > > ober 2003), Mark Houlsby (who had carefully > > read my exchanges with Lance Smith) wrote to > > Lance Smith: > > > > "He (Nick) *didn't* call you (Lance Smith) > > 'an illiterate troll'. He called you a > > '...*nearly* illiterate troll...', you > > illiterate troll."--Mark Houlsby (6 ober > > 2003, writing to Lance Smith)" > > > > But putting the word NEARLY doesn'y make me > > feel better. He is proud of it and you and Dr. > > Blair are applauding him. > > _ > Another false statement from Lance Smith. I > have written NOTHING to applaud any "nearly > illiterate troll" comment. My subject has been > and is the practice of putting quotation marks > around things that are not quotes. My (so far > unanswered) question remains: Is Lance Smith > the sort of person who considers that to be > acceptable? |
> Dr. Blair, > > Your last statement was a "false statement". > I did not write that you wrote something to > APPLAUD Nick. _ Here is the statement that Lance Smith wrote earlier (to Simon): "[Nick] is proud of it and you and Dr. Blair are applauding him." - Lance Smith That statement is indeed false. Lance Smith wrote: > What I've written was my opionion and observation > about you and Chapman Billy. You seem to be > applauding Nick instead of castigating him about > his unacceptable writings like the following ... _ It has to be noted that, having been challenged on his earlier statement, Lance Smith quietly rewrites it, inserting the word, "seem". Is Lance Smith willing to at least clearly admit that his earlier statement (quoted above) was false? Does Lance Smith seriously expect us to believe that (1) castigating Nick and (2) seeming to applaud Nick are the only possibilities? Does Lance Smith really think that anyone who is not castigating Nick seems to be applauding him? For the third time, my subject has been and is the practice of putting quotation marks around things that are not quotes. My (so far unanswered) question remains: Is Lance Smith the sort of person who considers that to be acceptable? "Wait a second. I never wrote that." - Sam Sloan (2004-05-26 17:33:07 PST) |
> Another false statement from Lance Smith. I have written NOTHING to > applaud any "nearly illiterate troll" comment. My subject has been > and is the practice of putting quotation marks around things that are > not quotes. My (so far unanswered) question remains: Is Lance Smith > the sort of person who considers that to be acceptable? I think your question has already been answered several times. Dave. -- David Richerby Carnivorous Soap (TM): it's like www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a personal hygiene product but it eats flesh! |
> My subject has been and is the practice of putting > quotation marks around things that are not quotes. > My (so far unanswered) question remains: Is Lance > Smith the sort of person who considers that to be > acceptable? David Richerby wrote: > I think your question has already been answered > several times. _ Can David Richerby quote one of these times? |
> I wrote: >> My subject has been and is the practice of putting >> quotation marks around things that are not quotes. >> My (so far unanswered) question remains: Is Lance >> Smith the sort of person who considers that to be >> acceptable? > > > David Richerby wrote: > >> I think your question has already been answered >> several times. > > _ > Can David Richerby quote one of these times? David Richerby may mean that Lance Smith's repeated silence is a repeated admission: "dum tacent clamant" ("Though they are silent, they cry aloud"). Perhaps he could clarify. Regards, Simon. |
>>> I think your question has already been answered >>> several times. >> Can David Richerby quote one of these times? >David Richerby may mean that Lance Smith's repeated silence is a repeated >admission: "dum tacent clamant" ("Though they are silent, they cry aloud"). >Perhaps he could clarify. Although that is a distinct possibility, the odds of there being two such imbeciles in this small thread -- and at the same time -- are not good. :-) Another, much simpler explanation, would be that Lance Smith has clearly demonstrated that he does not wish to be decoyed by any side issue -- and that could include valid (or invalid) criticisms of his recent postings -- and instead he insists upon addressing his original complaint until "satisfaction" is met. "Your duelling pistols are cheaply made, and pitted by rust," Blare Louis observes. "I don't care. I demand satisfaction. Now! Either Nickoli recants his nasty insults, or one of us goes six feet under. Choose your weapon," demands Lance Lot. "But you have only old rusty pistols here -- and I thought that as the challeng-ee, I got to choose the weapons? Where are the rapiers? Or chesspieces, even," Nickoli answers. " You don't expect me to fight this inveterate trull with rusted old pistols," Nickoli whispers to his second, Markus Holesbee. "They are quite pitted," observes Blare Louis. "Rust can do terrible things to metal," he quickly adds. "I remeber a cannon which rolled partway into a swamp. Before you knew it, the barrell became pitted, and soon the pitting turned to full-blown rust. When we finally got 'round to pulling it out of there, it fell to pieces -- as if made of reddish dust." "Would you please shut up! I am about to be killed, and all you can think about is -- of all things -- RUST," Nickoli exclaims! |
> David Richerby wrote: >> I think your question has already been answered >> several times. > > Can David Richerby quote one of these times? In article <[email protected] >, dated 26th May, and subsequently, Lance writes, > "Nick is a dimwit." --Mike Murray > "My garden gnome is smarter that Nick." --Tim Hanke > "Nick is a dimwit." --Briarroot > "Nick is a dimwit." --Sam Sloan and has since admitted that none of these supposed quotes is, in fact, a quote. Since it seems unlikely that he was compelled to post this against his will, it seems obvious that he does find it acceptable to place quotation marks around things that are not quotes. Dave. -- David Richerby Broken Evil Atlas (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ map of the world but it's genuinely evil and it doesn't work! |
> My subject has been and is the practice of putting > quotation marks around things that are not quotes. > My (so far unanswered) question remains: Is Lance > Smith the sort of person who considers that to be > acceptable? David Richerby wrote (2004-06-01 02:04:04 PST): > I think your question has already been answered > several times. I wrote (2004-06-01 12:45:52 PST): > Can David Richerby quote one of these times? David Richerby wrote (2004-06-02 03:44:03 PST): > In article > <[email protected]>, > dated 26th May, and subsequently, Lance writes, > >> "Nick is a dimwit." --Mike Murray >> "My garden gnome is smarter that Nick." --Tim Hanke >> "Nick is a dimwit." --Briarroot >> "Nick is a dimwit." --Sam Sloan > > and has since admitted that none of these supposed > quotes is, in fact, a quote. Since it seems unlikely > that he was compelled to post this against his will, > it seems obvious that he does find it acceptable to > place quotation marks around things that are not > quotes. _ I do not think that events that happened BEFORE I asked my question count as answers to my question. A number of people have expressed disapproval of putting quotation marks around things that are not quotes, and, since those comments, it seems to me that Lance Smith has avoided dealing with that issue explicitly. Sometimes, a person becomes aware of having made a bad decision and reacts by avoiding the issue. I was trying to see if Lance Smith continues to maintain that it is acceptable to put quotation marks around things that are not quotes. (After all, we may see more quotes from Lance Smith in the future.) I have seen nothing that I would count as an answer so far. |
wrote: >My subject has been >and is the practice of putting quotation marks >around things that are not quotes. My (so far >unanswered) question remains: Is Lance Smith >the sort of person who considers that to be >acceptable? As one of the posters who were "misquoted", it seems evident to me that Lance Smith's use of quotation marks was parody, and not intended to deceive the reader. In a single paragraph, he "quoted" several posters of diverse writing styles as saying the exact same thing. Using quotes in this context doesn't seem that unusual. I'll wager a little web searching will turn up remarks satirically ascribed to George Bush, for example. I'm sure there are instances where it's hard to differentiate parody from reporting, particularly regarding the Shrub, but the post in question doesn't seem to be one of these cases. |
> Simon, you are condoning Nick's behavior. Is > it acceptable to you if Nick has been calling > me an illiterate troll? > > Here's Nick's post on 24-June-04 somewhere in > this subject: > > In the RGCP thread, 'Dazed and Confused' (6 > ober 2003), Mark Houlsby (who had carefully > read my exchanges with Lance Smith) wrote to > Lance Smith: > > "He (Nick) *didn't* call you (Lance Smith) > 'an illiterate troll'. He called you a > '...*nearly* illiterate troll...', you > illiterate troll."--Mark Houlsby (6 ober > 2003, writing to Lance Smith)" > > But putting the word NEARLY doesn'y make me > feel better. He is proud of it and you and Dr. > Blair are applauding him. I wrote (2004-05-30 12:26:03 PST): > Another false statement from Lance Smith. I > have written NOTHING to applaud any "nearly > illiterate troll" comment. My subject has been > and is the practice of putting quotation marks > around things that are not quotes. My (so far > unanswered) question remains: Is Lance Smith > the sort of person who considers that to be > acceptable? Snipping all but the last two sentences above, Mike Murray wrote (2004-06-01 15:49:20 PST): > As one of the posters who were "misquoted", it > seems evident to me that Lance Smith's use of > quotation marks was parody, and not intended > to deceive the reader. In a single paragraph, > he "quoted" several posters of diverse writing > styles as saying the exact same thing. > > Using quotes in this context doesn't seem that > unusual. I'll wager a little web searching will > turn up remarks satirically ascribed to George > Bush, for example. I'm sure there are instances > where it's hard to differentiate parody from > reporting, particularly regarding the Shrub, but > the post in question doesn't seem to be one of > these cases. _ Are we also supposed to believe that it was a "parody" when Lance Smith falsely asserted that I was "applauding" Nick? Lance Smith did indeed attribute the same words to several posters, but there were other phony quotes in that note. I do not think that Lance Smith indicated that none of the quotes were to be taken as real. Lance Smith was not doing a parody of Timothy Hanke, Matt Nemmers, etc. |
> chapman Billy <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:<[email protected]>... >> Louis Blair wrote: >> > Lance Smith wrote: >> >> The whole point Dr. Blair is that if you google >> >> Nick, you'll find out that ... >> > _ >> > My whole point is about the practice of putting >> > quotation marks around things that are not >> > quotes. Is Lance Smith the sort of person who >> > considers that to be acceptable? >> >> I have to agree with Louis Blair. >> I have had my share of differences with Nick Bourbaki; but I have never >> knowingly misquoted him, nor am I aware of being intentionally misquoted >> by him. Deliberate misrepresentation is a characteristic of a bounder, >> Lance Smith should disavow the contents of his post. > Simon, you are condoning Nick's behavior. Is it acceptable to you > if Nick has been calling me an illiterate troll? 'Cum tacent clamant' - Cicero. By asking the question several times without receiving a direct answer, Louis Blair has made it plain what Lance Smith believes, at least the proof is plain outside a court of law. I have never applauded the words 'nearly illiterate troll', or any version thereof; although, for the record, I find this a less grievous practise than deliberately falsifying the words of others and passing them off as authentic. By not directly answering Louis Blair's question, and asking about the illiteracy slur, Lance Smith wants to divert the attention of his readers. Nonetheless, I shall play Lance Smith's game and partially examine the allegation of Lance Smith's near illiteracy. By illiteracy, I do not mean uneducated, ignorant, or uncultured; although, for all I know, Nick Bourbaki may mean precisely that; I am taking it to mean the inability to read *and* write. > Here's Nick's post on 24-June-04 somewhere in this subject: > In the RGCP thread, 'Dazed and Confused' (6 ober 2003), Mark > Houlsby > (who had carefully read my exchanges with Lance Smith) wrote to Lance > Smith: > "He (Nick) *didn't* call you (Lance Smith) 'an illiterate troll'. > He called you a '...*nearly* illiterate troll...', you illiterate > troll." > --Mark Houlsby (6 ober 2003, writing to Lance Smith)" > But putting the word NEARLY doesn'y make me feel better. He is proud > of it and you and Dr. Blair are applauding him. The adverb 'nearly' substantially qualifies the adjective 'illiterate' (for Lance Smith's enlightenment I mention in passing that an adverb qualifies more than just a verb, it need not qualify a verb at all), so much so that, under the use I am assuming Nick was making of 'illiterate', Nick was not claiming that Lance Smith cannot read and write: the contention was that Lance Smith, in this instance, had trouble reading. Lance Smith's inability to understand this, and to assume the remark was worse than it was, does rather underline Nick's unwelcome point. One could go further, elsewhere in this thread Lance Smith wrote: 'Dr. Blair, 'Your last statement was a "false statement". I did not write that you wrote something to APPLAUD Nick. What I've written was my opionion and observation about you and Chapman Billy. You seem to be applauding Nick instead of castigating him ...' As Louis Blair has pointed out, this is at variance with: 'He is proud of it and you and Dr. Blair are applauding him.' Here the copula 'seem' appears to be the root of Lance Smith's misunderstanding; Lance Smith appears to be unaware that his use makes for a decisive change in meaning, which is, presumably, why Louis Blair subsequently challenges Lance Smith on this point. To help Lance Smith understand the matter, when an accusation is made that a statement is false, it does not necessarily mean that that person is accused of being a liar; the accusation may be that he is misinformed, or even 'nearly illiterate'. Leaving aside the question of spelling, after all, we all occasionally slip up; this illustrates that Lance Smith, at least sometimes, has trouble writing cogently. I would not, unless provoked, ordinarily describe anyone as illiterate; but Nick's contention that Lance Smith is 'nearly illiterate' may be a trifle harsh, but it is not completely wrong: I am sure that further examples can be found, say in the thread where Nick describes Lance Smith so. My final point is that I consider RGCP a cesspit; which is why I neither read it, nor post to it, except as a result of someone else's crossposting. Regards, Simon. |
IMO, "Simon" has merely demonstrated that he himself is too ignorant to comprehend what Lance Smith wrote -- not that Lance Smith is "nearly illiterate," and certainly not that he is a "troll." Perhaps I am being too generous, but I would prefer to attribute Simons' failure at comprehension in this one case to laziness, rather than sweepingly conclude that he is truly illiterate, or even dimwitted to such a degree as would make it impossible for him to understand what Lance Smith wrote (something which even I quite easily understood -- enough said). Leaving aside for the moment, the obvious fact that Nick Bourbaki ("the accuser") is a compulsive liar and puerile name-caller to boot, we can easily see that these clowns (and I think that word is well-deserved in this case) are not seeking answers to legitimate questions as they pretend, but rather, they are merely engaging in posturing and launching puerile insults skyward, in vain hopes of clouding any issues which might otherwise be addressed here, like, say, the one Lance Smith actually raised (if you can't recall what that issue was, their cheap tactics are working perfectly on you, stupid). In summary, Lance Smith has (repeatedly) complained about Nick Bourbaki's "problem" with name-calling and ad hominem -- an issue which Nick's apparent supporters feverishly wish to avoid discussing, for some reason, preferrring instead the hackneyed "kill the messenger" approach; or, in the case of Louis Blair, preferring to completely ignore L.S.'s complaint and focus only upon one of his own. Lance Smith, in turn, has become the subject of complaints, because he recklessly invented "quotations," rather than diligently research the actual criticisms of Nick Bourbaki which indeed were made here, but were not *properly quoted* by him, word-for-word. Lance Smith at some point decided it was not worth his effort to do the required research, and as a result of his very liberal "paraphrasings," is now beset by the "dogs" of rgc -- the self-appointed protectors of quotation-morality, literacy standards, and soon (I expect), the spelling police and the Organization to Stop Top-Postings (OSTP)! His only hope now is to appeal to Crossposters International (CI) -- an organization with the clout required to take on the others I just listed, and having a loyal membership of several hundred thousand, is undoubtedly capable of undertaking such a gargantuan task -- one which could easily end up being decided by the Internet Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Al Gore presiding. >My final point is that I consider RGCP a cesspit; which is why I neither >read it, nor post to it, except as a result of someone else's crossposting. My Gawd -- there already here! :-) >By asking the question several times without receiving a direct answer, >Louis Blair has made it plain what Lance Smith believes, at least the proof >is plain outside a court of law. While an utter fool may easily lead himself to assume such things as stated above, the repeated asking of a question, with no real answer in response, has already been done -- before Louis Blair's act came on stage. As I recall, Lance Smith received no decent answer from any of those who chimed in, regarding his accusation about Nick Bourbaki's puerile insults. All this really shows is that no one was particularly eager to say anything bad about Nick Bourbaki (who is well-known to "retaliate" sevenfold), and that L.S. was not interested in addressing the other issues raised subsequently to his own issue. "What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander." >although, for the record, I find this a less grievous practise >than deliberately falsifying the words of others and passing them off as >authentic. Speaking of *falsifications,* L.S. quickly admitted here that some of his "quotes" were invented, stating that he made them up as "placeholders" for the negative things which were actually said about Nick Bourbaki (which IMO, he was simply too lazy to research). Now "Simon" is deliberately distorting the truth, as he must have known that the last part of his statement above was simply a big, fat fib. Thus, we now know for certain that "Simon" lies, and that he has trouble with Reading Comprehension 101. But this tells us nothing about the original issue (which, in case you have forgotten, was Nick Bourbaki's "problem" with puerille name-calling). I suggest anyone interested in this issue would do well to begin with a google search for "illiterate" & "troll" in rgc, carefully noting the preponderance of hits relating to one "Nick Bourbaki." |
>>I have never applauded the words 'nearly illiterate troll', or any version > thereof; although, for the record, I find this a less grievous practise > than deliberately falsifying the words of others and passing them off as > authentic.<< Lighten up Simon, I never passed them off as authentic. How can others like Mike Murray, Dave Richerby, and Nomorechess understood what I meant if I was trying to falsify things. Your statements are very seriuos, but very false. > By not directly answering Louis Blair's question, and asking about the > illiteracy slur, Lance Smith wants to divert the attention of his readers. Dave already answered it for me. Try and read all the exchanges and I'm sure that you'll find out. Regards, Lance |
> I have never applauded the words 'nearly illiterate > troll', or any version thereof; although, for the > record, I find this a less grievous practise than > deliberately falsifying the words of others and > passing them off as authentic. Lance Smith wrote (2004-06-02 04:44:29 PST): > Lighten up Simon, I never passed them off as authentic. > How can others like Mike Murray, Dave Richerby, and > Nomorechess understood what I meant if I was trying > to falsify things. Your statements are very > seriuos, but very false. _ Here is what Mike Murray initially wrote on this matter: "I don't remember saying ['Nick is a dimwit'] either. I think that precise phrase was just a 'placeholder', where Liam Too hadn't looked up the actual derogatory remark. Sometime, I'll go back and look up what I really said." (2004-05-26 18:42:22 PST) It certainly looks to me as though Mike Murray took the Nick-is-a-dimwit thing as a "placeholder" in a list of actual derogatory remarks. At that point, if Mike Murray perceived the whole thing as a "parody", he mysteriously chose to keep that perception to himself. |
>Here is what Mike Murray initially wrote on this >matter: > > "I don't remember saying ['Nick is a dimwit'] > either. I think that precise phrase was just > a 'placeholder', where Liam Too hadn't looked up > the actual derogatory remark. Sometime, I'll go > back and look up what I really said." (2004-05-26 > 18:42:22 PST) >It certainly looks to me as though Mike Murray took >the Nick-is-a-dimwit thing as a "placeholder" in a >list of actual derogatory remarks. At that point, >if Mike Murray perceived the whole thing as a "parody", >he mysteriously chose to keep that perception to >himself. It can't be both ? A parody can't employ placeholder "quotes"? I interpreted the post, taken as a whole, as a parody of Nick's frequently posted list of favorable newsgroup citations. But Lance Smith didn't bother to look up the individual quotes of those people who had posted remarks critical of Nick -- he used the same "quote" for each. And the repetition was humorous in its own right. Would his post have been more effective if he plugged in actual cites? Possibly. But, IMO, a little less funny. So, no mysterious silence on my part -- the parody aspect just seemed obvious. Seems to me you're being overly pedantic |
>Smith didn't bother to look up the individual quotes of those people >who had posted remarks critical of Nick -- he used the same "quote" >for each. And the repetition was humorous in its own right. Would >his post have been more effective if he plugged in actual cites? >Possibly. But, IMO, a little less funny. > >So, no mysterious silence on my part -- the parody aspect just seemed >obvious. > >Seems to me you're being overly pedantic As far as I know, Louis Blair has yet to give any indication of having an ability to appreciate humor, and your accusation that he is being "overly pedantic" is inane, for Louis Blair is the very *definition* of the word pedant. Can a zebra change his stripes? |
> I never passed them off as authentic. How can > others like Mike Murray, Dave Richerby, and > Nomorechess understood what I meant if I was > trying to falsify things. I wrote (2004-06-02 11:44:48 PST): > Here is what Mike Murray initially wrote on this > matter: > > "I don't remember saying ['Nick is a dimwit'] > either. I think that precise phrase was just > a 'placeholder', where Liam Too hadn't looked up > the actual derogatory remark. Sometime, I'll go > back and look up what I really said." (2004-05-26 > 18:42:22 PST) > > It certainly looks to me as though Mike Murray took > the Nick-is-a-dimwit thing as a "placeholder" in a > list of actual derogatory remarks. At that point, > if Mike Murray perceived the whole thing as a "parody", > he mysteriously chose to keep that perception to > himself. Mike Murray wrote (2004-06-02 13:36:17 PST): > It can't be both ? A parody can't employ placeholder > "quotes"? I interpreted the post, taken as a whole, > as a parody of Nick's frequently posted list of > favorable newsgroup citations. But Lance Smith didn't > bother to look up the individual quotes of those people > who had posted remarks critical of Nick -- he used the > same "quote" for each. _ That last sentence is clearly false. For Timothy Hanke, for example, the quote that Lance Smith composed was: "My garden gnome is smarter that Nick." Mike Murray wrote (2004-06-02 13:36:17 PST): > And the repetition was humorous in its own right. > Would his post have been more effective if he > plugged in actual cites? Possibly. But, IMO, > a little less funny. > > So, no mysterious silence on my part -- the > parody aspect just seemed obvious. _ Perhaps I should phrase things a little bit differently in order to be sure that Mike Murray gets the point. Mike Murray's original note showed awareness that the Nick-is-a-dimwit quotes were not real. If Mike Murray perceived that OTHER quotes were not real, it seems to me that he rather strangely chose to keep that perception to himself and rather strangely chose to refer ONLY to the "dimwit" quotes as "placeholder"s. |
wrote: >Perhaps I should phrase things a little bit >differently in order to be sure that Mike >Murray gets the point. Mike Murray's original >note showed awareness that the Nick-is-a-dimwit >quotes were not real. If Mike Murray perceived >that OTHER quotes were not real, it seems to me >that he rather strangely chose to keep that >perception to himself and rather strangely >chose to refer ONLY to the "dimwit" quotes >as "placeholder"s. You're right. I thought ONLY the "dimwit" quotes were made up and *did* believe the others were probably actual quotes. My error. |
I certainly don't wish to complicate this matter any further by adding fuel to the fire now, but... I recall thinking (when I first read the quote of me calling Nick a dimwit) that I had no recollection of having called him precisely that. However, I do know that I have agreed with Mark Trollsby, who once very astutely observed that: "[Nick Bourbaki] is not the sharpest tool in the box." This is not only notable in the sense that Trollsby worships Nick like a god, but because I have so rarely agreed with him on *anything.* In addition, I just didn't think researching this particular quote (or misquote) was worth my time, since Nick's dimwittedness is the least of his many problems. >> It can't be both ? A parody can't employ placeholder >> "quotes"? I interpreted the post, taken as a whole, >> as a parody of Nick's frequently posted list of >> favorable newsgroup citations. I failed to see the humor of this parody at the time, but this was likely due to the fact that Nick's ridiculous antics have already been pointed out here, more than once. >That last sentence is clearly false. For Timothy >Hanke, for example, the quote that Lance Smith >composed was: "My garden gnome is smarter that >Nick." I must admit to feeling jealous -- outdone even -- by this (purely invented) quote, which, it seemed to me, clearly topped the routine "Nick is a dimwit." Hanke is *creative,* while I am just a run-of-the-mill insulter, I concluded, only to later discover that this quote, too, had been invented! :-) That's all for now. Back over to Louis "deadpan" Blair -- the man who never laughs. Too bad he's never seen me play chess -- he would at least have experienced a few snickers.... |
> chapman Billy <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:<[email protected]>... >>>I have never applauded the words 'nearly illiterate troll', or any > version >> thereof; although, for the record, I find this a less grievous practise >> than deliberately falsifying the words of others and passing them off as >> authentic.<< > Lighten up Simon, I never passed them off as authentic. Here is the germane part of Lance Smith's post of 26 May 2004: 'Here are the testimonials of other posters about Nick: '"His posts appear quite incoherent and disoriented."--Michael Sayers '"Nick is not the sharpest tool in the box."--Mark Houlsby '"Nick is a dimwit." --NoMoreChess '"Nick is intellectually dishonest." --StanB '"Nick is a dimwit." --Mike Murray '"My garden gnome is smarter that Nick." --Tim Hanke '"Nick is a dimwit." --Briarroot '"Nick is a leftist just like Jerome Bibuld." --Matt Nemmers '"Nick is a dimwit." --Sam Sloan Readers are invited to decide for themselves whether 'I never passed them off as authentic' is a tenable assertion. > How can others > like Mike Murray, Dave Richerby, and Nomorechess understood what I > meant if I was trying to falsify things. Your statements are very > seriuos, but very false. David Richerby may well have understood the above as an attempt at humour; however, precisely where has he stated he knew these 'quotations' would be widely known to contain many false statements *before* any rebuttals were posted; indeed, where even has he stated that he knew straightaway they were false? Mike Murray and Nick Bourbaki have had many disputes in RGCM; I believe it is fair to assert that neither likes the other, and this partiality must be understood when examining posts written by the one about the other. Greg Kennedy (NoMoreChess) is not someone one should rely on for determining the veracity of a claim, rather the opposite. I give just one example, although his distortions are legion. Here is what I wrote in November 2003: 'Tueschen uses expressions such as "Jew officials" and "evil Jewish hatred", he also repeats Irving's filth. There is no question that he is an anti-Semite, as are those who support him.' See http://makeashorterlink.com/?T23B15578 . And this is how Greg Kennedy (NoMoreChess distorted it): 'Try to keep up, old boy!' >There is no question that he is an >anti-Semite, as are those who support him. 'His parents must be dragged into this?!! 'Mark Trollsby already pointed out the obvious fact that *every* poster who fails to take the "proper" side here is automatically (read: without actual brain activity) branded an anti-semite. This is (for the truly ignorant) known as ad hominem, or arguing to the person. (See also the title of this thread.) ' See http://makeashorterlink.com/?B36B62578 The more literate readers will see that Greg Kennedy snips the heart of my argument, starts with a puerile joke, and then does not answer my points - because there is no answer. Then again, what reliance can be made on the words of Lance Smith when he writes the following of the neo-nazi Tueschen: 'I know that Rolf is a very nice guy. I just came upon his discussion with Nick and see if I can judge the case. I just wanted to find out more info. 'What doyathink?' This was also posted in November 2003 see http://makeashorterlink.com/?O6CA24578 . Have Lance Smith and Tueschen met at neo-nazi gatherings, is that how Lance Smith knows that 'Rolf is a very nice guy'? >> By not directly answering Louis Blair's question, and asking about the >> illiteracy slur, Lance Smith wants to divert the attention of his >> readers. > Dave already answered it for me. Try and read all the exchanges and > I'm sure that you'll find out. Again Lance Smith does not give a direct answer; given the apparently limited level of his comprehension, he may not realise that the above is an indirect admission that he does approve of the practise of misquotation: 'it seems obvious that he does find it acceptable to place quotation marks around things that are not quotes.' Does David Richerby wish to be associated with Greg Kennedy and Lance Smith? Will David Richerby do as I did six months ago and permanently killfile Greg Kennedy (NoMoreChess)? I ask David Richerby this because I do not yet consider him a lost cause. Regards, Simon. |
> Does David Richerby wish to be associated with Greg Kennedy and Lance > Smith? No, thank you. > Will David Richerby do as I did six months ago and permanently killfile > Greg Kennedy (NoMoreChess)? I do not comment on the contents of my killfile in public. If you E-mail me, I'd be happy to tell you. Dave. -- David Richerby Confusing Hilarious Sword (TM): www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a razor-sharp blade but it's a bundle of laughs and you can't understand it! |
> Lighten up Simon, I never passed them off as authentic. How can others > like Mike Murray, Dave Richerby, and Nomorechess understood what I > meant if I was trying to falsify things. Oh look, it's my turn to be misrepresented in this thread. I never claimed to understand what you meant and I'm not sure what I might have written in this thread that could be taken as being in any way supportive of you. >> By not directly answering Louis Blair's question, and asking about >> the illiteracy slur, Lance Smith wants to divert the attention of his >> readers. > > Dave already answered it for me. Try and read all the exchanges and > I'm sure that you'll find out. For reference, the answer I was suggesting was `Yes, Lance Smith does think it's acceptable to put things that aren't quotes in quotes.' In case anyone is in any doubt I, in general, do not think this is acceptable. Dave. -- David Richerby Simple Watch (TM): it's like a www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ precision chronometer but it has no moving parts! |
message news:<0nk*[email protected] >...(to Lance Smith) > Liam Too <[email protected]> wrote (to Simon, 'chapman billy'): > > Lighten up Simon, I never passed them off as authentic. > > How can others like Mike Murray, Dave Richerby, and Nomorechess > > understood what I meant if I was trying to falsify things. > > Oh look, it's my turn to be misrepresented in this thread. Dave, even you seem not to be immune to the endemic pathological 'culture' of the chess newsgroups. In the chess newsgroups, I have been misrepresented or simply lied about by the trolls many more times than I can remember. Of course, I lack the time to read, let alone to respond, to every case wherein someone writes a false statement (often reiterating false statements that already have been confuted elsewhere) in order to attack me personally. Unfortunately, it seems to be a truism of propaganda everywhere that about *any* falsehood will be accepted more or less as credible by *some* people *if* it can be reiterated tirelessly enough, vehemently enough, and shamelessly enough. And there seem to be more than a few sufficiently tireless, vehement, and shameless trolls--not to mention many evidently nearly illiterate readers with quite flawed or short memories--who write and make the chess newsgroups a fertile bed for the propagation of lies. "You feel tremendous anger when you read those lies. But I've trained myself to use a steely cold resolve to fight back rationally and calmly--though it's made easier by friends. You begin to realise it's a badge of honour." --Edward Said (11 September 1999, quoted in 'The Guardian') > I never claimed to understand what you meant and I'm not sure what I > might have written in this thread that could be taken as being in any way > supportive of you. Dave, I did *not* construe anything that you have written in this thread 'as being in any way supportive of (Lance Smith)'. It's a common practice of trolls to claim (often in vague terms such as 'everyone knows' or 'almost everyone knows' that something bad about the troll's 'victim' must be true) the support of other writers here without citing any specific evidence. Trolls tend to avoid citing specific posts or even naming specific threads when they make such sweeping assertions. Trolls evidently prefer not to encourage any interested reader to read the complete original thread in context for himself or herself rather than just passively accepting the troll's distorted or false conclusions about what was written there. In contrast, when I have enough time for it in opposing the trolls, I prefer to cite specific posts and to name the specific threads so that any interested reader (who knows how to use Google) may read what was originally written in context for himself or herself. > > Simon wrote: > > > By not directly answering Louis Blair's question, and asking about the > > > illiteracy slur, Lance Smith wants to divert the attention of his readers. It seems to me that misrepresentation (which David Richerby has complained about here in relation to Lance Smith) has two main explanations (which may not necessarily be mutually exclusive): 1) the evident near illiteracy of some writers, which leads to their serious misreadings and jumping to unwarranted, if not ludicrous, conclusions and 2) deliberate dishonesty. Lance Smith has quite a record of seriously distorting my writings and writing false statements about me in order to attack me personally. When I referred to Lance Smith (though not quite in the same way that he has 'described') as a '*nearly* illiterate troll', I believed that I was being *charitable in giving him the benefit of the doubt* by ascribing the former explanation, 'evident near illiteracy', rather than the latter one, 'deliberate dishonesty', to him. It's not a 'slur' to say so when it's sufficiently based on evidence. Lance Smith *might* (though I don't know that for sure) feel better if he was characterised as a 'deeply dishonest troll' rather than a 'nearly illiterate troll', though both characterisations evidently seem true of him. If Lance Smith dislikes the consequences of being held accountable for making his false statements, then he should stop making those false statements and retract and apologise for his previous false statements. > > Dave already answered it for me. > > Try and read all the exchanges and I'm sure that you'll find out. > > For reference, the answer I was suggesting was `Yes, Lance Smith does > think it's acceptable to put things that aren't quotes in quotes.' Dave, I understood that to be your answer for Louis Blair's reiterated question about Lance Smith. I doubt that was the answer, however, that Lance Smith was hoping to imply to Simon that you had made. > In case anyone is in any doubt I, in general, do not think this is > acceptable. Dave, your position does you credit in my view. Lance Smith has claimed to have the support of Greg Kennedy ('NoMoreChess') and Mike Murray on the issue of his spurious 'quotations'. As far as I can tell, both Greg Kennedy and Mike Murray regard it as a quite acceptable practice if such spurious 'quotations' seem useful in attacking me personally. But that reveals much more about their characters than it could about mine. --Nick |
> Liam Too <[email protected]> wrote: > > Lighten up Simon, I never passed them off as authentic. How can others > > like Mike Murray, Dave Richerby, and Nomorechess understood what I > > meant if I was trying to falsify things. > > Oh look, it's my turn to be misrepresented in this thread. I never > claimed to understand what you meant and I'm not sure what I might have > written in this thread that could be taken as being in any way supportive > of you. > > > >> By not directly answering Louis Blair's question, and asking about > >> the illiteracy slur, Lance Smith wants to divert the attention of his > >> readers. > > > > Dave already answered it for me. Try and read all the exchanges and > > I'm sure that you'll find out. > > For reference, the answer I was suggesting was `Yes, Lance Smith does > think it's acceptable to put things that aren't quotes in quotes.' In > case anyone is in any doubt I, in general, do not think this is > acceptable.-- Dave.<< Oh look, it's my turn to be misrepresented here. Did I ever say Yes? I don't think it is acceptable for you to be butting in like this if you don't know what you're talking about. First you said, that I already answered Blair's question and now you are saying a different answer. Something is fishy here don't you think? Lance Smith |
> > I strongly object to anybody who claims to paraphrase what I wrote and > then puts quotation remarks around it. > > I have no objection to anybody who quotes what I actually did write. > > The worst offender was Bruce Draney, who constantly claimed that I had > written things that I had never written. Then, when I called him on > it, he would claim that what I wrote amounted to the same thing, when > in reality what I had written was often exactly the opposite. > > I have posted thousands of words on this group and there is no excuse > for misquoting me. > > Sam Sloan<< Edward David told me verbally at work that you called him 'idiot' at one time or another in you brief encounter with him here in RGC. That may not be the word 'dimwit' but it's a synonym. You were so civil though with Nick. After all his apparent flames, you never called him anything bad. However, when Nick was in alliance with Neil Brennen, you wrote the following: Lance Smith ============================================================== From: [email protected] (Sam Sloan) Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics Subject: Re: Sloan Throws Down the Gauntlet Again Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:46:35 GMT As I think almost everybody has observed by now, I do not respond to personal attacks. That was: 1. An obscene posting 2. A personal attack 3. Which had nothing to do with chess and 4. Took place two years ago. Meanwhile, Matt, John Fernandez, Neil Brennen and the rest of their gang lie every day. I do not need to go back more than a week to collect a bunch of their posts which contain lies. Sam Sloan |
>[email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... >> >> I strongly object to anybody who claims to paraphrase what I wrote and >> then puts quotation remarks around it. >> >> I have no objection to anybody who quotes what I actually did write. >> >> The worst offender was Bruce Draney, who constantly claimed that I had >> written things that I had never written. Then, when I called him on >> it, he would claim that what I wrote amounted to the same thing, when >> in reality what I had written was often exactly the opposite. >> >> I have posted thousands of words on this group and there is no excuse >> for misquoting me. >> >> Sam Sloan<< > >Edward David told me verbally at work that you called him 'idiot' at >one time or another in you brief encounter with him here in RGC. That >may not be the word 'dimwit' but it's a synonym. I have never called David Edward or anybody else an "idiot". I may have been quoting John Fernandez who often calls people idiots. Sam Sloan |
> [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... > >>I strongly object to anybody who claims to paraphrase what I wrote and >>then puts quotation remarks around it. >> >>I have no objection to anybody who quotes what I actually did write. >> >>The worst offender was Bruce Draney, who constantly claimed that I had >>written things that I had never written. Then, when I called him on >>it, he would claim that what I wrote amounted to the same thing, when >>in reality what I had written was often exactly the opposite. >> >>I have posted thousands of words on this group and there is no excuse >>for misquoting me. >> >>Sam Sloan<< > > > Edward David told me verbally at work that you called him 'idiot' at > one time or another in you brief encounter with him here in RGC. That > may not be the word 'dimwit' but it's a synonym. > > You were so civil though with Nick. After all his apparent flames, you > never called him anything bad. However, when Nick was in alliance with > Neil Brennen, you wrote the following: > > Lance Smith > > ============================================================== > From: [email protected] (Sam Sloan) > Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics > Subject: Re: Sloan Throws Down the Gauntlet Again > Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:46:35 GMT > > As I think almost everybody has observed by now, I do not respond to > personal attacks. > > That was: > > 1. An obscene posting > 2. A personal attack > 3. Which had nothing to do with chess > and 4. Took place two years ago. > > Meanwhile, Matt, John Fernandez, Neil Brennen and the rest of their > gang lie every day. I do not need to go back more than a week to > collect a bunch of their posts which contain lies. > > Sam Sloan It is time to either produce evidence or apologize, Mr. Smith. We will learn something of your character. GBFPU |
message news:<[email protected] >... > Michael Sayers wrote (to David Richerby): > > If you ever stalk me, you will find out that chess playing is not > > my only skill. > ... > In the RGCP thread 'Pseudonyms' (12 January 2004) "The Masked Bishop" wrote: > "I'll say it again: authenticating users on the Usenet is smoke and mirrors." > > In his response to "The Masked Bishop", Paul Rubin wrote: > "In the end, just about any type of ID can be forged, online or offline. > It's simply a question of how much of a nuisance you want to make it. > There's nothing special about usenet." > > Salman Rushdie reportedly has played chess on the internet. Someone has asked me whether or not I believe that Salman Rushdie has written on Usenet. Who knows? If Salman Rushdie did write on Usenet, then I should expect that no one else could accurately determine his current location by tracking his Usenet posts. --Nick |
> [email protected] (Nick) wrote in > message news:<[email protected]>... > > Michael Sayers wrote (to David Richerby): > > > If you ever stalk me, you will find out that chess playing is not > > > my only skill. > > ... > > In the RGCP thread 'Pseudonyms' (12 January 2004) "The Masked Bishop" wrote: > > "I'll say it again: authenticating users on the Usenet is smoke and mirrors." > > > > In his response to "The Masked Bishop", Paul Rubin wrote: > > "In the end, just about any type of ID can be forged, online or offline. > > It's simply a question of how much of a nuisance you want to make it. > > There's nothing special about usenet." > > > > Salman Rushdie reportedly has played chess on the internet. > > Someone has asked me whether or not I believe that Salman Rushdie has written > on Usenet. Who knows? If Salman Rushdie did write on Usenet, then I should > expect that no one else could accurately determine his current location by > tracking his Usenet posts. --Nick<< Try me, which one is Salman Rushdie's post. |
> You're on Michael Sayers. I cannot be beaten on my favorite opening. > Bring on the world to be with you on this if you like. Let's play! > > Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers > > 1.e4 > > It's your move! > > Best Regards, > > Goran Fischer Greetings, The moves so far in our game are: 1. e4 e5 Are you afraid I will be able to equalize against you, by merely having opted for a classical opening? You CAN be beaten on your favourite opening, so this might also be a reason for your sudden timidity. Everyone who has played chess any at all, has lost games. As I said, I am adverse to tournament playing conditions, since chess is an art which requires a fully honourable approach for its fulfillment. Honourable men do not benefit from chess clocks in the rendering of profound moves at the chess board, and many great contests have marred by time pressure. I recently went through all the games again from the '53 Zurich-Neuhausen tournament, and need the unnecessary checks in the game Averbakh - Kotov, near the time control, from round 14. The quality of a chess time can not only be diminished by the allocation of a limited amount of time to a given number of moves, but also by an insufficient total time quantity for the game (or, match rules in which draws in a very limited number of games, a given number of wins, are the primary deciding factor in designating a victor). Morphy's games would not be what they were, had clocks been in use, mainly due to the fact that his opponents would not have had the time needed to put up a real struggle against his ingenuity, and perhaps slightly due to the time needs required for Morphy to work out his ingenuities. Lasker almost lost his match with Schlechter, in an outcome for which Schlechter would have won merely a single game. While there is no time stipulation in our game, I won't wait indefinitely for your reply in the 1. e4 e5 position, as there is no TN in that position worthy of such detailed analysis as to require so many days for an examination. Next Monday (May 24th), I will quit checking this Google group for your reply, and assume that either you from been diverted from continuing in the game, regard it is an endeavor unworthy of your attention, or else are afraid to play. Perhaps you will care to obviate the lattermost speculation. Regards, Michael Sayers P.S. - Michael Basman, if your reading this, feel free to send me an email. I have wanted to take the Black pieces vs. your Grob opening for a long time, but will never play you in a tournament. We can conduct the game via private email. |
> > While there is no time stipulation in our game, I won't wait > indefinitely for your reply in the 1. e4 e5 position, as there is no > TN in that position worthy of such detailed analysis as to require so > many days for an examination.<< You're not paying attention then, yesterday I sent this message. It's still there. It's your move. Goran ==================================================== From: Goran Fischer ([email protected]) Subject: Re: message for Goran Tomic View: Complete Thread (10 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc Date: 2004-05-16 08:42:08 PST Goran Fischer vs. Michael Sayers 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Richerby is right, we are in a chess forum therefore he should be able to participate in the discussion. I don't have any problems with that. Goran |
Hmmm...the idiot, Micheal Sayers, rants on and on about the dreaded evils of time-limited moves, then quickly loses patience with Goran "Fischer" Tomic, and demands that he reply by some arbitrary deadline, not realizing that GT had already made his reply! LOL It is apparent from his arrogant comment that the idiot, MS, disdains anyone who might consider various different approaches to the position after 1.e4 e5. For example, Goran "Spassky" Tomic might toy with the idea of venturing a King's Gambit here, instead of the hackneyed Ruy Lopez. In essence, MS insists that you must play by rote, having already decided which opening to play and responding quickly like an automaton, at least until after the "long variation" nears its end. We are already beginning to favor GT's winning chances, barring any computer cheating, that is. Not because the black side of the RL is tough to defend, but because MS is so incoherent, arrogant, and for that matter, not particularly alert. Perhaps it would be wise for GT to make sure he announces any checks and for good measure, gives the fair warning: "guarde le Dame!" >You're not paying attention then, yesterday I sent this message. It's >still there. It's your move. Don't rush him! He's thinking up a TN. Hmmm...f5? ...d5? ...Bd6? ...Qe7? ...f6?!! |
>>It is apparent from his arrogant comment that the idiot, MS, disdains anyone who might consider various different approaches to the position after 1.e4 e5. For example, Goran "Spassky" Tomic might toy with the idea of venturing a King's Gambit here, instead of the hackneyed Ruy Lopez. In essence, MS insists that you must play by rote, having already decided which opening to play and responding quickly like an automaton, at least until after the "long variation" nears its end. >> Goran Fischer used the traditional 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 path. It should not be beaten even with computers. We'll see in a couple of MS replies and find out if he's beaten and adjudicate this game. |
In one famous game in this line (1e4 e5 2Nf3), Garry Kasparov, unable to defend as Black, resigned to Deeper- Blue, not realizing that the monster-computer had carelessly left its King open to a "deep perp." >Goran Fischer used the traditional 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 path. It should >not be beaten even with computers. Agreed. 1e4 e5 2Nf3 cannot be beaten even with computers. It is the moves which follow that worry me. :-) |
> >Agreed. 1e4 e5 2Nf3 cannot be beaten even with computers. It is the moves which follow that worry me. :-) I don't, because all of the moves that follow lead to Black's loss. |