| Chess One 2006-02-26, 7:37 pm |
|
"The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140273131.468172.279870@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> As usual with interpreting the Vermont Chucklehead, all we have to
> plumb his 'thought' are his newsgroup posts. Innes' proposed 'write
> move rule' is below:
>
> "Just as touching a piece requires you to move it, if legal, so does
> making the move you wrote down. As a TD I would award the whole point
> to your opponent."
It is often rude to comment on the intelligence of other people on usenet,
but since this is the 5,000th example from this poster, let me affirm that
the sentence says, that just as touch and move commits you to moving the
piece touched, so would writing down the move.
I don't need to write more to this abusive fruitcake who doesn't give a damn
about chess, or telling the truth.
He gains attention by distortion. Period.
Phil Innes
quote:
> I trust the Chucklehead will pardon me for not recapping all the valid
> objections made by David Richerby, "Nick", Ralf, and a number of other
> posters to this thread.
>
>
> Speaking of Kasparov, I'm surprised no one aside from David Richerby
> has challenged Innes over his ridiculous example of the Polgar-Kasparov
> 'touch-move' game. The problem was not "Did Kasparov change his mind
> about the move?", but instead "Did Kasparov touch the piece?" Unless
> Innes' 'write move rule' replaces touch move his example is useless.
>
>
> Mr. Innes has for years 'passively avoided' participating in chess,
> aside from grandstanding on newsgroups.
>
|