This rule is for Commie cheaters, not for me

[ChessFire]

Good news for an English Player from this source, but the article goes on to describe 'the most hated rules in chess', and for sure, the non-playiing organizers seem to have introduced a slew of strange rules to the game over the past few years. I suppose they could be listed later in addition to the 2 cited in the Guardian's article which mentioned the 'zero tolerance' arriving late rule, and also suspension of the 3 repetition draw rule. Here is the URL http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/07/gawain-jones-european-championship?INTCMP=SRCH The title of this thread is a quote from Fischer at Varna 40 years ago — and while [laugh] it is not phrased very diplomatically, still and yet, wouldn't it be better if chess players made up the rules for their own game? Phil Innes

[The Master]

On Saturday, April 7, 2012 9:24:06 AM UTC-4, ChessFire wrote:

> Good news for an English Player from this source, but the article goes on to describe 'the most hated rules in chess', and for sure, the non-playiing organizers seem to have introduced a slew of strange rules to the game over the past few years. I suppose they could be listed later in addition to the 2 cited in the Guardian's article which mentioned the 'zero tolerance' arriving late rule, and also suspension of the 3 repetition draw rule. Here is the URL http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/07/gawain-jones-european-championship?INTCMP=SRCH The title of this thread is a quote from Fischer at Varna 40 years ago — and while [laugh] it is not phrased very diplomatically, still and yet, wouldn't it be better if chess players made up the rules for their own game?

That depends-- *which* chessplayers?

The history of chess is filled with cases in which certain chessplayers have tried (often with considerable success) to tweak things to their own advantage, especially at the highest levels of play.
One example, offhand, is the case of one of the strongest chessplayers of all time, Emmanuel Lasker, who, having obtained the title of 'world champion' from his great predeccessor, completely abandoned the practice of defending it against all commers. This was certainly not good for chess, nor even for the general public's perception of the game. Much wrangling ensued, with the end result that 'holding onto' the title became the new and preferred method of title 'defense,' as opposed to Steinitz's method of constantly proving his mettle.

The case of Bobby Fischer routinely violating rules --and getting away with it-- was also bad for chess, and in fact led to some rather embarrassing 'apologetics' on his behalf. Better to suffer a few individual casualties now and then, than to put into question the validity of the rules which define a contest, for without those rules, a match or tournament hardly decides anything more than the arbiters' favorites-- provided they perform at least adequately.

I still recall a tournament I played in many years ago, in which the announced tiebreak system led to a 'perfect tie' being broken in favor of my rival, who thereby got the trophy. It didn't seem to bother him in the least that this tiebreak system was obviously absurd, but it *would have* had it happened to have favored me! A better way would have been to have a playoff, of any time control whatever, to decide who would get the indivisible (for no one had thought to bring a chain-saw) prize. But that was a rare case, one in which in a Swiss System tourney we had each played exactly the same opponents, with one exception: he had played me whereas I had played him. Granted, this was not a very high level event, but it nevertheless shows how in This Crazy World of Chess, things can very easily go awry.

[Taylor Kingston]

On Apr 7, 1:26 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 7, 2012 9:24:06 AM UTC-4, ChessFire wrote:

> > Good news for an English Player from this source, but the article goes on to describe 'the most hated rules in chess', and for sure, the non-playiing organizers seem to have introduced a slew of strange rules to the game over the past few years. I suppose they could be listed later in addition to the 2 cited in the Guardian's article which mentioned the 'zero tolerance' arriving late rule, and also suspension of the 3 repetition draw rule. Here is the URLhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/07/gawain-jones-european-cha...   The title of this thread is a quote from Fischer at Varna 40 years ago — and while [laugh] it is not phrased very diplomatically, still and yet, wouldn't it be better if chess players made up the rules for their own game?

>
>   That depends-- *which* chessplayers?
>
>   The history of chess is filled with cases in which certain chessplayers have tried (often with considerable success) to tweak things to their own advantage, especially at the highest levels of play.
>   One example, offhand, is the case of one of the strongest chessplayers of all time, Emmanuel Lasker, who, having obtained the title of 'world champion' from his great predeccessor, completely abandoned the practice of defending it against all commers.

Good grief. Our Greg's tendency to engage in ahistorical bloviation
is even more out of control than usual.

It has never been any world champion's practice to defend the title
against "all commers" [sic]. The practice has always been to entertain
challenges only from qualified player who have proven their worth.

And what qualified challengers does Kennedy think Lasker evaded?

>  This was certainly not good for chess, nor even for the general public's perception of the game.  Much wrangling ensued, with the end result that 'holding onto' the title became the new and preferred method of title 'defense,' as opposed to Steinitz's method of constantly proving his mettle.>

Steinitz stayed away from tournament chess for nearly 9 (NINE!)
years 1873-1882. During that time he played only one match against a
world-class opponent, Blackburne, in 1876. This is "constantly proving
his mettle"?

>   The case of Bobby Fischer routinely violating rules --and getting away with it--

Eh? Fischer was one of the most rule-abiding of players. What are
all these "routine violations" you allege, Greg?

But of course you won't tell us, will you? It's never /your/ job to
prove /your/ claims.

[The Master]

On Saturday, April 7, 2012 5:47:11 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

 The title of this thread is a quote from Fischer at Varna 40 years ago — and while [laugh] it is not phrased very diplomatically, still and yet, wouldn't it be better if chess players made up the rules for their own game?
> >
> >   That depends-- *which* chessplayers?
> >
> >   The history of chess is filled with cases in which certain chessplayers have tried (often with considerable success) to tweak things to their own advantage, especially at the highest levels of play.
> >   One example, offhand, is the case of one of the strongest chessplayers of all time, Emmanuel Lasker, who, having obtained the title of 'world champion' from his great predeccessor, completely abandoned the practice of defending it against all commers.
>
> Good grief. Our Greg's tendency to engage in ahistorical bloviation
> is even more out of control than usual.
>
> It has never been any world champion's practice to defend the title
> against "all commers" [sic].

Mr. Kingston obviously has never witnessed a world champion being harried by punctuation difficulties.

> The practice has always been to entertain

> challenges only from qualified player [A spelling error. The plural is specified by appending the letter 's'.] who have proven their worth.

> And what qualified challengers does Kennedy think Lasker evaded?

Em. Lasker was lucky in that the 'commers' did not gang up on him, too.

Before WWI interfered with the normal course of human chess events, there were a few worthy challengers to Lasker, such as Pillsbury, Schlecter, and perhaps even Capablanca.
The trouble was, Lasker spoke German while, say, Capablanca smoke Cubans. In any case, there were laborious (and unsuccessful, at least from the point of view of the challengers) negotiations.

> >  This was certainly not good for chess, nor even for the general public's perception of the game.  Much wrangling ensued, with the end result that 'holding onto' the title became the new and preferred method of title 'defense,' as opposed to Steinitz's method of constantly proving his mettle.>
>

> Steinitz stayed away from *tournament* chess for nearly 9 (NINE!)

> years 1873-1882. During that time he played only one match against a

> world-class opponent, Blackburne, in 1976. This is "constantly proving
> his mettle"?


Mr. Kingston is obviously unfamiliar with the history of chess. It is customary for a world champion to *carefully select* the events in which he will compete, whereas nobodies (think Mr. Innes or Mr. Kingston) can just show up and play whenever they like. With the world's elite chessplayers, there is a little thing called 'negotiation' to consider. (See the movie, The Negotiator, for an idea of just what this sort of thing can entail.)

> >   The case of Bobby Fischer routinely violating rules --and getting away with it--
>
> Eh? Fischer was one of the most rule-abiding of players.

Nonsense. Fischer is well known for his refusal to abide by even those rules enacted at his own behest or on his behalf.

For example, after accusing 'the Russians' of colluding to throw games in order to keep him from winning a tournament in which he was a non-contender, rules were eventually tweaked such as to outlaw 'grandmaster draws,' or a fixed outcome in which the point is split without a real constest. Fischer then agreed to just such a draw --and got away with cheating-- replying to critics that the rule was intended 'for Russian cheaters, not me.' Clearly then, Fischer believed that he, and he alone, was 'above the law.'

As real chessplayers already know (I will attempt to enlighten Mr. Kingston and a few others now...), it is against the rules of the game to 'distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.' And yet Fischer famously threw a hissyfit in his 1972 match with poor Boris Spassky, while his opponent was on move! This was the infamous game played --at Fiscer's insistance-- offstage, in a rinkydink ping-pong room. Having already been subjected to other crazy 'demands,' Spassky very nearly 'lost it' but eventually agreed to continue the game, and the match, though hardly with his formerly superb quality of play. Whereas up 'till then, Spassky had never lost even a single game to Fischer, under these bizarre conditions --both on and off the board-- he fell apart, losing several of them, and the match.

Yet another famous case was when Bobby Fischer fell asleep at the board. This was so annoying that his opponent --quite unwisely-- decided to wake him up. Bobby won when he might otherwise have lost on time. (I am not among those lunatics who believe Bobby could then 'beat anyone in his sleep,' for while he might well be able to out-analyze them in his sleep, he nevertheless could not actually play any moves while remaining in that state.)

The list goes on... . Fischer's opponents can tell far you better than I can (for I was not engaged in rated chess at the time) how Bobby, even as a young boy, would very often annoy them by playing exceptionally strong moves! Of course, we are right back to the rule forbidding annoying the opponent in any manner whatsoever. In one tournament, a U.S. Championship I believe, one of the players congratulated Fischer for 'winning the exhibition,' after Bobby went something like 12-0. As Darth Vader might put it, 'Most annoying.' In fact, this result might well have annoyed not just one, but EVERY ONE of Fischer's opponents in that event. Food for thought.

But enough chess history lessons for one day.

[Taylor Kingston]

On Apr 7, 8:49 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   But enough chess history lessons for one day.

Greg, you giving lectures on chess history is like Helen Keller
teaching music.

[ChessFire]

<much cut to get to the quick>

> > Good grief. Our Greg's tendency to engage in ahistorical bloviation

An LP memorial word, already!

> > The practice has always been to entertain
> > challenges only from qualified player [A spelling error. The plural is specified by appending the letter 's'.] who have proven their worth.

While The Fisching news is interested below [and I did Like Greg Kennedy's first message, at least it set up a challenge to a /single/ player deciding all, which is a volunteered diversion, it still has its merits. I do not conclude the same, but that another matter.

So before talking about rules for the rest of us, let's look at Fischer's legacy...

> > >   The case of Bobby Fischer routinely violating rules --and getting away with it--
> >
> > Eh? Fischer was one of the most rule-abiding of players.
>
>
> Nonsense. Fischer is well known for his refusal to abide by even those rules enacted at his own behest or on his behalf.

I have two anecdotes, both on the record ones from Taimanov, if that's goo enough. The first is in their match Taimanov got up to pace on his side of the stage as was his right under the rules, but Fischer objected to it. The arbiter was embarrassed since Fischer was clearly wrong — so Taimanov interceded by saying that he would stop pacing if Fischer would stop kicking the leg of the table [as he had been doing] Fischer accepted the 'deal' and behaved afterward.

> For example, after accusing 'the Russians' of colluding to throw games in order to keep him from

Two points here. Taimanov again said that Russian players were asked to concentrate their attention on other players including Fischer, and take it easy against their own champion. This is not exactly throwing games, but still a form of collective cheating. One again, this is Taimanov on the record.

winning a tournament in which he was a non-contender, rules were eventually tweaked such as to outlaw 'grandmaster draws,' or a fixed outcome in which the point is split without a real constest. Fischer then agreed to just such a draw --and got away with cheating-- replying to critics that the rule was intended 'for Russian cheaters, not me.' Clearly then, Fischer believed that he, and he alone, was 'above the law.'

Second Point on this: Yes he did feel as if the rules were not for him but for the Russian Collaboration of my previous note. Does anyone really think Fischer threw a game, even threw a draw to anyone. In these instances it is the context that is important, and one that transcends individual games.

> As real chessplayers already know (I will attempt to enlighten Mr. Kingston and a few others now...), it is against the rules of the game to 'distract or annoy the opponent in any manner whatsoever.' And yet Fischer famously threw a hissyfit in his 1972 match with poor Boris Spassky, while his opponent was on move! This was the infamous game played --at Fiscer's insistance-- offstage, in a rinkydink ping-pong room. Having already been subjected to other crazy 'demands,' Spassky very nearly 'lost it' but eventually agreed to continue the game, and the match, though hardly with his formerly superb quality of play. Whereas up 'till then, Spassky had never lost even a single game to Fischer, under these bizarre conditions --both on and off the board-- he fell apart, losing several of them, and the match.

Was it Larry Evans who said that Fischer was a 'one-man chess union'? Certainly people give it up to him to have improved playing conditions around the world, and also prize money. Personally I have never played in front of a huge audience and TV cameras broadcasting the game to millions of people — so I can't say what that's like, but I imagine it could be off-putting. Overall Fischer's attention to playing conditions is applauded all over the world.

> Yet another famous case was when Bobby Fischer fell asleep at the board. This was so annoying that his opponent --quite unwisely-- decided to wake him up. Bobby won when he might otherwise have lost on time. (I am not among those lunatics who believe Bobby could then 'beat anyone in his sleep,' for while he might well be able to out-analyze them in his sleep, he nevertheless could not actually play any moves while remaining in that state.)

Are you confusing this Anecdote with Tal? He fell 'asleep' at the board, though it was thought this had something to do with his usual libation, was woken up, and smashed his opponent.

<snip>

> But enough chess history lessons for one day.

And thank you for sharing these valuable insights and why non players should have nothing to do with rule creation. Now back to chess for the rest of us. If no one can think of any offensive rules, I can certainly can, that is, me and Chessbase and leading arbiters in the EU can. Keywords: American Armageddon Finish — I can even tell you what that backwater USCF think of senior arbiters and players who thought they were 'bringint the game into disrepute.' But that's a story for another day. The Minor should take a nap, and not apologize to anyone, never mind Taylor Kingston or myself who add substance to conversations, that is ever optional — it's his resulting opinions that we all love, like he could harvest his cornfield without putting any seed in the ground. Magical stuff. More!

Phil Innes

[ChessFire]

[Taylor Kingston]

On Apr 8, 6:32 am, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> <much cut to get to the quick>
>

> > > >   The case of Bobby Fischer routinely violating rules --and getting away with it--
>
> > >   Eh? Fischer was one of the most rule-abiding of players.
>
> >  Nonsense.  Fischer is well known for his refusal to abide by even those rules enacted at his own behest or on his behalf.
>
> I have two anecdotes, both on the record ones from Taimanov, if that's goo enough. The first is in their match Taimanov got up to pace on his side of the stage as was his right under the rules, but Fischer objected to it. The arbiter was embarrassed since Fischer was clearly wrong — so Taimanov interceded by saying that he would stop pacing if Fischer would stop kicking the leg of the table [as he had been doing] Fischer accepted the 'deal' and behaved afterward.

Phil, as an example of Fischer's obedience to the rules, I was
thinking of the contrast between him and Matulovic. The latter became
known as "J'adoubovic" for the notorious incident where he blatantly
took back a bad move, claiming he was just adjusting it.
Fischer, on the other hand, strictly observed the touch-move rule in
a game where it cost him a point. As I recall, this was against
Unzicker at Buenos Aires 1960. Fischer touched a pawn, then
immediately realized to move it would lose the game. But, honor left
him only the choice of moving it one square or two, so move it he
did.
I believe this is the game, and the suicidal but honorable pawn push
is at Black's 12th move:

[Event "Buenos Aires"]
[Site "Buenos Aires"]
[Date "1960.07.07"]
[Round "11"]
[White "Unzicker, Wolfgang"]
[Black "Fischer, Robert James"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B98"]
[PlyCount "43"]
[EventDate "1960.06.23"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "19"]
[EventCountry "ARG"]
[Source "ChessBase"]

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4
Be7 8. Qf3 Qc7 9. O-O-O O-O 10. Bd3 Nc6 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. Qg3 h5 13.
e5 dxe5 14. fxe5 Ng4 15. Bxe7 Qxe7 16. Ne4 Qc7 17. h3 Nxe5 18. Nf6+
Kh8 19. Qg5 Nxd3+ 20. Rxd3 gxf6 21. Qxh5+ Kg7 22. Qg4+ 1-0

One might also mention Fischer's willingness to let his clock keep
running despite a blackout during his Candidates match with Petrosian.

> > Yet another famous case was when Bobby Fischer fell asleep at the board.

> Are you confusing this Anecdote with Tal?

Perhaps Tal did fall asleep at the board, but GK is probably
thinking of the time Fischer dozed off while playing Bisguier at Bay
City, MIchigan, in 1963. See for example Brady's "Profile of a
Prodigy," page 70.

[Event "Western Open Championship"]
[Site "Bay City"]
[Date "1963.07.06"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Bisguier, Arthur Bernard"]
[Black "Fischer, Robert James"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E61"]
[PlyCount "72"]
[EventDate "1963.07.04"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "8"]
[EventCountry "USA"]
[Source "ChessBase"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. Nf3 O-O 5. e3 d6 6. Be2 Nbd7 7. O-O
e5 8. b4 Re8 9. Bb2 e4 10. Nd2 Nf8 11. Qc2 Bf5 12. d5 h5 13. Nb5 h4
14. Nd4 Bd7 15. a3 h3 16. g3 Qe7 17. Rfc1 Bg4 18. Bf1 N8h7 19. a4 Ng5
20. a5 a6 21. Rab1 Nd7 22. c5 Bxd4 23. Bxd4 Ne5 24. Bxe5 Qxe5 25. Nc4
Qe7 26. b5 axb5 27. Rxb5 dxc5 28. Rxb7 Qd8 29. Qc3 Bc8 30. Rb5 Qxd5
31. Qa3 Qd8 32. Qxc5 Nf3+ 33. Kh1 Qf6 34. Qxc7 Nxh2 35. Kxh2 Qxf2+ 36.
Kh1 Bg4 0-1

[The Master]

On Sunday, April 8, 2012 9:32:33 AM UTC-4, Phil Innes wrote:

> I have two anecdotes, both on the record ones from Taimanov, if that's goo enough. The first is in their match Taimanov got up to pace on his side of the stage as was his right under the rules, but Fischer objected to it. The arbiter was embarrassed since Fischer was clearly wrong — so Taimanov interceded by saying that he would stop pacing if Fischer would stop kicking the leg of the table [as he had been doing] Fischer accepted the 'deal' and behaved afterward.

I've never heard that anecdote before, perhaps because it casts Fischer in a bad light.

> > For example, after accusing 'the Russians' of colluding to throw games in order to keep him from
>

> Two points here. Taimanov again said that Russian players were asked to concentrate their attention on other players including Fischer, and take it easy against their own champion. [Who?]

> This is not exactly throwing games, but still a form of collective cheating. One again, this is Taimanov on the record.

Anecdotal 'evidence' is fine, but hard facts are generally to be preferred. I believe even a blip-brain like Taylor Kingston is unlikely to attempt to deny the aforementioned ping-pong room incident, though I could be wrong.

> winning a tournament in which he was a non-contender, rules were eventually tweaked such as to outlaw 'grandmaster draws,' or a fixed outcome in which the point is split without a real constest. Fischer then agreed to just such a draw --and got away with cheating-- replying to critics that the rule was intended 'for Russian cheaters, not me.' Clearly then, Fischer believed that he, and he alone, was 'above the law.'
>
> Second Point on this: Yes he did feel as if the rules were not for him but for the Russian Collaboration of my previous note.

Purported Russian collusion. In reality, Victor Korthnoi made a similar complaint, though he was among those accused of 'throwing games' by Fischer! Obviously, switching to one-against-one mini-matches solved the problem of laggards tossing games (or easy draws) to the leaders from the same country.
Now, you may try to claim that Fischer got his accusation *partly right*, but then, even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then. Just blindly throw darts long enough and eventually you just might hit a balloon.

> Does anyone really think Fischer threw a game, even threw a draw to anyone.

Yes. Those of us who are not completely unfamiliar with chess history will of course recall that after establishing a substantial lead in his 1972 FIDE championship match, Bobby 'gave' several easy draws to his opponent in order to close out the match. The final games were not all truly contested, whereas it is easy to see just how hard-fought were the earlier games (such as game one for example).
In any case, it has been argued that Fischer's true strength was even higher than his stellar performance in 1972, and those fanatics did 'really think' Bobby was holding back.

> In these instances it is the context that is important, and one that transcends individual games.

Precisely. Just as game rules are meaningless unless they apply to everyone, so too, in order to be counted among those who are --or were-- 'the most rule-abiding of players,' it is necessary for a player to virtually always avoid acts of cheating, collusion, or unsportsmanship behavior. (Unfortunately, there are idiots among us who know virtually nothing about chess but who nevertheless post here as if they did.)

> Was it Larry Evans who said that Fischer was a 'one-man chess union'?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know that Mr. Evans sometimes contradicted himself in print, and this does not bode well for those who wish to rely upon his stated opinions as some sort of chess authority.
If you go back far enough in time, you can find Evans writing positive things about players he later smeared. And if your research is thorough enough, you can find him flip-flopping on issues for which Larry Parr had felt compelled to 'defend' one or other of his stances on, which is a bit funny. I seriously doubt if LP had even considered the possibility that his idol had not always been consistent (and of course, 'right').

> Certainly people give it up to him to have improved playing conditions around the world, and also prize money.

Not here. I have old issues of the local chess magazine and I can tell you, there has been no significant improvement in prize money, and as for playing conditions, today the time controls are crazy fast (promoting junk chess) and we are forced to use digital clocks which require an instruction manual to set. These are hardly improvements.

Things are better for the world's best chessplayers, and some of the improvements occurred around the same time as the Cold War brouhaha of the Fischer era, but simultanaity is not the same as causality. Recall that the ratings systems, argued by some (circa 1955) as a way to dramatically increase player activity, also occured durng this same era, as did other changes.
Certainly, those who were already masters of the game benefitted greatly by the influx of new players (lessons, book sales, prizes) during the so-called Fischer boom. But never forget: there was also an after-Fischer bust.

> Personally I have never played in front of a huge audience and TV cameras broadcasting the game to millions of people — so I can't say what that's like

Well, in your case, there would be a lot of laughing at the moves, and wild speculations as to their purpose. In fact, Taylor Kingston might well land this latter job.

> but I imagine it could be off-putting.

Bobby seemed to have no problem with this ...so long as he was winning. But start to lose and a Jekyl/Hyde transformation might occur.

> Overall Fischer's attention to playing conditions is applauded all over the world.

I envy your ability to conduct such extensive travels and thorough research. Most of us can only dream of taking such a survey, or for that matter of travelling the entire world on a limited budget. And I might add that most of us cannot communicate in so many foreign languages. You, my friend, are unique in this regard.

> > Yet another famous case was when Bobby Fischer fell asleep at the board. This was so annoying that his opponent --quite unwisely-- decided to wake him up. Bobby won when he might otherwise have lost on time. (I am not among those lunatics who believe Bobby could then 'beat anyone in his sleep,' for while he might well be able to out-analyze them in his sleep, he nevertheless could not actually play any moves while remaining in that state.)
>
>
> Are you confusing this Anecdote with Tal? He fell 'asleep' at the board, though it was thought this had something to do with his usual libation, was woken up, and smashed his opponent.

No, the anecdote was definitely regarding Fischer. (Tal was, I think, busy at the time sacrificing pieces unsoundly.)

> > But enough chess history lessons for one day.
>

> And thank you for sharing these valuable insights and why non players should have nothing to do with rule creation. Now back to chess for the rest of us. If no one can think of any offensive rules, I can certainly can, that is, me and Chessbase and leading arbiters in the EU can. Keywords: American Armageddon Finish — I can even tell you what that backwater USCF think of senior arbiters and players who thought they were 'bringint the game into disrepute.' But that's a story for another day. The Minor should take a nap, and not apologize to anyone, never mind Taylor Kingston or myself who add fecal substance to conversations, that is ever optional — it's his resulting opinions that we all love, like he could harvest his cornfield without putting any seed in the ground. Magical stuff. More!
>
> Ray Lopez


I have no cornfields. I sold the back-forty to raise money so I could enter the World Open, but that was the year Gary Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov happened through. Then I sold off forty acres (that's a technical term, Phil, a certain amount of land) so I could enter the Really Big Whammo Class tourney, but that year there happened to be a kid, who later went on to become a strong grandmaster, in the section which I was supposed to win. That left me with only forty acres left, which I of course sold to pay for chess lessons on how to play 2.Q-h5. Now I'm finally ready to 'cash in.'

Anyway, Stan Booz said I should keep my postings short so I'm gonna sign off now, before this post gets too long.

[Taylor Kingston]

On Apr 9, 4:10 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   Purported Russian collusion.  In reality, Victor Korthnoi made a similar complaint, though he was among those accused of 'throwing games' by Fischer!

More historical ignorance and misinformation from our Greg. The fact
of collusion by Petrosian, Geller and Keres at Curaçao 1962 is quite
well established. Korchnoi was not involved in it. For further
details, I suggest our Greg read Timman's "Curaçao 1962" (NIC, 2005),
and especially Pal Benko's autobiography (Siles Press 2003) for
corroboration by an actual participant in the event.
The truth of Fischer's charges was recognized and acknowledged
quickly by most informed and impartial observers outside the Soviet
Union. That now, 50 years later, the truth still hasn't penetrated
into our Greg's head should surprise no one here.

[ChessFire]

> Purported Russian collusion. In reality, Victor Korthnoi made a similar complaint, though he was among those accused of 'throwing games' by Fischer! Obviously, switching to one-against-one mini-matches solved the problem of laggards tossing games (or easy draws) to the leaders from the same country.

I wrote some of these questions, Bill Hyde others — here are a couple of them with responses:

Chessville: Zurich 1953 is considered one of the greatest tournaments of the 20th Century. How did you feel it was going, round by round? What was it like to play Reshevsky, and did you feel any extra pressure to do well against the American? Any comment on Bronstein's recent allegations?

MT: I think that the Candidates tournament in Zurich in 1953 was the greatest chess event of the last century, and I was happy to have played there. Certainly for the Soviet politicians the success of our chess players was very important - they might resort to backstage maneuvers David Bronstein has related about the mid-century. I shall say frankly, at that time I did not know anything about it - as we say in Russia, it was not accepted "to carry out the rubbish from the izba" (Editor's note: an izba is a peasant's hut). All this was usually done secretly. The most of what was demanded of me, for example, - was the threat to not finish ahead of our leaders, (and most of all Smyslov), i.e. to not aspire to win against them. And to play with special attention versus our leader's chief competitors.

Chessville: We are aware that words attributed to various Soviet players were sometimes penned by government officials and published under the player's name. Was your name ever used in this way? In particular we are thinking of an article on the World Chess Network wherein Larry Parr suggests that words attributed to you might have been penned by a Soviet official:

"`Fischer is too deeply convinced that he is a genius,' wrote Mark Taimanov in 1960, and statements with the same tone often appeared in Soviet chess publications." [e.g.] "... after Fischer lost to Spassky at Siegen 1970. "Even some Americans (whose names I am not going to disclose, being a neutral party) were not too upset by the defeat of their leading player. ‘It’s time Fischer was shown that after all he is not the genius he styles himself to be,’ was their comment.""

MT: I never responded to a "prompting" by officials. But I have to admit, that I also had no dissident insights.

As to Robert Fischer I really think of him as a great chess player though I do not remember that I named him genius. My attitude to Fischer and a history of our match was described in my book "I Was Fischer's Victim" published in St. Petersburg, Russian in 1993.

Phil Innes

[ChessFire]

This is from the annotated game I arranged and translated with Boris Yeshan. Later, I asked Mark if in his opinion this was the most complex game of the twentieth century. He did not disagree. Here is the simple anecdote about pacing and kicking

16...Nfxd5

It is obvious that the alternative 16...hxg5 17.d6+ Kh8 18.dxe7 Qxe7 19.cxb6 axb6 20.Bxg5 was quite unattractive, as well as the reply 16...Kh8 in view of 17.d6!

Hand-to-hand fighting begins where courageous imagination, exact calculation and ... strong nerves are required. By the way, in this game, nerves "played pranks" on both players. I remember, at one moment of the duel, when I rose from the table after making a move, and by customary habit, walked on the stage. Fischer, having his meditation interrupted unexpectedly, turned to the chief arbiter Bozhidar Kazhic, through his "charge' d'affaires" Ed. Edmondson, with the complaint that my walking disturbed him. Kazhic delicately related this to me, adding that from his perspective he could not support Fischer's claim as it was my right to walk on my own side of the stage. But not wishing such a conflict, I offered a gentlemen's compromise - if Bobby for his part would desist from his habit of beating out "a tattoo with his legs" under the table, I would abandon my walking on the stage... Fischer agreed, a consensus was found...

But let us return to the game, which had entered a most dramatic phase.

[The Master]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 12:03:18 AM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> The truth of Fischer's charges was recognized and acknowledged
> quickly by most informed and impartial observers outside the Soviet
> Union. That now, 50 years later, the truth still hasn't penetrated
> into our Greg's head should surprise no one here.

As everyone familiar with chess history already knows, the collusion amounted to just three of the real contenders (Fischer's reckless accusations included one of the supposed victims!) agreeing to draw one another in uncontested games.
The result of all these draws was an opportunity for anyone who happened to be trailing the leaders to catch up-- *IF* he was good enough. Fischer wasn't (yet).
A few years later, such a pact might have caused the colluders to fall farther and farther behind a player of Fischer's caliber, but at the time he was not a real contender for first prize. Details of some of the problems with Fischer's game can be found in David Levy's excellent book on Fischer.

Victor Kortchnoi's complaint was a strange one indeed, for not only did he bewail the fact that the other three strongest players in the event had conserved their energies --to be expended partly if not mainly on him-- by short draws, but in the same breath he suggested that Paul Keres had misjudged by not making a seperate pact with him instead of splitting points equally with the other two strongest players. In sum, Kortchnoi seemed to be not so much against collusion (i.e. cheating) as against the fact that he was left out of it!
Kortchnoi also opined that at that time, Keres was the strongest of the group, and perhaps might have won had he not 'given' (VK's hated rival) Tigran Petrosian those easy draws. Such speculations must be taken with a grain of salt however, as VK was hardly objective.

One thing is certain: in situations where there is disparity in the relative strengths of the participants, collusion can benefit the colluders in that they have more time and energy to expend on beating up on the bottom-dwellers.
One supposed solution is to outlaw quick draws, but cheaters can get around this. And I might add that high-ranked players tend to be very touchy about organisers (or anybody else for that matter) telling them what not to do.

I cannot recall offhand whether or not Kortchnoi accused Fischer of 'throwing' his games to the (other) Russian players, but it is amusing that Fischer accused Kortchnoi, who later defected, of doing so. So much for 'truth.' Reckless accusations may suit some rgc'ers to a T, but not everyone here has such low standards-- I hope.

[The Master]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:18:55 PM UTC-4, ChessFire wrote:

> I wrote some of these questions, Bill Hyde others — here are a couple of them with responses:
>
> Chessville: Zurich 1953 is considered one of the greatest tournaments of the 20th Century. How did you feel it was going, round by round? What was it like to play Reshevsky, and did you feel any extra pressure to do well against the American? Any comment on Bronstein's recent allegations?
>

> MT: [Taimanov, not Tal!] I think that the Candidates tournament in Zurich in 1953 was the greatest chess event of the last century, and I was happy to have played there. Certainly for the Soviet politicians the success of our chess players was very important - they might resort to backstage maneuvers David Bronstein has related about the mid-century. I shall say frankly, at that time I did not know anything about it - as we say in Russia, it was not accepted "to carry out the rubbish from the izba" (Editor's note: an izba is a peasant's hut). All this was usually done secretly. The most of what was demanded of me, for example, - was the threat to not finish ahead of our leaders, (and most of all Smyslov)


It is interesting that certain smear-mongers have portrayed Smyslov as the *victim* of such 'secret dealings' supposedly perpetrated on behalf of Botvinnik. Yet here is Mark Taimanov tossing out Smyslov's name as someone who was not to be crushed OTB (I have received similar warnings regarding Fischer, Kamsky, and Nakamura, and have always done my patriotic duty, never once defeating any of them-- though I easily could have).

>, i.e. to not aspire to win against them. And to play with special attention versus our leader's chief competitors.

Bronstein?


> Chessville: We are aware that words attributed to various Soviet players were sometimes penned by government officials and published under the player's name. Was your name ever used in this way? In particular we are thinking of an article on the World Chess Network wherein Larry Parr suggests that words attributed to you might* have been penned by a Soviet official:

Might is a weasel word, no?

> "`Fischer is too deeply convinced that he is a genius,' wrote Mark Taimanov in 1960, and statements with the same tone often appeared in Soviet chess publications." [e.g.] "... after Fischer lost to Spassky at Siegen 1970. "Even some Americans (whose names I am not going to disclose, being a neutral party) were not too upset by the defeat of their leading player. ‘It’s time Fischer was shown that after all he is not the genius he styles himself to be,’ was their comment.""
>
> MT: I never responded to a "prompting" by officials. But I have to admit, that I also had no dissident insights.
>
> As to Robert Fischer I really think of him as a great chess player though I do not remember that I named him genius.

Something has apparently been lost in translation, for nowhere above does Taimanov call Fischer a genius.

In fact, I notice a lot of similar problems with Mr. Innes as reporter of what non-English speakers supposedly have said. Much of what we are told here in rgc does not make any sense, even after attempting to correct for what appear to be clumsy mistakes in transcription.

> My attitude to Fischer and a history of our match was described in my book "I Was Fischer's Victim" published in St. Petersburg, Russian in 1993.

Has this particular book ever been translated into English?

I remember wanting to read Vicktor Kortchnoi's book on his own games (like Ace Ventura, he was simply 'the best there was' on the black side of the French Defense, after Botvinnik) but for a long while it was not available in any language I could understand (i.e. American English, British English, Australian English, mates). By the time it finally did get published in English, I had more-or-less lost interest, having by then become accustomed to losing by force against 1.e4 (as if Bobby had been right all along).

[ChessFire]

Apart from actually discussing rules, I should like to make a further comment or two about The Master's [laugh] commentary in respect of Taylor Kingston.

1) First of all it is jejeune to gain attention by mocking people's achievements without presenting your own, and it is always questionable to answer this sort of material at all — though here I think I have said enough to pierce through the fog proposed by 'The Master', not that he will agree or benefit from it, but others might.

2) In terms of chess history prowess, Taylor Kingston is a better chess historian than I am, knows more history, more specifics, and though we have from time to time disagreed about conclusions drawn from that knowledge, there is only one other person posting in this newsgroup who seems to have similar realm of knowledge.

3) My own connections are not quite historical, more biographical, in that I have had many first hand accounts from players directly, both of their own views and of events, and their thinking about managing chess.

It seems like cheap sport to blague someone for their knowledge and 'The Master' does himself no credit in pursuing this tact — neither does he do anyone else a favor by his extraordinary predilection to proceed from vagueries to strong contradictory opinion, especially with people who are tired of pointing these things out.

Better he find something solid to talk from, then speak, rather than let others do his research and thinking for him, then react in an only slightly guarded emotional way, much of which seems to stem from his own disappointments in the game. "I coulda been a contenda!" Larry Parr used to say of him. Why so bitter and so public, I say.

Phil Innes

[Taylor Kingston]

On Apr 9, 4:10 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > Purported Russian collusion

> On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 12:03:18 AM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> > The truth of Fischer's charges was recognized and acknowledged
> > quickly by most informed and impartial observers outside the Soviet
> > Union. That now, 50 years later, the truth still hasn't penetrated
> > into our Greg's head should surprise no one here.

On Apr 10, 11:51 am, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As everyone familiar with chess history already knows, the collusion amounted to just three of the real contenders

So, Greg, first you dismiss the Curaçao collusion as merely
"purported." I corrected you on that. Now you treat the collusion as a
fact, yet you say I'm ignorant of it. You seem to have taken the
Talking Heads' title "Stop Making Sense" as your guiding principle.

[The Master]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:25:06 PM UTC-4, ChessFire wrote:

> This is from the annotated game I arranged and translated with Boris Yeshan. Later, I asked Mark if in his opinion this was the most complex game of the twentieth century. He did not disagree.

How can someone 'agree' or 'not disagree' with a question? Is Mr. Innes suggesting it was not a question at all, but rather a suggestion, like when Perry Mason's opposition, the bumbling prosecutor of an innocent person, tries to lead the witness (which of course is forbidden)?

> Here is the simple anecdote about pacing and kicking
>
> 16...Nfxd5
>
> It is obvious that the alternative 16...hxg5 17.d6+ Kh8 18.dxe7 Qxe7 19.cxb6 axb6 20.Bxg5 was quite unattractive, as well as the reply 16...Kh8 in view of 17.d6!
>
> Hand-to-hand fighting begins where courageous imagination, exact calculation and ... strong nerves are required. By the way, in this game, nerves "played pranks" on both players. I remember, at one moment of the duel, when I rose from the table after making a move, and by customary habit, walked on the stage. Fischer, having his meditation interrupted unexpectedly, turned to the chief arbiter Bozhidar Kazhic, through his "charge' d'affaires" Ed. Edmondson, with the complaint that my walking disturbed him. Kazhic delicately related this to me, adding that from his perspective he could not support Fischer's claim as it was my right to walk on my own side of the stage. But not wishing such a conflict, I offered a gentlemen's compromise - if Bobby for his part would desist from his habit of beating out "a tattoo with his legs" under the table, I would abandon my walking on the stage... Fischer agreed, a consensus was found...
>
> But let us return to the game, which had entered a most dramatic phase.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Taimanov could not tell us the exact position at which this incident allegedly occurred, for bizarre happenings sometimes led to Bobby's opponents suddenly playing badly.

For example, in the infamous ping-pong room game, with a long-standing record of never having lost even a single game to Fischer, Boris Spassky fell apart --and lost-- soon after Bobby threw a hissy-fit, supposedly over the TV monitor camera but perhaps actually over the fact that the match was not going well for him.

But as for Taimanov's comments regarding the importance of 'exact calculation,' all that can be said is... don't mess with Bobby! Even when caught offguard in a prepared opening variation (the infamous 'lights out' game), Bobby Fischer managed to match (I think it was Rybka 3) my computer, move for move. As Darth Vader would put it, 'most impressive.'

[The Master]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:31:12 PM UTC-4, ChessFire wrote:

> Apart from actually discussing rules, I should like to make a further comment or two about The Master's [laugh] commentary in respect of Taylor Kingston.
>
> 1) First of all it is jejeune to gain attention by mocking people's achievements without presenting your own

This obvious jab at Phil Innes (self-immolation?) seems inappropriate here, as it was stated just above that commentary was going to relate to Taylor Kingston (a different person entirely, I assure you).

> and it is always questionable to answer this sort of material at all — though here I think I have said enough to pierce through the fog proposed by 'The Master', not that he will agree or benefit from it, but others might.

I agree. Actions speak louder than words, and your action --or rather, avoidance of such action-- speaks volumes. How easy it would have been to admit you were not 'asking a question' at all! How simple to confess that Mr. Taimanov, though a strong grandmaster, was simply outclassed by Fischer in his prime. Better to attempt to cast a fog over matters by way of the usual time-proven methods: smear tactics, ad hominem, etc.

> 2) In terms of chess history prowess, Taylor Kingston is a better chess historian than I am, knows more history, more specifics, and though we have from time to time disagreed about conclusions drawn from that knowledge, there is only one other person posting in this newsgroup who seems to have similar realm of knowledge.

Ah, Sanny! We all miss him. (But not his atrocious chess engine.)

> 3) My own connections are not quite historical, more biographical, in that I have had many first hand accounts from players directly, both of their own views and of events, and their thinking about managing chess.

Whenever you attempt to quote or paraphrase these foreign chessplayers here in rgc, there seems to be a serious problem with a lack of fluency in the English language, not just on their part (assumming your quotations are accurate, which is quite a leap of faith) but also on yours. To put it mildly, readers often get the impression that probably neither you nor your contact can competently communicate in English, though somehow you do appear to have managed to communicate with one another to some degree.

This is not just my opinion, but in fact can be seen by comments posted here by others, such as a recent one in which someone wrote, 'for the children's sake, I hope (the subject of your purported school teaching) is not English,' or something to that effect. In other words, that poster felt it would be disastrous if you were to try and teach a language in which you seem here in rgc to be very nearly illiterate. Maybe you're just a poor typist-- very consistently poor. If you typed rgc postings for say, Donald Trump, you would get fired right away. Your renditions of what these foreign chessplayers have purportedly told you are often unintelli-gibbbble.


> It seems like cheap sport to blague [blame?] someone for their knowledge and 'The Master' does himself no credit in pursuing this tact [tack?] — neither does he do anyone else a favor by his extraordinary predilection to proceed from vagueries to strong contradictory opinion


Here it is-- the tell-tale clue as to what it is that you cannot handle: different opinions! If only Napolean had made you King, instead of foolishly invading Russia. Then you would not have to put up with other people not always agreeing with your whims-- you could have them beheaded! Sooner or later, there would be very few left who dared to disagree with your opinions, and those you could banish to America or some other unimportant backwater. (You realize of course that this did not happen. Napolean did not make you King, and instead he did invade Russia, and he sold 'Louisiana' to the Americans, including the port of New Orleans-- at the mouth of the Mississippi!)

> , especially with people who are tired of pointing these things out.

I feel their pain, their mental anguish.

> Better he find something solid to talk from, then speak, rather than let others do his research and thinking for him, then react in an only slightly guarded emotional way

Finally(!), we get to Taylor Kingston-- as promised above.

> much of which seems to stem from his own disappointments in the game. "I coulda been a contenda!"

Were it not for Sammy Reshevsky! And after him, Bobby Fischer! I would say that Larry Evans was not entirely unlucky, for after all, he made a good deal off of writing *about* his betters, with both apologetics and smears, as well as simple anecdotes. In fact, most of what the man wrote about in chess in later life was in regard to one of them, the taller of the two men(hint: it's not Sammy).

> Larry Parr used to say of him. Why so bitter and so public, I say.

Nonsense. Larry Parr was a stalwart apologist for Evans. As far as I know, he never admitted that his idol had become a bitter old man. You must be thinking of Edward Winter, or perhaps one of the many other Evans critics (whose numbers seemed to grow as Evans grew older, and more and more embittered).

But try to think back... I have seen the Larry Evans columnist of 1955, back before Chess Life merged with Chess Review. Back before anybody became obsessed with Fischer, and in fact it was Reshevsky who was America's darling chessplayer (imagine that). You won't find any smears in those old columns, nor any embittered moaning about FIDE or Russia or the horrible USCF. Larry Evans was a very different man back then.

[Taylor Kingston]

On Apr 10, 12:31 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Apart from actually discussing rules, I should like to make a further comment or two  about The Master's [laugh] commentary in respect of Taylor Kingston.
>
> 1) First of all it is jejeune to gain attention by mocking people's achievements without presenting your own, and it is always questionable to answer this sort of material at all — though here I think I have said enough to pierce through the fog proposed by 'The Master', not that he will agree or benefit from it, but others might.
>
> 2) In terms of chess history prowess, Taylor Kingston is a better chess historian than I am, knows more history, more specifics, and though we have from time to time disagreed about conclusions drawn from that knowledge, there is only one other person posting in this newsgroup who seems to have similar realm of knowledge.

Well thank you, Phil. However, you shouldn't expect this to make any
impression on Greg Kennedy.

Actually, I think Kennedy fully realizes how absurd, ignorant,
insulting and mendacious he always is here. Like Lopez, he just enjoys
the trolling.

[The Master]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:06:59 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> On Apr 10, 12:31 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > 2) In terms of chess history prowess, Taylor Kingston is a better chess historian than I am

A simply incredible admission, in view of Mr. Kingston's obvious ignorance of chess history. We can only speculate as to what substance --legal or otherwise-- may have been introduced into Mr. Innes' bloodstream in order to account for such a confession.

> knows more history, more specifics, and though we have from time to time disagreed about conclusions drawn from that knowledge, there is only one other person posting in this newsgroup who seems to have similar realm of knowledge.

Perhaps a second glance at what Mr. Kingston recently wrote about the 'truthfulness' of Fischer's accusations is in order.

It is a well-known fact that Bobby Fischer accused the top Russian players of throwing games to one another, as well as agreeing to uncontested draws. His accusations *included* Victor Kortchnoi, a man who later defected and complained of NOT being included in said collusion. Now, despite this historical fact, Mr. Kingston has continued with his lie regarding the supposed 'truthfulness' of Fischer's accusation-- an accusation which the passing of time has shown to have been false.

Just as Kotchnoi did not willingly 'throw' his games to the other top Russian players, neither did Bobby 'throw' his-- though in both cases the result was that the two victims fell behind the colluding, draw-mongering leaders. It is simply incredible that Phil Innes (or anyone, really) would want to admit that he is even more ignorant of chess history than Taylor Kingston has demonstrated himself to be here in rgc.

Of course, this is but one episode of many in which Mr. Kingston has 'stunned the world' with his amazing ignorance of history. I don't like to stray off topic (thereby subjecting myself to the ire of pedantic, wannabe net-policemen) but just offhand, I could mention the episode in which Kingston demonstrated an astonishing ignorance of American and world history regarding the once-popular idea of scientific racism and the eugenics movement-- a movement which mercifully, was soon to be discredited by the actions of the Nazis during WWII.

It is still possible to detect remnants of such racist ideas in the teachings of some older college professors (who may well not even realize how powerfully affected their ideas were by exposure in their younger days). One such idea is that Northerners (read: those of Viking descent) had to be smarter than those who lived in warmer climes, because of the supposedly tougher conditions. (In fact, I imagine that it is even tougher to live in say, central Africa, with croc's and lions and flies and death-carrying mosquitos... .)

Alas, it is not for me to try and 'rank' the relative ignorance of such Titans as Phil Innes, Taylor Kingston, or Ray Lopez. That would be a fool's errand... like say, trying to reach the sun by building a gigantic tower out of stone. Or trying to breech the high walls of Troy via a direct assault, despite its deadly archers. Or invading Russia not long before winter is to set in. Or racing amidst icebergs in the dark of night in an 'unsinkable' ocean liner. Enough said.

[Taylor Kingston]

On Apr 11, 4:05 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:06:59 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 12:31 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > 2) In terms of chess history prowess, Taylor Kingston is a better chess historian than I am
>
>   A simply incredible admission, in view of Mr. Kingston's obvious ignorance of chess history.  We can only speculate as to what substance --legal or otherwise-- may have  been introduced into Mr. Innes' bloodstream in order to account for such a confession.
>
> > knows more history, more specifics, and though we have from time to time disagreed about conclusions drawn from that knowledge, there is only one other person posting in this newsgroup who seems to have similar realm of knowledge.
>
>   Perhaps a second glance at what Mr. Kingston recently wrote about the 'truthfulness' of Fischer's accusations is in order.
>
>   It is a well-known fact that Bobby Fischer accused the top Russian players of throwing games to one another, as well as agreeing to uncontested draws.  His accusations *included* Victor Kortchnoi, a man who later defected and complained of NOT being included in said collusion.  Now, despite this historical fact, Mr. Kingston has continued with his lie regarding the supposed 'truthfulness' of Fischer's accusation-- an accusation which the passing of time has shown to have been false.

Fischer's charges have been largely vindicated. That he may have
been wrong about Korchnoi does not invalidate his specific charges
against Petrosian, Geller and Keres, nor the fact of Soviet collusion
overall.
For the record, here is what he wrote about Korchnoi in his famous
article "The Russians Have Fixed World Chess":

The record of Victor Korchnoi, the fourth member of the Soviet team,
is more complex. In the first half of the tournament he, too, drew
every game he played with the other Russians. At the midpoint of the
tournament there was a five-day rest period; we all went to the island
of St. Martin. The four Russians were almost tied in points for first
place, and the talk was that when they came back to start the second
half, one of the four was certain to begin losing to the others.
Whatever happened in the Russians' consultations at St. Martin,
Korchnoi's game certainly collapsed abruptly afterwards. He lost
three games in quick succession, first to Geller, then to Petrosian
and then to Keres. Then in the last time around, he drew quickly with
Geller, drew with Keres and lost again to Petrosian. Anyone could
draw his own conclusions from this sequence of events but, in any
event, it revealed the advantage the Russian team had over Western
individual players.

[ChessFire]

> > 3) My own connections are not quite historical, more biographical, in that I have had many first hand accounts from players directly, both of their own views and of events, and their thinking about managing chess.
>
>
> Whenever you attempt to quote or paraphrase these foreign chessplayers here in rgc,

Okay, the immolation of Greg Kennedy who is so smart no one here can say anything, Fischer and Kasparov are goons, and now Mark Taimanov. These things are hardly worth responding to in chess terms, so I think psychological terms are indicated. Context; Taylor Kingston asks for specifics, is mocked for that as no chess historian, and in inquiry for my own anecdote of connections with players we get this from Cornfed, senior citizen of the fly-over zone:—

> there seems to be a serious problem with a lack of fluency in the English language, not just on their part (assumming your quotations are accurate, which is quite a leap of faith) but also on yours. To put it mildly, readers often get the impression that probably neither you nor your contact can competently

type a plural?

> communicate in English, though somehow you do appear to have managed to communicate with one another to some degree.

Thank you. I should like to see your own attempt at this, or even commentary on chess — but you are a settled bitch kind of a guy, no? You complained for10 years in this newsgroup about everyone else, and you think you are not a girly kind of guy?

;)

> This is not just my opinion, but in fact can be seen by comments posted here by others, such as a recent one in which someone wrote, 'for the children's sake,

Well, since that is just anonymous bitching in a thread about who decides the rules, and where is that at? Shall we consider your contributions to be more bitch than substance. I am sure you impress newbies, or intend to, but 10 years of whining and no playing or chess contribution is a sad record. Why are you writing to me as an authority if you yourself have a clue?

Those you attack all know more than you, or can say more than you. These are not necessarily the same, and perhaps you should figure out which it is, or be perceived as the perpetual loser who only whines about his betters?

Larry Parr got you right.


Cordially, Phil

[ChessFire]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:05:08 PM UTC-4, The Master wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:06:59 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 12:31 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > 2) In terms of chess history prowess, Taylor Kingston is a better chess historian than I am
>
>
> A simply incredible admission, in view of Mr. Kingston's obvious ignorance of chess history. We can only speculate as to what substance --legal or otherwise-- may have been introduced into Mr. Innes' bloodstream in order to account for such a confession.

You were making these comments 8 years ago in chees.computer to repress newbies. Neither I not Taylor are a newbie and your pattern is just the same. You have nothing to say so get attention by trying to take down other people.

>
> > knows more history, more specifics, and though we have from time to time disagreed about conclusions drawn from that knowledge, there is only one other person posting in this newsgroup who seems to have similar realm of knowledge.
>
>
> Perhaps a second glance at what Mr. Kingston recently wrote about the 'truthfulness' of Fischer's accusations is in order.
>
> It is a well-known fact that Bobby Fischer accused the top Russian players of throwing games to one another, as well as agreeing to uncontested draws. His accusations *included* Victor Kortchnoi, a man who later defected and complained of NOT being included in said collusion. Now, despite this historical fact, Mr. Kingston has continued with his lie regarding the supposed 'truthfulness' of Fischer's accusation-- an accusation which the passing of time has shown to have been false.

Greg Kennedy, AKA 'Cornfed; is content to peddle someone's cynical take on Fischer and the Russians, both. But Cornfed is merely someone who can get a very little press, so omits the fact that Korchnoi did not only say about Russian collusion in 'cheating.'

He also spoke at that press conference of Western cheating, which was for money. Maybe Cornfed will like this since it is cynical of everyone?

Greg Kennedy who cannot mention his own name, goes on to bravely mention other people's names, in brave {?] American fashion.

This guy was a big loser, and blames EVERYTHING all the time for it.

This is all the press he gets. Being told he is a whining sly kind of guy, thinks he is being lauded or attended to if he gets an answer, rather than some typical loser who wants to bring down people know know and can play better than him.

Phil Innes

[The Historian]

On Apr 10, 3:31 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:

> 2) In terms of chess history prowess, Taylor Kingston is a better chess historian than I am, knows more history, more specifics, and though we have from time to time disagreed about conclusions drawn from that knowledge, there is only one other person posting in this newsgroup who seems to have similar realm of knowledge.

High praise from the nearly an IM 2450. Thank you!

[Offramp]

On Sunday, 8 April 2012 16:46:54 UTC+1, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> Fischer, on the other hand, strictly observed the touch-move rule in
> a game where it cost him a point. As I recall, this was against
> Unzicker at Buenos Aires 1960. Fischer touched a pawn, then
> immediately realized to move it would lose the game. But, honor left
> him only the choice of moving it one square or two, so move it he
> did.

So what would every /other/ Grandmaster in the world have done? Ask to take the move back?

[Taylor Kingston]

If it had been, say, Matulovic, or maybe even Kasparov, he would
have taken the move back without even asking!

[The Master]

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:13:57 PM UTC-4, The Historian wrote:

> On Apr 10, 3:31 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:

> ...there is only one other person posting in this newsgroup who seems to have similar realm of knowledge.

>
> High praise from the nearly an IM 2450. Thank you!

I would assume Phillip meant Sanny, not you Mike.


-

In fact, there once was an rgc poster who claimed to know far more than everyone else here --or anywhere on Earth for that matter-- about history. He called himself Nick Bourbaki, and kept saying how all the 'respected historians' agreed with him (not the other way around, mind you) on every issue under the sun. Just try to magine such a world, in which all the well respected experts are in perfect agreement with one another.

This fellow who called himself Nick Bourbaki got into it with Larry Parr over some so-called revisionist history regarding WWII. It appeared that LP had read a certain book in which a sequence of historical events were reinterpreted in a way that did not square with the old guard viewpoint, and this NB could no way tolerate (people who imagine they 'know everything' often get hot under the collar when their fixed ideas are challenged). Anyway, it was quite amusing to watch Larry Parr desperately backpedal in his attempt to find some solid footing, when challenged by this obvious impostor.

Nick's postings were practically in a league of their own when it came to interesting reading material here in the intellectual dead zone of rgc, dominated as it was by dregs like Phil Innes, Taylor Kingston, Sanny, and Larry Parr. (Sorry Dr. Blair, but your sane and sound parsings were as dull as mud.)

{Yes, I know that Sanny may not have actually appeared on the rgc scene until later, but I like to 'sandwich' TK in between Phil Innes and Sanny for dramatic effect. Movie makers do this sort of thing all the time.}

[The Master]

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 7:12:12 PM UTC-4, Offramp wrote:

> > Fischer, on the other hand, strictly observed the touch-move rule in
> > a game where it cost him a point. As I recall, this was against
> > Unzicker at Buenos Aires 1960. Fischer touched a pawn, then
> > immediately realized to move it would lose the game. But, honor left
> > him only the choice of moving it one square or two, so move it he
> > did.
>
> So what would every /other/ Grandmaster in the world have done? Ask to take the move back?

Grandmaster Matulovic purportedly had a habit of saying 'I adjust' and then moving some other man.

And Gary Kasparov was caught on camera retracting his move in a game against Judit Polgar, when the move he was making *appeared* to lose material.

I personally witnessed grandmaster Anatoly Lein cheat in a game in Ohio, where he was getting beaten by a lower rated opponent. It worked-- he won. I suspect that complaining your opponent only won because he cheated is a hard sell when the guy has the letters 'GM' in front of his name on the wallchart, even if there were multiple witnesses.

In short, there is no point in lumping all grandmasters together and then asking what would 'they' as a group all do. Grandmasters are individuals, and some of them have it (integrity), and some don't.

As far as the above incident --famous as a result of Fischer's chess move that resulted-- is concerned, acting with integrity on one occasion is no evidence of acting with intergrity on EVERY occasion.
I recall being shocked -- like after walking across the carpet in wintertime in socks and then touching metal --when one particular opponent, who had a well-earned reputation for cheating (and stealing chess equipment) resigned a game against me. Even days afterward, I could not figure out why he had 'stopped cheating' on this one occasion, when his usual behavior demanded he at least make an attempt.
Some twenty-five years later, he quite unexpectedly re-emerged at an unrated event. Paired against him despite my having lost horribly the previous round while he won, he 'naturally' attempted to cheat against me and was only stopped by the intervention of the TD. In sum, that time when he failed to even try to cheat, he was probably just having an off day-- he was not himself.

[micky]

The Master wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 7:12:12 PM UTC-4, Offramp wrote:
>
> > > Fischer, on the other hand, strictly observed the touch-move rule in
> > > a game where it cost him a point. As I recall, this was against
> > > Unzicker at Buenos Aires 1960. Fischer touched a pawn, then
> > > immediately realized to move it would lose the game. But, honor left
> > > him only the choice of moving it one square or two, so move it he
> > > did.
> >
> > So what would every /other/ Grandmaster in the world have done? Ask to take the move back?

.
> In short, there is no point in lumping all grandmasters together and then asking what would 'they' as a group all do.

Yes!.. the Mistah has detected (as I did so too) that Alain is simply
trolling poor Taylor in an effort to embroil him in needless
argumentation..

It's quite well known that Bobby, despite his failings, was scrupulous
in observing fair play across the board..

[The Master]

On Friday, April 13, 2012 6:01:15 PM UTC-4, ChessFire wrote:

> These things are hardly worth responding to in chess terms, so I think psychological terms are indicated. Context; Taylor Kingston asks for specifics, is mocked for that as no chess historian

Technically, he is not mocked for the asking. It is the combination of asking a question to which just about everyone already knows the answer and pretending to be a chess historian, for which he is ridiculed (not mocked). To understand the subtle difference between mocking and ridiculing you need to listen to one of the old comedy teams.

> > there seems to be a serious problem with a lack of fluency in the English language, not just on their part (assumming your quotations are accurate, which is quite a leap of faith) but also on yours. To put it mildly, readers often get the impression that probably neither you nor your contact can competently
>
> type a plural?

That's easy: fish. Like say, you and Sanny. I learned to type even before the internet was invented by Al Gore.

> > communicate in English, though somehow you do appear to have managed to communicate with one another to some degree.
>
> Thank you. I should like to see your own attempt at this

At communicating with someone who does not speak English? Here's the trick: first, you find somebody who speaks both English AND their native tongue reasonably well. Then, you use that person as a translator, rather than muck up the job by biting off more than you can competently chew. Look, I have no idea as to how well you may or may not communicate orally with others, but judging by what you post here in rgc, you are very close to being illiterate. No surprise then that when you try to type out what you think you heard a non-native English speaker say in his powerful foreign accent, it comes out even worse than your own, often senseless gibberings.

As Clint Eastwood said in one of his famous movie lines: 'a man's got to know his limitations.' You are already crippled by an inability to communicate your
own thoughts clearly and succinctly. Why then even attempt to be some sort of go-between wannabee translator? You have overreached.

> or even commentary on chess — but you are a settled bitch kind of a guy, no? You complained for10 years in this newsgroup about everyone else, and you think you are not a girly kind of guy?

This is some commentary, comming from a 'man' who has frequently complained here of abuse. It's as if a part of you wants to reject such things, but another, equally powerful part of you embraces it wholeheartedly. Sort of like Jeckly and Hyde.


> ;)


**
>
B

> Those you attack all know more than you

Prove it.

1.Nh3

If any, Ng5.

Then if any, Nxf7.

Then if any, Nxd8.

Then if any, resignation accepted.

Good game (though bruttish and short, like you).


Next time you can have white.


> Larry Parr got you [to] right.


True. Before reading his BS, I was what they call a 'lurker.' A person who read the crazy mutterings in rgc and gaped in wonder at how people could be so incredibly dumb.

But it was trolls like you, Phil, who kept me going. But wait-- don't get a big head. It also took people like Louis Blair and Mike Murray to keep me here. You see, I liked to watch bozos like Larry Parr squirm, and Dr. Blair was really good at tweaking his nose, at getting under his skin. And I liked watching Bob Hyatt offer to 'drive the bus' while all the while getting grilled by people like Rolf Teuschen.

Granted, things have really gone downhill now that the 'best' rgc has to offer
is the arrogance of Taylor Kingston and your own hackneyed trolling. But who knows? It may be just a matter of time before a new 'talent' appears on the horizon-- another Nick Bourbaki or Bob Hyatt or Rolf Teuschen. Look at it this way-- things can't get much worse than they already are. They can only stay this bad or get better-- maybe MUCH better. This is what they call optimism-- always looking at the bright side of life. They even made a movie called The Life of Brian, in which one of my favorite songs, 'Always Stay on the Bright Side of Life,' appears.

As for your eternal pessimism and whining, I say 'poo on you!'

[Taylor Kingston]

On May 30, 2:37 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:13:57 PM UTC-4, The Historian wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 3:31 pm, ChessFire <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > ...there is only one other person posting in this newsgroup who seems to have similar realm of knowledge.
>
> > High praise from the nearly an IM 2450. Thank you!
>
>   I would assume Phillip meant Sanny, not you Mike.

The message to which you replied came from Neil Brennen.

[Offramp]

On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 23:45:17 UTC+1, micky wrote:

> > > So what would every /other/ Grandmaster in the world have done? Ask to take the move back?

> > In short, there is no point in lumping all grandmasters together and then asking what would 'they' as a group all do.

> It's quite well known that Bobby, despite his failings, was scrupulous
> in observing fair play across the board..

I have often heard Fischer's off-the-board play contrasted to his over-the-board play. And I have often heard that same example; that he went to play ...h6 the realised it was a very bad move and played ...h5 instead.
What would other Grandmasters do? They would take the move back and say j'adoube.

[micky]

Offramp wrote:
.
> I have often heard Fischer's off-the-board play contrasted to his over-the-board play. And I have often heard that same example; that he went to play ...h6 then realised it was a very bad move and played ...h5 instead.

Oh poor me!.. Alain is now attempting to embroil myself in needless
argumentation?.

But look here dear chap, if, as you imply, some sort of
hovering/havering offence occurred.. re: the ...h6-5 maneuvre, I must
admit it's not something "often" talked about where I'm coming from, but
I'm uncynical..

> What would other Grandmasters do? They would take the move back and say j'adoube.

I can't doubt that extremely enough!..

Btw, "j'adoube" simply means "I intend adjusting that untidily placed
piece, mine or yours, which is really pissing me off" & is a nicety & an
aesthetic & nothing to do with taking a move back..

.

[The Master]

Sorry about that, Mr. Brennen.

Except for that one line, my comments were all directed to the very-nearly-an-IM, aka Phil Innes, aka Ray Lopez, not Mike Murray or Neil Brennen.

BTW, I saw Neil's article in a fairly recent Chess Life magazine, though I did not read it. I used to read CL regularly, but not anymore. You see, it gives me the gazzzz... .

[The Master]

It depends. If 'they' were taking turns choosing the moves for 'their' side, it might happen that a Kasparov or a Matulovic is on move, in which case 'they' might do a move takeback. If on the other hand, a scrupulous grandmaster were on move, there of course would not be any such cheating on 'their' part --at least, not on that particular turn.

A side note: In reading the first 'half' of Frank Brady's newer book about Bobby Fischer, it came up that Bobby virtually NEVER paid his 'fair share' of the bill when dining out with others. It seemed to me that FB was trying to communicate the idea that BF was a user, a person who routinely used others for his own personal gain. What is surprising is that he did this when he might instead have published chess books (the route chosen by many, much weaker chessplayers)!

Years later, after Bobby got ahold of three million bucks --his share of the prize money from the 1992 exhibition match-- he apparently began picking up the tab at these outings. In fact, I seem to recall reading elsewhere that one of his female companions was sent money, in discussions regarding the possibility of Bobby having fathered her child. Recall that Bobby never had a real job. He just studied, and played, and studied, and studied chess.

[The Master]

On Saturday, April 7, 2012 9:24:06 AM UTC-4, ChessFire wrote:

> Good news for an English Player from this source, but the article goes on to describe 'the most hated rules in chess', and for sure, the non-playiing organizers seem to have introduced a slew of strange rules to the game over the past few years. I suppose they could be listed later in addition to the 2 cited in the Guardian's article which mentioned the 'zero tolerance' arriving late rule, and also suspension of the 3 repetition draw rule. Here is the URL http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/07/gawain-jones-european-championship?INTCMP=SRCH The title of this thread is a quote from Fischer


I think you mucked up the quotation a bit, Phil. Didn't Bobby say: 'That rule is for Commie cheaters, not me'? Anyway, it is a close approximation of a quotation.


> at Varna 40 years ago — and while [laugh] it is not phrased very diplomatically, still and yet, wouldn't it be better if chess players made up the rules for their own game?


In my most recent tournament, it happened that a few of the players who had entered in advance --already paid their money-- did not show up in time for the start of round one. One of these was expected to not show up, being a very busy man who travelled a lot. Another entrant had just returned the TD's phone call, saying he was too tired to make it, though he lived fairly close by. As for the third, I cannot say.

Anyway, the ideal solution to this problem was for the tournament director to change the format of the event from a Swiss to a Round Robin, so that each of those who actually showed up would be able to play every round, not getting a bye or a forfeit win. This would also improve the chances of sorting everyone out by result, as the more rounds, the more 'information' that results.

Unfortunately (from my point of view) this did not happen. The director stuck strictly by the rules, and the event had been advertized as a Swiss, not a Round Robin. He did not take a vote, nor make any attempt whatsoever to avoid the many forfeits and byes that resulted from having three no-shows. As a result, I got a forfeit win in round one, as did two others. We each sat at our respective chessboards, having made our first moves (1.d4, 1.d4, and in my game, 1.Nh3), waiting for the enemy flags to fall.

A few got a bye, a free win. But not me. I had to earn the rest of my points. I ended up beating three of the other players-- with considerable
difficulty. But because of the round one forfeit, there was one player I did not face-- a man I have not yet played. Had this been converted into a Round Robin, we would both now know who is the better man-- who should yield should we meet at some swamp, crossing over a log with staffs in hand.

I know not how important it is to do things 'as advertized,' as compared to 'as it should be done in a perfect world.' This is perhaps a mere judgement call, a matter of taste or of habit. But one thing is certain: Talk about how chessplayers would maybe do it better than organizers is just that: TALK. What scientists do is experiment. You need to run tests to see IF active participants do a better job than non-playing organizers. Otherwise you're just doing what we in the biz call 'wild speculation.' (Like, for example, insisting that the speed of light in a perfect vacuum is finite. You may well own a Hoover Windtunnel Elite Max, but you are a long way from having a perfect vacuum, from a scientific standpoint.)

There is nothing wrong with speculation. Just be aware of the difference between mere speculation and proven fact.

[Taylor Kingston]

On Jun 1, 12:29 am, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   Just be aware of the difference between mere speculation and proven fact.

Something our Greg has never mastered.

[ChessFire]

On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:13:57 PM UTC-4, The Historian wrote:

You didn't think I was referring to you did you? ROFL. I merely know the mentioned, whereas Taylor knows the dead people, so to speak.

Phil Innes

[raylopez99]

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:01:30 PM UTC-4, The Master wrote:

> I recall being shocked -- like after walking across the carpet in wintertime in socks and then touching metal --when one particular opponent, who had a well-earned reputation for cheating (and stealing chess equipment) resigned a game against me. Even days afterward, I could not figure out why he had &#39;stopped cheating&#39; on this one occasion, when his usual behavior demanded he at least make an attempt.


Did you fail to realize what he was doing? He was losing on purpose to lower his rating points so he could enter the Class C tournament and win there!


RL

[raylopez99]

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 5:57:09 PM UTC-4, The Master wrote:

> Sorry about that, Mr. Brennen.
>
> Except for that one line, my comments were all directed to the

> very-nearly-> an-IM, aka Phil Innes, aka Ray Lopez, not Mike Murray or Neil > Brennen.
>
> BTW, I saw Neil&#39;s article in a fairly recent Chess Life magazine,

> though I did not read it. I used to read CL regularly, but not anymore. You
> see, it gives me the gazzzz... .

You're such a gas, gasbag. Post one of your games, we need a laugh.

RL

[The Master]

On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 3:55:03 PM UTC-4, raylopez99 wrote:

> On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 6:01:30 PM UTC-4, The Master wrote:
>

> &gt; I recall being shocked -- like after walking across the carpet in wintertime in socks and then touching metal --when one particular opponent, who had a well-earned reputation for cheating (and stealing chess equipment) resigned a game against me. Even days afterward, I could not figure out why he had &amp;#39;stopped cheating&amp;#39; on this one occasion, when his usual behavior demanded he at least make an attempt.

>
>
> Did you fail to realize what he was doing? He was losing on purpose to lower his rating points so he could enter the Class C tournament and win there!

Impossible. This player had a rating floor of 2200, thus his sandbagging days were already far behind him.

Some time later, he made a run at 2400-- trying to achieve the very rare (here in Indiana) Senior Master title. Since I began playing in tournaments, there have been only a handful of such players in the state: Dennis Gogel, Loren Schmidt, Billy Colias (I think), and Emory Tate.

[raylopez99]

On Thursday, July 19, 2012 5:57:17 AM UTC-4, The Master wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 17, 2012 3:55:03 PM UTC-4, raylopez99 wrote:

> &gt; Did you fail to realize what he was doing? He was losing on purpose to

> lower his rating points so he could enter the Class C tournament and win
> there!
>
>
> Impossible. This player had a rating floor of 2200, thus his sandbagging
> days were already far behind him.
>

WhatyousayingMinor? That there's something called a rating floor below which I cannot ever fall, no badly how I may play, nor how many games I lose?

Where is this paradise? USCF? No wonder you pay your dues...you want that floor, you sly fellow.

RL

[The Master]

On Friday, July 20, 2012 12:33:23 AM UTC-4, Phillip_raylopez99 wrote:

> WhatyousayingMinor? That there&#39;s something called a rating floor below which I cannot ever fall, no badly how I may play, nor how many games I lose?


Sorry, Charlie: ratings floors are only for real chessplayers-- people who compete in (USCF rated) over-the-board tournaments. For example, Sam Sloan (the very man you ran from when challenged to test your chess mettle).


> Where is this paradise?


It's a bit to the west, and surrounded by salty water. They call it 'Hawaii.'

> USCF? No wonder you pay your dues...you want that floor, you sly fellow.

The USCF in fact botched my rating floor, setting it one hundred points lower than their own policy dictated. Good thing, too, for after a long layoff I came back and was unable to clock-beat anybody --even your aged grandmother-- anymore. You can guess what effect this has had on my results, since I used to frequently pressure opponents on the clock (...but no more).

Maybe some day you can become a real chessplayer too.

[raylopez99]

On Friday, July 20, 2012 5:51:49 AM UTC-4, The Master wrote:

>
> Maybe some day you can become a real chessplayer too.

Maybe I'll play in a USCF game when you post one of your games, brown for brains.

RL

[The Master]

On Monday, July 23, 2012 2:44:23 PM UTC-4, raylopez99 wrote:

> On Friday, July 20, 2012 5:51:49 AM UTC-4, The Master wrote:
> Maybe some day you can become a real chessplayer too.
>

> Maybe I&#39;ll play in a USCF game when you post one of your games, brown for brains.


Naah-- wimps like you don't dare to compete against real chessplayers. Instead, they just hide behind their 'Fritz' programs, or insist on playing remotely so they can let their machines do their chessic thinking for them.

Now take a real chessplayer, like Sam Sloan for example: he doesn't hide behind his computer, wimpily asking others to post their game scores. Instead, he goes out in the 'real world' and competes, despite his, uhh, handicaps. Mr. Sloan is in fact our rgc chess champion, probably for this very reason-- that so many would-be competitors --like yourself Phillip-- run away when challenged! A few remain silent, aware that they are outclassed by the likes of Mr. Sloan and would stand no chance against him. But so many --like you and Taylor Kingston-- are just plain scared to death at the prospect of testing your mettle OTB, a format in which you are completely 'on your own.'

There is cheap talk and then there is **action**. You talk a good game, my friend. But that is all you ever do.

[raylopez99]

On Friday, July 27, 2012 5:34:49 AM UTC-4, The Master wrote:
> On Monday, July 23, 2012 2:44:23 PM UTC-4, raylopez99 wrote:

>
> There is cheap talk and then there is **action**. You talk a good game,

Do you deny I could beat you OTB? I am nearly an IM.

RL

[raylopez99]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:06:59 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:

> Actually, I think Kennedy fully realizes how absurd, ignorant,
>
> insulting and mendacious he always is here. Like Lopez, he just enjoys
>
> the trolling.

And what do you enjoy here, if not trolling? I have posted my own brilliancies (I hope you know what that chess term of art means, and no, I'm not bragging even though I have every right to), I have analyzed classic chess games, have pointed out mistakes made by masters, and have generally advanced the charter of this newsgroup. You, by contrast, have engaged in pettiness of the kind Mr. Winter is known for but at least he has his own site and some of his stuff is actually interesting to read, unlike your posts.

RL

[Taylor Kingston]

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 7:36:10 AM UTC-7, raylopez99 wrote:
>
> I have posted my own brilliancies

(amused chuckle)

[Taylor Kingston]

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 7:36:10 AM UTC-7, raylopez99 wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:06:59 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> I have posted my own brilliancies (I hope you know what that chess term of art means, and no, I'm not bragging even though I have every right to),

An old game of mine, annotated in the style of Ray Lopez:

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 b6 3.e3 Bb7

The Queen’s Indian has always been one of the most effective antidotes to the Colle System.

4.Nbd2 c5 5.c3 e6 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.0–0 Be7 8.Re1 0–0 9.e4 cxd4 10.cxd4 Nb4

Forcing White either to give up his precious king bishop, or lock in his queen rook. The jaws of death are already beginning to close around White’s position.

11.Bb1 Rc8 12.a3 Nc6 13.e5

This rash advance is not at all as effective as White imagines it will be.

13…Nd5

Here White thought for a long time. I could tell he was just itching to play the classic Greek Gift sac 14.Bxh7+. But, being the chess genius that I am, I had anticipated this back at move 7, so that if now 14.Bxh7+ Kxh7!! 15.Ng5+ Bxg5!!!, and White’s hopes are cruelly dashed.
So he tries another devious tack to divert my bishop from the d8-h4 diagonal, little realizing that I had already anticipated his maneuver as well.

14.Nc4 Qc7 15.Nd6!?

Hopeless, but there is nothing better.

15…Bxd6! 16.exd6 Qxd6!!

Now with the bishop gone from e7, he imagines that he can play the bishop sac. My opponent should have realized that a player of my greatness would not possibly have allowed such a move if it was at all good.

17.Bxh7+ Kxh7 18.Ng5+ Kg8 19.Qh5

Eagerly expecting to mate me in short order. But …

19…Nf6!!!

A brilliant, problem-like move that finally reveals the depth of Black’s profound strategy in all its glory. The rest is merely a matter of technique.

20.Qh3 Nxd4 21.Be3 Nc2 22.Red1 Qe7 23.Rab1 Nxe3 24.fxe3 Rc5 25.Qh4 Rfc8 26.Rf1 Rc2 27.Nf3 Qc5 28.Qe1 Bxf3 29.gxf3 Qg5+ 30.Qg3 Qxe3+ 31.Kh1 Rc1 32.Rbxc1 Rxc1 33.Qb8+ Kh7 0–1


[Event "San Diego CC Rating Tournament"]
[Site "San Diego, California"]
[Date "1973.09.04"]
[White "Glass, William"]
[Black "Kingston, Taylor"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A47"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 b6 3. e3 Bb7 4. Nbd2 c5 5. c3 e6 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. O-O Be7 8. Re1
O-O 9. e4 cxd4 10. cxd4 Nb4 11. Bb1 Rc8 12. a3 Nc6 13. e5 Nd5 14. Nc4 Qc7 15. Nd6 Bxd6 16. exd6 Qxd6 17. Bxh7+ Kxh7 18. Ng5+ Kg8 19. Qh5 Nf6 20. Qh3 Nxd4 21. Be3 Nc2 22. Red1 Qe7 23. Rab1 Nxe3 24. fxe3 Rc5 25. Qh4 Rfc8 26. Rf1 Rc2 27. Nf3 Qc5 28. Qe1 Bxf3 29. gxf3 Qg5+ 30. Qg3 Qxe3+ 31. Kh1 Rc1 32. Rbxc1 Rxc1 33. Qb8+ Kh7 0-1

[Andrew B]

On 04/08/2012 19:26, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Saturday, August 4, 2012 7:36:10 AM UTC-7, raylopez99 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:06:59 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
>>
>> I have posted my own brilliancies (I hope you know what that chess term of art means, and no, I'm not bragging even though I have every right to),
>
> An old game of mine, annotated in the style of Ray Lopez:

You omitted the references to "centipawns", and the repeated comments
about how much we could learn from this masterpiece.

[The Master]

Technically, the claim --as I remember it-- was 'very nearly an IM with a rating of 2450.' (To be consistent, the rating referred to would of course be a FIDE rating.)

The only problem with this 'title' is that it existed only in your imagination. (Not that there is anything wrong with having imagination.)

In my younger days, I thrashed a good number of wannabe-IMs over the board. But if you trace my chessic history back a bit further, you will see that I once was at or 'very nearly' Sanny's rating level.

More recently, I have fallen off in chess results. I seem to frequently have problems with the clock, instead of giving most of my opponents such problems to struggle with. But I still know how to beat up on weakies-- as can clearly be seen in the crosstables. This elementary fact should give you pause... .

[The Master]

On Saturday, August 4, 2012 10:36:10 AM UTC-4, raylopez99 wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:06:59 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
> > Actually, I think Kennedy fully realizes how absurd, ignorant,
> > insulting and mendacious he always is here. Like Lopez, he just enjoys
> > the trolling.

I generally find that Mr. Kingston's 'attacks' on others read more like confessions-- accurate summations of his own posting sins. Insulting, medacious, ignorant-- these are spot on self-criticisms.

For example, I recently discussed the well-known fact of Larry Parr having promised to output a certain book, and quite typically, Taylor Kingston issued one of his trademark denials, saying he could 'not recall' any such promise. As I have noted many times in this forum, this sort of behavior is routine for Mr. Kingston. His feeble mind is what it is-- the less said about the matter, the better. Hush hush.

> And what do you enjoy here, if not trolling? I have posted my own brilliancies (I hope you know what that chess term of art means, and no, I'm not bragging even though I have every right to), I have analyzed classic chess games, have pointed out mistakes made by masters

Fritz-- is that you? Yes, you find the mistakes... AFTER the games are over, using your built-in databases and processing power **given to you by humans**. And yet you are still not world chess champion.

> and have generally advanced the charter of this newsgroup. You, by contrast, have engaged in pettiness of the kind Mr. Winter is known for but at least he has his own site and some of his stuff is actually interesting to read, unlike your posts.

Saying that 'some' of Mr. Winter's writing is interesting is like saying that some of Larry Evans' early stuff was good-- which is basically what the former said about the latter. Larry Parr took this sort of 'faint praise' as a condemnation of his longtime idol. But then, anything short of sainthood would likely be seen as an 'attack' by the poor fellow, pixilated as he was.

Personally, I find Mr. Winter's obsession over identifying 'nobodies' in the background of old photographs boring. Life is too short to waste it counting beans. But I do appreciate the fact that it is possible to rely upon much, though not all, of what Mr. Winter writes. I appreciate it BECAUSE the general standards in chess writing are, and long have been, so very low.

And speaking of low, is it possible that the two Vermontian chess geniuses, Taylor Kingston and Phillip Innes, have ever faced one another over the board?
Did they ever actually play chess, or has it always been just talk, talk, and more talk?

[Taylor Kingston]

Well, to use Ray's standard excuse, it was "blitz analysis." I didn't take but five minutes or less for all the notes.