info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Off-topic: Taylor Kingston isa mighty ignorant cud chewer and abused child
71 views
Skip to first unread message
raylopez99
Jun 8, 2012, 11:08:04 PM6/8/12
to
I realized TK is ignorant when I discussed a few years ago the famous cichlid fishes of Lake Tanganyika in relation to Neo-Lamarckism in this very group. True to form, TK gave the canonical answers of received wisdom as offered by Wikipedia, like the good Google Skolar that he is, blind to any sort of speculative thinking and plasticity of mind that greats use to think outside the box (with TK not able to work his way out of a wet paper bag). When I suggested that indeed environment can shape the genes, akin to the famous analogy of stretching giraffes leading to longer necks in future generations, TK scoffed like the ungulate that he is. But truth will out and the homo TK is now exposed for the poverty of his mind, see below.
What *else* does TK not know about, in the chess realm and otherwise? Much no doubt.
RL
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/how-dickensian-childhoods-leave-genetic-scars.aspx
How Dickensian childhoods leave genetic scars
Published on Thursday, May 17, 2012, updated Thursday, May 17, 2012
Epigenetics and childhood maltreatment
Latest Mind and Matter column from the Wall Street Journal:
Being maltreated as a child can perhaps affect you for life. It now seems the harm might reach into your very DNA. Two recently published studies found evidence of changes to the genetic material in people with experience of maltreatment. These are the tip of an iceberg of discoveries in the still largely mysterious field of "epigenetic" epidemiology-the alteration of gene expression in ways that affect later health.
According to standard theory, genes aren't supposed to change, so you can pass them on to generations untainted by your own mistakes. It now seems they can at least acquire marks of experience during life, affecting how much they are "expressed."
In one study, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie Moffitt and colleagues at Duke University and King's College London looked at sequences at the tips of chromosomes, known as telomeres, in 2,200 Britons born in 1994-95 and followed since birth. These telomeres contain repetitive sequences of DNA code "letters." The number of repeats shrinks during life in everybody, as a sort of clock for biological aging.
Studies had begun to suggest that psychosocial stress can speed up that clock by eroding telomeres more rapidly, though this research mostly relied on people's recall of maltreatment. Then Stacy Drury and colleagues at Tulane University found shorter telomeres in children who stayed in Bucharest orphanages, compared with those in foster families.
The Duke scientists have measured the effect of exposure to bullying, beating or domestic violence between the mother and her partner on telomere length between the ages of 5 and 10. Because blood samples had been taken from the Britons throughout life, it was possible to compare telomere length before and after the violence was experienced. On average, the telomeres did shrink faster in those that experienced violence than in other children.
But in some individuals they actually grew longer, so the mystery of telomeres only deepens. The next step, Dr. Moffitt told me, is to assess subjects' later health by measuring such things as memory changes, inflammation, immune function, even tooth decay. She adds: "So wish us luck!"
Another study, published earlier this year by Audrey Tyrka of Butler Hospital, Providence, R.I., and others found that the loss of a parent or maltreatment as a child resulted in greater "methylation" of some spots near a gene tied to stress response in adulthood. Methylation, the addition of a methyl group of atoms to one DNA "letter," tends to reduce the activity of nearby genes. The implication of the Butler study is that adults who recall maltreatment as children may have reduced activity of a key gene in the system that responds to the stress hormone cortisol. This may be linked to increased anxiety or depression.
These are early days in the study of epigenetics. Scientists are like people finding coins under lampposts but not knowing how many coins remain in the dark. Although the "methylome"-a complete map of where methylation happens in the genome-is being talked of, others caution that we still have almost no idea of both the causes and effects of most such changes, let alone other epigenetic effects like histone modification.
But supposing it does become possible to link bad early experience with bad later health, what then? Epigenetics demolishes the old-and always misleading-distinction between deterministic genes and a manipulable environment. To have your fate determined by your early experiences is not much different from having it determined by your genes, and when experience acts by changing genes, the distinction vanishes.
Yet fortunately, given medical advances, genetic determinism is not necessarily a life sentence, as those who wear glasses for shortsightedness or take growth hormone for growth problems can attest. The same will almost certainly be true for epigenetic determinism: Understanding the mechanism should bring forward possible cures.
By: Matt Ridley | Tagged: wall-street-journal
What *else* does TK not know about, in the chess realm and otherwise? Much no doubt.
RL
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/how-dickensian-childhoods-leave-genetic-scars.aspx
How Dickensian childhoods leave genetic scars
Published on Thursday, May 17, 2012, updated Thursday, May 17, 2012
Epigenetics and childhood maltreatment
Latest Mind and Matter column from the Wall Street Journal:
Being maltreated as a child can perhaps affect you for life. It now seems the harm might reach into your very DNA. Two recently published studies found evidence of changes to the genetic material in people with experience of maltreatment. These are the tip of an iceberg of discoveries in the still largely mysterious field of "epigenetic" epidemiology-the alteration of gene expression in ways that affect later health.
According to standard theory, genes aren't supposed to change, so you can pass them on to generations untainted by your own mistakes. It now seems they can at least acquire marks of experience during life, affecting how much they are "expressed."
In one study, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie Moffitt and colleagues at Duke University and King's College London looked at sequences at the tips of chromosomes, known as telomeres, in 2,200 Britons born in 1994-95 and followed since birth. These telomeres contain repetitive sequences of DNA code "letters." The number of repeats shrinks during life in everybody, as a sort of clock for biological aging.
Studies had begun to suggest that psychosocial stress can speed up that clock by eroding telomeres more rapidly, though this research mostly relied on people's recall of maltreatment. Then Stacy Drury and colleagues at Tulane University found shorter telomeres in children who stayed in Bucharest orphanages, compared with those in foster families.
The Duke scientists have measured the effect of exposure to bullying, beating or domestic violence between the mother and her partner on telomere length between the ages of 5 and 10. Because blood samples had been taken from the Britons throughout life, it was possible to compare telomere length before and after the violence was experienced. On average, the telomeres did shrink faster in those that experienced violence than in other children.
But in some individuals they actually grew longer, so the mystery of telomeres only deepens. The next step, Dr. Moffitt told me, is to assess subjects' later health by measuring such things as memory changes, inflammation, immune function, even tooth decay. She adds: "So wish us luck!"
Another study, published earlier this year by Audrey Tyrka of Butler Hospital, Providence, R.I., and others found that the loss of a parent or maltreatment as a child resulted in greater "methylation" of some spots near a gene tied to stress response in adulthood. Methylation, the addition of a methyl group of atoms to one DNA "letter," tends to reduce the activity of nearby genes. The implication of the Butler study is that adults who recall maltreatment as children may have reduced activity of a key gene in the system that responds to the stress hormone cortisol. This may be linked to increased anxiety or depression.
These are early days in the study of epigenetics. Scientists are like people finding coins under lampposts but not knowing how many coins remain in the dark. Although the "methylome"-a complete map of where methylation happens in the genome-is being talked of, others caution that we still have almost no idea of both the causes and effects of most such changes, let alone other epigenetic effects like histone modification.
But supposing it does become possible to link bad early experience with bad later health, what then? Epigenetics demolishes the old-and always misleading-distinction between deterministic genes and a manipulable environment. To have your fate determined by your early experiences is not much different from having it determined by your genes, and when experience acts by changing genes, the distinction vanishes.
Yet fortunately, given medical advances, genetic determinism is not necessarily a life sentence, as those who wear glasses for shortsightedness or take growth hormone for growth problems can attest. The same will almost certainly be true for epigenetic determinism: Understanding the mechanism should bring forward possible cures.
By: Matt Ridley | Tagged: wall-street-journal
The Master
Jun 9, 2012, 2:27:07 PM6/9/12
to
On Friday, June 8, 2012 11:08:04 PM UTC-4, raylopez99 wrote:
> I realized TK is ignorant when I discussed a few years ago the famous cichlid fishes of Lake Tanganyika in relation to Neo-Lamarckism in this very group. True to form, TK gave the canonical answers of received wisdom as offered by Wikipedia, like the good Google Skolar that he is
Unfortunately for this critique, Wikipedia *does in fact* note and discuss 'epigenetics' in its article on Lamarkism (linked to automatically when a user types 'neolamarkism' in the search box).
> I realized TK is ignorant when I discussed a few years ago the famous cichlid fishes of Lake Tanganyika in relation to Neo-Lamarckism in this very group. True to form, TK gave the canonical answers of received wisdom as offered by Wikipedia, like the good Google Skolar that he is
Now it may very well be that this has changed over time, that 'a few years ago,' as stated above, Wikipedia did not, and if so, then Mr. Kingston's obvious tendency to look things up in some handy reference and then present his findings here as if from perfect recall and encyclopedic knowledge of everything, would square with Mr. Innes' complaint above.
> blind to any sort of speculative thinking and plasticity of mind that greats use to think outside the box (with TK not able to work his way out of a wet paper bag).
> When I suggested that indeed environment can shape the genes, akin to the famous analogy of stretching giraffes leading to longer necks in future generations
> TK scoffed like the ungulate that he is. But truth will out and the homo TK is now exposed for the poverty of his mind, see below.
> What *else* does TK not know about, in the chess realm and otherwise? Much no doubt.
Beyond chess, I've noticed his appalling ignorance in the realm of history. For instance, when confronted with historical facts --not widely taught in our elementary schools-- regarding Eugenics, Mr. Kingston goes into denial mode, insisting that no such historical events ever happened. The fact that the Eugenics movement spread to the United States (and Canada) and was not narrowly confined to say, Nazi Germany, can be dealt with rationally, or it can be irrationally denied --like the story about the ostrich which sticks its head in the sand in order to 'escape' danger. I generally prefer the rational approach, but not everyone has the required fortitude.
I am curious as to why these two rgc'ers, Kingston and Innes-Lopez, cannot ever seem to get along. You would think that, now that they are separated by thousands of miles of terrain --mountain ranges, valleys, plains, rivers and deserts-- they would stop feuding so much. Recall the old saying, 'absence makes the heart grow fonder.'
Taylor Kingston
Jun 9, 2012, 3:01:48 PM6/9/12
to
On Jun 9, 11:27 am, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mr. Kingston very recently imagined he could transpose a line involving the move ...Bf5 --protected by a black Knight on d4-- with the Knight located on b4, wherefrom it fails to protect the Bishop from immediate capture.
Greg, do you never tire of lying? I said no such thing. Go back and
>
> Mr. Kingston very recently imagined he could transpose a line involving the move ...Bf5 --protected by a black Knight on d4-- with the Knight located on b4, wherefrom it fails to protect the Bishop from immediate capture.
check that thread ("Picayune Parr"), and you will see that I was
merely reporting what Reinfeld wrote in the 1937 edition of his book
on Keres. The 7.Qxb7 Nb5 variation was his idea, not mine.
> Chess analysis ... is clearly not Mr. Kingston's strong suit.
More accurately: honesty is not Greg Kennedy's strong suit.
The Master
Jun 9, 2012, 4:05:05 PM6/9/12
to
On Saturday, June 9, 2012 3:01:48 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> On Jun 9, 11:27 am, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mr. Kingston very recently imagined he could transpose a line involving the move ...Bf5 --protected by a black Knight on d4-- with the Knight located on b4, wherefrom it fails to protect the Bishop from immediate capture.
>
> Greg, do you never tire of lying? I said no such thing. Go back and
> check that thread ("Picayune Parr"), and you will see that I was
> merely reporting what Reinfeld wrote in the 1937 edition of his book
> on Keres. The 7.Qxb7 Nb5 variation was his idea, not mine.
'Denial' ain't just a river in Egypt!
> On Jun 9, 11:27 am, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Mr. Kingston very recently imagined he could transpose a line involving the move ...Bf5 --protected by a black Knight on d4-- with the Knight located on b4, wherefrom it fails to protect the Bishop from immediate capture.
>
> Greg, do you never tire of lying? I said no such thing. Go back and
> check that thread ("Picayune Parr"), and you will see that I was
> merely reporting what Reinfeld wrote in the 1937 edition of his book
> on Keres. The 7.Qxb7 Nb5 variation was his idea, not mine.
As I recall (there really is no need to 'research' this very recent discussion), in addition to reporting on what Fred Reinfeld wrote, Mr. Kingston added a couple of his own peculiar ideas, one of which was the supposed transposition discussed at top.
It was Taylor Kingston, not Reinfeld, who asserted that after a certain sequence of moves --which included the idea of a black Knight hopping from b4 to c2, protected by the Bishop on f5, a position would result which is identical to the one analyzed by Larry Evans in his answer to Larry Parr. Perhaps so, but the trouble is, how did this unprotected Bishop compel White to play e4 (instead of the obvious Qxf5)?
Thus, it is not true --a baldfaced lie, really-- to assert that all Mr. Kingston did was report what Reinfeld wrote-- and nothing more. Typical Kingston. Inventing bizarre strawmen to battle and twisting the facts to suit his whims seems the norm in Kingston's strange inner world.
As I recall, Reinfeld's 'other' line, as recently described in rgc by Taylor Kingston, involved the move ...Nb4, for the Knight could not legally reach b5 from its post on c6. A careless typo by Kingston, I expect.
This line **cannot reasonably transpose** to the line suggested by Larry Parr or Larry Evans in the Nov. 1970 column, because of the key move ...Bf5 --a move which can be refuted by the simple capture Qxf5. White's Queen sits on b1, and with the black knight on b4 (instead of d4), the attacking Bishop is not defended at f5. As they used to say, 'you can't get there from here.'
I understand that this is a mere technicality-- reasonableness, I mean. As such, it is powerless to stop --or even deter-- those who reject such concepts out of hand.
This bit of 'chess analysis' was offered not by Fred Reinfeld (who in fact got it exactly right, according to Houdini!), but rather by rgc's own Taylor Kingston. (As noted here before, Mr. Kingston often fails in his attempts at chess analysis.)
The analysis as discussed by Parr and Evans in Nov. 1970 Chess Life puts Reinfeld on top-- better than Evans's 'improvement,' and better than what Kingston says Reinfeld published in an earlier edition.
--
Here is Larry Parr's version of the line once again (converted by me into algebraic notation), but be warned: this time I am typing from memory and without the aid of a chessboard or a chess engine--
1.d4 d5
2.c4 e5 (Faulkbeer Countergambit)
3.Nc3 ed
4.Qxd4 Nc6
5.Qxd5 Be6
6.Qb5 a6
7.Qxb7 Nd4
8.Qe4 Nf6
9.Qb1 Bf5* (*defended by the Knight on d4)
10.e4 Nxe4
11.Nxe4 Bb4+
12.Bd2 Bxd2+
13.Kxd2 (and now, according to Parr, Reinfeld suggested ...Nc2+!)
In [not really] answering Mr. Parr's question, Larry Evans suggested an 'improvement' of his own, replacing 13.Nc2+ with 13.Nb3+ (a slightly inferior move, according to Houdini).
Taylor Kingston
Jun 9, 2012, 4:49:20 PM6/9/12
to
On Jun 9, 1:05 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 9, 2012 3:01:48 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 11:27 am, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Mr. Kingston very recently imagined he could transpose a line involving the move ...Bf5 --protected by a black Knight on d4-- with the Knight located on b4, wherefrom it fails to protect the Bishop from immediate capture.
>
> > Greg, do you never tire of lying? I said no such thing. Go back and
> > check that thread ("Picayune Parr"), and you will see that I was
> > merely reporting what Reinfeld wrote in the 1937 edition of his book
> > on Keres. The 7.Qxb7 Nb5 variation was his idea, not mine.
>
> 'Denial' ain't just a river in Egypt!
>
> As I recall (there really is no need to 'research' this very recent discussion), in addition to reporting on what Fred Reinfeld wrote, Mr. Kingston added a couple of his own peculiar ideas, one of which was the supposed transposition discussed at top.
>
> It was Taylor Kingston, not Reinfeld, who asserted that after a certain sequence of moves --which included the idea of a black Knight hopping from b4 to c2,
Check it again, Greg. You're hallucinating.
> On Saturday, June 9, 2012 3:01:48 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > On Jun 9, 11:27 am, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Mr. Kingston very recently imagined he could transpose a line involving the move ...Bf5 --protected by a black Knight on d4-- with the Knight located on b4, wherefrom it fails to protect the Bishop from immediate capture.
>
> > Greg, do you never tire of lying? I said no such thing. Go back and
> > check that thread ("Picayune Parr"), and you will see that I was
> > merely reporting what Reinfeld wrote in the 1937 edition of his book
> > on Keres. The 7.Qxb7 Nb5 variation was his idea, not mine.
>
> 'Denial' ain't just a river in Egypt!
>
> As I recall (there really is no need to 'research' this very recent discussion), in addition to reporting on what Fred Reinfeld wrote, Mr. Kingston added a couple of his own peculiar ideas, one of which was the supposed transposition discussed at top.
>
> It was Taylor Kingston, not Reinfeld, who asserted that after a certain sequence of moves --which included the idea of a black Knight hopping from b4 to c2,
> protected by the Bishop on f5, a position would result which is identical to the one analyzed by Larry Evans in his answer to Larry Parr. Perhaps so, but the trouble is, how did this unprotected Bishop compel White to play e4 (instead of the obvious Qxf5)?
>
> Thus, it is not true --a baldfaced lie, really-- to assert that all Mr. Kingston did was report what Reinfeld wrote-- and nothing more. Typical Kingston. Inventing bizarre strawmen to battle and twisting the facts to suit his whims seems the norm in Kingston's strange inner world.
>
> As I recall, Reinfeld's 'other' line, as recently described in rgc by Taylor Kingston, involved the move ...Nb4, for the Knight could not legally reach b5 from its post on c6. A careless typo by Kingston, I expect.
said about ...Nb4:
"Concerning Karv (sic -- actually Karu) - Keres, Reinfeld must have
changed his notes in the later edition Parr had. In the 1937 original
(hand-typed and mimeographed!), Reinfeld said that after 1.d4 d5 2.c4
e5 3.Nc3 exd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Qxd5 Be6 6.Qb5 a6 7.Qxb7, Black would win
with 7...Nb4, not ...Nd4."
That's a direct quote anyone here can check. Any other references I
made to that game pertained to lines stemming from 7...Nd4.
Now, I suggest you let the mescaline wear off before you post any
more.
Andrew B
Jun 9, 2012, 6:34:00 PM6/9/12
to
On 09/06/2012 21:05, The Master wrote:
> On Saturday, June 9, 2012 3:01:48 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
>> On Jun 9, 11:27 am, The Master<colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mr. Kingston very recently imagined he could transpose a line involving the move ...Bf5 --protected by a black Knight on d4-- with the Knight located on b4, wherefrom it fails to protect the Bishop from immediate capture.
>>
>> Greg, do you never tire of lying? I said no such thing. Go back and
>> check that thread ("Picayune Parr"), and you will see that I was
>> merely reporting what Reinfeld wrote in the 1937 edition of his book
>> on Keres. The 7.Qxb7 Nb5 variation was his idea, not mine.
>
>
> 'Denial' ain't just a river in Egypt!
>
> As I recall (there really is no need to 'research' this very recent discussion), in addition to reporting on what Fred Reinfeld wrote, Mr. Kingston added a couple of his own peculiar ideas, one of which was the supposed transposition discussed at top.
Though if you did "research" it - i.e. bother to scroll up a few posts -
> On Saturday, June 9, 2012 3:01:48 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
>
>> On Jun 9, 11:27 am, The Master<colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Mr. Kingston very recently imagined he could transpose a line involving the move ...Bf5 --protected by a black Knight on d4-- with the Knight located on b4, wherefrom it fails to protect the Bishop from immediate capture.
>>
>> Greg, do you never tire of lying? I said no such thing. Go back and
>> check that thread ("Picayune Parr"), and you will see that I was
>> merely reporting what Reinfeld wrote in the 1937 edition of his book
>> on Keres. The 7.Qxb7 Nb5 variation was his idea, not mine.
>
>
> 'Denial' ain't just a river in Egypt!
>
> As I recall (there really is no need to 'research' this very recent discussion), in addition to reporting on what Fred Reinfeld wrote, Mr. Kingston added a couple of his own peculiar ideas, one of which was the supposed transposition discussed at top.
you'd find out that your recollection is completely wrong, and could
save us all some time and yourself some face by not posting it.
raylopez99
Jun 10, 2012, 5:26:17 PM6/10/12
to
On Saturday, June 9, 2012 3:01:48 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
RL
The Master
Jun 12, 2012, 6:41:41 PM6/12/12
to
I merely (very very briefly) answered your own question in this thread, and then the usual Kingstonian queerness appeared in response.
By the way, it appears that there has been no response to my pointing out your apparent error regarding wikipedia's content relating to Neo-Lamarkism. Is this because you now recognize that wikipedia has 'improved' its content over time, or are you perhaps going silent as a matter of strategy-- ala Larry Parr?
As I recall, when Mr. Parr was caught in one particularly stupid gaffe, he disappeared from rgc for quite some time (hu-rah!). And then when he finally reappeared, he tested the waters to see if the same claptrap he had attempted to peddle here before would suddenly fly (it still didn't).
Parr's general idea seemed to be that even a bad plan is better than no plan at all-- as advocated by Reinfeld or Chernev, I think. Or, put another way, 'it made for a good story.'
Ray Lopez Philippe Innes remembers...
'I realized TK is ignorant when I discussed a few years ago the famous cichlid fishes of Lake Tanganyika... .'
Very, very famous in fact. As I recall, one of them was named Napolean, another Benjamin Franklin, and a third, Pope John Paul. Every year, when it comes time for the popular magazines to select the richest or most powerful men in the world, these famous fishes are barely edged out by the likes of Bill Gates, Barack Obama, and a few of the most famous movie actors. I call it favoritism, on account of this lake being so far from New York City, Washington D.C., and Hollywood. Oh, and technically of course, fishes aren't men.
raylopez99
Jun 12, 2012, 8:15:16 PM6/12/12
to
On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 6:41:41 PM UTC-4, The Master wrote:
> Well Phil-Ray, it was you who asked: 'What *else* does TK not know about, in the chess realm and otherwise? Much no doubt.'
> I merely (very very briefly) answered your own question in this thread, and then the usual Kingstonian queerness appeared in response.
>
Yes, well said.
> Well Phil-Ray, it was you who asked: 'What *else* does TK not know about, in the chess realm and otherwise? Much no doubt.'
> I merely (very very briefly) answered your own question in this thread, and then the usual Kingstonian queerness appeared in response.
>
> By the way, it appears that there has been no response to my pointing out your apparent error regarding wikipedia's content relating to Neo-Lamarkism. Is this because you now recognize that wikipedia has 'improved' its content over time, or are you perhaps going silent as a matter of strategy-- ala Larry Parr?
> As I recall, when Mr. Parr was caught in one particularly stupid gaffe, he disappeared from rgc for quite some time (hu-rah!). And then when he finally reappeared, he tested the waters to see if the same claptrap he had attempted to peddle here before would suddenly fly (it still didn't).
> Parr's general idea seemed to be that even a bad plan is better than no plan at all-- as advocated by Reinfeld or Chernev, I think. Or, put another way, 'it made for a good story.'
>
RL
Taylor Kingston
Jun 12, 2012, 8:23:46 PM6/12/12
to
On Jun 12, 3:41 pm, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> By the way, it appears that there has been no response to my pointing out your apparent error regarding wikipedia's content relating to Neo-Lamarkism. Is this because you now recognize that wikipedia has 'improved' its content over time, or are you perhaps going silent as a matter of strategy-- ala Larry Parr?
> As I recall, when Mr. Parr was caught in one particularly stupid gaffe, he disappeared from rgc for quite some time (hu-rah!). And then when he finally reappeared, he tested the waters to see if the same claptrap he had attempted to peddle here before would suddenly fly (it still didn't).
Speaking of non-responses, Greg — isn't it more than a little
>
> By the way, it appears that there has been no response to my pointing out your apparent error regarding wikipedia's content relating to Neo-Lamarkism. Is this because you now recognize that wikipedia has 'improved' its content over time, or are you perhaps going silent as a matter of strategy-- ala Larry Parr?
> As I recall, when Mr. Parr was caught in one particularly stupid gaffe, he disappeared from rgc for quite some time (hu-rah!). And then when he finally reappeared, he tested the waters to see if the same claptrap he had attempted to peddle here before would suddenly fly (it still didn't).
hypocritical for you to decry this in Parr, while doing the same
yourself? Andrew B and I have both highlighted your hallucination — or
more accurately mendacity — on the Nb4/Nd4 matter, yet you have
produced no apology, nor even any acknowledgement.
"Just ignore it and hope it goes away" — that's our Greg's
philosophy.
raylopez99
Jun 13, 2012, 11:47:40 AM6/13/12
to
On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:23:46 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> Speaking of non-responses, Greg — isn't it more than a little
> hypocritical for you to decry this in Parr, while doing the same
> yourself? Andrew B and I have both highlighted your hallucination — or
> more accurately mendacity — on the Nb4/Nd4 matter, yet you have
> produced no apology, nor even any acknowledgement.
>
> "Just ignore it and hope it goes away" — that's our Greg's
> philosophy.
I've not followed this teapot tempest, but it could well be that a simple transposition of letters is the source of this mistake: Nd4 looks like Nb4. A typo maybe? People do make typo mistakes they regret: recall the typographical error you made in the online correspondence match with me a while ago that you lost (and later tried to rehabilitate with your mendacity).
> Speaking of non-responses, Greg — isn't it more than a little
> hypocritical for you to decry this in Parr, while doing the same
> yourself? Andrew B and I have both highlighted your hallucination — or
> more accurately mendacity — on the Nb4/Nd4 matter, yet you have
> produced no apology, nor even any acknowledgement.
>
> "Just ignore it and hope it goes away" — that's our Greg's
> philosophy.
RL
Taylor Kingston
Jun 13, 2012, 12:29:43 PM6/13/12
to
On Jun 13, 8:47 am, raylopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:23:46 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > Speaking of non-responses, Greg — isn't it more than a little
> > hypocritical for you to decry this in Parr, while doing the same
> > yourself? Andrew B and I have both highlighted your hallucination — or
> > more accurately mendacity — on the Nb4/Nd4 matter, yet you have
> > produced no apology, nor even any acknowledgement.
>
> > "Just ignore it and hope it goes away" — that's our Greg's
> > philosophy.
>
> I've not followed this teapot tempest,
Obviously.
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 8:23:46 PM UTC-4, Taylor Kingston wrote:
> > Speaking of non-responses, Greg — isn't it more than a little
> > hypocritical for you to decry this in Parr, while doing the same
> > yourself? Andrew B and I have both highlighted your hallucination — or
> > more accurately mendacity — on the Nb4/Nd4 matter, yet you have
> > produced no apology, nor even any acknowledgement.
>
> > "Just ignore it and hope it goes away" — that's our Greg's
> > philosophy.
>
> I've not followed this teapot tempest,
The Master
Jun 18, 2012, 12:22:09 PM6/18/12
to
The Master
Jun 18, 2012, 12:59:26 PM6/18/12
to
On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:47:40 AM UTC-4, raylopez99 wrote:
> I've not followed this teapot tempest, but it could well be that a simple transposition of letters is the source of this mistake: Nd4 looks like Nb4. A typo maybe? People do make typo mistakes they regret: recall the typographical error you made in the online correspondence match with me a while ago that you lost (and later tried to rehabilitate with your mendacity).
I don't believe this is possible, for the simple reason that a transposition is not possible by any sequence of *reasonable* moves, due to White capturing the Bishop on f5 with his Queen (which is at b1). Only with the Knight on d4 (from which square it protects f5) is it reasonably possible to get the Bishop there, and thereafter transpose if the Knight then hops to c2.
> I've not followed this teapot tempest, but it could well be that a simple transposition of letters is the source of this mistake: Nd4 looks like Nb4. A typo maybe? People do make typo mistakes they regret: recall the typographical error you made in the online correspondence match with me a while ago that you lost (and later tried to rehabilitate with your mendacity).
Anyway, the letter submitted to Evans by Larry Parr focused on the Nd4 line, as is obvious from Larry Evans' suggested 'improvement' of N-b3 (note how the Knight cannot get to b3 in one hop from b4).
And besides, you must remember that the letter came from Larry Parr-- a man who did not make careless typos but rather revelled in correcting those made by others. He once claimed that during his stint as Chess Life editor, there were virtually no spelling errors that he let slip by (which is hard to believe as being literally true, with all his later harping about the difficulties of meeting deadlines).
Speaking of regrets, Phillip, do you regret having accepted Mr. Kingston's challenge in which you were to take the obviously inferior side, also the inferior chess engine, and as it turned out, in which he was additionally getting help from a (human) third party? This arrangement seems quite unfair on its face, though certainly not uncharacteristic of Taylor Kingston.
Ideally, the player defending a clearly inferior position ought to get to use the superior chess engine, while the player attempting to win the superior side ought to have to work hard --using his own brains-- in an effort to outwit that monstrous brute (I am referring to Rybka or Houdini, not to you Philip-Ray).
Taylor Kingston
Jun 18, 2012, 2:05:21 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 9:59 am, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Speaking of regrets, Phillip, do you regret having accepted Mr. Kingston's challenge in which you were to take the obviously inferior side, also the inferior chess engine, and as it turned out, in which he was additionally getting help from a (human) third party? This arrangement seems quite unfair on its face, though certainly not uncharacteristic of Taylor Kingston.
> Ideally, the player defending a clearly inferior position ought to get to use the superior chess engine, while the player attempting to win the superior side ought to have to work hard --using his own brains-- in an effort to outwit that monstrous brute (I am referring to Rybka or Houdini, not to you Philip-Ray).
Greg, in case you don't remember (and you seldom remember anything
>
> Speaking of regrets, Phillip, do you regret having accepted Mr. Kingston's challenge in which you were to take the obviously inferior side, also the inferior chess engine, and as it turned out, in which he was additionally getting help from a (human) third party? This arrangement seems quite unfair on its face, though certainly not uncharacteristic of Taylor Kingston.
> Ideally, the player defending a clearly inferior position ought to get to use the superior chess engine, while the player attempting to win the superior side ought to have to work hard --using his own brains-- in an effort to outwit that monstrous brute (I am referring to Rybka or Houdini, not to you Philip-Ray).
correctly), the point of that exercise was to determine the objective
truth of the Anand-Carlsen position with regard to a certain
variation. It was not a contest between people, or between engines —
not a contest of any sort, at least as far as I was concerned . It
was just an exercise in chess analysis, to determine whether Kavalek
was right to say that Black was probably losing in the line 28...Rc7
29.Qd5+ Kh8 30.Qf7.
Ray thought Kavalek was wrong, I thought Kavalek was right. The
collaborative effort we played out here — involving Ray, Dowd, myself
and our computers — established, I think, that Kavalek was right. You
can read about it here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles400.pdf
Taylor Kingston
Jun 18, 2012, 2:36:35 PM6/18/12
to
On Jun 18, 9:59 am, The Master <colossalblun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:47:40 AM UTC-4, raylopez99 wrote:
> > I've not followed this teapot tempest, but it could well be that a simple transposition of letters is the source of this mistake: Nd4 looks like Nb4. A typo maybe? People do make typo mistakes they regret: recall the typographical error you made in the online correspondence match with me a while ago that you lost (and later tried to rehabilitate with your mendacity).
>
> I don't believe this is possible, for the simple reason that a transposition is not possible by any sequence of *reasonable* moves, due to White capturing the Bishop on f5 with his Queen (which is at b1). Only with the Knight on d4 (from which square it protects f5) is it reasonably possible to get the Bishop there, and thereafter transpose if the Knight then hops to c2.
As I said, Greg, you seldom remember anything correctly. The only
> On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:47:40 AM UTC-4, raylopez99 wrote:
> > I've not followed this teapot tempest, but it could well be that a simple transposition of letters is the source of this mistake: Nd4 looks like Nb4. A typo maybe? People do make typo mistakes they regret: recall the typographical error you made in the online correspondence match with me a while ago that you lost (and later tried to rehabilitate with your mendacity).
>
> I don't believe this is possible, for the simple reason that a transposition is not possible by any sequence of *reasonable* moves, due to White capturing the Bishop on f5 with his Queen (which is at b1). Only with the Knight on d4 (from which square it protects f5) is it reasonably possible to get the Bishop there, and thereafter transpose if the Knight then hops to c2.
time I mentioned transposition in the "Picayune Parr" thread, it was
in connection with two lines that /both/ derived from 7...Nd4. Here is
the relevant quote:
"As for why Evans didn't directly answer Parr's question, maybe he
thought he was answering it by giving the variation 13...Nb3+ 14.Ke1
Nxa1. Relatively best then for White seems to be 15.Bd3, when we have
transposed to the same position as after 13...Nc2+ 14.Bd3 Nxa1
15.Ke1."
The only mention I made of 7...Nb4 was to point out that Reinfeld
gave it in the original 1937 edition of his book on Keres. That move
did not figure in any of the other variations Parr, Evans, you or I
discussed.
You've already been corrected on this, not just by me but also
Andrew B. You only make yourself look all the more foolish by
continuing to contradict clearly evident facts.
0 new messages