|
Home > Archive > Chess politics > March 2006 > Chess & Wikipedia
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) 2006-03-04, 7:31 pm |
| rgc[mp] groups are not serious most of the time. I think that now is a
proper time for serious people to be serious about the situation which
involves two activities: chess and Wikipedia. Please, set aside your
attitude toward Sam Sloan and look at the issues, at the big picture.
One of the issues is the validity of the whole cocept of Wikipedia,
which right now is under doubt.
Sam is providing quite systematically the history of the US chess fore
the past half of the century. He should be assisted rather than
obstructed. The collective effort should go toward improving his
writingsm not toward destroying his effort, not toward preventing him
from doing his thing for which chess players and readers should be
grateful to him.
Let me very seriously stress that I am NOT Sam's fan, I can't say that
I like him. But this is not about liking/disliking him. This is
Wikipedia's "to be or not to be". It is also the issue of getting a
record which will be the witness of our (chess) time, which will
provide the panorama of the US chess.
The argument about the big world out there was used in a harmful,
non-constructive way. Yes, there should be Sam-like writers in Europe,
South America, Asia, Africa, Australia... Let them write!!! But at
least we have one (imperfect as he is) in the US.
Sure, others are more solid, etc. So, please, assist, complement Sam's
effort with your own--either add your own articles or
**constructively** edit Sam's posts.
I hope that sociopaths, ignorants, small people who get their ego bust
by preventing others from constructive acting, that all of them will be
disregarded, and that somehow both the chess and Wikipedia will get
stronger out of this whole unfortunate incident. (I hope but I am not
overly optimistic; so far the situation looks gloomy).
Wlod
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-04, 7:31 pm |
|
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
quote:
> rgc[mp] groups are not serious most of the time. I think that now is a
> proper time for serious people to be serious about the situation which
> involves two activities: chess and Wikipedia. Please, set aside your
> attitude toward Sam Sloan and look at the issues, at the big picture.
> One of the issues is the validity of the whole cocept of Wikipedia,
> which right now is under doubt.
>
> Sam is providing quite systematically the history of the US chess fore
> the past half of the century.
Wlod, don't be absurd. Sloan is merely using Wikipedia as a platform
for his pet likes, dislikes, grudges and delusions. The ratio of
fiction to fact in his chess-related Wikipedia articles is close to
90/10. His malice/neutrality ratio is similar. What little research he
does is often quite sloppy and inadequate.
quote:
> He should be assisted rather than
> obstructed. The collective effort should go toward improving his
> writings not toward destroying his effort,
This is something like saying straw hats should be made waterproof so
they may serve as diving helmets. Would it not be simpler to ignore
Sloan's "historical" writings and read competent, objective chess
historians and journalists?
If you sincerely want to improve Wikipedia's chess content, it would
seem far more effective to encourage good writers to contribute, rather
than try to change an egregiously bad one who resists every effort at
correction.
quote:
> not toward preventing him
> from doing his thing for which chess players and readers should be
> grateful to him.
We should be grateful for a continual stream of error, falsehood and
delusion? Wlod, be serious.
quote:
> Let me very seriously stress that I am NOT Sam's fan, I can't say that
> I like him. But this is not about liking/disliking him. This is
> Wikipedia's "to be or not to be". It is also the issue of getting a
> record which will be the witness of our (chess) time, which will
> provide the panorama of the US chess.
Wlod, trust me -- plenty of people other than Sloan are working on
this. We need Sam involved in the effort like the navy needs screen
doors on its submarines.
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-04, 7:31 pm |
| Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
>
> Wlod, don't be absurd.
Please, Taylor, let the lunatic expound his theory. It might be amusing.
Sloan is merely using Wikipedia as a platform
quote:
> for his pet likes, dislikes, grudges and delusions. The ratio of
> fiction to fact in his chess-related Wikipedia articles is close to
> 90/10. His malice/neutrality ratio is similar. What little research he
> does is often quite sloppy and inadequate.
His Norman Tweed Whitaker article is a case in point.
quote:
>
> This is something like saying straw hats should be made waterproof so
> they may serve as diving helmets. Would it not be simpler to ignore
> Sloan's "historical" writings and read competent, objective chess
> historians and journalists?
There are any number of them: Hilbert, Donaldson, Fiala, Urcan, Spinrad,
Pope, Gaige ... there's one more I could add, but modesty prevents me.
quote:
> If you sincerely want to improve Wikipedia's chess content, it would
> seem far more effective to encourage good writers to contribute, rather
> than try to change an egregiously bad one who resists every effort at
> correction.
Good writers will tend to shun Witlesspedia, simply because no good
writer wants to have his work subject to rewriting by any Tom, Phil, or
Harry with Internet access.
quote:
>
> We should be grateful for a continual stream of error, falsehood and
> delusion? Wlod, be serious.
>
>
> Wlod, trust me -- plenty of people other than Sloan are working on
> this. We need Sam involved in the effort like the navy needs screen
> doors on its submarines.
Agreed.
| |
|
| >
quote:
> Wlod, trust me -- plenty of people other than Sloan are working on
> this. We need Sam involved in the effort like the navy needs screen
> doors on its submarines.
So far we cannot see a little bit of their work :D
And IMO Sam Sloan is doing a great job.
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-04, 7:31 pm |
|
Jerzy wrote:
quote:
>
> So far we cannot see a little bit of their work :D
You mean you have lost your eyesight? Works by the people I had in
mind are readily available. In addition to those mentioned by Brennen
above (Hilbert, Donaldson, Fiala, Urcan, Spinrad, Pope, Gaige) I was
thinking of Edward Winter, William Hartston, Frank Brady, Peter Lahde,
Andy Soltis, Aidan Woodger, Pal Benko, Tim Harding, David Spanier,
Alburt & Lawrence, Edmonds & Eidinow, just to mention a few now living.
Plus among the deceased there are Ken Whyld, David Hooper, Al Horowitz,
Reuben Fine, Irving Chernev, Arnold Denker, and others.
All are or have been involved in chronicling American chess of the
past 50 years, to one degree or another. The quality of work varies
considerably among those I've named, but compared to Sloan, even the
worst of them is like a new Brooks Brothers suit compared to a pair of
ragged blue jeans.
quote:
> And IMO Sam Sloan is doing a great job.
Perhaps at something, but not at chess history.
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-04, 7:31 pm |
| Taylor Kingston wrote:
quote:
> Jerzy wrote:
>
> You mean you have lost your eyesight? Works by the people I had in
> mind are readily available. In addition to those mentioned by Brennen
> above (Hilbert, Donaldson, Fiala, Urcan, Spinrad, Pope, Gaige) I was
> thinking of Edward Winter, William Hartston, Frank Brady, Peter Lahde,
> Andy Soltis, Aidan Woodger, Pal Benko, Tim Harding, David Spanier,
> Alburt & Lawrence, Edmonds & Eidinow, just to mention a few now living.
You forgot one, Taylor.... I mean, I was trying to be modest, but
perhaps I am TOO modest at time.
| |
|
| >> So far we cannot see a little bit of their work :D
quote:
>
> You mean you have lost your eyesight? Works by the people I had in
> mind are readily available.
But they are not available neither in Wikipedia nor in usenet nor on their
websites.
quote:
>
> Perhaps at something, but not at chess history.
I can see Taylor that your judgement is higher than that of the highest
court :-)
| |
|
|
quote:
> You forgot one, Taylor.... I mean, I was trying to be modest, but
> perhaps I am TOO modest at time.
Neil, your work is available over internet. However Taylor mentioned all
that is not available here :-)
| |
| Andrew Zito 2006-03-04, 7:31 pm |
| Scumbag Sloan should be banned from all forums including
wikeXXXXingpedia.
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-04, 7:31 pm |
| what a sensible mature post, and welcome back. phil
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <sennajawa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141487598.173492.16700@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> rgc[mp] groups are not serious most of the time. I think that now is a
> proper time for serious people to be serious about the situation which
> involves two activities: chess and Wikipedia. Please, set aside your
> attitude toward Sam Sloan and look at the issues, at the big picture.
> One of the issues is the validity of the whole cocept of Wikipedia,
> which right now is under doubt.
>
> Sam is providing quite systematically the history of the US chess fore
> the past half of the century. He should be assisted rather than
> obstructed. The collective effort should go toward improving his
> writingsm not toward destroying his effort, not toward preventing him
> from doing his thing for which chess players and readers should be
> grateful to him.
>
> Let me very seriously stress that I am NOT Sam's fan, I can't say that
> I like him. But this is not about liking/disliking him. This is
> Wikipedia's "to be or not to be". It is also the issue of getting a
> record which will be the witness of our (chess) time, which will
> provide the panorama of the US chess.
>
> The argument about the big world out there was used in a harmful,
> non-constructive way. Yes, there should be Sam-like writers in Europe,
> South America, Asia, Africa, Australia... Let them write!!! But at
> least we have one (imperfect as he is) in the US.
>
> Sure, others are more solid, etc. So, please, assist, complement Sam's
> effort with your own--either add your own articles or
> **constructively** edit Sam's posts.
>
> I hope that sociopaths, ignorants, small people who get their ego bust
> by preventing others from constructive acting, that all of them will be
> disregarded, and that somehow both the chess and Wikipedia will get
> stronger out of this whole unfortunate incident. (I hope but I am not
> overly optimistic; so far the situation looks gloomy).
>
> Wlod
>
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-04, 7:31 pm |
|
Jerzy wrote:
quote:
>
> But they are not available neither in Wikipedia nor in usenet nor on their
> websites.
And neither can one buy cars in a grocery store, or use a toothbrush
to study the planets. So what? You are saying you prefer to read errors
and falsehoods on the internet, instead of facts from books?
| |
| Roadkill 2006-03-04, 7:31 pm |
|
"Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <sennajawa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141487598.173492.16700@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> The argument about the big world out there was used in a harmful,
> non-constructive way. Yes, there should be Sam-like writers in Europe,
> South America, Asia, Africa, Australia... Let them write!!! But at
> least we have one (imperfect as he is) in the US.
>
Just another sign of the decline of the USA.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-04, 7:31 pm |
| Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote
(4 Mar 2006 07:53:18 -0800):
quote:
> Sam is providing quite systematically the history
> of the US chess fore the past half of the century.
> He should be assisted rather than obstructed.
> ...
> ... this is not about liking/disliking him. This is
> Wikipedia's "to be or not to be". ...
_
A Wikipedia administrator
wrote (22:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)):
_
"Attention Sam Sloan
...
Please read the content at the following links
very carefully:
_
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:Cite your sources
Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
...
Until you can prove all of these claims, they have
no business being in the article. Wikipedia is not
a forum for you to write articles chock full of your
own opinions, speculations, and rants. I believe
you have your own web site to do that already."
| |
| Taylor Kingston 2006-03-05, 7:34 pm |
|
Jerzy wrote:
quote:
> I can see Taylor that your judgement is higher than that of the highest
> court :-)
Flattering, but President Bush was correct to omit me from his recent
Supreme Court nominations. However, at least in the area of chess
history I can usually tell gold from mud.
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-05, 7:34 pm |
|
"Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
news:1141567617.177485.35430@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Jerzy wrote:
>
> Flattering, but President Bush was correct to omit me from his recent
> Supreme Court nominations. However, at least in the area of chess
> history I can usually tell gold from mud.
>
Really? The Chess & Wikipedia issue has to do with agreeing on what is
essential about any subject, rather than what is peripheral. I think Sam
Sloan cannot decide the entire entry - or in fact - that any single person
could - and Wlod wrote recently than surely any /sincere/ participant would
constructively amend the entry. This isn't what is occurring at all.
I think a collaboration of people could best propose the frame of reference
and the respective comment. These would remove excessive bias, and also
attain some sense of proportion in the entry.
Although Taylor Kingston decries Sam Sloan, he is himself shy of telling it
straight, as in the recent Kasparov BCO 'introduction' by way of defending
Winter's efforts, and even to the Oxford Companion's euphemistic mention of
Refuseniks, specifically of the fate of Boris Gulko, as 'away from chess'.
Acting in a superior way to others doesn't make for better chess histories,
nor qualify superior people to tell it better than those they think
spurious. It just changes one bias for another.
In the above cases it would fail to represent Winter's peculiar and serial
attack on Keene in BCO as one of many efforts, and it would also slight
Russian Jews.
Phil Innes
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-05, 7:34 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <tkingston@chittenden.com> wrote in message
> news:1141567617.177485.35430@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> Really? The Chess & Wikipedia issue has to do with agreeing on what is
> essential about any subject, rather than what is peripheral. I think Sam
> Sloan cannot decide the entire entry - or in fact - that any single person
> could
Oddly enough, single people do write biographies. Perhaps not in
Brattleboro, but certainly in the rest of the world.
- and Wlod wrote recently than surely any /sincere/ participant would
quote:
> constructively amend the entry. This isn't what is occurring at all.
Wlod's suggestion is insane. Why would anyone want to sculpt Sloan's
marl as if it were marble?
quote:
> I think a collaboration of people could best propose the frame of reference
> and the respective comment. These would remove excessive bias, and also
> attain some sense of proportion in the entry.
Perhaps, if the people involved knew what they were talking about.
Snip usual Innes distractions from the topic.
quote:
> Acting in a superior way to others doesn't make for better chess histories,
The irony of this comment coming from Innes is almost more than human
mind can comprehend.
quote:
> nor qualify superior people to tell it better than those they think
> spurious. It just changes one bias for another.
This rejection of authority reminds us why one should never seek
medical treatment in Brattleboro. If you call for a doctor, they might
send a bank teller, policeman, or dogcatcher. After all, they are all
people, and why exchange "one bias for another" just because the doctor
has a medical degree?
Snip usual Innes distraction.
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-05, 7:34 pm |
| The American Neil Brennan demonstrates why he and his coterie are completely
unreliable sources on this or any other subject. After having 'a bash' at
criticizing what a woman should write as her memoir of her life in chess,
Brennan, who can't write to any subject without insult, demonstrates the
other side of the coin - the fruits of repression.
What is snipped, as usual, is the proof of the issue. These mediocre clowns
write trash about people, nothing else.
Phil Innes
"The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141570977.755620.122330@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> Oddly enough, single people do write biographies. Perhaps not in
> Brattleboro, but certainly in the rest of the world.
>
> - and Wlod wrote recently than surely any /sincere/ participant would
>
> Wlod's suggestion is insane. Why would anyone want to sculpt Sloan's
> marl as if it were marble?
>
>
> Perhaps, if the people involved knew what they were talking about.
>
> Snip usual Innes distractions from the topic.
>
>
> The irony of this comment coming from Innes is almost more than human
> mind can comprehend.
>
>
> This rejection of authority reminds us why one should never seek
> medical treatment in Brattleboro. If you call for a doctor, they might
> send a bank teller, policeman, or dogcatcher. After all, they are all
> people, and why exchange "one bias for another" just because the doctor
> has a medical degree?
>
> Snip usual Innes distraction.
>
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-05, 7:34 pm |
| Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 05 Mar 2006 14:25:59 GMT):
quote:
> The Chess & Wikipedia issue has to do with agreeing
> on what is essential about any subject, rather than
> what is peripheral.
_
A Wikipedia administrator
wrote (22:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)):
_
"Attention Sam Sloan
...
Please read the content at the following links
very carefully:
_
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Wikipedia:Cite your sources
Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
...
Until you can prove all of these claims, they have
no business being in the article. Wikipedia is not
a forum for you to write articles chock full of your
own opinions, speculations, and rants. I believe
you have your own web site to do that already."
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-05, 7:34 pm |
|
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1141592053.876787.243010@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 05 Mar 2006 14:25:59 GMT):
>
yes I did, but that's not all I said, and if it purports to be my
perspective on what should be on Wikipedia, than I request Louis Blair quote
me fair, or not all.
phil innes
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-05, 7:34 pm |
| I wrote (5 Mar 2006 12:54:13 -0800):
quote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 05 Mar 2006 14:25:59 GMT):
>_
>_
> A Wikipedia administrator
> wrote (22:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)):
>_
> "Attention Sam Sloan
> ...
> Please read the content at the following links
> very carefully:
>_
> Wikipedia:Verifiability
> Wikipedia:Cite your sources
> Wikipedia:Reliable sources
> Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
> ...
> Until you can prove all of these claims, they have
> no business being in the article. Wikipedia is not
> a forum for you to write articles chock full of your
> own opinions, speculations, and rants. I believe
> you have your own web site to do that already."
_
Phil Innes wote (Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:18:10 GMT):
quote:
> yes I did [write the sentence attributed to me], but
> that's not all I said, and if it purports to be my
> perspective on what should be on Wikipedia,
_
The quote is not "purport"ed to be the perspective
of Phil Innes on what should be on Wikipedia.
_
Phil Innes wote (Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:18:10 GMT):
quote:
> than I request Louis Blair quote me fair, or not all.
_
I see nothing unfair about my quote.
| |
| parrthenon@cs.com 2006-03-05, 11:31 pm |
| SHEER BILE
quote:
>Although Taylor Kingston decries Sam Sloan, he is himself
shy of telling it straight, as in the recent Kasparov BCO
'introduction' by way of defending Winter's efforts, and even to
the Oxford Companion's euphemistic mention of Refuseniks,
specifically of the fate of Boris Gulko, as 'away from chess'.
.....In the above cases it would fail to represent Winter's peculiar
and serial attack on Keene in BCO as one of many efforts, and
it would also slight Russian Jews.> -- Phil Innes
Edward Winter lied about Garry Kasparov writing
an "introduction" to Batsford Chess Openings for a
quite specific reason. His intention was to raise doubts
about Kasparov's contribution to the volume. He noted
that Keene wrote a much longer introduction (short though
it was) than Kasparov in order to suggest that Kasparov
was taking his authorial duties lightly.
The truth was that Kasparov wrote no introduction at all.
Period.
He contributed four lines in the "Acknowledgments" section.
Winter did not make this point because most of you know that
acknowledgments are nearly always shorter than introductions.
You would immediately understand that Winter was comparing
apples and oranges. OF COURSE, Kasparov's acknowledgment
would likely be shorter than the introduction in BCO!
It was a low lie by Winter, which he told from
sheer bile. He wanted to build a case, and he saw a
chance. The man did not bank on someone making the
vital distinction between acknowledgments and
introductions. It was also a stupid lie that was told
because the man could not restrain his cold fury --
the same kind of lie, in truth, that NM Taylor
Kingston retailed when claiming to be 2300+ ELO
when he was actually rated about 1800.
The more I think on the matter, the more I
begin to figure that the time has come to reprise my
investigation of Winter's sloppiness (he had a higher
incidence of error than he demonstrated against GM Larry
Evans in an article that he penned accusing the latter
of being sloppy with facts over a period of 50 years!) and
examples of Winter using evidence with an anachronism to
demonstrate an Evans error.
One of the errors cited by Edward Winter in his pettiness
was blasting GM Evans for referring to The Oxford Companion
FOR Chess instead of the correct Oxford Companion TO chess.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-05, 11:31 pm |
| Larry Parr wrote (5 Mar 2006 17:09:04 -0800):
quote:
> The more I think on the matter, the more I begin
> to figure that the time has come to reprise my
> investigation of Winter's sloppiness ...
_
Isn't it long overdue for Larry Parr to deal properly
with that matter that he raised awhile back:
_
"Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
_
_
"Can GM Keene, Larry Parr, or anyone
else back this up with a quote from a
verifiable source?" - Louis Blair (25 Jan 2006
10:04:33 -0800)
_
_
"WINTER'S QUOTE HAS BEEN FOUND!
_
By GM Raymond Keene
_
Winter ... (1983): '---the exact role of
Kasparov. Is his name there more for
sales than for merit?'" - GM Keene
communication reported by Larry Parr
(27 Jan 2006 15:30:26 -0800)
_
_
"Do GM Keene and Larry Parr seriously
contend that the Edward Winter QUESTION
can be fairly described as a 'claim' 'that
kasparov's contribution to bco batsford
chess openings was ghosted'?
_
If they do, why doesn't either of them say so
explicitly? If they don't, why don't they admit
that they still have not produced a record of
such a claim?" - Louis Blair (28 Jan 2006
16:03:20 -0800)
_
Thirty days later:
_
"GM Keene, who has had extenstive dealings
with Mr. Winter, made the claim. Not I."
- Larry Parr (27 Feb 2006 20:22:25 -0800)
_
_
"Larry Parr fails to mention that he posted
this claim in a note with the heading
'EDWARD WINTER'S TRIPE (Continued)'.
Does Larry Parr claim that he had no
obligation to deal with the issue of
evidence? Did he make any attempt to
ask GM Keene for a quote of the supposed
Edward Winter claim? In the past, in
response to attacks by others, Larry Parr
has written things like:
_
'The man makes a charge without
providing a scintilla of evidence, let
alone proof' - Larry Parr (21 Sep 2005
20:39:02 -0700)
_
and:
_
'[A] charge without any defined
antecedents ... is usually called
a smear.' - Larry Parr (14 Jun 2002
14:06:47 GMT)
_
Does Larry Parr think it was acceptable
for him to be a party to that sort of thing?"
- Louis Blair (27 Feb 2006 22:46:33 -0800)
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-05, 11:31 pm |
| Larry Parr wrote (5 Mar 2006 17:09:04 -0800):
quote:
> ... the same kind of lie, in truth, that NM Taylor
> Kingston retailed when claiming to be 2300+ ELO
> when he was actually rated about 1800.
_
Would Larry Parr want to make a comparison with this?
_
"My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly
an international master, with a rating of 2450"
- Phil Innes (Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:13:37 GMT)
_
"I shouldn't have used the word rating, but I did
play near that level." - Phil Innes (Mon, 13 Feb 2006
20:37:05 GMT)
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-05, 11:31 pm |
| Larry Parr wrote (5 Mar 2006 17:09:04 -0800):
quote:
> One of the errors cited by Edward Winter in his
> pettiness was blasting GM Evans for referring to
> The Oxford Companion FOR Chess instead of the
> correct Oxford Companion TO chess.
_
Another subject that Edward Winter raised:
_
GM Evans wrote for the March 1986 issue of Chess Life:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
[Karpov] will go down in history as the man who
avoided a match with Bobby Fischer and then eluded
him for the next ten years. ... [Karpov] did all in his
power to drive an unstable American genius out of chess.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-06, 11:38 pm |
|
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> Larry Parr wrote (5 Mar 2006 17:09:04 -0800):
>
>
> _
> Would Larry Parr want to make a comparison with this?
> _
> "My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly
> an international master, with a rating of 2450"
> - Phil Innes (Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:13:37 GMT)
> _
> "I shouldn't have used the word rating, but I did
> play near that level." - Phil Innes (Mon, 13 Feb 2006
> 20:37:05 GMT)
We add that Mr. Innes spent more than a year 'defending' his claim to
have a 2450 rating; the 'defense' consisted of ad hom attacks on people
who questioned it.
| |
| Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) 2006-03-06, 11:38 pm |
| Let me be chaotic this time, sorry.
I have read here on rgc* Sam Sloan's entry
about Edward Winter. What Sam has written
is an utter crap, pathetic--I would never guess
that a literate person, who is able of writing
any text whatsoever, would consider Sam's
garbage suitable for an encyclopedia.
Somehow Sam does.
I remember two other Sam's entries, posted
quite a bit earlier, as much more reasonable
--not sufficiently solid but at least they gave
a start for something acceptable. (All together,
Sam is not aging gracefully, but never mind).
I am sorry that in my post there was too much
about Sam, while I didn't do any research. So
much for trust and shortcuts. I was actually
preoccupied with Wikipedia and the modern
chess history.
I appreciate a lot the clean view of Ralf Callenberg
that each Wikipedia entry should be
judged independently of its author, solely
on the text's own merit or the lack of it. If this
is the common attitude among those
who shape Wikipedia then I am truly happy
about it.
On the other hand the claim that Tom Dorsch
is not worthy of an entry in Wikipedia worried
me. Of course, if Wikipedia had room only
for one of the two entries--one about Topalov
and another about Tom Dorsch, the instant
choice would be Topalov--it'd be silly to say
otherwise.
However, the wonderful thing about Wikipedia
is that it has room for most any info, thus
the importance of the person is relatively
of secondary importance (and the "popularity" is
still MUCH less so, but never mind). The most
important is accuracy--everything should be done
for the sake of accurate information. Otherwise--
in the presence of search engines and unlimited
ease of storing ascii info--most any accurate info
adds to the knowledge of the times and complements
the more important items.
In particular, while the history of the chess
kings (I mean champions), and challengers,
and the top players and composers is the most
characteristic part of the chess history, equally
important to me (or more?) is the general picture,
the social scene, and in particular the history of
any chess organization anywhere, in particular of
USCF (including a number of shameful moments,
in addition to the scene of Swiss weekend
tournaments, chess clubs, etc.)
Thus the criticism of the type "why do you
think that the USCF is so important?"
made me feel uneasy. I'd like the chess scene
from any place to have its chance to end up
described in Wikipedia.
(I also object to demeaning epithets like
"chess functionary").
In general, Sam's point about having
at Wikipedia editors or decision makers
who know chess (the game and the story)
is valid, but only in the cases which are
much more subtle than his idiotic text about
Edward Winter, which should be disregarded
immediately, offhand, without wasting time.
This is not only a chess issue. I've seen
recently also an inaccurate mathematical
Wikipedia entry. A long time ago I checked
Wikipedia's general rules. In my opinion
Wikipedia can be excellent if it restricts
itself to being a data base of facts and nothing
more. Otherwise Wikipedia can be even harmful.
e.g. if Sam's text about E.W. survived. I am
afraid that in less drastic situations this happens.
I've seen also non-Wikipedia sites with an encyclopedic
or educational ambition where inaccurate
mathematical material was posted to
a detriment of its readers. It seems that
only objective facts should be collected by sites
with encyclopedic bent. Otherwise the author
should be clearly stated and responsible for
the text, the text should not be authorized
by something like an institution. (But the worst
situation is when the texts are both authorized
by an "institution" AND signed by the self-serving
morons-authors, who are on an ego trip).
I've seen 1 or 2 astronomers or such, who were
*not* research mathematicians (nobody ever
listed their contribution to mathematics), listed
both as astronomers and mathematicians. Thus
there is need for formal criteria.
In general, when there is an entry about a person,
it should follow certain data base principles:
date and place of birth (whenever available), the
same for death (when applicable), etc etc
Also, there is an important distinction between
entries about the people who died a hundred
or more years ago, and about the living ones or
those who died recently. In the latter case
discretion is a must (most of the time). Encyclopedia
should not compete with "National Enquirer" and other
gossip oriented magazines.
***
Wlod
PS. Let me stress that so far mathematical
educational Internet pages are mostly well
written and useful. I am afraid that it may
change for the worse though, which would
be a great pity.
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-06, 11:38 pm |
| Louis Blair has just cobbled together a bunch of clips as if it were a
sequence of discussion. In fact I have never corresponded with Wikipedia on
any subject.
Further below he admits he see nothing unfair about....
I do.
Phil Innes
"Louis Blair" <lblai@blackburn.edu> wrote in message
news:1141602721.794718.259620@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>I wrote (5 Mar 2006 12:54:13 -0800):
>
> _
> Phil Innes wote (Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:18:10 GMT):
>
>
> _
> The quote is not "purport"ed to be the perspective
> of Phil Innes on what should be on Wikipedia.
>
> _
> Phil Innes wote (Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:18:10 GMT):
>
>
> _
> I see nothing unfair about my quote.
>
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-06, 11:38 pm |
|
"The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141641580.434115.21080@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> We add that Mr. Innes spent more than a year 'defending' his claim to
> have a 2450 rating; the 'defense' consisted of ad hom attacks on people
> who questioned it.
'We' have posted and rather increased my claim, which is no longer 'near'
2450 from 25 years ago. Inflation? I wonder what 'defended' means compared
with 'saying'? Phil Innes
| |
| David Ames 2006-03-06, 11:38 pm |
|
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> Larry Parr wrote (5 Mar 2006 17:09:04 -0800):
>
>
> _
> Isn't it long overdue for Larry Parr to deal properly
> with that matter that he raised awhile back:
> _
> "Edward winter ... once claimed that kasparov's
> contribution to bco batsford chess openings was
> ghosted ..." - GM Keene quote reported by
> Larry Parr (25 Jan 2006 06:02:49 -0800)
> _
>
I don't care to enter that controversy, but I will state that Batsford
Chess Openings' treatment of the Alekhine Defense followed Bagirov's
book on that opening. I don't know if that was ghosting (with
permission) or plagiarism (without permission).
David Ames
| |
| Jerzy 2006-03-06, 11:38 pm |
| ..
quote:
>
> And neither can one buy cars in a grocery store, or use a toothbrush
> to study the planets. So what? You are saying you prefer to read errors
> and falsehoods on the internet,
What falsehood ? By moronic Bill Brock and his Co. ? Yes I`m fed up with
these morons.
quote:
> instead of facts from books?
I also like fact books. I highly recommend for every chess fan reading the
superb chess series by Kasparov "My great predecessors". They`ll learn a lot
from them.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-06, 11:38 pm |
| I wrote (5 Mar 2006 12:54:13 -0800):
quote:
> Phil Innes wrote (Sun, 05 Mar 2006 14:25:59 GMT):
>_
>_
> A Wikipedia administrator
> wrote (22:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)):
>_
> "Attention Sam Sloan
> ...
> Please read the content at the following links
> very carefully:
>_
> Wikipedia:Verifiability
> Wikipedia:Cite your sources
> Wikipedia:Reliable sources
> Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
> ...
> Until you can prove all of these claims, they have
> no business being in the article. Wikipedia is not
> a forum for you to write articles chock full of your
> own opinions, speculations, and rants. I believe
> you have your own web site to do that already."
_
Phil Innes wote (Sun, 05 Mar 2006 22:18:10 GMT):
quote:
> yes I did [write the sentence attributed to me], but
> that's not all I said, and if it purports to be my
> perspective on what should be on Wikipedia,
> than I request Louis Blair quote me fair, or not all.
_
I wrote (5 Mar 2006 15:52:01 -0800):
quote:
> The quote is not "purport"ed to be the perspective
> of Phil Innes on what should be on Wikipedia.
> ...
> I see nothing unfair about my quote.
_
Phil Innes wrote (06 Mar 2006 12:07:01 GMT):
quote:
> Louis Blair has just cobbled together a bunch
> of clips as if it were a sequence of discussion.
> In fact I have never corresponded with Wikipedia
> on any subject.
_
My 5 Mar 2006 12:54:13 -0800 note (reproduced
above) contained TWO quotes. Nothing in the
note indicated that the two notes were part of
a discussion.
_
Phil Innes wrote (06 Mar 2006 12:07:01 GMT):
quote:
> Further [Louis Blair] admits he see nothing unfair
> about [his 5 Mar 2006 12:54:13 -0800 quote of
> me].
>_
> I do.
_
I don't.
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-06, 11:38 pm |
| Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
quote:
>
> On the other hand the claim that Tom Dorsch
> is not worthy of an entry in Wikipedia worried
> me. Of course, if Wikipedia had room only
> for one of the two entries--one about Topalov
> and another about Tom Dorsch, the instant
> choice would be Topalov--it'd be silly to say
> otherwise.
Well according to Sam, Tom Dorsch is better known than Topalov has been
just before he became Word Champion... But seriously: the base of my
initial proposal of the deletion was a bit more difficult. The problem I
saw, was that the article was complete crap, as even some of those
agreed, who voted for a keep. But in contrast to them I didn't see a
chance, that anybody else would feel that Tom Dorsch were important
enough to write the article himself.
Sam pointed out, that I am from Germany and have of course no clue, who
Tom Dorsch is. That's true. The thing is: the article gave not the
slightest hint why anybody should know him. Some admins tried to rewrite
the article, getting rid of the rumours and accusations. The outcome was
nearly as miserable as the original article, because there was
absolutely no substance to it, so there was nothing to extract.
The deletion of this article does not mean, that there is no place for
Tom Dorsch in Wikipedia. There is much more irrelevant stuff in it
already (although I personally think, that it indeed shouldn't go into
a general purpose encyclopedia). The good thing about Wikipedia: this
stuff doesn't disturb those who don't care, as you don't browse it like
a book. As has been pointed out by some in the discussion during the
deletion process: the steps might be: delete this article and wait for a
new version. But the original one had no basis for something meaningful.
My intention to get involved in this misery: I think that Wikipedia is a
great thing, and such articles and the constant self promotion of Sam
Sloan represent a lot of aspects people criticise about it. And it also
gives a bad example of what chess players care about. Just have a look
at the Reshevsky article: just a few lines, in size just a fraction of
the article Sam has written about Tom Dorsch. One may take as conclusion
to enhance the Reshevsky article - or to keep a possible Tom Dorsch
article to three or four lines, outlining his role he might have played,
not more. Writing about Tom Dorsch is not writing about American chess
history, the same way I wouldn't regard an article about the current
treasurer of the German chess federation as a piece of German chess history.
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
| samsloan 2006-03-06, 11:38 pm |
| Ralf Callenberg wrote:
quote:
> Sam pointed out, that I am from Germany and have of course no clue, who
> Tom Dorsch is. That's true.
A remarkable statement considering the fact that you started this
entire problem by first deleting all but the two first lines of the Tom
Dorsch article, then making a formal request that it be deleted and
then voting six times that it be deleted.
You have also removed content from 41 of my chess biographies, as of
the last time I counted them.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-06, 11:38 pm |
| samsloan wrote:
quote:
>
>
> A remarkable statement considering the fact that you started this
> entire problem by first deleting all but the two first lines of the Tom
> Dorsch article,
Yes, because I can tell crap from content. That Tom Dorsch ows you money
is something which does not belong into a lexicon, this I can tell
without knowing who Tom Dorsch is. But I tried to explain you this
months ago, so I don't assume, that this is comprehensible for you .
quote:
> then making a formal request that it be deleted and
> then voting six times that it be deleted.
Sam, why do you continue lying about this?
quote:
> You have also removed content from 41 of my chess biographies, as of
> the last time I counted them.
"Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien
à ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher." - Antoine de
Saint-Exupéry
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
| Say No To g4 2006-03-06, 11:38 pm |
|
quote:
> Yes, because I can tell crap from content.you .
>
I concur that it was crap.
quote:
>
> Sam, why do you continue lying about this?
>
Q: How do you know when Scam Sloan is lying?
A: His keyboard is moving.
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-06, 11:38 pm |
| Say No To g4 wrote:
quote:
>
> I concur that it was crap.
>
>
>
> Q: How do you know when Scam Sloan is lying?
>
>
>
> A: His keyboard is moving.
Yawn! Old joke.
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-06, 11:38 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141641580.434115.21080@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> 'We' have posted and rather increased my claim, which is no longer 'near'
> 2450 from 25 years ago.
Nonsense. You wrote it was a 2450 rating, not "near" a 2450 rating. And
to the point, it was a lie, a lie designed to promote yourself as a
strong player to an audience unfamiliar with chess and the rating
system.
Inflation? I wonder what 'defended' means compared
quote:
> with 'saying'? Phil Innes
| |
|
| The Historian wrote:
quote:
> Chess One wrote:
>
> Nonsense. You wrote it was a 2450 rating, not "near" a 2450 rating.
> And to the point, it was a lie, a lie designed to promote yourself as a
> strong player to an audience unfamiliar with chess and the rating system.
On the subject of what Phil Innes did about 25 years ago,
I have seen a match result of that period in which P. K. Innes
played for Cornwall. Phil Innes then had a BCF grade of 135
(which may not necessarily be his peak BCF grade).
At that time, 135 BCF would convert to 1680 FIDE or 1780 USCF.
Today, 135 BCF would convert to 1925 FIDE or 2025 USCF.
Phil Innes's USCF rating is 2044.
--Nick
| |
|
| Roadkill wrote:
quote:
> "Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)" <sennajawa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141487598.173492.16700@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Fortunately, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's not a Wikipedia administrator.
[vbcol=seagreen]
"That's why Sam (Sloan), since early 1995, has been among
the most valuable participants of rgc*, not second to anybody."
--Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (6 February 2005)
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Just another sign of the decline of the USA.
Apart from the usually objectionable content of his writings,
Sam Sloan is a poor writer in terms of English prose style.
--Nick
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-07, 2:31 am |
| Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote
(4 Mar 2006 07:53:18 -0800):
quote:
> The argument about the big world out there was used
> in a harmful, non-constructive way. Yes, there should
> be Sam-like writers in Europe, South America, Asia,
> Africa, Australia... Let them write!!! But at least we
> have one (imperfect as he is) in the US.
_
Nick wrote (6 Mar 2006 19:48:33 -0800):
quote:
> Fortunately, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's not a Wikipedia
> administrator.
> ...
> Apart from the usually objectionable content of his
> writings, Sam Sloan is a poor writer in terms of English
> prose style.
_
In case the note did not appear on Nick's system, here
is part of a subsequent (6 Mar 2006 03:34:25 -0800)
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski note:
_
"Let me be chaotic this time, sorry.
_
I have read here on rgc* Sam Sloan's entry
about Edward Winter. What Sam has written
is an utter crap, pathetic--I would never guess
that a literate person, who is able of writing
any text whatsoever, would consider Sam's
garbage suitable for an encyclopedia.
Somehow Sam does.
_
I remember two other Sam's entries, posted
quite a bit earlier, as much more reasonable
--not sufficiently solid but at least they gave
a start for something acceptable. (All together,
Sam is not aging gracefully, but never mind).
_
I am sorry that in my post there was too much
about Sam, while I didn't do any research. So
much for trust and shortcuts. I was actually
preoccupied with Wikipedia and the modern
chess history.
...
In general, Sam's point about having
at Wikipedia editors or decision makers
who know chess (the game and the story)
is valid, but only in the cases which are
much more subtle than his idiotic text about
Edward Winter, which should be disregarded
immediately, offhand, without wasting time.
_
This is not only a chess issue. I've seen
recently also an inaccurate mathematical
Wikipedia entry. A long time ago I checked
Wikipedia's general rules. In my opinion
Wikipedia can be excellent if it restricts
itself to being a data base of facts and nothing
more. Otherwise Wikipedia can be even harmful.
e.g. if Sam's text about E.W. survived. I am
afraid that in less drastic situations this happens.
I've seen also non-Wikipedia sites with an encyclopedic
or educational ambition where inaccurate
mathematical material was posted to
a detriment of its readers. ..."
_
If someone would provide a link to the inaccurate
mathematical material, I might take a stab at
helping with correction.
| |
| Louis Blair 2006-03-07, 2:31 am |
| Wlodzimierz Holsztynski wrote
(4 Mar 2006 07:53:18 -0800):
quote:
> The argument about the big world out there was used
> in a harmful, non-constructive way. Yes, there should
> be Sam-like writers in Europe, South America, Asia,
> Africa, Australia... Let them write!!! But at least we
> have one (imperfect as he is) in the US.
_
Nick wrote (6 Mar 2006 19:48:33 -0800):
quote:
> Fortunately, Wlodzimierz Holsztynski's not a Wikipedia
> administrator.
> ...
> Apart from the usually objectionable content of his
> writings, Sam Sloan is a poor writer in terms of English
> prose style.
_
In case the note did not appear on Nick's system, here
is part of another (6 Mar 2006 03:34:25 -0800)
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski note:
_
"Let me be chaotic this time, sorry.
_
I have read here on rgc* Sam Sloan's entry
about Edward Winter. What Sam has written
is an utter crap, pathetic--I would never guess
that a literate person, who is able of writing
any text whatsoever, would consider Sam's
garbage suitable for an encyclopedia.
Somehow Sam does.
_
I remember two other Sam's entries, posted
quite a bit earlier, as much more reasonable
--not sufficiently solid but at least they gave
a start for something acceptable. (All together,
Sam is not aging gracefully, but never mind).
_
I am sorry that in my post there was too much
about Sam, while I didn't do any research. So
much for trust and shortcuts. I was actually
preoccupied with Wikipedia and the modern
chess history.
...
In general, Sam's point about having
at Wikipedia editors or decision makers
who know chess (the game and the story)
is valid, but only in the cases which are
much more subtle than his idiotic text about
Edward Winter, which should be disregarded
immediately, offhand, without wasting time.
_
This is not only a chess issue. I've seen
recently also an inaccurate mathematical
Wikipedia entry. A long time ago I checked
Wikipedia's general rules. In my opinion
Wikipedia can be excellent if it restricts
itself to being a data base of facts and nothing
more. Otherwise Wikipedia can be even harmful.
e.g. if Sam's text about E.W. survived. I am
afraid that in less drastic situations this happens.
I've seen also non-Wikipedia sites with an encyclopedic
or educational ambition where inaccurate
mathematical material was posted to
a detriment of its readers. ..."
_
If someone would provide a link to the inaccurate
mathematical material, I might take a stab at
helping with correction.
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-07, 2:31 am |
|
Nick wrote:
quote:
> The Historian wrote:
>
> On the subject of what Phil Innes did about 25 years ago,
> I have seen a match result of that period in which P. K. Innes
> played for Cornwall. Phil Innes then had a BCF grade of 135
> (which may not necessarily be his peak BCF grade).
>
> At that time, 135 BCF would convert to 1680 FIDE or 1780 USCF.
> Today, 135 BCF would convert to 1925 FIDE or 2025 USCF.
> Phil Innes's USCF rating is 2044.
>
> --Nick
Innes' self-described 2450 rating from 25 years ago would have made him
one of the strongest players in the UK, correct? Elo's 1978 book gives
Golembek's 5 year peak as 2450, and Alexander's as 2475. George Thomas
comes in at 2470. IM Robert Wade doesn't rise to the Innesian heights,
being stuck at 2380.
| |
| Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) 2006-03-07, 5:32 am |
| samsloan wrote:
quote:
> Ralf Callenberg wrote:
>
>
> A remarkable statement considering the fact that you started this
> entire problem by first deleting all but the two first lines of the Tom
> Dorsch article, then making a formal request that it be deleted and
> then voting six times that it be deleted.
>
> You have also removed content from 41 of my chess biographies,
> as of the last time I counted them.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam, you are energetically pushing and pressing
for lowering the standard of Wikipedia. Your
continous action is in this respect garmful
and dangerous. I am glad that there are people who
are able to stop you. It looks like an entry after an entry
you are attempting one abuse after another.
Sam, there is something like standards, minimal standarts
which should be maintained. Call them academic standards,
call them even standards of reporting. It's worrisome to me
that you do not seem to have a clue about the reporting
standards despite the fact that you were acting as a reporter
or journalist for years. It's worrisome that you do not have
any moral brakes when you write your entries.
I applaud judging entries by their merit, without
looking at the author at all. Unfortunately, you
are turning this sound and beautiful priniciple
into soomething which is not practical. After you
have attempted posting, say, five worthless
or heavily faulty entries then it is vierually
a practical necessity to tell you: enough man,
people have better things to do than watch
after you and your self-serving actions.
First I had a look at your attempted entry about Edward
Winter. That was such a stinky junk that I don't even
want to discuss it, it'd be a complete waste of time.
While your text about Tom Dorsch is not equally
infinitely low, it is still way below any level which would
make it plausible as a start for creating a meaningful
entry. It's much more sensible (efficient) to forget your
writing totally and to start from scratch, Unfortunately,
it's MUCH better to have no entry on a person, say Tom
Dorsch, than an entry like the one written by you.
Indeed, you are always free to write and publish
things under your own name, but it makes no sense
for you to write entries for encyclopedias, regardless
of who is signing them--the instiutution like Wikipedia,
or Sam Sloan as a part of an encyclopedia. You'd turn
any encyclopedia into JUNK. If you were younger and evoluting
in a nice direction, I'd say that perhaps you could learn.
But I have observed (often with amusement, sometimes
with revulsion-disgust) your self-centered and self-serving ways
over years. Your evolution is such that you are
becoming your own caricature.
*****
Wlod (Wlodzimierz Holsztynski)
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-07, 7:34 pm |
|
"Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141702652.737888.205040@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
quote:
> At that time, 135 BCF would convert to 1680 FIDE or 1780 USCF.
> Today, 135 BCF would convert to 1925 FIDE or 2025 USCF.
> Phil Innes's USCF rating is 2044.
I made it to 185 in Cornwall Nick, and beat the Cornish champion who was 215
or something. What does that convert to? In sundry games here in US I made
it to 2199 once, they posted your grade on the mailing label.
What the big deal?
Phil Innes
quote:
> --Nick
>
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-07, 7:34 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1141702652.737888.205040@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I made it to 185 in Cornwall Nick, and beat the Cornish champion who was 215
> or something.
Does this Corinsh champion have a name?
quote:
>What does that convert to?
I beat a rated master ( Don Conner) in a tournament game once. By
Phil's standard, I could call myself NM Neil Brennen. Fortunately, I
don't have Phil's standard.
In sundry games here in US I made
quote:
> it to 2199 once, they posted your grade on the mailing label.
USCF's published ratings don't show that.
quote:
> What the big deal?
The big deal is that these questions have been asked before, and have
always been answered by you with ad hom attacks. You appear to be a
little more forthcoming now that specific information is coming out
from third parties. Really, is it any more difficult to release
information about your chess career than it was to admit that you mixed
up Al Lawrence and Frank Brady?
| |
| Sam Sloan 2006-03-07, 7:34 pm |
| The Historian is no other than the fat slop Neil Brennen. Very few
people like him or pay attention to what he has to say. The rumor on
the street is Brennen is gay and he has a crush on Innes. I think
there's some truth to it.
Sam Sloan
| |
| Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) 2006-03-07, 7:34 pm |
|
Louis Blair wrote:
quote:
> If someone would provide a link to the inaccurate
> mathematical material, I might take a stab at
> helping with correction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diophantine_analysis
Despite of what this entry says, Diophantus
didn't "made a study of such equations", which
"only allow(s) the variables to be integers.".
Diophantus considered exclusively the question
of rational (not integral) solutions. The difference
is essential. His Number Theory activity was nearer
the border of Number Theory and Algebraic Geometry.
So, if you feel like it, go ahead Louis and correct it, that
would be nice (after checking some reliable sources :-).
Outside Wikipedia I've seen some self-serving
mathematical garbage. It is still a marginal
occurence but there is a true danger that all
kind of self-serving Sam Sloans will prevail
on this kind of Internet pages. It is one thing,
when they act like this on a discussion forum,
but another and much more serious, when they
spoil Wikipedia and similar internet sites, potentially
rendering them useless and even harmful.
Regards,
Wlod
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-07, 7:34 pm |
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
quote:
> The Historian is no other than the fat slop Neil Brennen. Very few
> people like him or pay attention to what he has to say. The rumor on
> the street is Brennen is gay and he has a crush on Innes. I think
> there's some truth to it.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sorry Paul, but there's not a scrap of truth to this 'street rumor'.
Now put that thing down and start typing with both hands. Susan has to
send another email.
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-07, 7:34 pm |
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
quote:
> The Historian is no other than the fat slop Neil Brennen. Very few
> people like him or pay attention to what he has to say. The rumor on
> the street is Brennen is gay and he has a crush on Innes. I think
> there's some truth to it.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sorry Paul, but there's not a scrap of truth to this 'street rumor'.
Now put that thing down and start typing with both hands. Susan has to
send another email.
| |
|
| Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1141702652.737888.205040@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The context was snipped by Phil Innes.
I wrote that I have seen a match result that shows that Phil Innes
had a grade of 135 BCF slightly more than 25 years ago.
Phil Innes has *not* disputed the accuracy of that report.
I made a point (which Phil Innes has snipped) of mentioning that
135 may not necessarily have been Phil Innes's peak BCF grade.
quote:
>
> I made it to 185 in Cornwall
When exactly was Phil Innes's 185 BCF grade published?
How could Phil Innes improve from 135 BCF to 185 BCF,
a difference of 50 BCF = 400 FIDE points in presumably
a rather short time?
quote:
> Nick, and beat the Cornish champion who was 215 or something.
Any specific details?
quote:
> What does that convert to?
At that time, 185 BCF would convert to 2080 FIDE or 2180 USCF.
quote:
> In sundry games here in US I made it to 2199 once,
> they posted your grade on the mailing label.
According to the USCF database, Phil Innes's peak *established*
rating is 2099, not 2199. Phil Innes did have a *provisional* rating
of 2139 after 11 games. *If* Phil Innes ever did have a 2199 USCF
rating, then it must have been a provisional rating after a few games.
quote:
> What the big deal?
I attach more importance to factual accuracy than Phil Innes does.
--Nick
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-07, 11:37 pm |
|
Nick wrote:
quote:
> Chess One wrote:
>
> The context was snipped by Phil Innes.
>
> I wrote that I have seen a match result that shows that Phil Innes
> had a grade of 135 BCF slightly more than 25 years ago.
> Phil Innes has *not* disputed the accuracy of that report.
>
> I made a point (which Phil Innes has snipped) of mentioning that
> 135 may not necessarily have been Phil Innes's peak BCF grade.
>
>
> When exactly was Phil Innes's 185 BCF grade published?
>
> How could Phil Innes improve from 135 BCF to 185 BCF,
> a difference of 50 BCF = 400 FIDE points in presumably
> a rather short time?
In Mr. Innes' defense, he was 25 years younger; as a young player, he
may have had a rapid improvement in his chess ability. Not that I
believe Mr. Innes' claim about his 185 grading, but I suspect such an
increase is possible.
quote:
>
> Any specific details?
>
>
> At that time, 185 BCF would convert to 2080 FIDE or 2180 USCF.
>
>
> According to the USCF database, Phil Innes's peak *established*
> rating is 2099, not 2199. Phil Innes did have a *provisional* rating
> of 2139 after 11 games. *If* Phil Innes ever did have a 2199 USCF
> rating, then it must have been a provisional rating after a few games.
>
>
> I attach more importance to factual accuracy than Phil Innes does.
>
> --Nick
| |
|
| The Historian wrote:
quote:
> Nick wrote:
>
> In Mr. Innes' defense, he was 25 years younger; as a young player,
> he may have had a rapid improvement in his chess ability. Not that I
> believe Mr. Innes' claim about his 185 grading, but I suspect such an
> increase is possible.
I did *not* assert that it's impossible for Phil Innes to have improved
from 135 BCF to 185 BCF 'in presumably a rather short time'.
I asked Phil Innes to explain how it happened, assuming it did.
--Nick
[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-07, 11:37 pm |
| Nick wrote:
quote:
> The Historian wrote:
>
> I did *not* assert that it's impossible for Phil Innes to have improved
> from 135 BCF to 185 BCF 'in presumably a rather short time'.
> I asked Phil Innes to explain how it happened, assuming it did.
>
> --Nick
Understood, Nick. I just wanted to add my comment.
| |
|
| Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1141702652.737888.205040@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
The context was snipped by Phil Innes.
I wrote that I have seen a match result that shows that Phil Innes
had a grade of 135 BCF slightly more than 25 years ago.
Phil Innes has *not* disputed the accuracy of that report.
I made a point (which Phil Innes has snipped) of mentioning that
135 may not necessarily have been Phil Innes's peak BCF grade.
quote:
>
> I made it to 185 in Cornwall
When exactly was Phil Innes's 185 BCF grade published?
How could Phil Innes improve from 135 BCF to 185 BCF,
a difference of 50 BCF = 400 FIDE points in presumably
a rather short time?
quote:
> Nick, and beat the Cornish champion who was 215 or something.
Any specific details?
quote:
> What does that convert to?
At that time, 185 BCF would convert to 2080 FIDE or 2180 USCF.
quote:
> In sundry games here in US I made it to 2199 once,
> they posted your grade on the mailing label.
According to the USCF database, Phil Innes's peak *established*
rating is 2099, not 2199. Phil Innes did have a *provisional* rating
of 2139 after 11 games. *If* Phil Innes ever did have a 2199 USCF
rating, then it must have been a provisional rating after a few games.
quote:
> What the big deal?
I attach more importance to factual accuracy than Phil Innes does.
--Nick
| |
|
|
The Historian wrote:
quote:
> Sam Sloan wrote:
>
> Sorry Paul, but there's not a scrap of truth to this 'street rumor'.
> Now put that thing down and start typing with both hands. Susan has to
> send another email.
I do not think it is who you implied. The IP address is not consistant.
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-07, 11:37 pm |
|
Rob wrote:
quote:
> The Historian wrote:
>
> I do not think it is who you implied. The IP address is not consistant.
It sounds an awful lot like the 'Bob Bennett' posts.
| |
|
| Ralf Callenberg wrote:
quote:
> Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod) wrote:
>
> Well according to Sam, Tom Dorsch is better known than Topalov has been
> just before he became Word Champion... But seriously: the base of my
> initial proposal of the deletion was a bit more difficult. The problem I
> saw, was that the article was complete crap, as even some of those
> agreed, who voted for a keep. But in contrast to them I didn't see a
> chance, that anybody else would feel that Tom Dorsch were important
> enough to write the article himself.
>
> Sam pointed out, that I am from Germany and
> have of course no clue, who Tom Dorsch is.
Tom Dorsch is a USCF master (rated 2202 USCF).
What's your 'Dorsch number'?
If you have played with Tom Dorsch, your Dorsch number is 1.
If you have played with someone whose Dorsch number is X,
then your Dorsch number is X+1.
Believe it or not, many players in the UK have a Dorsch number
of 2. WIM Natasha Regan (who's also an amateur 1-dan in Go)
of England has defeated Tom Dorsch in a USCF-rated game.
What's Ralf Callenberg's Dorsch number? :-)
--Nick
quote:
> That's true. The thing is: the article gave not the slightest hint why
> anybody should know him. Some admins tried to rewrite the article,
> getting rid of the rumours and accusations. The outcome was
> nearly as miserable as the original article, because there was
> absolutely no substance to it, so there was nothing to extract.
>
> The deletion of this article does not mean, that there is no place for
> Tom Dorsch in Wikipedia. There is much more irrelevant stuff in it
> already (although I personally think, that it indeed shouldn't go into
> a general purpose encyclopedia). The good thing about Wikipedia: this
> stuff doesn't disturb those who don't care, as you don't browse it like
> a book. As has been pointed out by some in the discussion during the
> deletion process: the steps might be: delete this article and wait for a
> new version. But the original one had no basis for something meaningful.
>
> My intention to get involved in this misery: I think that Wikipedia is a
> great thing, and such articles and the constant self promotion of Sam
> Sloan represent a lot of aspects people criticise about it. And it also
> gives a bad example of what chess players care about. Just have a look
> at the Reshevsky article: just a few lines, in size just a fraction of
> the article Sam has written about Tom Dorsch. One may take as conclusion
> to enhance the Reshevsky article - or to keep a possible Tom Dorsch
> article to three or four lines, outlining his role he might have played,
> not more. Writing about Tom Dorsch is not writing about American chess
> history, the same way I wouldn't regard an article about the current
> treasurer of the German chess federation as a piece of German chess history.
>
> Greetings,
> Ralf
| |
| Ralf Callenberg 2006-03-08, 5:31 am |
| Nick wrote:
quote:
> What's your 'Dorsch number'?
I have no idea. Until now I never played a rated game outside Germany
and I play only few open tournaments. At least I played against somebody
from the US.
Greetings,
Ralf
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-08, 7:32 pm |
|
"Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1141782953.309673.71940@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
quote:
It was raining in Penzance! I remember the past champion coming by and
asking board #2 what Innes was doing playing board 1, and the reply came,
'beating the Cornish champion.' Sometimes board 2 writes here ;)
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Any specific details?
>
>
> At that time, 185 BCF would convert to 2080 FIDE or 2180 USCF.
Sounds about right
quote:
>
> According to the USCF database, Phil Innes's peak *established*
> rating is 2099, not 2199.
Sure.
? Phil Innes did have a *provisional* rating
quote:
> of 2139 after 11 games. *If* Phil Innes ever did have a 2199 USCF
> rating, then it must have been a provisional rating after a few games.
Sure! After all, it would unusual to be much stronger after having played no
chess at all for almost 10 years, and while playing sundry games here in
Vermont while working 60 hours per week, and having a young family.
quote:
>
> I attach more importance to factual accuracy than Phil Innes does.
Right!
So also attach the context that I wrote my comment in a humanities group
about a chess position from the C15th, and that I was describing what I
could read in that position from a painting of it, and that no chess player
had apparently done so before, albeit there was lots of opinion [mostly
false, or certainly not based on any merits I could read from the image],
and of course the fabulous Brennan reports this without its context, but
still wanting his own opinion of things to be noted because he is a chess
player - and it seems to have miffed him that it occured to me to analyse
the position /chessically/ ;)
So when Nick reports 'factual accuracy' he will perhaps also want to report
the context for the discussion, and indeed also wonder what 'truth-teller'
Brennan's motive might be?
He might include not what happens in sundry Vermont games 15 or 20 years
later, but actual cite my 'claim' in the time period I suggested it existed.
HOW TO BE A YOUNG GOD
The way to play at a high level, as any ful no, is to move to another
country and temporarily negate your past patterns and recreate yourself,
since you can't bullshit anyone anyway because you can't speak the language,
find a graduate student in psychology to 'hang out' with, especially one
with her own VW, but one that will watch you play chess <g>, but not risk
your life climbing mountains with all the cares relevant to the judgement of
a 27 year old [lol], drink that very good and very strong German beer,
mutter away in Swabisch, study a little Kepler, and also about the hysteria
surrounding the burning of Kepler's Witch, and play up a few hundred points
like a young god until you beat em.
Or BIG CHEESE FOR THE SEASON
As far as I can determine, there are not many critics of my quite temporary
stardom in mittel-Europe who are entirely qualified to comment on any of the
above, since none of them seems to have actually done any of it by virtue of
what they volunteer of their own life's experience, nor ability to
appreciate such divers matters.
Phil Innes
quote:
> --Nick
>
| |
|
| Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "Nick" <nickbourbaki3@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1141782953.309673.71940@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
(The context was snipped by Phil Innes.)
quote:
>
> It was raining in Penzance! I remember the past champion coming by and
> asking board #2 what Innes was doing playing board 1, and the reply came,
> 'beating the Cornish champion.' Sometimes board 2 writes here ;)
>
Apparently, Phil Innes cannot remember many specific details about
himself defeating 'the Cornish champion who was 215 or something'.
How could Phil Innes ever have become 'nearly an IM'
with such an apparently poor memory? :-)
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Sounds about right
Phil Innes has mentioned no corroborating evidence
about ever having a published grade of 185 BCF.
quote:
>
> Sure.
>
>
> Sure!
Not much statistical significance should be attached
to a provisional rating after a few games.
quote:
> After all, it would unusual to be much stronger after having played no
> chess at all for almost 10 years, and while playing sundry games here in
> Vermont while working 60 hours per week, and having a young family.
>
>
> Right!
>
> So also attach the context that I wrote my comment in a humanities group
> about a chess position from the C15th, and that I was describing what I
> could read in that position from a painting of it, and that no chess player
> had apparently done so before, albeit there was lots of opinion [mostly
> false, or certainly not based on any merits I could read from the image],
> and of course the fabulous Brennan reports this without its context, but
> still wanting his own opinion of things to be noted because he is a chess
> player - and it seems to have miffed him that it occured to me to analyse
> the position /chessically/ ;)
>
> So when Nick reports 'factual accuracy' he will perhaps also want to report
> the context for the discussion, and indeed also wonder what 'truth-teller'
> Brennan's motive might be?
I write independently of Neil Brennen. Sometimes I agree with
Neil Brennen and sometimes I disagree with him. I lack the time
and the inclination to read everything written between Neil Brennen
and Phil Innes everywhere on the internet. I have not read everything
written by Neil Brennen about Phil Innes, and I do not necessarily
approve of everything written by Neil Brennen about Phil Innes.
On one occasion, when Neil Brennen criticised Phil Innes for
writing gibberish, I pointed out that, though Phil Innes wrote
badly in English, what Phil Innes had written was not quite
gibberish in that particular case.
I am not responsible for what Neil Brennen writes about Phil Innes,
and I am not responsible for explaining Neil Brennen's motives for
writing about Phil Innes. I have no doubt that Neil Brennen's
capable of explaining whatever he writes about Phil Innes.
--Nick
quote:
> He might include not what happens in sundry Vermont games 15 or 20 years
> later, but actual cite my 'claim' in the time period I suggested it existed.
>
> HOW TO BE A YOUNG GOD
>
> The way to play at a high level, as any ful no, is to move to another
> country and temporarily negate your past patterns and recreate yourself,
> since you can't bullshit anyone anyway because you can't speak the language,
> find a graduate student in psychology to 'hang out' with, especially one
> with her own VW, but one that will watch you play chess <g>, but not risk
> your life climbing mountains with all the cares relevant to the judgement of
> a 27 year old [lol], drink that very good and very strong German beer,
> mutter away in Swabisch, study a little Kepler, and also about the hysteria
> surrounding the burning of Kepler's Witch, and play up a few hundred points
> like a young god until you beat em.
>
> Or BIG CHEESE FOR THE SEASON
>
> As far as I can determine, there are not many critics of my quite temporary
> stardom in mittel-Europe who are entirely qualified to comment on any of the
> above, since none of them seems to have actually done any of it by virtue of
> what they volunteer of their own life's experience, nor ability to
> appreciate such divers matters.
>
> Phil Innes
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-08, 11:31 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
>
>
> Right!
>
> So also attach the context that I wrote my comment in a humanities group ...
Yes, humanities.literature.authors.shakespeare. Innes described himself
as a 2450 rated player in front of an audience that doesn't know what
that means.
quote:
> about a chess position from the C15th,
Mr. Innes has trouble with dates. He means 16th or 17th century for the
painting in question.
and that I was describing what I
quote:
> could read in that position from a painting of it, and that no chess player
> had apparently done so before, albeit there was lots of opinion [mostly
> false, or certainly not based on any merits I could read from the image],
Mr. Innes said he couldn't tell Kings from Queens in the image. How he
could analyze the position under such conditions passeth all
understanding.
quote:
> and of course the fabulous Brennan reports this without its context,
What context is needed to understand the simple declaration you made
about your 2450 rating?
but
quote:
> still wanting his own opinion of things to be noted because he is a chess
> player
I have little or no interest in the "Chess Portrait", and I had
expressed my opinion on the painting in 2002, en passant as part of a
Correspondence Chess News article. This is two years before Innes ever
discovered the painting existed.
- and it seems to have miffed him that it occured to me to analyse
quote:
> the position /chessically/ ;)
Mr. Innes said he couldn't tell Kings from Queens in the image. How he
could analyze the position under such conditions passeth all
understanding. Another miracle of the Cornish School of Chess!
quote:
> So when Nick reports 'factual accuracy' he will perhaps also want to report
> the context for the discussion, and indeed also wonder what 'truth-teller'
> Brennan's motive might be?
Yes, consider how many fewer posts there would have been on this
subject had you only written "I was nearly a master, with a rating of
2190."
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-09, 7:31 pm |
|
"The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141874397.795365.222810@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> What context is needed to understand the simple declaration you made
> about your 2450 rating?
So much passeth Neil Brennan's understanding it is hard to know where to
begin. Why Elizabethans period investigators might have been discussing a
C17th portrait as influence on the Work, eg. But maybe I'm wrong, and maybe
it was a C17th portrait - frankly I forget.
And if I said almost IM, then said what an IM is for the benefit of
non-chess players, then I did not claim to be IM, or, after some dozen
corrections to /your/ miserable understanding /you/ still don't understand
it. Or rather you do, and you lie and distort, which is your pattern, as
well as always snipping away the context in a Blairian rage, which is
cowardly.
quote:
> but
>
> I have little or no interest in the "Chess Portrait", and I had
> expressed my opinion on the painting in 2002, en passant as part of a
> Correspondence Chess News article. This is two years before Innes ever
> discovered the painting existed.
What an odd supposition, though hardly unusual. Everything Neil Brenan
doesn't know is supposed upon, not excluding sex.
quote:
> - and it seems to have miffed him that it occured to me to analyse
>
> Mr. Innes said he couldn't tell Kings from Queens in the image. How he
> could analyze the position under such conditions passeth all
> understanding. Another miracle of the Cornish School of Chess!
This is true - so much passeth your understanding. You see, actual chess
players can often deduce from the position what the pieces are, by virtue of
their normal placement and activity on the board, and King/Queen check
possibilities, for examples. So although the pieces could not be clearly
seen to be King or Queen, other factors allowed an intelligent supposition
that its the Queen doing the maurading among the other player's pieces,
while the King stays beyond the row of pawns.
This is a special realm of knowledge know to actual chess players.
But I don't want to entangle this issue with anything other than what I
previously wrote, and in a chess newsgroups the chessic aspect of the issue
could be discussed.
quote:
>
> Yes, consider how many fewer posts there would have been on this
> subject had you only written "I was nearly a master, with a rating of
> 2190."
Let us suppose that if I indeed held a rating of 2190 a few years ago, then
what might I have been 25 years previously? But again, this is too hard a
question, no? Since Brennan has no experience of any of the things I wrote
about, chess, volkswagons, mountain climbing, girls... he can only speculate
on the real lives and activities of other people.
Its not healthy to live entirely vicariously, lose a few hundred more pounds
and get out more, otherwise you are condemned to speculate for your whole
life.
Phil Innes
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-10, 7:33 pm |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141874397.795365.222810@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> So much passeth Neil Brennan's understanding it is hard to know where to
> begin. Why Elizabethans period investigators might have been discussing a
> C17th portrait as influence on the Work, eg. But maybe I'm wrong, and maybe
> it was a C17th portrait - frankly I forget.
An interesting subject, no doubt, but it doesn't concern your
declaration of a 2450 rating.
quote:
> And if I said almost IM, then said what an IM is for the benefit of
> non-chess players, then I did not claim to be IM, or, after some dozen
> corrections to /your/ miserable understanding /you/ still don't understand
> it.
Here is the sentence again:
"My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
offer
an opinion..."
It's clear you are saying you had a rating of 2450, and were nearly an
International Master.
(Snip ad hom from Innes)
quote:
>
(Snip ad hom from Innes)
quote:
>
>
> This is true - so much passeth your understanding. You see, actual chess
> players can often deduce from the position what the pieces are, by virtue of
> their normal placement and activity on the board, and King/Queen check
> possibilities, for examples. So although the pieces could not be clearly
> seen to be King or Queen, other factors allowed an intelligent supposition
> that its the Queen doing the maurading among the other player's pieces,
> while the King stays beyond the row of pawns.
> This is a special realm of knowledge know to actual chess players.
Here is the "special realm of knowledge" the Cornish School of Chess
presented back in September 2004:
"I must qualify what I have said therefore: from the resolution of the
painitng on my monitor I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or
black,
but given the worst placements from white's perspective, I would still
hold
these views, [even though black is holding a piece in the air].
....given the best imagined placements for black and the
worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert
"mate-in-three" if
a board position cannot be resolved. "
The readers of this post can draw their own conclusions.
quote:
> But I don't want to entangle this issue with anything other than what I
> previously wrote, and in a chess newsgroups the chessic aspect of the issue
> could be discussed.
>
>
> Let us suppose that if I indeed held a rating of 2190 a few years ago, then
> what might I have been 25 years previously?
Any number between 0 and 3000. I suppose you thought you had a point
here.
(Snip ad hom from Innes)
| |
| Chess One 2006-03-10, 7:33 pm |
|
"The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1141994959.219304.206500@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Chess One wrote:
>
> An interesting subject, no doubt,
Laugh!
quote:
> but it doesn't concern your
> declaration of a 2450 rating.
That's right! It concerns your understanding of what I wrote.
quote:
>
> Here is the sentence again:
> "My qualifications for saying so is that I was nearly an international
> master, with a rating of 2450, which is a tolerably qualified level to
> offer
> an opinion..."
>
> It's clear you are saying you had a rating of 2450,
No it doesn't. It may appear to do so, and the sentence could suffer another
comma, but after admitting I should not have used the word rating some dozen
times, it is your understanding of the intent of it, after 12 corrections
which is in question, as were your own contributions to the painting.
quote:
> and were nearly an
> International Master.
>
> (Snip ad hom from Innes)
O dear! What could that have been? I wonder if it could have been another
comment on Brennan's understanding of girls, Volkswagons?
quote:
>
> (Snip ad hom from Innes)
Too boring to look it up. Let us assume this snips concern Brennan's
comprehension, since this is his normal pattern of snippage.
quote:
>
> Here is the "special realm of knowledge" the Cornish School of Chess
> presented back in September 2004:
>
> "I must qualify what I have said therefore: from the resolution of the
> painitng on my monitor I can't tell Kings from Queens for white or
> black,
> but given the worst placements from white's perspective, I would still
> hold
> these views, [even though black is holding a piece in the air].
> ...given the best imagined placements for black and the
> worst for white, it is hard or even impossible to assert
> "mate-in-three" if
> a board position cannot be resolved. "
>
> The readers of this post can draw their own conclusions.
Yes. I bet every reader won't be able to assert if there is a mate-in-three
as some dullard suggested, since they can't see the board position and black
has some piece in the air - ROFL!
quote:
>
> Any number between 0 and 3000. I suppose you thought you had a point
> here.
Thanks for writing this amazing opinion!
quote:
> (Snip ad hom from Innes)
Okay - I'll put it back in
Its not healthy to live entirely vicariously, lose a few hundred more
pounds
and get out more, otherwise you are condemned to speculate for your
whole
life.
Get a life, get a name, grow up, boy.
Phil Innes
| |
| The Historian 2006-03-11, 5:30 am |
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
>
> No it doesn't. It may appear to do so, and the sentence could suffer another
> comma, but after admitting I should not have used the word rating some dozen
> times,
I've only seen such an admission from you on one occasion. And, as
usual, it was intermixed with the ad hom abuse that is your trademark.
it is your understanding of the intent of it, after 12 corrections
quote:
> which is in question, as were your own contributions to the painting.
>
>
(Snip ad hom from Innes)
quote:
(Snip ad hom from Innes)
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Yes. I bet every reader won't be able to assert if there is a mate-in-three
> as some dullard suggested, since they can't see the board position and black
> has some piece in the air - ROFL!
>
>
> Thanks for writing this amazing opinion!
What's amazing is your expectation we MUST believe your chess strength
was so much greater 25 years ago simply because you were 25 years
younger. Fortunately BCF gradings from the period survive; according to
your own report, you came in at 185 BCF.
[vbcol=seagreen]
(Snip ad hom from Innes)
| |
|
|
Chess One wrote:
quote:
> "The Historian" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1141994959.219304.206500@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Laugh!
>
>
> That's right! It concerns your understanding of what I wrote.
>
Hey we go again!
[vbcol=seagreen]
LOL
[vbcol=seagreen]
I read it that a 2450 rating is what it takes to become an
international master.
My question is" WHat is the approximate rating of an international
master?
If the answer is anywhere near 2450 then I think the subject shouls be
put to bed.
[vbcol=seagreen]
> No it doesn't. It may appear to do so, and the sentence could suffer another
> comma, but after admitting I should not have used the word rating some dozen
> times, it is your understanding of the intent of it, after 12 corrections
> which is in question, as were your own contrib | | |