Anand wins in 17 (!) moves, ties match

[Taylor Kingston]

http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8175

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.f3 c5 4.d5 d6 5.e4 Bg7 6.Ne2 0-0 7.Nec3 Nh5 8.Bg5
Bf6 9.Bxf6 exf6 10.Qd2 f5 11.exf5 Bxf5 12.g4 Re8+13.Kd1 Bxb1 14.Rxb1
Qf6?? 15.gxh5 Qxf3+ 16.Kc2 Qxh1 17.Qf2 1-0

[becky]

wonder if this a record for the shortest decisive World Championship
Match game.Can't think of one of the top of my head.

[Offramp]

Nor can I.
Gelfand COULD've hung it out, but he didn't.
Kudos to him.

[Taylor Kingston]

It very well could be. I've looked at all WCh games through 1935 so
far, and the shortest I found was the 20th (and last) game from
Steinitz-Zukertort 1886, a 19-mover. I'll look at subsequent matches
later.

[Event "World Championship 1st"]
[Site "USA"]
[Date "1886.03.29"]
[Round "20"]
[White "Steinitz, William"]
[Black "Zukertort, Johannes Hermann"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C25"]
[PlyCount "37"]
[EventDate "1886.01.11"]

1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. d4 d5 5. exd5 Qh4+ 6. Ke2 Qe7+ 7.
Kf2 Qh4+ 8. g3 fxg3+ 9. Kg2 Nxd4 10. hxg3 Qg4 11. Qe1+ Be7 12. Bd3 Nf5
13. Nf3 Bd7 14. Bf4 f6 15. Ne4 Ngh6 16. Bxh6 Nxh6 17. Rxh6 gxh6 18.
Nxf6+ Kf7 19. Nxg4 1-0

[Taylor Kingston]

I looked at everything from 1937 through 2004, the last year covered
by my books and/or database, everything from the second Alekhine-Euwe
match to Kramnik-Leko 2004. Nothing of 17 moves or less. The closest
was this 19-mover from the 1974 Karpov-Korchnoi Candidates Final, a de
facto WCh match:

[Event "Candidates final"]
[Site "Moscow"]
[Date "1974.??.??"]
[Round "21"]
[White "Kortschnoj, Viktor"]
[Black "Karpov, Anatoly"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E17"]
[WhiteElo "2670"]
[BlackElo "2700"]
[PlyCount "37"]
[EventDate "1974.09.16"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. g3 b6 4. Bg2 Bb7 5. c4 Be7 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Qc2 c5
8. d5 exd5 9. Ng5 Nc6 10. Nxd5 g6 11. Qd2 Nxd5 12. Bxd5 Rb8 13. Nxh7
Re8 14. Qh6 Ne5 15. Ng5 Bxg5 16. Bxg5 Qxg5 17. Qxg5 Bxd5 18. O-O Bxc4
19. f4 1-0

I did not bother with any post-1990 FIDE title matches or
tournaments, as I don't consider them "real" world championships.

[micky]

Offramp wrote:
>
> Nor can I.
> Gelfand COULD've hung it out,

Yep!.. "Honza Cervenka" (poasting on cg.com & no doubt relaying his fav
enjun's evalot) suggested: "17...Nc6!? could have saved the Queen and
although black is still objectively lost, it was worth to try it as the
position is still quite complex"...

It seems Gelfand (all in a panic) missed this tricky continuation
(shockingly, I did too) which must have pleased Vishy no end & he
collected the point!..

>but he didn't.
> Kudos to him.

Uh?.. why is that "kudos to him"?..

.

[raylopez99]

Why ?? tard? You claim, retard, to be smarter than Gelfand?? even with your engines, injun, you wud lose to Gelfand.

RL

[The Master]

On Monday, May 21, 2012 12:13:16 PM UTC-4, becky wrote:

> wonder if this a record for the shortest decisive World Championship
> Match game.Can't think of one of the top of my head.

Technically, a (short) draw could be considered 'decisive' in determining the outcome of a world championship. Thus, in addition to a database search for quick wins, you would need to evaluate quick draws --of which there are many-- as well.


Anyway, seventeen moves is not exactly a lightening-fast win. In my last tournament, I won my round one game in just a half-move. Paired against Nathen Bush, I drew the white pieces by a coin-flip and set up my board and pieces and being so directed by the T.D., made my move and started my opponent's clock. Stunned, he dared not even show up and thus I won by forfeit. The move? 1.Nh3.

[The Master]

Sometimes, it seems convenient to praise 'gentlemanly' resignation. At other times, under other circumstances or when it suits a whim, fighting spirit is praised to the skies-- even if fighting on in a objectively losing position.

Because of this glaring inconsistency on the part of many evaluators, I prefer the term 'a nutty bar for him.' (Wal-mart has 'em for about a buck fifty per dozen.)

[Taylor Kingston]

On May 21, 6:36 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 21, 2012 12:13:16 PM UTC-4, becky wrote:
> > wonder if this a record for the shortest decisive World Championship
> > Match  game.Can't think of one of the top of my head.
>
>   Technically, a (short) draw could be considered 'decisive' in determining the outcome of a world championship.

Technically, other words in the post could also be interpreted
differently, as an equally pointless exercise. For example, "wonder"
could mean a feeling of awe, "record" could mean a phonograph album,
"match" could mean a social pairing or a fire-making device,
"shortest" could mean least in height, "top" could mean a spinning
toy, and "head" could mean a bathroom.

[micky]

If u aint got no teef, u caint chew them there nuts - Abe Lincoln..

.

[micky]

> If u aint got no teef, u caint chew them thangs (nutz) - Abe Lincoln..
>
> .

[The Master]

On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 6:54:43 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> Technically, other words in the post could also be interpreted
> differently, as an equally pointless exercise. For example, "wonder"
> could mean a feeling of awe, "record" could mean a phonograph album,
> "match" could mean a social pairing or a fire-making device,
> "shortest" could mean least in height, "top" could mean a spinning
> toy, and "head" could mean a bathroom.

Technically speaking...

Mr. Kingston did not really translate the English version of Najdorf's old tournament book. The version he actually translated was the Spanish version, and what he translated it **into** was English (and figurine algebraic notation). Still, I was surprised by Mr. Booz's nitpicking. Generally speaking, a (former) Marine is expected not to focus on such petty nitpicking as obsessive-compulsive spell-checkers so often do.

Sometimes, it is helpful if a broader perspective is taken, rather than a rigidly narrow one. Bearing this in mind, it becomes obvious that where Mr. K used the term 'bathroom' above, he really meant 'toilet room,' as not many boats have numerous baths.

In a similar vein, it is useful to know that a 'decisive game' can be and often is a drawn game, despite the purely superficial contradiction in terms.

I suspect there may be a certain animosity here on account of the fact that Mr. K has never, ever beaten so strong an opponent in only one move, with 1.Nh3, as I have. Granted, before this recent tournament, neither had I. One thing is quite certain: even though I am not fluent in Spanish, it would not have taken me over half a century to translate that one book.

[Taylor Kingston]

On May 25, 7:13 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 22, 2012 6:54:43 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> >   Technically, other words in the post could also be interpreted
> > differently, as an equally pointless exercise. For example, "wonder"
> > could mean a feeling of awe, "record" could mean a phonograph album,
> > "match" could mean a social pairing or a fire-making device,
> > "shortest" could mean least in height, "top" could mean a spinning
> > toy, and "head" could mean a bathroom.
>
>   Technically speaking...
>
>   Mr. Kingston did not really translate the English version of Najdorf's old tournament book.  The version he actually translated was the Spanish version, and what he translated it **into** was English (and figurine algebraic notation).

As usual, our Greg shows his mastery of tautology. No one can beat
him when it comes to making a distinction without a difference, i.e.,
a point that has no point.

Meanwhile, I am enjoying the publication of my translation of
Najdorf's book:

http://www.russell-enterprises.com/zurich53.html

Whether our Greg will ever be published anywhere but here on rgc,
only time will tell.

[The Master]

On Friday, May 25, 2012 11:28:19 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> Meanwhile, I am enjoying the publication of my translation of
> Najdorf's book

Hopefully, this book will now receive the attention it deserves. It may seem strange, but I had never even heard of this book --despite all the hullaballoo over Bronstein's book on the same event. But regretably, interest in this event may have died out a tad due to the passage of considerable time (over half a century).

I notice that Mr. K did not dare to try and compete with my recent one-move win (over a stronger opponent than himself) but merely stayed silent on that issue. I suppose that's yet another forfeit-win for me, though it hardly compares to Mr. Sloan's overwhelming 'match victory' over the Vermontian chess twins (also by forfeit).

BTW, I have yet to write any 'books' and thus, it seems impossible for these non-existent entities to either get --or not get-- published. Like so many other noteable thinkers (i.e. Socrates, Sid Gutama, etc.), I don't bother writing my ideas down if I can help it. And it goes without saying that much of what has been writen down and published is utter nonsense. In that regard, there is a rough equivalence between published works and rgcm, though there is more money to be made in the book writing/publishing biz. For example, Sam Sloan is making more money in this field than Mr. Kingston can ever hope to.
Enough said.

[Taylor Kingston]

On May 27, 8:26 am, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, May 25, 2012 11:28:19 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> >   Meanwhile, I am enjoying the publication of my translation of
> > Najdorf's book
>
>   Hopefully, this book will now receive the attention it deserves.  It may seem strange, but I had never even heard of this book --despite all the hullaballoo over Bronstein's book on the same event.

Actually four books on the 1953 Candidates Tournament have been
written: by Bronstein, Najdorf, Euwe and Stahlberg. Bronstein's,
having long been available in both Russian and English, is the most
famous. Euwe's — "Schach-Elite im Kampf" — is in German; Stahlberg's —
"I Kamp med Varldseliten" — is in Swedish (I believe). As far as I
know, neither Euwe's nor Stahlberg's has been translated into English,
or any other language.
I have not seen Stahlberg's book, but I have the other three. I
would have to rank Euwe's close to Najdorf's and Bronstein's, though
he did leave quite a few games completely unannotated. On the other
hand, in some games he went to greater depth than N or B. Both N and E
include a survey of the tournament's impact on opening theory; in the
case of E's book that part was written by Paul Keres.
Both N and E do a much better job than B on describing the players,
setting the scene, and recapping the action (both on and off the
board) round by round. Najdorf's is the only one that does all that
and annotates every game.

>   I notice that Mr. K did not dare to try and compete with my recent one-move win (over a stronger opponent than himself) but merely stayed silent on that issue.

Congratulations on attaining a zenith of success we mere mortals can
only pine for in vain.

[The Master]

On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:20:12 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> Actually four books on the 1953 Candidates Tournament have been
> written: by Bronstein, Najdorf, Euwe and Stahlberg. Bronstein's,
> having long been available in both Russian and English, is the most
> famous. Euwe's — "Schach-Elite im Kampf" — is in German

Well, as the inimitable nearly-an-IM Philip Innes might say, 'What a stupid thing to do! Nobody I know can read German.' Perhaps he ought to have written his book in say, Esperanto... .

>; Stahlberg's —
> "I Kamp med Varldseliten" — is in Swedish (I believe).

[refrain:] Ray Lopez: 'Nobody I know can read Swedish.'

> As far as I know, neither Euwe's nor Stahlberg's has been translated
> into English, or any other language.

It seems strange to see Mr. K actually get it right for a change. Foreign language books are 'translated into' English. This way of describing events clearly and unambiguously avoids confusing former U.S. Marines, among others, with their jar-shaped heads.

> I have not seen Stahlberg's book, but I have the other three. I
> would have to rank Euwe's close to Najdorf's and Bronstein's, though
> he did leave quite a few games completely unannotated. On the other
> hand, in some games he went to greater depth than N or B. Both N and E
> include a survey of the tournament's impact on opening theory; in the
> case of E's book that part was written by Paul Keres.
> Both N and E do a much better job than B on describing the players,
> setting the scene, and recapping the action (both on and off the
> board) round by round. Najdorf's is the only one that does all that
> and annotates every game.

I cannot tell rgc readers how many times the Bronstein book has come up, netting nothing but praise. In none of those commentaries have I seen any such constructive criticism, nor comparisons with other books on the same event.

My own criticism was that Bronstein's game annotations often skip over the opening moves entirely, and begin in what appears to most of us weaker chessplayers as mid-game. It seemd as if the book had been writen especially for book-monkeys who already 'knew everything' there was to know about the chess openings.

> >   I notice that Mr. K did not dare to try and compete with my recent one-move win (over a stronger opponent than himself) but merely stayed silent on that issue.
>
> Congratulations on attaining a zenith of success we mere mortals can
> only pine for in vain.

I have not yet attained the nearly-an-IM title. It was just a single game point, in one small, insignificant event.

In fact, the real competition was simultaneously across town, competing in the Indiana Class Championships for Quick and speed chess). If I recall correctly, Wes Smith --a former master against whom I have played countless 5-minute games-- won the speed chess tournament. It goes without saying that this may have been partly the result of all the 'chess lessons' he got from me in those games, despite the passing of two decades.
Darn if I can remember the name of the winner of the Indiana Quick chess tourney, offhand. NM Jim Mills? Anyway, if I had *perfect recall*, I would no doubt be a nearly-an-IM by now.

[Taylor Kingston]

On May 28, 11:27 am, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 1:20:12 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> >   I have not seen Stahlberg's book, but I have the other three. I
> > would have to rank Euwe's close to Najdorf's and Bronstein's, though
> > he did leave quite a few games completely unannotated. On the other
> > hand, in some games he went to greater depth than N or B. Both N and E
> > include a survey of the tournament's impact on opening theory; in the
> > case of E's book that part was written by Paul Keres.
> >   Both N and E do a much better job than B on describing the players,
> > setting the scene, and recapping the action (both on and off the
> > board) round by round. Najdorf's is the only one that does all that
> > and annotates every game.
>
>   I cannot tell rgc readers how many times the Bronstein book has come up, netting nothing but praise.  In none of those commentaries have I seen any such constructive criticism, nor comparisons with other books on the same event.

It certainly merits high praise, but a case can be made that
Najdorf's book is better. Read for example what Soltis says in his
foreword to the REI edition, where he directly compares the two:

http://www.russell-enterprises.com/images/zurich53excerpt.pdf

In checking for analytical errors, I did find instances where
Najdorf made mistakes Bronstein did not, but also vice versa. As to
whose are more accurate, I cannot say, since that would require a
systematic analysis of all of Bronstein's notes (which I did not do)
as well as Najdorf's (which I did). Amusingly, there were instances
where Rybka was right and all three greats (Najdorf, Bronstein and
Euwe) were wrong.

[Offramp]

On Monday, 28 May 2012 19:40:51 UTC+1, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> In checking for analytical errors, I did find instances where
> Najdorf made mistakes Bronstein did not, but also vice versa.

Taylor - please clarify that!

[micky]

Here, I'll do it for him:

They both made mistakes, but not the same ones - Rybka..

.

[Taylor Kingston]

Alan, for full clarification, you'll have to buy the book and
download the analytical appendix.

[The Master]

On Monday, May 28, 2012 2:40:51 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> >   I cannot tell rgc readers how many times the Bronstein book has come up, netting nothing but praise.  In none of those commentaries have I seen any such constructive criticism, nor comparisons with other books on the same event.

> It certainly merits high praise, but a case can be made that
> Najdorf's book is better. Read for example what Soltis says in his
> foreword to the REI edition, where he directly compares the two:
>
> http://www.russell-enterprises.com/images/zurich53excerpt.pdf

Since you just announced the release of your English translation of the Najdorf book, I don't see how Mr. Soltis would have had the time to make a detailed comparison. Maybe he read and compared the Spanish original. (Since I do not intend to buy either one, I am not going to click on th link above-- nosiree.)

> In checking for analytical errors, I did find instances where
> Najdorf made mistakes Bronstein did not, but also vice versa. As to
> whose are more accurate, I cannot say, since that would require a
> systematic analysis of all of Bronstein's notes (which I did not do)
> as well as Najdorf's (which I did).

That last comment could come back to bite you in the hindquarters. There is this crazy guy who spends all his spare time using Fritz to try and find analytical errors, then posting his 'finds' here in rgc as his own discoveries, merely confirmed by Fritz as correct (he imagines himself to always be correct, just like 'Nick Bourbaki' -- and a couple of others who are still here).

> Amusingly, there were instances
> where Rybka was right and all three greats (Najdorf, Bronstein and
> Euwe) were wrong.

Dog bites man stuff. Today's top computers are stronger at chess than even the greatest of human chessplayers, despite several decades of denial by human 'experts.'

I recall putting one of Alekhine's endgames through the Rybka mill: he seemed to be making little if any progress --judging by the computer's distance-to-mate numbers-- until finally, his opponent made a few more bad moves. Of course, the computer was utilizing endgame tablebases that Alekhine never even imagined might one day exist.

The key is to not make worse errors than your opponent. For instance, in my most recent tournament, I was getting outplayed on the board --and badly thumped on the clock-- but I hung on, avoiding a trade of Queens. Eventually, a tactical opportunity appeared and I grabbed it. In reply, my opponent made a really serious tactical mistake and except for the clock, I was back in the game. A few moves later I forced a Queen trade and he resigned immediately, judging that the three-seconds-per-move time delay would prevent him from winning on time (I was then winning on the board in an endgame.)

I didn't have to play brilliantly-- just not as badly as my opponent. Capablanca used to routinely defeat opponents in 'drawn' rook and pawn endings because they could not *actually* draw them.

[Taylor Kingston]

On May 31, 3:28 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 28, 2012 2:40:51 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > >   I cannot tell rgc readers how many times the Bronstein book has come up, netting nothing but praise.  In none of those commentaries have I seen any such constructive criticism, nor comparisons with other books on the same event.
> >   It certainly merits high praise, but a case can be made that
> > Najdorf's book is better. Read for example what Soltis says in his
> > foreword to the REI edition, where he directly compares the two:
>
> >http://www.russell-enterprises.com/images/zurich53excerpt.pdf
>
>   Since you just announced the release of your English translation of the Najdorf book, I don't see how Mr. Soltis would have had the time to make a detailed comparison.

There is a great deal you do not see, Greg. If you weren't so
preoccupied with thinking up pointless troll-points, it might have
occurred to you that Soltis could have been given the Word or pdf
version of the book before it went to the printer.

> Maybe he read and compared the Spanish original.  (Since I do not intend to buy either one, I am not going to click on th link above-- nosiree.)

That's OK, Greg. It's way over your head.

>   The key is to not make worse errors than your opponent.

The key is not to split your infinitives.

[Jürgen R.]

"Taylor Kingston" <ttk...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:18d24475-b9ab-4616...@z4g2000pbz.googlegroups.com...

The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither know
nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know, but care
very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who know and approve;
and (5) those who know and distinguish.

1.Those who neither know nor care are the vast majority, and are a happy
folk, to be envied by most of the minority classes. 'To really understand'
comes readier to their lips and pens than 'really to understand'; they see
no reason why they should not say it (small blame to them, seeing that
reasons are not their critics' strong point), and they do say it, to the
discomfort of some among us, but not to their own.

etc (Fowler)

[Taylor Kingston]

On May 31, 5:24 pm, Jürgen R. <jurg...@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> The English-speaking world may be divided into (1) those who neither know
> nor care what a split infinitive is; (2) those who do not know, but care
> very much; (3) those who know and condemn; (4) those who know and approve;
> and (5) those who know and distinguish.

Jürgen, your list of categories is incomplete. You need to add (6)
Greg Kennedy, who knows next to nothing, but pretends to know all. An
anti-Malebrancheist of the first water.

[The Master]

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:27:15 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> On May 31, 3:28 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, May 28, 2012 2:40:51 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > > >   I cannot tell rgc readers how many times the Bronstein book has come up, netting nothing but praise.  In none of those commentaries have I seen any such constructive criticism, nor comparisons with other books on the same event.
> > >   It certainly merits high praise, but a case can be made that
> > > Najdorf's book is better. Read for example what Soltis says in his
> > > foreword to the REI edition, where he directly compares the two:
> >
> > >http://www.russell-enterprises.com/images/zurich53excerpt.pdf
> >
> >   Since you just announced the release of your English translation of the Najdorf book, I don't see how Mr. Soltis would have had the time to make a detailed comparison.
>
> There is a great deal you do not see, Greg. If you weren't so
> preoccupied with thinking up pointless troll-points, it might have
> occurred to you that Soltis could have been given the Word or pdf
> version of the book before it went to the printer.

In that case, Mr. Soltis would not be comparing the *book*, but rather TK's PDF, to the Najdorf book. The difference is subtle --too subtle for many rgc mediocrites to grasp, I expect-- but very real, nonetheless.

Allow me to illustrate the difference between what might be intended and what can sometimes actually happen in reality. Larry Evans once wrote a book and gave it a particular title, but when the book was printed, the title that appeared on the book's spine was something like, 'Ten Chess Mistakes and How to Aviod Them.' (Of course, this is nothing in comparison to what happenned to Bobby Fischer's famous best seller, My Sixty Unforgettable Games, edited and greatly 'improved' by John Nunn and a host of other fine chessplayers.)

Now, I'm no expert on whether or not a PDF can get butchered by a careless printer, but if I had to bet, my money would be on human ingenuity. After all, if a team headed by John Nunn can screw up a chess book royally, why not an untalented editor, who may know little if anything about the game.

[Jürgen R.]

"Taylor Kingston" <ttk...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

news:1560c5a5-cd3a-4b40...@ra8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

This is not my list - it is Fowler's - and I thought it might amuse you.

Fowler did not know about Greg Kennedy, nor do I; so I can't judge
whether your characterization is correct. However, if you have any
kind of taste for good style and correct usage and are not familiar
with Fowler's "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage", then you have
missed one of the small pleasures in life.

For the rest of the Fowler article see
<http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/cyc/s/split.htm>

Notice also the quote on top of that page:

<quote>
I can think of two very good reasons for not splitting an infinitive.

1.Because you feel that the rules of English ought to conform to the
grammatical precepts of a language that died a thousand years ago.

2.Because you wish to cling to a pointless affectation of usage that
is without the support of any recognized authority of the last 200
years, even at the cost of composing sentences that are ambiguous,
inelegant, and patently contorted.

It is exceedingly difficult to find any authority who condemns the
split infinitive - Theodore Bernstein, H. W. Fowler, Ernest Gowers,
Eric Partridge, Rudolph Flesch, Wilson Follett, Roy H. Copperud,
and others too tedious to enumerate here all agree that there
is no logical reason not to split an infinitive.
<end quote>

-- Bill Bryson, Mother Tongue, 1990

[Taylor Kingston]

On Jun 1, 2:51 am, Jürgen R. <jurg...@arcor.de> wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <ttk5...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:1560c5a5-cd3a-4b40...@ra8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Actually I'm not at all dogmatic on split infinitives, though I do
think Hamlet would sound awful saying "To be, or to not be, that is
the question."

[Taylor Kingston]

On May 31, 11:27 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:27:15 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > On May 31, 3:28 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 28, 2012 2:40:51 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > > > >   I cannot tell rgc readers how many times the Bronstein book has come up, netting nothing but praise.  In none of those commentaries have I seen any such constructive criticism, nor comparisons with other books on the same event.
> > > >   It certainly merits high praise, but a case can be made that
> > > > Najdorf's book is better. Read for example what Soltis says in his
> > > > foreword to the REI edition, where he directly compares the two:
>
> > > >http://www.russell-enterprises.com/images/zurich53excerpt.pdf
>
> > >   Since you just announced the release of your English translation of the Najdorf book, I don't see how Mr. Soltis would have had the time to make a detailed comparison.
>
> >   There is a great deal you do not see, Greg. If you weren't so
> > preoccupied with thinking up pointless troll-points, it might have
> > occurred to you that Soltis could have been given the Word or pdf
> > version of the book before it went to the printer.
>
>   In that case, Mr. Soltis would not be comparing the *book*, but rather TK's PDF, to the Najdorf book.  The difference is subtle --too subtle for many rgc mediocrites to grasp, I expect-- but very real, nonetheless.

Our Greg once again shows his mastery of "the distinction without a
difference."

[Jürgen R.]

"Taylor Kingston" <ttk...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag

news:897dcf8e-d37d-4378...@tx6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Sorry, I thought you were brighter than that. Did you get the
impression that somebody advocated splitting all infinitives?
Or splitting most infinitives?

[Taylor Kingston]

On Jun 1, 10:10 am, Jürgen R. <jurg...@arcor.de> wrote:
> "Taylor Kingston" <ttk5...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:897dcf8e-d37d-4378...@tx6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

>
> >  Actually I'm not at all dogmatic on split infinitives, though I do
> > think Hamlet would sound awful saying "To be, or to not be, that is
> > the question."
>
> Sorry, I thought you were brighter than that.

You mean if I were brighter, I would think "To be, or to not be"
sounded good?

> Did you get the
> impression that somebody advocated splitting all infinitives?
> Or splitting most infinitives?

Jürgen, my bringing up the split infinitive was a very red herring.
No need to keep fishing in that pond.

[raylopez99]

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 7:27:15 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> The key is not to split your infinitives.

For example, a split infinitive occurs in the opening sequence of the Star Trek television series: to boldly go where no man has gone before. Here, the adverb "boldly" splits the full infinitive "to go".

Sez Google.

RL

[raylopez99]

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 6:28:23 PM UTC-4, The Master wrote:

>
> That last comment could come back to bite you in the hindquarters. There is this crazy guy who spends all his spare time using Fritz to try and find analytical errors, then posting his 'finds' here in rgc as his own discoveries, merely confirmed by Fritz as correct (he imagines himself to always be correct, just like 'Nick Bourbaki' -- and a couple of others who are still here).

You talking to me or to yourself, you crazy nutter?

>
>
> > Amusingly, there were instances
> > where Rybka was right and all three greats (Najdorf, Bronstein and
> > Euwe) were wrong.
>
>
> Dog bites man stuff. Today's top computers are stronger at chess than even the greatest of human chessplayers, despite several decades of denial by human 'experts.'

You troll. Just a few years ago you denied chess computers could beat humans! Go catch and fry a fish, sucker. Denial is not just a river in Egypt ya'know.

RL