Main
Date: 16 Nov 2008 05:17:24
From: [email protected]
Subject: Dresden Olympiad
The first thing to say is that ELO has not been a large predictor of
results thus far - and some score of players giving away 200 or so
points have achieved remarkable results.

I think these are now widely reported [see Chessbase, eg] but I made a
summary of early results in the Parrot col at www.chessville.com

Probably the biggest upset was in the first round when 77 year old
Viktor Korchnoi got to get the black bits against 2700+-rated Peter
Svidler. Draw!

Latest news is that in Rd 3 the Indian women's team held the Russians
to a tie. Other national teams doing very well are from Vietnam, Cuba.

Its always going to be the Russians and Chinese to beat these days -
but thus far the ability of those two teams to convert their ELO
advantages over opponents into points is the test of how well they
do.

Phil Innes




 
Date: 27 Nov 2008 22:32:45
From: thumbody..
Subject: Re: Yet again: Elo/ELO/elo (was: Dresden Olympiad)
[email protected] wrote:
.
> It's amazing how one need only disagree with Phil Innes to have him
> produce a fountain of nonsense. Phil's style of argument is like a man
> in a hot-air balloon shooting at a bird directly overhead. The result
> is not that he hits the bird, but that he punctures the balloon,
> producing an outpouring of hot air and sending himself crashing to the
> ground.

& one might imagine the firestick employed by innes is nothing less than
un holy blunderbuss, lit by a castro cigar & consigning the dirigble
stupidly to earth..

But let's not be petty here. Cervantes already compassed the notion of
nutters - jousting away @ windmills & by implication ballooneers & their
artifacts thereof!..

t.


 
Date: 26 Nov 2008 00:13:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Yet again: Elo/ELO/elo (was: Dresden Olympiad)

Dr. IMnes wrote to TK:

> > > Look what you wrote:
> > > "the general norm is actually to use only lower case letters"
>
> > > but you then conclude the 'correct' term is Elo, not elo.


Mr. Kingston angrily responded:

> =A0 In probably vain hopes of making this perfectly clear, yet again,
> for the incorrigibly dense and willfully obtuse, the all-lower-case
> convention applies if one is dealing with a *_unit of measurement_*
> named for the person who devised it, e.g. angstroms, newtons, ohms,
> amperes etc.
> =A0 However, that is not the case with Elo ratings.

Flippity flop. Here is what Mr. Kingston wrote
earlier, and which led to much confusion on the
part of Dr. IMnes (who perhaps is not familiar
with the subtleties of TK's titanic struggles with
logic):

--
"No, it is not normative. Do you write "It's 80 degrees
FAHRENHEIT"?
Or "This is a sixty WATT lightbulb"? Or "The gamma-ray device exposed
Dr. Banner to many ROENTGENs"? Or "The pressure is one NEWTON per
square meter"? Of course not."

"With measurement terms derived from a person's name, the general
norm is actually to use only lower case letters, e.g. volt, watt,
ampere, joule, ohm, gauss, pascal, hertz, angstrom etc. I haven't
seen
that done with Elo... ."
---

Now, abandoning his former faux-logic,
Mr. Kingston seems to have stumbled into
a somewhat different sort of idiocy, much
like a drunken sailor:


>The Fahrenheit or
> Celsius scales do not measure fahrenheits or celsii, they measure
> degrees of temperature.

They actually measure /temperature/, of
course, not degrees. TK continues:


> In the same way, the Elo scale does not
> measure elos, it measures rating points.

As everyone (except TK, apparently)
knows, the Elo scale does not measure
points; what it measures is /performance/.

But let's not interrupt Mr. Kingston now, for
like a thick pat of fatty butter, he is "on a roll":


> Therefore it is not correct to put "elo rating" in all lower case.

Non sequitur.


> =A0 As for "ELO," as I pointed out earlier that would be correct if Elo
> were an acronym, but it is not. It is a man's name, just like Smith,
> Jones or Williams. Before the USCF adopted the Elo system, it used a
> system devised by Kenneth Harkness. Just as it was not written as
> "HARKNESS rating," so one should not write "ELO rating."

Finally, Mr. Kingston manages to get
something right. Let us hope he is able
to recover from these losing battles with
logic in time for the holidays.


-- help bot






 
Date: 25 Nov 2008 10:18:30
From:
Subject: Re: Yet again: Elo/ELO/elo (was: Dresden Olympiad)
On Nov 25, 1:05=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 25, 12:30=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Nov 18, 2:54=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > =A0 Because in the Elo rating system, one is measuring rating poi=
nts,
> > > > > and unlike with volts, watts, angstoms etc, these rating units ar=
e not
> > > > > themselves named for the man.
>
> > > > Actually, that is exactly who they are named for
>
> > > =A0 Whom. =A0 (As in, do not ask for *whom* the
> > > flag falls; it falls for thee.)
>
> > > > > he'd say he gained 20 rating points, or that his Elo
> > > > > rating went up 20 points.
>
> > > > Look what you wrote:
>
> > > > "the general
> > > > norm is actually to use only lower case letters"
>
> > > > but you then conclude the 'correct' term is Elo, not elo.
>
> > =A0 In probably vain hopes of making this perfectly clear, yet again,
> > for the incorrigibly dense and willfully obtuse, the all-lower-case
> > convention applies if one is dealing with a *_unit of measurement_*
> > named for the person who devised it, e.g. angstroms, newtons, ohms,
> > amperes etc.
>
> Thank you, our Taylor. The mariner currently titled Kelp-Bot was
> confused! He thought ratings WERE units of measurement, and I've tried
> to explain to him that they are, and he will listen.
>
> I suppose that's human nature for you, or Yummun Nature, as Carl Sagan
> used to say.
>
> If it weren't for such as yourself, such as he and me would be
> permanently enlightened, at least as much as we wanna be.
>
> > =A0 However, that is not the case with Elo ratings.
>
> You admit then, despite telling us the 'rules' for measurements of
> things, that the ratings named after Dr. Elo are actually measurements
> of things, and in essence, you say these are excepted from the rule
> you yourself cared to mention here?
>
> > The Fahrenheit or
> > Celsius scales do not measure fahrenheits or celsii, they measure
> > degrees of temperature. In the same way, the Elo scale does not
> > measure elos, it measures rating points. Therefore it is not correct
> > to put "elo rating" in all lower case.
>
> Ah... but I sense a small shift in correctness here, since IMO, I said
> ELO, or just as good, elo, but did not add the term rating in the
> first instance. Are you saying that one should say 2500 elo, but also
> 2500 Elo rating?
>
> > =A0 As for "ELO," as I pointed out earlier that would be correct if Elo
> > were an acronym, but it is not. It is a man's name, just like Smith,
> > Jones or Williams. Before the USCF adopted the Elo system, it used a
> > system devised by Kenneth Harkness. Just as it was not written as
> > "HARKNESS rating," so one should not write "ELO rating."
> > =A0 Thus the rating system used by USCF and FIDE should be referred to
> > as Elo, not "elo" or "ELO."- Hide quoted text -
>
> Actually not. The rating /system/ should, by such logic be Elo System
> as used by FIDE and USCF, but the rating itself, like all
> measurements /should/ be normative, no? That is to say 2500 elo, not
> 2500 Elo system or even 2500 Elo's-system; in much the same way we say
> 25 watts, not 25 Watt's system.
>
> The question that is even now gripping this chess-tribe is; given that
> we both appear to have made a point, and both of us using your logic
> system alone, did we make two sufficient points?
>
> Indeed, that we each scored a kingston on the Kingstonian logic
> system?
>
> But if you do not agree such logic as your own possesses both
> instances with justice, let us have Kelp-Bot arbitrate the issue, as
> necessary using supplementary logic, until indeed, Louis Blair can be
> induced to show up and go retrodrade on the group.
>
> Phil Innes
>

It's amazing how one need only disagree with Phil Innes to have him
produce a fountain of nonsense. Phil's style of argument is like a man
in a hot-air balloon shooting at a bird directly overhead. The result
is not that he hits the bird, but that he punctures the balloon,
producing an outpouring of hot air and sending himself crashing to the
ground.


 
Date: 25 Nov 2008 10:05:56
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Yet again: Elo/ELO/elo (was: Dresden Olympiad)
On Nov 25, 12:30=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 2:54=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > > =A0 Because in the Elo rating system, one is measuring rating point=
s,
> > > > and unlike with volts, watts, angstoms etc, these rating units are =
not
> > > > themselves named for the man.
>
> > > Actually, that is exactly who they are named for
>
> > =A0 Whom. =A0 (As in, do not ask for *whom* the
> > flag falls; it falls for thee.)
>
> > > > he'd say he gained 20 rating points, or that his Elo
> > > > rating went up 20 points.
>
> > > Look what you wrote:
>
> > > "the general
> > > norm is actually to use only lower case letters"
>
> > > but you then conclude the 'correct' term is Elo, not elo.
>
> =A0 In probably vain hopes of making this perfectly clear, yet again,
> for the incorrigibly dense and willfully obtuse, the all-lower-case
> convention applies if one is dealing with a *_unit of measurement_*
> named for the person who devised it, e.g. angstroms, newtons, ohms,
> amperes etc.

Thank you, our Taylor. The mariner currently titled Kelp-Bot was
confused! He thought ratings WERE units of measurement, and I've tried
to explain to him that they are, and he will listen.

I suppose that's human nature for you, or Yummun Nature, as Carl Sagan
used to say.

If it weren't for such as yourself, such as he and me would be
permanently enlightened, at least as much as we wanna be.

> =A0 However, that is not the case with Elo ratings.

You admit then, despite telling us the 'rules' for measurements of
things, that the ratings named after Dr. Elo are actually measurements
of things, and in essence, you say these are excepted from the rule
you yourself cared to mention here?


> The Fahrenheit or
> Celsius scales do not measure fahrenheits or celsii, they measure
> degrees of temperature. In the same way, the Elo scale does not
> measure elos, it measures rating points. Therefore it is not correct
> to put "elo rating" in all lower case.

Ah... but I sense a small shift in correctness here, since IMO, I said
ELO, or just as good, elo, but did not add the term rating in the
first instance. Are you saying that one should say 2500 elo, but also
2500 Elo rating?

> =A0 As for "ELO," as I pointed out earlier that would be correct if Elo
> were an acronym, but it is not. It is a man's name, just like Smith,
> Jones or Williams. Before the USCF adopted the Elo system, it used a
> system devised by Kenneth Harkness. Just as it was not written as
> "HARKNESS rating," so one should not write "ELO rating."
> =A0 Thus the rating system used by USCF and FIDE should be referred to
> as Elo, not "elo" or "ELO."- Hide quoted text -

Actually not. The rating /system/ should, by such logic be Elo System
as used by FIDE and USCF, but the rating itself, like all
measurements /should/ be normative, no? That is to say 2500 elo, not
2500 Elo system or even 2500 Elo's-system; in much the same way we say
25 watts, not 25 Watt's system.

The question that is even now gripping this chess-tribe is; given that
we both appear to have made a point, and both of us using your logic
system alone, did we make two sufficient points?

Indeed, that we each scored a kingston on the Kingstonian logic
system?

But if you do not agree such logic as your own possesses both
instances with justice, let us have Kelp-Bot arbitrate the issue, as
necessary using supplementary logic, until indeed, Louis Blair can be
induced to show up and go retrodrade on the group.

Phil Innes


> - Show quoted text -



 
Date: 25 Nov 2008 09:30:42
From:
Subject: Yet again: Elo/ELO/elo (was: Dresden Olympiad)
> On Nov 18, 2:54=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > =A0 Because in the Elo rating system, one is measuring rating points,
> > > and unlike with volts, watts, angstoms etc, these rating units are no=
t
> > > themselves named for the man.
>
> > Actually, that is exactly who they are named for
>
> =A0 Whom. =A0 (As in, do not ask for *whom* the
> flag falls; it falls for thee.)
>
> > > he'd say he gained 20 rating points, or that his Elo
> > > rating went up 20 points.
>
> > Look what you wrote:
>
> > "the general
> > norm is actually to use only lower case letters"
>
> > but you then conclude the 'correct' term is Elo, not elo.

In probably vain hopes of making this perfectly clear, yet again,
for the incorrigibly dense and willfully obtuse, the all-lower-case
convention applies if one is dealing with a *_unit of measurement_*
named for the person who devised it, e.g. angstroms, newtons, ohms,
amperes etc.
However, that is not the case with Elo ratings. The Fahrenheit or
Celsius scales do not measure fahrenheits or celsii, they measure
degrees of temperature. In the same way, the Elo scale does not
measure elos, it measures rating points. Therefore it is not correct
to put "elo rating" in all lower case.
As for "ELO," as I pointed out earlier that would be correct if Elo
were an acronym, but it is not. It is a man's name, just like Smith,
Jones or Williams. Before the USCF adopted the Elo system, it used a
system devised by Kenneth Harkness. Just as it was not written as
"HARKNESS rating," so one should not write "ELO rating."
Thus the rating system used by USCF and FIDE should be referred to
as Elo, not "elo" or "ELO."


 
Date: 25 Nov 2008 09:30:11
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 25, 11:12=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2:54=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > =A0 Because in the Elo rating system, one is measuring rating points,
> > > and unlike with volts, watts, angstoms etc, these rating units are no=
t
> > > themselves named for the man.
>
> > Actually, that is exactly who they are named for
>
> =A0 Whom. =A0 (As in, do not ask for *whom* the
> flag falls; it falls for thee.)

Farmer! Butcher! Its all so recent - past Victorian anyhow. In
Shakespeare's day [and night too] Who meant 'she'. Earlier than that
we got:

WHOME: home

And yf thou wylt not do so,
Whome with the then wyll y goo.

//MS Cantab Ff ii 38 f 210

Even earlier the Anglo Saxons were saying HWD [masc.] and WHAET [fem].
nd WHAT [neut.] Pretty similar to German, Danicsh and Icelandic, and
all stemming it seems from Gothic; HVAS, HVO, HVATA, while the Gaels
and the Irish said CO.

Technically here we got different parts of speech betwixt WHO and
WHOSE and WHOM, whose being the possessive, whom the objective; which
the last is phonetically h=F6m.

The trouble with such eccentric short words much in use is that
elective trends such as the proper and improper use of 'whom' are not
cogent with other usage - ie, it is proper to say, whoever, whoso,
whosoever and whosesoever, not whomso &c. Others wise we would all be
saying 'whom he is' and so on.

["wyll y goo" is not to be confused with Willy Nelson]

> > > he'd say he gained 20 rating points, or that his Elo
> > > rating went up 20 points.
>
> > He would say "Elo" and not "elo"?
>
> > ROFL
>
> =A0 Okay, he meant that the poor fella would
> say "capital E, el, oh!" and not "el-oh". =A0(How
> do you expect TK to know what someone
> would say if they gained twenty Elo points in
> one tournament? =A0 He always *loses* points.)

I do not mind it at all if it is a convention to so use "Elo" as
deliberately to not differentiate the person's name from the system
named for him - as Taylor himself points out, we say watt and wattage,
not Watt.

I am only surprised that he insists on the convention by telling me
the noun / pronoun convention, as if they made his point, rather than
argued against his point.

> > What an absurd illustration of your logic, dear Taylor.
>
> =A0 Using the terms "Taylor" and "logic" in very
> same sentence: one demerit.

One demento? Speaking of whom, did Dr. Dimento go off the air? But let
us not end with making our Taylor wrong by his own logic, and I
suspect that he made be right in the customary usage of talking of
rating Elo points. It is not a great thing to point out since it rests
on the ineptitude of chess players to campel with English syntax -
therefore is actually illogical and willfully duplitious usage. Only
when people stop doing that and talk of elo points will that then
become the normative reference meaning just the one thing.

> > Look what you wrote:
>
> > "the general
> > norm is actually to use only lower case letters"
>
> > but you then conclude the 'correct' term is Elo, not elo.
>
> =A0 Could he perhaps be using Parr-logic?

More like para-logic. You insist logically on the basis of your
argument, then proceed to insist randomly on your enthusiasm. Not
unlike para-psychology when you avoid all known references to the
basis of the human condition, and espouse attitudes and behaviors as
if of another species - or of generalities which cannot be owned or
contained by singular members of the same species. Paracelsus though
avoided this trap, and did a lot of geometry instead.

> > > > > All caps normally indicates an acronym =97 e.g. USA,
> > > > > FIDE, QGD etc. =97 which Elo is not.
>
> =A0 On usenet, all caps can also denote screaming
> (e.g. PI postings when he is very angry).

Quite so. Especially when confronted with the damned-awkward QGD,
which no-one ever plays, and therefore no-one ever knows what to do
about - you too would be angry!


<long Innes blather eliminated! >

> > but you insist upon an exception to the general rule as is necessary
> > to spell out otherwise one is an 'ignormaus' - but who proposed such
> > an exception in the first place, and are they not even greater
> > ignoramii? Why such deviance should be followed or repeated is
> > unknown.
>
> =A0 Sophistry is alive and well.

But not appreciation of creative misspellings such as 'ignormaus',
which personally I find hilariaus. And as for a decent malaprop...
they are all to Seikh

> =A0 Let's just forget about rock bands and focus
> on wasted line-length: typing "ELO" wastes
> half a milimeter versus typing "Elo", as you
> can plainly see for yourself.

Wait a minute, let me try that

ELO
Elo
elo

hmmm. Not that I am at all competitive, but ... anyway, since its
Thanksgiving, and since Our Taylor is not Our Louis, what's the point?
Its not like you could get Louis going until December the 31st, as in
previous years [where incidentally I own the record for a 5 months of
um... you know. But Rob Mitchell actually made him give up putting my
own record somewhat in the shade.]

> =A0 It is also true that some readers may stop
> and try to decipher the apparent acronym,
> which is an unnecessary waste of time.

Yes - I too hate wasting time on usenet. The word doesn't even have an
'f' in it to make it interesting :(

> =A0 Last but not least, dyslexic readers may
> become confused, thinking they see "Ole'"
> (which must be carefully weighted against
> the reasons /in favor of/ using Elo).

A loe comment. Besides, its OIe! True, this may be to mix a matador,
but that's English for you.

> =A0 Finally, there are those who will simply
> refuse to forget about the rock band-- you
> know the type; it's only a matter of time
> before someone files a lawsuit over this
> if we don't nip it in the bud right here.

Actually very true! Far better is Richard Thompson whom is still going
and gave a concert in town recently - amazing guitar! He shudda made
it here to New England on his last tour but was bitten on the hand by
a scorpion someplace out there in the middle where you are, with
result his hand swelled so badly he couldn't play.

> =A0 That's three good reason against using
> "ELO", and only one in favor; so I say,
> wecs eht sxicelsyd. =A0 Let them get their
> own, seperate newsgroup (perhaps
> something like: ssehc.semag.cer).

Nil fuit umquam sic impar sibi.

Its completely pointless being a pedant privately - and what after all
is so bad about being a bloody pedant? I suppose it must also be
combined with being correct, but given that...

Phil Innes

> =A0 -- help bot



 
Date: 25 Nov 2008 08:47:00
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
Looks like the result for USA is 2 bronze medals


Here is the 'mens' as USCF say - proper term these days is 'open'

After a tiebreak scare that made some think they'd miss out on medals,
the final results confirm that America's 3.5-0.5 rout of Ukraine
secured them bronze medals at the Dresden Olympiad!!


and for the gals:

The U.S. Women's team defeated France in the final round to secure
bronze medals at the Dresden Olympiad! Zatonskih earned a gold medal
for board 2 while Goletiani earned silver for board 3.

Mischievously, my google feed reports that they made these posts 8 and
7 hours ago, whereas I think that aughta be minutes ago.

Anyway - congrats USA!


Phil Innes


 
Date: 25 Nov 2008 08:35:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 19, 8:58=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > =A0 Phil seldom if ever takes any correction as friendly, even though
> > this one was offered as such. He could say "Hmmm, you're right, I made
> > a mistake," but such a genial concession is totally alien to his
> > nature. Instead he will almost always insist on the correctness of his
> > folly.
>
> Look you ridiculous off-topic pedant: BY YOUR OWN LOGIC written here
> its elo not Elo. Instead of BY YOUR OWN LOGIC saying - ok! Then you
> continue to plague the newsgroup with your opinions and idea which are
> not even self-consistent, and then get into trashing other people.
>
> As for ELO - you lied about yours


Incredible audacity; the lying liar who lied about
both his rating and supposed title, points his
finger to scold another? Doctor, heal thyself.
(Or at least enter rehab, like Mr. Limbaugh.)


> - 2400+ Elo, you wrote.


It was actually "2300+", which was agreed to
be off by a paltry "50+" points or so. (Once we
account for TK's notorious propensity to err,
this falls within one of his /standard deviations
of frequent error/.)

I believe the good doctor's confusion must
result from his own bald-faced lies; the wild
number 2450 was tossed about, and if you
mix and match the lies of the nearly-an-IM with
the claimed "peak 2300+" figure once tossed
out by TK, the number 2400+ can easily result.

That's the trouble with lies-- they always
come back on you. Ever so much simpler
to tell the truth than to make a futile attempt
to keep track of a web of lies-- and a web it
must be, for one lie leads to another, and
another, and another (just ask Mr. Parr).

This anger-management problem, in
conjuction with a propensity for titanic
hypocrisies, renders Dr. IMnes looking
very silly, all too frequently. Perhaps he
just desires attention; but more likely I
think, he just doesn't realize he is a clown.


-- help bot





 
Date: 25 Nov 2008 08:12:23
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 18, 2:54=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > =A0 Because in the Elo rating system, one is measuring rating points,
> > and unlike with volts, watts, angstoms etc, these rating units are not
> > themselves named for the man.
>
> Actually, that is exactly who they are named for


Whom. (As in, do not ask for *whom* the
flag falls; it falls for thee.)


> > he'd say he gained 20 rating points, or that his Elo
> > rating went up 20 points.
>
> He would say "Elo" and not "elo"?
>
> ROFL


Okay, he meant that the poor fella would
say "capital E, el, oh!" and not "el-oh". (How
do you expect TK to know what someone
would say if they gained twenty Elo points in
one tournament? He always *loses* points.)


> What an absurd illustration of your logic, dear Taylor.


Using the terms "Taylor" and "logic" in very
same sentence: one demerit.


> Look what you wrote:
>
> "the general
> norm is actually to use only lower case letters"
>
> but you then conclude the 'correct' term is Elo, not elo.


Could he perhaps be using Parr-logic?


> > > > All caps normally indicates an acronym =97 e.g. USA,
> > > > FIDE, QGD etc. =97 which Elo is not.


On usenet, all caps can also denote screaming
(e.g. PI postings when he is very angry).


> > =A0 As I just explained: =A0It is correct to speak of the Elo rating
> > system, but it is not correct to say it measures elos.
>
> As you just proclaimed not explained. You forget yourself, and once
> more are caught in the web of your own multiplke standards, therefore
> resort to name calling as soon as possible, since even your own logic
> does not pertain - do you remember what that was?
>
> "the general norm is actually to use only lower case letters"
>
> but you insist upon an exception to the general rule as is necessary
> to spell out otherwise one is an 'ignormaus' - but who proposed such
> an exception in the first place, and are they not even greater
> ignoramii? Why such deviance should be followed or repeated is
> unknown.


Sophistry is alive and well.


Let's just forget about rock bands and focus
on wasted line-length: typing "ELO" wastes
half a milimeter versus typing "Elo", as you
can plainly see for yourself.

It is also true that some readers may stop
and try to decipher the apparent acronym,
which is an unnecessary waste of time.

Last but not least, dyslexic readers may
become confused, thinking they see "Ole'"
(which must be carefully weighted against
the reasons /in favor of/ using Elo).

Finally, there are those who will simply
refuse to forget about the rock band-- you
know the type; it's only a matter of time
before someone files a lawsuit over this
if we don't nip it in the bud right here.

That's three good reason against using
"ELO", and only one in favor; so I say,
wecs eht sxicelsyd. Let them get their
own, seperate newsgroup (perhaps
something like: ssehc.semag.cer).


-- help bot






 
Date: 25 Nov 2008 07:49:48
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
Latest bulletin [this not for certain - USCF, etc]

The U.S. Women's Olympic team defeated France in the final round to
secure bronze medals! The men's team scored 3.5-0.5 rout of Ukraine,
but based on calculations so far, look likely to get 4th place on
tiebreak.

As readers can note the above report vary with that from Chessbase
below - especially the US score - this may have medal implications:

The Arminians defeated China and Israel The Netherlands, each with 2=BD:
1=BD, to take Gold and Silver respectively. In the women's section
Ukraine and Georgia finished equal first, with Ukraine most likely
taking gold. At writing the official ranks are being calculated =96 we
will publish them later tonight. Biggest upset: USA beat Ukraine
3=BD:=BD.

//Phil Innes


 
Date: 25 Nov 2008 07:37:09
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 18, 2:10=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > Or "The gamma-ray device exposed
> > Dr. Banner to many ROENTGENs"?


Um, my gamma ray device /was/ top secret,
but since nobody of any importance reads rgc,
I guess it doesn't matter if TK has loose lips.


> > Or "The pressure is one NEWTON per
> > square meter"? Of course not.


Eh? What happened to foot-pounds? I
usually avoid the term newton, except when
I am hungry or when discussing /force/.


> I understand this! It is after all 32 degrees fahrenheit here in
> Brattleboro at 2:00 pm, and your temp is likely similar.
>
> Why not tell the people the joys of living in a city voted best in
> America [AP, yesterday] where you have 40% colleague graduates?


Um, you just admitted that it was FREEZING
in Brattleboro, so how can you possibly try to
argue that this is the best city in America? Do
you realize that down in San Diego, there are
folks lying on the beach, getting a suntan?
Even better, in Monterey there are folks... uh,
it's kinda rated R, so you'll have to rent the
movie "Beach Blanket, Bingo" and see for
yourself what they are doing over there while
you freeze your butt off in Vermont.


> Brattleboro usually gets the national town award, not only for its
> Nobel prize residents, schools, lack of crime, fantastic surrounds,
> but also for its size - not so bad for a town.


My sister lives in Fishers, Indiana-- voted one
of the ten best cities in the U.S. by a famous
magazine. Of course, they not only missed
the freezing cold, miserable winters, they also
seem to have overlooked the horrific traffic
which cannot be corcumvented if headed
toward the nearest /real city/, Indianapolis.
In sum, you can't trust these "surveys".


> As you see above, elo or ELO are preferable logically to ELO.


Maybe you should re-think that one.


> And while you froth and spume


Nonesuch word can be found in my pocket
chess dictionary by Ray Keene and some
guy named "Batsford".


> and so on, I hope you will note the level of
> 'polite' invective is often in direct contradistinction to the worth
> of the issue.


You're ducking the main issue: is it not true
that in Vermont you pay higher taxes than
almost any other state (unless you count
New Jersey or that tiny province of New
Hampshire)? You freeze in Autumn and
you pay high taxes, and all you get in return
is low crime, beautiful views, and all those
college girls-- er, that didn't quite come out
right.

Oh, and let's not forget that if you freeze in
Autumn, you will invariably also freeze in
winter unless your state shifts south of the
equator; don't ask-- it's very technical stuff
relating to the sun and the evil axis, including
Mr. Campomanes and his successor, Mr.
Kirsan. (Under no circumstances should
anyone draw the conclusion that my ray-gun
project is in any way related; the timing is
purely coincidence.)


-- help bot

















 
Date: 19 Nov 2008 05:58:12
From: ches[email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 18, 8:08=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2:52=A0pm, Frisco Del Rosario <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <[email protected]m>,
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > I merely offered you a friendly correction on a rather minor matter.
>
> > But it's such a minor matter that offering a correction doesn't seem
> > friendly.
>
> =A0 Phil seldom if ever takes any correction as friendly, even though
> this one was offered as such. He could say "Hmmm, you're right, I made
> a mistake," but such a genial concession is totally alien to his
> nature. Instead he will almost always insist on the correctness of his
> folly.

Look you ridiculous off-topic pedant: BY YOUR OWN LOGIC written here
its elo not Elo. Instead of BY YOUR OWN LOGIC saying - ok! Then you
continue to plague the newsgroup with your opinions and idea which are
not even self-consistent, and then get into trashing other people.

As for ELO - you lied about yours - 2400+ Elo, you wrote. This,
according to the Great Pedant is how chessplayers indicate their 1800
[highest] USCF rating, by 'converting' it to correspondence. So you
not only cheated, but now you pester us further with more abuse
completely inconsistent with what you yourself wrote as being
'normal'.

Can't you find something to write about on topic? Clue: chess is a
topic here - do you still play the game, eg? What about discussing the
fantastic chess event in Dresden? That's what other people are content
to do here.

Phil Innes


 
Date: 18 Nov 2008 17:08:18
From:
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 18, 2:52=A0pm, Frisco Del Rosario <[email protected] > wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]m>,
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > I merely offered you a friendly correction on a rather minor matter.
>
> But it's such a minor matter that offering a correction doesn't seem
> friendly.

Phil seldom if ever takes any correction as friendly, even though
this one was offered as such. He could say "Hmmm, you're right, I made
a mistake," but such a genial concession is totally alien to his
nature. Instead he will almost always insist on the correctness of his
folly.


 
Date: 18 Nov 2008 12:45:24
From:
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 18, 2:54=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2:32=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 2:10=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > Why not write elo instead of Elo?
>
> > =A0 Because in the Elo rating system, one is measuring rating points,
> > and unlike with volts, watts, angstoms etc, these rating units are not
> > themselves named for the man.
>
> Actually, that is exactly who they are named for
>
> > No one would say "I gained 20 elos in
> > this tournament,"
>
> Really, I note that people /say/ that all the time. But what has that
> to do with spelling?
>
> > he'd say he gained 20 rating points, or that his Elo
> > rating went up 20 points.
>
> He would say "Elo" and not "elo"?
>
> ROFL
>
> What an absurd illustration of your logic, dear Taylor.
>
> I personally don't mind if someone /writes/ they gained 20 elos, 20
> Elos or 20 ELOs. Is this likely to confuse anyone? Its the insistance
> that a watt be spelled Watt - as in your previous example -
>
> Look what you wrote:
>
> "the general
> norm is actually to use only lower case letters"
>
> but you then conclude the 'correct' term is Elo, not elo.
>
> I think I made that point well enough - perhaps so well that you
> skipped that bit?
>
> > > Is there
> > > harm done by writing ELO?
>
> > =A0 Well, yes =97 it makes you look ignorant, or deliberately incorrect=
.
>
> Any more than writing Elo? After all, "the general norm is actually to
> use only lower case letters".
>
> Shall we therefore be ignoramuses together, or do you abandon your own
> norm to insistently suggest, as usuall without - in fact despite -
> your own reason, that you are correct?
>
> let's see..
>
> > > It would be if it were E.L.O., but it ain't.
>
> > =A0 It would be if it were Elo, and it is.
>
> So far you merely argue your own rule - and SINCE that is the case,
> how come you are up on your hind legs as usual calling other people
> 'ignorant' like some ignoramus?
>
> > > > =A0 With measurement terms derived from a person's name, the genera=
l
> > > > norm is actually to use only lower case letters, e.g. volt, watt,
> > > > ampere, joule, ohm, gauss, pascal, hertz, angstrom etc. I haven't s=
een
> > > > that done with Elo, but it would certainly be more normative than
> > > > using all capitals. All caps normally indicates an acronym =97 e.g.=
USA,
> > > > FIDE, QGD etc. =97 which Elo is not.
>
> > > So why use Elo instead of elo, if you intend not to use a proper-noun=
?
>
> > =A0 As I just explained: =A0It is correct to speak of the Elo rating
> > system, but it is not correct to say it measures elos.
>
> As you just proclaimed not explained. You forget yourself, and once
> more are caught in the web of your own multiplke standards, therefore
> resort to name calling as soon as possible, since even your own logic
> does not pertain - do you remember what that was?
>
> "the general norm is actually to use only lower case letters"
>
> but you insist upon an exception to the general rule as is necessary
> to spell out otherwise one is an 'ignormaus' - but who proposed such
> an exception in the first place, and are they not even greater
> ignoramii? Why such deviance should be followed or repeated is
> unknown.
>
> > > As you see above, elo or ELO are preferable logically to ELO.
>
> > =A0 Our Phil does it again.
>
> Yes, I shudda written the last version as Elo, but our Taylor can't be
> so generous, since our Taylor here argues against both me and the
> rules of English spelling, and without explanation bores on about some
> deviant minor factor to which he has been unable to express the worth
> thereof.
>
> > > =A0And
> > > while you froth and spume and so on,
>
> > =A0 No frothing, Phil. I merely offered you a friendly correction on a
> > rather minor matter. If you choose to ignore, no skin off my nose.
>
> [email protected] You started it, and now you insist on something several times,
> which makes no sense at all - not linguistically nor in the sense that
> anyone is likely to be confused by your unskinned nose.

Suit yourself, Phil; your tendency to persist in error is well
known. You can call it OLE, LEO, or NCAA for all I care. However, I
will continue to prefer what Dr. Elo himself used. To quote page 12 of
"The Rating of Chessplayers":

"In this book we bow to seventeen years of pervasive usage, accept
'The Elo System' as the title. The equally pervasive 'Elo points' is a
useful term, and it too is adopted here."


 
Date: 18 Nov 2008 12:35:29
From:
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 18, 2:54=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2:32=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 2:10=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > Why not write elo instead of Elo?
>
> > =A0 Because in the Elo rating system, one is measuring rating points,
> > and unlike with volts, watts, angstoms etc, these rating units are not
> > themselves named for the man.
>
> Actually, that is exactly who they are named for
>
> > No one would say "I gained 20 elos in
> > this tournament,"
>
> Really, I note that people /say/ that all the time. But what has that
> to do with spelling?
>
> > he'd say he gained 20 rating points, or that his Elo
> > rating went up 20 points.
>
> He would say "Elo" and not "elo"?
>
> ROFL
>
> What an absurd illustration of your logic, dear Taylor.
>
> I personally don't mind if someone /writes/ they gained 20 elos, 20
> Elos or 20 ELOs. Is this likely to confuse anyone? Its the insistance
> that a watt be spelled Watt - as in your previous example -
>
> Look what you wrote:
>
> "the general
> norm is actually to use only lower case letters"
>
> but you then conclude the 'correct' term is Elo, not elo.
>
> I think I made that point well enough - perhaps so well that you
> skipped that bit?
>
> > > Is there
> > > harm done by writing ELO?
>
> > =A0 Well, yes =97 it makes you look ignorant, or deliberately incorrect=
.
>
> Any more than writing Elo? After all, "the general norm is actually to
> use only lower case letters".
>
> Shall we therefore be ignoramuses together, or do you abandon your own
> norm to insistently suggest, as usuall without - in fact despite -
> your own reason, that you are correct?
>
> let's see..
>
> > > It would be if it were E.L.O., but it ain't.
>
> > =A0 It would be if it were Elo, and it is.
>
> So far you merely argue your own rule - and SINCE that is the case,
> how come you are up on your hind legs as usual calling other people
> 'ignorant' like some ignoramus?
>
> > > > =A0 With measurement terms derived from a person's name, the genera=
l
> > > > norm is actually to use only lower case letters, e.g. volt, watt,
> > > > ampere, joule, ohm, gauss, pascal, hertz, angstrom etc. I haven't s=
een
> > > > that done with Elo, but it would certainly be more normative than
> > > > using all capitals. All caps normally indicates an acronym =97 e.g.=
USA,
> > > > FIDE, QGD etc. =97 which Elo is not.
>
> > > So why use Elo instead of elo, if you intend not to use a proper-noun=
?
>
> > =A0 As I just explained: =A0It is correct to speak of the Elo rating
> > system, but it is not correct to say it measures elos.
>
> As you just proclaimed not explained. You forget yourself, and once
> more are caught in the web of your own multiplke standards, therefore
> resort to name calling as soon as possible, since even your own logic
> does not pertain - do you remember what that was?
>
> "the general norm is actually to use only lower case letters"
>
> but you insist upon an exception to the general rule as is necessary
> to spell out otherwise one is an 'ignormaus' - but who proposed such
> an exception in the first place, and are they not even greater
> ignoramii? Why such deviance should be followed or repeated is
> unknown.
>
> > > As you see above, elo or ELO are preferable logically to ELO.
>
> > =A0 Our Phil does it again.
>
> Yes, I shudda written the last version as Elo, but our Taylor can't be
> so generous, since our Taylor here argues against both me and the
> rules of English spelling, and without explanation bores on about some
> deviant minor factor to which he has been unable to express the worth
> thereof.
>
> > > =A0And
> > > while you froth and spume and so on,
>
> > =A0 No frothing, Phil. I merely offered you a friendly correction on a
> > rather minor matter. If you choose to ignore, no skin off my nose.
>
> [email protected] You started it, and now you insist on something several times,
> which makes no sense at all - not linguistically nor in the sense that
> anyone is likely to be confused by your unskinned nose.

Suit yourself, Phil.


 
Date: 18 Nov 2008 11:54:13
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 18, 2:32=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 18, 2:10=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Why not write elo instead of Elo?
>
> =A0 Because in the Elo rating system, one is measuring rating points,
> and unlike with volts, watts, angstoms etc, these rating units are not
> themselves named for the man.

Actually, that is exactly who they are named for

> No one would say "I gained 20 elos in
> this tournament,"

Really, I note that people /say/ that all the time. But what has that
to do with spelling?

> he'd say he gained 20 rating points, or that his Elo
> rating went up 20 points.

He would say "Elo" and not "elo"?

ROFL

What an absurd illustration of your logic, dear Taylor.

I personally don't mind if someone /writes/ they gained 20 elos, 20
Elos or 20 ELOs. Is this likely to confuse anyone? Its the insistance
that a watt be spelled Watt - as in your previous example -

Look what you wrote:

"the general
norm is actually to use only lower case letters"

but you then conclude the 'correct' term is Elo, not elo.

I think I made that point well enough - perhaps so well that you
skipped that bit?


> > Is there
> > harm done by writing ELO?
>
> =A0 Well, yes =97 it makes you look ignorant, or deliberately incorrect.

Any more than writing Elo? After all, "the general norm is actually to
use only lower case letters".

Shall we therefore be ignoramuses together, or do you abandon your own
norm to insistently suggest, as usuall without - in fact despite -
your own reason, that you are correct?

let's see..


> > It would be if it were E.L.O., but it ain't.
>
> =A0 It would be if it were Elo, and it is.

So far you merely argue your own rule - and SINCE that is the case,
how come you are up on your hind legs as usual calling other people
'ignorant' like some ignoramus?


> > > =A0 With measurement terms derived from a person's name, the general
> > > norm is actually to use only lower case letters, e.g. volt, watt,
> > > ampere, joule, ohm, gauss, pascal, hertz, angstrom etc. I haven't see=
n
> > > that done with Elo, but it would certainly be more normative than
> > > using all capitals. All caps normally indicates an acronym =97 e.g. U=
SA,
> > > FIDE, QGD etc. =97 which Elo is not.
>
> > So why use Elo instead of elo, if you intend not to use a proper-noun?
>
> =A0 As I just explained: =A0It is correct to speak of the Elo rating
> system, but it is not correct to say it measures elos.

As you just proclaimed not explained. You forget yourself, and once
more are caught in the web of your own multiplke standards, therefore
resort to name calling as soon as possible, since even your own logic
does not pertain - do you remember what that was?


"the general norm is actually to use only lower case letters"

but you insist upon an exception to the general rule as is necessary
to spell out otherwise one is an 'ignormaus' - but who proposed such
an exception in the first place, and are they not even greater
ignoramii? Why such deviance should be followed or repeated is
unknown.

> > As you see above, elo or ELO are preferable logically to ELO.
>
> =A0 Our Phil does it again.


Yes, I shudda written the last version as Elo, but our Taylor can't be
so generous, since our Taylor here argues against both me and the
rules of English spelling, and without explanation bores on about some
deviant minor factor to which he has been unable to express the worth
thereof.

> > =A0And
> > while you froth and spume and so on,
>
> =A0 No frothing, Phil. I merely offered you a friendly correction on a
> rather minor matter. If you choose to ignore, no skin off my nose.

[email protected] You started it, and now you insist on something several times,
which makes no sense at all - not linguistically nor in the sense that
anyone is likely to be confused by your unskinned nose.

PI


 
Date: 18 Nov 2008 11:32:55
From:
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 18, 2:10=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Why not write elo instead of Elo?

Because in the Elo rating system, one is measuring rating points,
and unlike with volts, watts, angstoms etc, these rating units are not
themselves named for the man. No one would say "I gained 20 elos in
this tournament," he'd say he gained 20 rating points, or that his Elo
rating went up 20 points.

> Is there
> harm done by writing ELO?

Well, yes =97 it makes you look ignorant, or deliberately incorrect.

> It would be if it were E.L.O., but it ain't.

It would be if it were Elo, and it is.

> > =A0 With measurement terms derived from a person's name, the general
> > norm is actually to use only lower case letters, e.g. volt, watt,
> > ampere, joule, ohm, gauss, pascal, hertz, angstrom etc. I haven't seen
> > that done with Elo, but it would certainly be more normative than
> > using all capitals. All caps normally indicates an acronym =97 e.g. USA=
,
> > FIDE, QGD etc. =97 which Elo is not.
>
> So why use Elo instead of elo, if you intend not to use a proper-noun?

As I just explained: It is correct to speak of the Elo rating
system, but it is not correct to say it measures elos.

> As you see above, elo or ELO are preferable logically to ELO.

Our Phil does it again.

> And
> while you froth and spume and so on,

No frothing, Phil. I merely offered you a friendly correction on a
rather minor matter. If you choose to ignore, no skin off my nose.


  
Date: 18 Nov 2008 11:52:36
From: Frisco Del Rosario
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
In article
<[email protected]m >,
[email protected] wrote:

> I merely offered you a friendly correction on a rather minor matter.

But it's such a minor matter that offering a correction doesn't seem
friendly.


   
Date: 19 Nov 2008 10:28:40
From: thumbody..
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
Frisco Del Rosario wrote:
.
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I merely offered you a friendly correction on a rather minor matter.
>
> But it's such a minor matter that offering a correction doesn't seem
> friendly.

Oh! - dunno about that..

But anyways, looks like a case of entrapment to me..

Phil parried it nicely, remained focussed & posted ..er, interesting
game-data (RAF - 1, City of Dresden - 0) but has now become thoroughly
enmeshed in Taylor's fiendish plot..

Well, seems like herds of farting mammoths are to blame for Vermont's
unusual weather (a few marsupial lions would likely sort 'em out quick
smart)..

But lo! a whiff of yet another content-free & squabble-laden 'sult fest.
permeates the air..

My library


 
Date: 18 Nov 2008 11:10:56
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 18, 9:06=A0am, Taylor Kingston <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 17, 8:30=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > As for ELO/Elo - I prefer the u/l case for the person, but all upper
> > case for the rating /system. Possibly this is not 'normative'?
>
> =A0 No, it is not normative. Do you write "It's 80 degrees FAHRENHEIT"?

So that I would not confuse the temperature with Herr Fahrenheit?

> Or "This is a sixty WATT lightbulb"?

No harm there, especially since the bulbs themselves say "60 WATT"


> Or "The gamma-ray device exposed
> Dr. Banner to many ROENTGENs"?

You might chose that, since otherwise, as Greg could tell you, a horde
of Roentgen-clones could spoil your whole day.

> Or "The pressure is one NEWTON per
> square meter"? Of course not.

Unless you were a Sumo wrestler. Then pressure of Newton's per metre^2
may concern you.

You see, the very curious thing about you, Taylor, is that you are a
pedant, and a petty one. Why not write elo instead of Elo? Is there
harm done by writing ELO? It would be if it were E.L.O., but it ain't.

> =A0 With measurement terms derived from a person's name, the general
> norm is actually to use only lower case letters, e.g. volt, watt,
> ampere, joule, ohm, gauss, pascal, hertz, angstrom etc. I haven't seen
> that done with Elo, but it would certainly be more normative than
> using all capitals. All caps normally indicates an acronym =97 e.g. USA,
> FIDE, QGD etc. =97 which Elo is not.

So why use Elo instead of elo, if you intend not to use a proper-noun?

You see, you are not as consistent in your thought as you thought. But
I understand this! It is after all 32 degrees fahrenheit here in
Brattleboro at 2:00 pm, and your temp is likely similar.

Why not tell the people the joys of living in a city voted best in
America [AP, yesterday] where you have 40% colleague graduates?
Brattleboro usually gets the national town award, not only for its
Nobel prize residents, schools, lack of crime, fantastic surrounds,
but also for its size - not so bad for a town. Your 'city' [laugh- I
know a gal lives up in Burlington, knew her in Scotland 35 years ago -
she laughs at 'city' designation for Burlington since she is from NY
City, and calls Burlington a village - but that aside.

As you see above, elo or ELO are preferable logically to ELO. And
while you froth and spume and so on, I hope you will note the level of
'polite' invective is often in direct contradistinction to the worth
of the issue.

Cordially, Phil Innes





 
Date: 18 Nov 2008 06:06:45
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 17, 8:30=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> As for ELO/Elo - I prefer the u/l case for the person, but all upper
> case for the rating /system. Possibly this is not 'normative'?

No, it is not normative. Do you write "It's 80 degrees FAHRENHEIT"?
Or "This is a sixty WATT lightbulb"? Or "The gamma-ray device exposed
Dr. Banner to many ROENTGENs"? Or "The pressure is one NEWTON per
square meter"? Of course not.

With measurement terms derived from a person's name, the general
norm is actually to use only lower case letters, e.g. volt, watt,
ampere, joule, ohm, gauss, pascal, hertz, angstrom etc. I haven't seen
that done with Elo, but it would certainly be more normative than
using all capitals. All caps normally indicates an acronym =97 e.g. USA,
FIDE, QGD etc. =97 which Elo is not.


  
Date: 18 Nov 2008 08:00:30
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
I take it since Gata K is playing here he will not be playing Topolove ?
I still have no idea what is going on for that match ....

If he is going to play Top , i wonder is Gata is playing his best or
if he is holding stuff back because he knows Top is watching and playing
out his games looking for weaknesses ..



 
Date: 17 Nov 2008 05:30:08
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 16, 8:42=A0pm, EJAY <[email protected] > wrote:
> I see the USA got humbled today. Both Kamsky and Nakamura got
> beat.Next Round we get Hong Kong a Match we should be heavy favorites.

[EJAY] just spoke your buddy ;)
As for ELO/Elo - I prefer the u/l case for the person, but all upper
case for the rating /system. Possibly this is not 'normative'?

Here's a big fight with GM analysis by SP after a chessdom report

Kramnik, Vladimir - Sasikiran, Krishnan
Chess Olympiad 2008 Round 3 Dresden
2008.11.16
http://featuredgames.chessdom.com/kramnik-sasikiran

1. Nf3 d5 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4 c6 4. Nc3 a6 5. e3 b5 6. b3 Bg4
7. Be2 Nbd7 8. h3 Bf5 (8... Bh5 is played more often, but 9. g4
Bg6 transposes back to the game.)
9. g4 ( GM Ivan Sokolov preferred 9. Bb2 as introduction to
queenside expansion with c5 and b4...)
9... Bg6 10. Ne5 !? Specialty of IM Iweta Rajlich, who played this
move on three occasions.
10... Nxe5 11. dxe5 Ne4 12. Nxe4 Bxe4 13. f3 Bg6 14. cxd5
cxd5 ( Queens exchange after 14... Qxd5 was also playable, but in
this case White King would be much safer in the center (d2) and White
could quickly seize the c-file.)
15. a4 b4 16. e6 !? Instead of completing the development, Kramnik
tries a blockading pawn sacrifice that is common in some Caro-Kann
lines. Should Black accept, he would experience serious problems with
the locked Bf8 and Rh8.
16... Qd6 ! The best way to meet Kramnik's exhibition. The Queen
forces White to take on f7, at the same time threatening to check on
g3.
17. f4 Be4 18. exf7+ Kxf7 19. Bf3 Bxf3 20. Qxf3 g6 21. f5 ?! A
small inaccuracy, probably missing the strength of Black's reply.
21... Bg7 ! 22. Ra2 ( Necessity, as opening of the f-file actually
favours Black! 22. fxg6+ ? Ke8 23. Qf7+ (23. Ra2 Rf8 24. Qg2 Rc8
25. Bd2 Qxg6 ! threatening check on b1) 23... Kd7 and White is in
huge trouble, as 24. Ra2 Bc3+ with Raf8 and Qg3 would be crushing.)
22... Bc3+ 23. Bd2 Rhf8 24. O-O Kg8 25. Qf4 Everything was
pretty much forced up to now. Taking on c3 is out of question because
the passed pawn would be very dangerous. Now Sasikiran can trade the
Queens on f4 and continue with a slightly better endgame, or keep the
tension on the board.
25... e5 !? 26. Qh6 Rad8 27. e4 dxe4 28. Bg5 Rd7 Objectively,
Kramnik's display of activity with Qh6 and Bg5 is harmless, but
perhaps this had influenced Sasikiran to seek for safe exit.
29. Kg2 e3 (29... Qd5 ! with idea Qxb3 was decisive. There should be
no fear of White taking on g6 30. fxg6 e3+ 31. Kh2 (31. Kg1 Rxf1+
32. Kxf1 Qf3+ is checkmate) 31... Rxf1 32. gxh7+ Rxh7 33. Qg6+
Rg7 34. Qe8+ Rf8 White runs out of checks.)
30. Bxe3 Qd5+ 31. Kh2 e4 32. Raf2 Bg7 33. Qg5 Bf6 ( Black is
still holding an edge. There were two possible ways to continue the
game - sharper 33... Qxb3 34. fxg6 Rxf2+ 35. Rxf2 Qe6 36. gxh7+
Kxh7 37. Qh4+ Kg8 ) ( and safer 33... Rdf7 Instead, Sasikiran chose
the third option - to take a draw.)
34. Qh6 Bg7 35. Qg5
1/2-1/2 Chess news from Susan Polgar


 
Date: 16 Nov 2008 17:42:16
From: EJAY
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
I see the USA got humbled today. Both Kamsky and Nakamura got
beat.Next Round we get Hong Kong a Match we should be heavy favorites.


  
Date: 24 Nov 2008 04:46:00
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
chessbase have this today:

Armenia beat Serbia 3:1, Ukraine took Israel down with a 2=BD:1=BD win.
Veselin Topalov ended his winning streak with a painful loss to Alexei
Shirov (Spain beat Bulgaria 3:1). In the Women's Section China lost to
Georgia and is now in place seven. The final round is on Tuesday and
starts at 10 a.m. German time.

elsewhere it looks to me that Armenia have 28.5 points, Netherlands is
second with 26, then USA Israel China & Spain have 25.5, Ukraine and
Russia have 25.

In the womes competition USA, France and Georgia lead with 28, then
Ukraine have 27.5, Russia 27.

One round to go.

Phil Innes


   
Date: 25 Nov 2008 04:32:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
Indonesia gears up for Chess Olympiad final
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Indonesia's men's chess team will take on Singapore in the final round
of the 11-round Chess Olympiad in Dresden. The team's officials have
called on the players to put up a fight worthy of Farid Firmansyah
inspired display Sunday.

The competition, which features 154 men's and 114 women's teams from
152 countries, recessed Monday ahead of the final round Tuesday.

In the Indonesia-Venezuela match Sunday, 14-year-old Farid launched an
inspired attack against chessmaster Oliver Soto Paez, who holds a
higher rating than all of Indonesia's team members. Although the match
ended in a draw, Farid was hailed for his attacking mentality.

"Farid is incredible," trainer Lasha Jangjagava said in a release.
"Attack and attack again. If you want to win you must attack.

"I like Farid's attacking style," said the Georgian grandmaster hired
to assist in the team's preparations for the Olympiad.

"The others disappointed us because they were playing for a draw,"
team manager Riskie Dharma Putra said.

The Indonesia-Venezuela encounter finished 2-2 with all four matches
ending in draws. The other three matches pitted Susanto Megaranto
against Eduardo Itturrizaga, Irwanto Sadikin against Johann Alvarez
Marquez and Yohannes Simbolon against Rafael Prasca Sosa.

The draw left Indonesia with 11 points and in 49th position.

Armenia and Ukraine top the standings tied with 17 points each,
followed by Israel and China on 16 points each.

Singapore, which comprises Enrique Paciencia, Weiming Goh, Timothy
Chan Wei-Xuan and Daniel Chan Yi-Ren, is in 59th place with 11 points.

Meanwhile, Indonesia's women, who lost to Spain 3-1 on Sunday, will
face Tajikistan on Tuesday.

Dewi Citra won Indonesia's only points Sunday with a win over Mairelys
Crespo Delgado.

Irene Kharisma Sukandar, Evi Lindiawati and Desi Rachmawati all lost
in their games against Monica Calzetta, Sabrina Vega Gutierrez and
Patricia Llaneza Vega, respectively.

Dewi and her teammates dropped to 49th place in the provisional
standings. The team's officials urged the players to win their final
games to finish in the top 40 to equal their result two years ago.

Source: http://old.thejakartapost.com


   
Date: 25 Nov 2008 01:32:41
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
The ( USA ) ladies have a good chance to win if they play smart ..

Top losing , hope Gata is studing that game.



  
Date: 22 Nov 2008 13:09:38
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 20, 4:25=A0am, EJAY <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 19, 3:15=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 9:57=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 8:49=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > Did they officially sign? I understand they will play in Bulgaria=
in
> > > > > Feb.Right about the same time as the Amateur Team events here in =
the
> > > > > USA !!
>
> > > > --
> > > > No Ernie - I trusted the NY Times Gambit blog - which was wrong! I =
am
> > > > unsure if they got their info from Chessdom, or the other way aroun=
d,
> > > > BUT Kamsky confirmed by phone that he has signed nothing! What a fa=
rce
> > > > of world championship!
>
> > > > Anyway, back to actual chess... I see the young Wesley So has been
> > > > accommodated by shuffling board positions with team colleague
> > > > Villamayor, since he particularly wanted to have a go at Spain's
> > > > Shirov. Both Phillipines and Spain have 7 points.
>
> > > > Phil
>
> > > The USA has a tough match up with Cuba. So until it is signed on the
> > > dotted line as far as Kamsky is concerned sounds like NO DEAL.I hear
> > > he fired his manager? Your right the Championship is a farce.Too bad
> > > our country could not put together a bid.E-JAY- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > But they managed to beat Cuba 2.5 to 1.5
>
> > Whereas the women were whitewashed 4 - zip by Romania. Pity Susan
> > Polgar is commentating instead of playing board 1 but the last time I
> > brought this up in front of USCF delegate, he [lol] said it was all
> > about networking, being a good sport, and... right!
>
> > Doesn't look like the Women's team will even sniff a medal this year.
>
> > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> =A0I think our Ladies actually won. A 4-0 blanking by Romania would be a
> disaster. A 4-0 win by the USA would be a surprise result also. I
> think we are paired with China for the next Round. Will have to check
> to see who the men play.A nice 2.5-1.5 win vs Cuba !!. My buddy Scott
> says hello.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

latest results a bit of a disaster for the women after beating the
Russians, better for the men

FM Mike Klein recaps the round eight action. Update: In round 9, the
U.S. women lost to Poland 1-3, and the men crushed India 3.5-.5. More
details coming soon.

Phil


  
Date: 20 Nov 2008 18:03:07
From: EJAY
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 20, 9:15=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 20, 4:34=A0am, EJAY <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Men will face Hungry featuring Peter Leko and Judit Polgar...
>
> =A0 Those Hungryans will eat you alive.

Looks like Judit toke the day off vs USA


  
Date: 20 Nov 2008 14:29:46
From: EJAY
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 20, 3:48=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Here is the result allowing US Women to draw with mighty China.
>
> And also a nice win for USA by Katerina Rohyonyan in round 7 enabling
> team USA to draw with mighty China.
>
> 2008 Olympiad, Dresden
> White: Rohonyan, Katerina
> Black: Zhongyi, Tan
>
> 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 O-O 6.Bg5 Na6 7.Qd2 e5 8.d5
> c6 9.h4 cxd5 10.cxd5 Nc5 11.f3 Qb6 12.Nh3 Nh5 13.g4 Ng3 14.Rg1 Nxe2
> 15.Qxe2 Bd7 16.Nf2 Rfc8 17.Be3 Qa5 18.Rc1 b5 19.Qd2 b4 20.Ncd1 Qxa2
> 21.Qxb4 a5 22.Qa3 Qxa3 23.bxa3 Nb3 24.Rb1 Rab8 25.Nd3 Bf6 26.g5 Bd8
> 27.Rg2 a4 28.Rgb2 Ba5+ 29.Kf2 Bb5 30.Nc1 Bc4 31.f4 exf4 32.Bxf4 Bb6+
> 33.Be3 Bc5 34.Bxc5 Rxc5 35.Ne3 Re8 36.Ng4 Kg7 37.Nf6 Rec8 38.Ke3 h6
> 39.Rc2 Na5 40.Kd4 Bb3 41.Rxc5 Rxc5 42.Ne8+ Kh7 43.Nxd6 Rc7 44.e5 Rc2
> 45.Nd3 Rh2 46.Rf1 Rxh4+ 47.Kc5 Kg8 48.Rxf7 Bc4 49.Nb4 Nb3+ 50.Kb6 Rd4
> 51.e6 Bxd5 52.Nxd5 Rxd5 53.Ne4 =A01-0
>
> In the same round, Gata Kamsky neutralized Peter Leko, allowing US
> men=92s team to defeat Hungary.
>
> 2008 Olympiad, Dresden
> White: Kamsky, Gata
> Black: Leko, Peter
>
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.d3 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.a4
> Bd7 9.c3 O-O 10.Re1 Na5 11.Bc2 c5 12.Nbd2 Re8 13.Nf1 Nc6 14.Ne3 b4
> 15.Bb3 Na5 16.Ba2 Rb8 17.d4 exd4 18.cxd4 Nxe4 19.Nd5 b3 20.Bb1 f5
> 21.dxc5 Bf8 22.cxd6 Bxd6 23.Bxe4 Rxe4 24.Rxe4 fxe4 25.Ng5 Bf5 26.Be3
> h6 27.g4 Nc4 28.gxf5 Nxe3 29.Nxe3 Qxg5+ 30.Ng2 Qf6 31.Qd5+ Kh7 32.Re1
> Qe5 33.Qxe4 Qxh2+ 34.Kf1 Qh1+ 35.Ke2 Qh5+ 36.Kf1 Qh1+ 37.Ke2 Qh5+
> 38.Kf1 =A01/2-1/2
>
> But this was the clincher:
>
> 2008 Olympiad, Dresden
> White: Onischuk, Alex
> Black: Balogh
>
> 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.a4 e6 6.e3 c5 7.Bxc4 Nc6 8.O-O
> Be7 9.Qe2 cxd4 10.Rd1 O-O 11.Nxd4 Qc7 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.b3 Bb7 14.Bb2
> Rfd8 15.Rxd8+ Rxd8 16.a5 Nd7 17.Qc2 Ne5 18.Be2 a6 19.Ne4 c5 20.Rc1 c4
> 21.bxc4 Qxa5 22.c5 Qc7 23.Nd6 Nc6 24.Nxb7 Qxb7 25.Ba3 a5 26.Qa4 Qc7
> 27.h3 h6 28.Bb5 Na7 29.Be2 Nc6 30.Qb5 Rb8 31.Qc4 Bf6 32.Qc2 Nb4 33.Qc4
> Nc6 34.Qa4 Be7 35.Bf3 Ne5 36.Be4 Nd7 37.c6 Nb6 38.Qb3 Nd5 39.Qd3 Bxa3
> 40.Qxa3 Nf6 41.Bf3 e5 42.g3 e4 43.Bg2 Rc8 44.Qa4 Qe5 45.Rc4 g6 46.Bxe4
> Nxe4 47.Rxe4 Qd5 48.Rc4 Rc7 49.Rc1 h5 50.Qd4 Qxd4 51.exd4 Kf8 52.d5
> Ke7 53.Rc5 a4 54.Ra5 Kd6 55.Kg2 Re7 56.Kf3 Re5 57.Rxa4 Rxd5 58.Rf4 Rc5
> 59.Rxf7 Ke6 60.Rg7 Kf6 61.Rc7 g5 62.Ke4 g4 63.hxg4 hxg4 64.Kd4 Rc2
> 65.Kd5 Rxf2 66.Rh7 Rd2+ 67.Kc5 Rc2+ 68.Kb6 Rb2+ 69.Ka7 Rb3 70.c7 Ra3+
> 71.Kb6 Rb3+ 72.Kc6 Rxg3 73.Rh5 =A01-0
>
> Phil Innes

Thanks for today's update.Worked nights last night and just woke up.
Two nice results for both USA teams.


  
Date: 20 Nov 2008 12:48:18
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
Here is the result allowing US Women to draw with mighty China.

And also a nice win for USA by Katerina Rohyonyan in round 7 enabling
team USA to draw with mighty China.

2008 Olympiad, Dresden
White: Rohonyan, Katerina
Black: Zhongyi, Tan

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Be2 O-O 6.Bg5 Na6 7.Qd2 e5 8.d5
c6 9.h4 cxd5 10.cxd5 Nc5 11.f3 Qb6 12.Nh3 Nh5 13.g4 Ng3 14.Rg1 Nxe2
15.Qxe2 Bd7 16.Nf2 Rfc8 17.Be3 Qa5 18.Rc1 b5 19.Qd2 b4 20.Ncd1 Qxa2
21.Qxb4 a5 22.Qa3 Qxa3 23.bxa3 Nb3 24.Rb1 Rab8 25.Nd3 Bf6 26.g5 Bd8
27.Rg2 a4 28.Rgb2 Ba5+ 29.Kf2 Bb5 30.Nc1 Bc4 31.f4 exf4 32.Bxf4 Bb6+
33.Be3 Bc5 34.Bxc5 Rxc5 35.Ne3 Re8 36.Ng4 Kg7 37.Nf6 Rec8 38.Ke3 h6
39.Rc2 Na5 40.Kd4 Bb3 41.Rxc5 Rxc5 42.Ne8+ Kh7 43.Nxd6 Rc7 44.e5 Rc2
45.Nd3 Rh2 46.Rf1 Rxh4+ 47.Kc5 Kg8 48.Rxf7 Bc4 49.Nb4 Nb3+ 50.Kb6 Rd4
51.e6 Bxd5 52.Nxd5 Rxd5 53.Ne4 1-0

In the same round, Gata Kamsky neutralized Peter Leko, allowing US
men=92s team to defeat Hungary.

2008 Olympiad, Dresden
White: Kamsky, Gata
Black: Leko, Peter

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.d3 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.a4
Bd7 9.c3 O-O 10.Re1 Na5 11.Bc2 c5 12.Nbd2 Re8 13.Nf1 Nc6 14.Ne3 b4
15.Bb3 Na5 16.Ba2 Rb8 17.d4 exd4 18.cxd4 Nxe4 19.Nd5 b3 20.Bb1 f5
21.dxc5 Bf8 22.cxd6 Bxd6 23.Bxe4 Rxe4 24.Rxe4 fxe4 25.Ng5 Bf5 26.Be3
h6 27.g4 Nc4 28.gxf5 Nxe3 29.Nxe3 Qxg5+ 30.Ng2 Qf6 31.Qd5+ Kh7 32.Re1
Qe5 33.Qxe4 Qxh2+ 34.Kf1 Qh1+ 35.Ke2 Qh5+ 36.Kf1 Qh1+ 37.Ke2 Qh5+
38.Kf1 1/2-1/2

But this was the clincher:

2008 Olympiad, Dresden
White: Onischuk, Alex
Black: Balogh

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.a4 e6 6.e3 c5 7.Bxc4 Nc6 8.O-O
Be7 9.Qe2 cxd4 10.Rd1 O-O 11.Nxd4 Qc7 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.b3 Bb7 14.Bb2
Rfd8 15.Rxd8+ Rxd8 16.a5 Nd7 17.Qc2 Ne5 18.Be2 a6 19.Ne4 c5 20.Rc1 c4
21.bxc4 Qxa5 22.c5 Qc7 23.Nd6 Nc6 24.Nxb7 Qxb7 25.Ba3 a5 26.Qa4 Qc7
27.h3 h6 28.Bb5 Na7 29.Be2 Nc6 30.Qb5 Rb8 31.Qc4 Bf6 32.Qc2 Nb4 33.Qc4
Nc6 34.Qa4 Be7 35.Bf3 Ne5 36.Be4 Nd7 37.c6 Nb6 38.Qb3 Nd5 39.Qd3 Bxa3
40.Qxa3 Nf6 41.Bf3 e5 42.g3 e4 43.Bg2 Rc8 44.Qa4 Qe5 45.Rc4 g6 46.Bxe4
Nxe4 47.Rxe4 Qd5 48.Rc4 Rc7 49.Rc1 h5 50.Qd4 Qxd4 51.exd4 Kf8 52.d5
Ke7 53.Rc5 a4 54.Ra5 Kd6 55.Kg2 Re7 56.Kf3 Re5 57.Rxa4 Rxd5 58.Rf4 Rc5
59.Rxf7 Ke6 60.Rg7 Kf6 61.Rc7 g5 62.Ke4 g4 63.hxg4 hxg4 64.Kd4 Rc2
65.Kd5 Rxf2 66.Rh7 Rd2+ 67.Kc5 Rc2+ 68.Kb6 Rb2+ 69.Ka7 Rb3 70.c7 Ra3+
71.Kb6 Rb3+ 72.Kc6 Rxg3 73.Rh5 1-0


Phil Innes


  
Date: 20 Nov 2008 12:32:58
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 20, 4:25=A0am, EJAY <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 19, 3:15=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 9:57=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 8:49=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > Did they officially sign? I understand they will play in Bulgaria=
in
> > > > > Feb.Right about the same time as the Amateur Team events here in =
the
> > > > > USA !!
>
> > > > --
> > > > No Ernie - I trusted the NY Times Gambit blog - which was wrong! I =
am
> > > > unsure if they got their info from Chessdom, or the other way aroun=
d,
> > > > BUT Kamsky confirmed by phone that he has signed nothing! What a fa=
rce
> > > > of world championship!
>
> > > > Anyway, back to actual chess... I see the young Wesley So has been
> > > > accommodated by shuffling board positions with team colleague
> > > > Villamayor, since he particularly wanted to have a go at Spain's
> > > > Shirov. Both Phillipines and Spain have 7 points.
>
> > > > Phil
>
> > > The USA has a tough match up with Cuba. So until it is signed on the
> > > dotted line as far as Kamsky is concerned sounds like NO DEAL.I hear
> > > he fired his manager? Your right the Championship is a farce.Too bad
> > > our country could not put together a bid.E-JAY- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > But they managed to beat Cuba 2.5 to 1.5
>
> > Whereas the women were whitewashed 4 - zip by Romania. Pity Susan
> > Polgar is commentating instead of playing board 1 but the last time I
> > brought this up in front of USCF delegate, he [lol] said it was all
> > about networking, being a good sport, and... right!
>
> > Doesn't look like the Women's team will even sniff a medal this year.
>
> > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> =A0I think our Ladies actually won. A 4-0 blanking by Romania would be a
> disaster. A 4-0 win by the USA would be a surprise result also. I
> think we are paired with China for the next Round. Will have to check
> to see who the men play.A nice 2.5-1.5 win vs Cuba !!. My buddy Scott
> says hello.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Regards to Scott, though I did mention to him something to say to
you :)
I guess I get to say that privately :)

and the US had a //very// good day

In two tough matches, GM Alexander Onischuk and Katerina Rohonyan came
through with big wins, allowing the U.S. men to post a 2.5-1.5 victory
over Hungary and for the U.S. women to hold their own against China,
the #1 seed.

That's better!

Cordially, Phil


  
Date: 20 Nov 2008 06:15:46
From:
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 20, 4:34=A0am, EJAY <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> The Men will face Hungry featuring Peter Leko and Judit Polgar...

Those Hungryans will eat you alive.


  
Date: 20 Nov 2008 06:12:37
From:
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 19, 3:15=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> Whereas the women were whitewashed 4 - zip by Romania.

Phil, your dyslexia is acting up again. The actual result was 4-0
for the USA. Details:

Romania
USA

4.1 IM Peptan Corina-Isabela 2430 0 - 1 IM Krush Irina
2452
4.2 WGM Cosma Elena Luminita 2340 0 - 1 IM Zatonskih Anna 2440
4.3 WGM Voicu Carmen 2239 0 - 1 WGM Goletiani
Rusudan 2359
4.4 WGM Motoc Alina 2313 0 - 1 WGM Rohonyan
Katerina 2334

You going to claim your report is somehow correct anyway, like
usual?


  
Date: 20 Nov 2008 01:34:18
From: EJAY
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 20, 4:25=A0am, EJAY <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 19, 3:15=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 9:57=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 19, 8:49=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > > Did they officially sign? I understand they will play in Bulgaria=
in
> > > > > Feb.Right about the same time as the Amateur Team events here in =
the
> > > > > USA !!
>
> > > > --
> > > > No Ernie - I trusted the NY Times Gambit blog - which was wrong! I =
am
> > > > unsure if they got their info from Chessdom, or the other way aroun=
d,
> > > > BUT Kamsky confirmed by phone that he has signed nothing! What a fa=
rce
> > > > of world championship!
>
> > > > Anyway, back to actual chess... I see the young Wesley So has been
> > > > accommodated by shuffling board positions with team colleague
> > > > Villamayor, since he particularly wanted to have a go at Spain's
> > > > Shirov. Both Phillipines and Spain have 7 points.
>
> > > > Phil
>
> > > The USA has a tough match up with Cuba. So until it is signed on the
> > > dotted line as far as Kamsky is concerned sounds like NO DEAL.I hear
> > > he fired his manager? Your right the Championship is a farce.Too bad
> > > our country could not put together a bid.E-JAY- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > But they managed to beat Cuba 2.5 to 1.5
>
> > Whereas the women were whitewashed 4 - zip by Romania. Pity Susan
> > Polgar is commentating instead of playing board 1 but the last time I
> > brought this up in front of USCF delegate, he [lol] said it was all
> > about networking, being a good sport, and... right!
>
> > Doesn't look like the Women's team will even sniff a medal this year.
>
> > Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> =A0I think our Ladies actually won. A 4-0 blanking by Romania would be a
> disaster. A 4-0 win by the USA would be a surprise result also. I
> think we are paired with China for the next Round. Will have to check
> to see who the men play.A nice 2.5-1.5 win vs Cuba !!. My buddy Scott
> says hello.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The Men will face Hungry featuring Peter Leko and Judit Polgar...


  
Date: 20 Nov 2008 01:25:24
From: EJAY
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 19, 3:15=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 19, 9:57=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 8:49=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > > Did they officially sign? I understand they will play in Bulgaria i=
n
> > > > Feb.Right about the same time as the Amateur Team events here in th=
e
> > > > USA !!
>
> > > --
> > > No Ernie - I trusted the NY Times Gambit blog - which was wrong! I am
> > > unsure if they got their info from Chessdom, or the other way around,
> > > BUT Kamsky confirmed by phone that he has signed nothing! What a farc=
e
> > > of world championship!
>
> > > Anyway, back to actual chess... I see the young Wesley So has been
> > > accommodated by shuffling board positions with team colleague
> > > Villamayor, since he particularly wanted to have a go at Spain's
> > > Shirov. Both Phillipines and Spain have 7 points.
>
> > > Phil
>
> > The USA has a tough match up with Cuba. So until it is signed on the
> > dotted line as far as Kamsky is concerned sounds like NO DEAL.I hear
> > he fired his manager? Your right the Championship is a farce.Too bad
> > our country could not put together a bid.E-JAY- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> But they managed to beat Cuba 2.5 to 1.5
>
> Whereas the women were whitewashed 4 - zip by Romania. Pity Susan
> Polgar is commentating instead of playing board 1 but the last time I
> brought this up in front of USCF delegate, he [lol] said it was all
> about networking, being a good sport, and... right!
>
> Doesn't look like the Women's team will even sniff a medal this year.
>
> Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think our Ladies actually won. A 4-0 blanking by Romania would be a
disaster. A 4-0 win by the USA would be a surprise result also. I
think we are paired with China for the next Round. Will have to check
to see who the men play.A nice 2.5-1.5 win vs Cuba !!. My buddy Scott
says hello.


  
Date: 19 Nov 2008 12:15:55
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 19, 9:57=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 19, 8:49=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Did they officially sign? I understand they will play in Bulgaria in
> > > Feb.Right about the same time as the Amateur Team events here in the
> > > USA !!
>
> > --
> > No Ernie - I trusted the NY Times Gambit blog - which was wrong! I am
> > unsure if they got their info from Chessdom, or the other way around,
> > BUT Kamsky confirmed by phone that he has signed nothing! What a farce
> > of world championship!
>
> > Anyway, back to actual chess... I see the young Wesley So has been
> > accommodated by shuffling board positions with team colleague
> > Villamayor, since he particularly wanted to have a go at Spain's
> > Shirov. Both Phillipines and Spain have 7 points.
>
> > Phil
>
> The USA has a tough match up with Cuba. So until it is signed on the
> dotted line as far as Kamsky is concerned sounds like NO DEAL.I hear
> he fired his manager? Your right the Championship is a farce.Too bad
> our country could not put together a bid.E-JAY- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

But they managed to beat Cuba 2.5 to 1.5

Whereas the women were whitewashed 4 - zip by Romania. Pity Susan
Polgar is commentating instead of playing board 1 but the last time I
brought this up in front of USCF delegate, he [lol] said it was all
about networking, being a good sport, and... right!

Doesn't look like the Women's team will even sniff a medal this year.

Phil Innes


  
Date: 19 Nov 2008 06:57:55
From:
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 19, 8:49=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Did they officially sign? I understand they will play in Bulgaria in
> > Feb.Right about the same time as the Amateur Team events here in the
> > USA !!
>
> --
> No Ernie - I trusted the NY Times Gambit blog - which was wrong! I am
> unsure if they got their info from Chessdom, or the other way around,
> BUT Kamsky confirmed by phone that he has signed nothing! What a farce
> of world championship!
>
> Anyway, back to actual chess... I see the young Wesley So has been
> accommodated by shuffling board positions with team colleague
> Villamayor, since he particularly wanted to have a go at Spain's
> Shirov. Both Phillipines and Spain have 7 points.
>
> Phil

The USA has a tough match up with Cuba. So until it is signed on the
dotted line as far as Kamsky is concerned sounds like NO DEAL.I hear
he fired his manager? Your right the Championship is a farce.Too bad
our country could not put together a bid.E-JAY


  
Date: 19 Nov 2008 05:49:06
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad

>
> Did they officially sign? I understand they will play in Bulgaria in
> Feb.Right about the same time as the Amateur Team events here in the
> USA !!


--
No Ernie - I trusted the NY Times Gambit blog - which was wrong! I am
unsure if they got their info from Chessdom, or the other way around,
BUT Kamsky confirmed by phone that he has signed nothing! What a farce
of world championship!

Anyway, back to actual chess... I see the young Wesley So has been
accommodated by shuffling board positions with team colleague
Villamayor, since he particularly wanted to have a go at Spain's
Shirov. Both Phillipines and Spain have 7 points.

Phil






  
Date: 19 Nov 2008 01:04:12
From: EJAY
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 18, 1:57=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Today is a rest day at Dresden, but progress on the World
> Championship. This was just announced from Chessdom, and [I think]
> confirmed by USCF
>
> "Kamsky has agreed to the conditions and the match Topalov - Kamsky
> will take place in Sofia. Tonight the two grandmasters will sign the
> official documents."
>
> Phil Innes

Did they officially sign? I understand they will play in Bulgaria in
Feb.Right about the same time as the Amateur Team events here in the
USA !!


  
Date: 18 Nov 2008 10:57:29
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad

Today is a rest day at Dresden, but progress on the World
Championship. This was just announced from Chessdom, and [I think]
confirmed by USCF

"Kamsky has agreed to the conditions and the match Topalov - Kamsky
will take place in Sofia. Tonight the two grandmasters will sign the
official documents."

Phil Innes


  
Date: 18 Nov 2008 04:18:50
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
Radjabov,T (2751) - Kamsky,G (2729) [D85] 38th Olympiad Dresden GER
(4), 16.11.2008

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Be3 c5
8.Rc1 Qa5 9.Qd2 cxd4 10.cxd4 Qxd2+ 11.Kxd2 0-0 12.Bd3 e6 13.Ne2 Nc6
14.Rc4 Rd8 15.Rb1 Bd7 16.Nc3 Be8 17.e5 Rab8 18.f4 Bf8 19.g4 Be7 20.h4
f6 21.h5 gxh5 22.gxh5 Bxh5 23.Rg1+ Bg6 24.f5 exf5 25.e6 Kf8 26.Bh6+
Ke8 27.Nb5 Bb4+ 28.Ke3 Ke7 29.Bf4 Kxe6 30.d5+ Kf7 31.dxc6 bxc6 32.Rxb4
cxb5 33.Bxb8 f4+ 34.Kxf4 Bxd3 35.Bxa7 Ra8 36.Rd4 1-0

The next few games are soon over - is there some agreed upon number of
moves to append 'miniature' for a game?

Schandorff,L (2520) - Howell,D (2593) [A15] 38th Olympiad Dresden GER
(2), 14.11.2008

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.Qa4+ Bd7 6.Qh4 Bc6 7.Ne5 Bg7
8.Nxc6 Nxc6 9.e3 0-0 10.Be2 e6 11.Qa4 Nce7 12.d4 c5 13.Nxd5 Nxd5
14.dxc5 Nc3 15.Qb4 Nxe2 16.Kxe2 Qg5 17.g3 Rac8 18.Bd2 Rxc5 19.Qxb7
Qg4+ 20.Qf3 Qc4+ 21.Ke1 Bxb2 22.Rd1 Rd8 23.Qe2 Qxe2+ 24.Kxe2 Rc2 0-1

Bluvshtein,M (2557) - Rowson,J (2596) [E20] 38th Olympiad Dresden GER
(4), 16.11.2008

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.f3 0-0 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 Nh5 7.g3 f5 8.e4
d6 9.f4 Nf6 10.e5 Ne4 11.Ne2 b6 12.Bg2 Ba6 13.Qb3 Nc6 14.c5 d5 15.cxb6
cxb6 16.Qc2 Rc8 17.Bb2 Na5 18.Bxe4 dxe4 19.0-0 Qd5 20.Bc1 e3 21.Bxe3
Bb7 22.Kf2 Qf3+ 0-1



Phil Innes


   
Date: 18 Nov 2008 08:28:39
From: Frisco Del Rosario
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
In article
<[email protected]m >,
"[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:

> is there some agreed upon number of moves to append 'miniature' for a game?

25 is the limit Chernev used in 1000 Best Short Games of Chess, and Nunn
in 101 Brilliant Chess Miniatures.


  
Date: 18 Nov 2008 04:14:47
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
Harikrishna,P (2659) - Svidler,P (2727) [D80] 38th Olympiad Dresden
GER (4), 16.11.2008

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bg5 Ne4 5.Bh4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 dxc4 7.e3 Be6
8.Be2 Bg7 9.Nf3 c5 10.0-0 0-0 11.Ng5 Bd5 12.e4 h6 13.exd5 hxg5 14.Bxg5
cxd4 15.Bxc4 dxc3 16.Rc1 Qd6 17.Re1 Re8 18.Qe2 Kf8 19.Qf3 Nd7 20.Bf4
Qc5 21.Bb3 Kg8 22.g4 Nb6 23.d6 e6 24.Qxb7 Red8 25.Rxe6 Rab8 26.Qf3 Nc4
27.Re7 1-0

Phil Innes


  
Date: 17 Nov 2008 22:51:48
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
Did Ivanchuck and Lovorian play in this ?

There was a blirb in our paper about their game 68 move draw , only
Kings were left on the board..wow what a game..



 
Date: 16 Nov 2008 06:19:39
From: Taylor Kingston
Subject: Re: Dresden Olympiad
On Nov 16, 8:17=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The first thing to say is that ELO has not been a large predictor of
> results thus far - and some score of players giving away 200 or so
> points have achieved remarkable results.
>
> I think these are now widely reported [see Chessbase, eg] but I made a
> summary of early results in the Parrot col atwww.chessville.com
>
> Probably the biggest upset was in the first round when 77 year old
> Viktor Korchnoi got to get the black bits against 2700+-rated Peter
> Svidler. Draw!
>
> Latest news is that in Rd 3 the Indian women's team held the Russians
> to a tie. Other national teams doing very well are from Vietnam, Cuba.
>
> Its always going to be the Russians and Chinese to beat these days -
> but thus far the ability of those two teams to convert their ELO
> advantages over opponents into points is the test of how well they
> do.

Phil, a minor correction, if I may. One should not capitalize all
the letters in "Elo" unless one is referring to the rock band Electric
Light Orchestra. In a chess context, Elo is a man's name, not an
acronym. One does not capitalize all its letters any more than one
does for other measurements named for a person, e.g. Fahrenheit,
Celsius or Mach.