Fischer-Spassky 1992 (Game 9) - Ruy Lopez Exchange ??
RookHouse
pulled off a 21-move victory using his patented and rarely seen Ruy
Lopez Exchange Variation.
Read the whole article here: http://www.rookhouse.com/blog/?p=110
help bot
> Game # 9 of the 1992 Fischer-Spassky match was memorable in that Bobby
> pulled off a 21-move victory using his patented and rarely seen Ruy
> Lopez Exchange Variation.
The story was that someone (was it Ken Smith, perhaps?)
had sent BF a bunch of chess books, among them being
the one by GM Andy Soltis on the exchange Ruy Lopez;
if I recall correctly, it was GM Yasser Seirawan who pointed
out that this entire line was given by GM Soltis as winning
for White in that very book.
What I find surprising is that anyone -- not just Boris
Spassky, in 1992 -- would play this line as Black, for it
wreaks. In particular, the placement of Black's KB on
d6, as though it were a deformed pawn, is as ugly as
sin. When I'm done looking at the Danish, I may run
this through Fritz to see if there is any really obvious
improvement for Black. It is also quite possible that I
have the Andy Soltis book; if so, I may try to verify that
this whole line was well-known-- well, to everyone but
BS, that is.
-- help bot
ttk...@gmail.com
> On Feb 1, 7:07 pm, RookHouse <mor...@rookhouse.com> wrote:
>
> > Game # 9 of the 1992 Fischer-Spassky match was memorable in that Bobby
> > pulled off a 21-move victory using his patented and rarely seen Ruy
> > Lopez Exchange Variation.
>
> The story was that someone (was it Ken Smith, perhaps?)
> had sent BF a bunch of chess books, among them being
> the one by GM Andy Soltis on the exchange Ruy Lopez;
That's quite conceivable; in 1992 Chess Digest (which Ken Smith ran)
published "Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation" by Andrew
Soltis. A second edition came out in 1995, with the title "Fischer's
Weapon: Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation."
A bit less plausible, though, is the idea that Fischer would find
advice from someone like Soltis useful. RJF had been playing the
Exchange Ruy as far back as 1966, and was undefeated with it, scoring
something like +7 -0 =1 in serious games. However, it's not impossible
for Soltis to have found a TN Fischer liked.
> if I recall correctly, it was GM Yasser Seirawan who pointed
> out that this entire line was given by GM Soltis as winning
> for White in that very book.
> What I find surprising is that anyone -- not just Boris
> Spassky, in 1992 -- would play this line as Black, for it
> wreaks.
"Wreaks" what? "Wreak" is a transitive verb, bot -- it requires a
direct object, e.g "We will wreak havoc." It's your English that
reeks.
> In particular, the placement of Black's KB on
> d6, as though it were a deformed pawn, is as ugly as
> sin.
Well, it can't be all that bad. Checking the position after 11...Bd6
on CB MegaDatabase 2005 yields 100 games in this line from 1971 to
2004, and overall Black actually has a slight plus, +26 -25 =49.
> When I'm done looking at the Danish, I may run
> this through Fritz to see if there is any really obvious
> improvement for Black. It is also quite possible that I
> have the Andy Soltis book;
That would be a first -- Greg *_actually having_* a book he's
talking about. While you're scanning your shelves, Greg, see if that
elusive Petrosian book shows up!
> if so, I may try to verify that
My Gawd, another first -- Greg actually trying to verify something!
RookHouse
>
> That's quite conceivable; in 1992 Chess Digest (which Ken Smith ran)
> published "Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation" by Andrew
> Soltis. A second edition came out in 1995, with the title "Fischer's
> Weapon: Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation."
> A bit less plausible, though, is the idea that Fischer would find
> advice from someone like Soltis useful. RJF had been playing the
> Exchange Ruy as far back as 1966, and was undefeated with it, scoring
> something like +7 -0 =1 in serious games. However, it's not impossible
> for Soltis to have found a TN Fischer liked.
>
The most recent occassion that Fischer had played this was actually
against Spassky in 1972. Spassky managed a draw in that particular
game, so you would think he would have played the variation a little
better than he did in 1992.
[Event "Reykjavik-Wch"]
[Site "Reykjavik-Wch"]
[Date "1972.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "16"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Robert James Fischer"]
[Black "Boris Spassky"]
[ECO "C69"]
[PlyCount "120"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O f6 6. d4 Bg4
7. dxe5 Qxd1 8. Rxd1 fxe5 9. Rd3 Bd6 10. Nbd2 Nf6 11. Nc4 Nxe4
12. Ncxe5 Bxf3 13. Nxf3 O-O 14. Be3 b5 15. c4 Rab8 16. Rc1
bxc4 17. Rd4 Rfe8 18. Nd2 Nxd2 19. Rxd2 Re4 20. g3 Be5
21. Rcc2 Kf7 22. Kg2 Rxb2 23. Kf3 c3 24. Kxe4 cxd2 25. Rxd2
Rb5 26. Rc2 Bd6 27. Rxc6 Ra5 28. Bf4 Ra4+ 29. Kf3 Ra3+ 30. Ke4
Rxa2 31. Bxd6 cxd6 32. Rxd6 Rxf2 33. Rxa6 Rxh2 34. Kf3 Rd2
35. Ra7+ Kf6 36. Ra6+ Ke7 37. Ra7+ Rd7 38. Ra2 Ke6 39. Kg2 Re7
40. Kh3 Kf6 41. Ra6+ Re6 42. Ra5 h6 43. Ra2 Kf5 44. Rf2+ Kg5
45. Rf7 g6 46. Rf4 h5 47. Rf3 Rf6 48. Ra3 Re6 49. Rf3 Re4
50. Ra3 Kh6 51. Ra6 Re5 52. Kh4 Re4+ 53. Kh3 Re7 54. Kh4 Re5
55. Rb6 Kg7 56. Rb4 Kh6 57. Rb6 Re1 58. Kh3 Rh1+ 59. Kg2 Ra1
60. Kh3 Ra4 1/2-1/2
help bot
> That's quite conceivable; in 1992 Chess Digest (which Ken Smith ran)
> published "Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation" by Andrew
> Soltis. A second edition came out in 1995, with the title "Fischer's
> Weapon: Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation."
> A bit less plausible, though, is the idea that Fischer would find
> advice from someone like Soltis useful.
You make the mistake of assuming that for any
given author/hack, all his work is of the same
quality.
In reality, even lazy writers like AS can, at times,
produce good stuff. And if it turns out that this
entire line was in AS's book from 1992, as the
Yaz recounted, you'll have to eat your words. But
odds are I may not have the right edition to confirm
this, one way or the other; I may have the 1995
edition you mentioned. :>(
> RJF had been playing the
> Exchange Ruy as far back as 1966, and was undefeated with it, scoring
> something like +7 -0 =1 in serious games. However, it's not impossible
> for Soltis to have found a TN Fischer liked.
I think it is obvious that BF's success with this
line is a BIG reason why an American writer
like AS would decide to write a book about it.
> > if I recall correctly, it was GM Yasser Seirawan who pointed
> > out that this entire line was given by GM Soltis as winning
> > for White in that very book.
> > What I find surprising is that anyone -- not just Boris
> > Spassky, in 1992 -- would play this line as Black, for it
> > wreaks.
>
> "Wreaks" what? "Wreak" is a transitive verb, bot -- it requires a
> direct object, e.g "We will wreak havoc." It's your English that
> reeks.
You cannot use a dash or hyphen to connect
two sentences, as above. You need to pick
either a period (how droll) or else the semicolon,
as I do to impress the ignorant masses. Nearly-
IMnes prefers trying to impress them with name-
dropping and invented phone calls; it's a matter
of personal preference, I suppose.
Yes, yes... that is what I must have meant:
that the line "wreaks havoc" with Black's score;
that he scores poorly in this line-- against BF. ;>D
> > In particular, the placement of Black's KB on
> > d6, as though it were a deformed pawn, is as ugly as
> > sin.
>
> Well, it can't be all that bad. Checking the position after 11...Bd6
> on CB MegaDatabase 2005 yields 100 games in this line from 1971 to
> 2004, and overall Black actually has a slight plus, +26 -25 =49.
Were all of those games against Bobby
Fischer? My view is that Boris Spassky
*knew in advance* he who he would be
playing against in the 1992 match, so you
ought to take that into account here; this
is no putz vs. putz affair.
> > When I'm done looking at the Danish, I may run
> > this through Fritz to see if there is any really obvious
> > improvement for Black. It is also quite possible that I
> > have the Andy Soltis book;
>
> That would be a first -- Greg *_actually having_* a book he's
> talking about. While you're scanning your shelves, Greg, see if that
> elusive Petrosian book shows up!
Look Shirley, I never said I had my chess
books on shelves; in fact, I no doubt have
mentioned somewhere that the vast majority
of them are stored away, in boxes or more
recently, in plastic totes. I'm still working on
getting rid of the ones I don't like, and the
process could take years.
> > if so, I may try to verify that
>
> My Gawd, another first -- Greg actually trying to verify something!
One notes that *you*, Shirley, aren't doing
the job. Here are my best guesses at where
I most likely read about this:
1. No Regrets, by Yasser Seirawan
2. Inside Chess, in 1992
You can safely eliminate Chess Lies, for
they may not have reported on the match
until around 1993 A.D., and even then, their
ace reporters would likely have credited BF
for "inventing" the Ruy Lopez... .
-- help bot
ttk...@gmail.com
> On Feb 2, 9:38 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > That's quite conceivable; in 1992 Chess Digest (which Ken Smith ran)
> > published "Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation" by Andrew
> > Soltis. A second edition came out in 1995, with the title "Fischer's
> > Weapon: Winning with the Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation."
> > A bit less plausible, though, is the idea that Fischer would find
> > advice from someone like Soltis useful.
>
> You make the mistake of assuming that for any
> given author/hack, all his work is of the same
> quality.
I made no such mistake. As I wrote here: http://www.chesscafe.com/text/sovietchess.txt,
I'm quite familiar with Soltis' uneven output: "American grandmaster
Andrew Soltis is a prolific but somewhat
uneven writer. His works on openings have ranged from forgettable
small pamphlets to respectable full-length treatises."
> In reality, even lazy writers like AS can, at times,
> produce good stuff. And if it turns out that this
> entire line was in AS's book from 1992, as the
> Yaz recounted, you'll have to eat your words.
No words to eat. I don't discount the possibility that Fischer did
use a Soltis recommendation. It's certainly far more plausible than,
say, the bribe offer to Petrosian. I'd just like to see some
verification of it.
> I think it is obvious that BF's success with this
> line is a BIG reason why an American writer
> like AS would decide to write a book about it.
No one is dispuiting that Soltis wrote a book about the Exchange
Ruy; the question is: did Fischer actually read it and employ one of
its recommendations against Spassky?
> > That would be a first -- Greg *_actually having_* a book he's
> > talking about. While you're scanning your shelves, Greg, see if that
> > elusive Petrosian book shows up!
>
> Look Shirley,
As Leslie Nielsen pointed out to Julie Hagerty in "Airplane!", my
name ain't Shirley.
> I never said I had my chess
> books on shelves; in fact, I no doubt have
> mentioned somewhere that the vast majority
> of them are stored away, in boxes or more
> recently, in plastic totes.
Ah, I see -- you haven't paid your storage bill, and they've been
auctioned off! Was it a Jewish conspiracy?
> > > if so, I may try to verify that
>
> > My Gawd, another first -- Greg actually trying to verify something!
>
> One notes that *you*, Shirley, aren't doing
> the job.
Um, Greg, it's not my job to verify your claims -- it's your job.
> Here are my best guesses at where
> I most likely read about this:
>
> 1. No Regrets, by Yasser Seirawan
>
> 2. Inside Chess, in 1992
I've got a Hamilton says that's as far as Greg goes in getting this
verified. Any takers? And an Andy (Jackson, not Soltis) that says he
never finds that elusive Petrosian book that supposedly claims PT was
offered a bribe to take a dive to RJF.
help bot
> > > A bit less plausible, though, is the idea that Fischer would find
> > > advice from someone like Soltis useful.
>
> > You make the mistake of assuming that for any
> > given author/hack, all his work is of the same
> > quality.
>
> I made no such mistake. As I wrote here:http://www.chesscafe.com/text/sovietchess.txt,
> I'm quite familiar with Soltis' uneven output: "American grandmaster
> Andrew Soltis is a prolific but somewhat
> uneven writer. His works on openings have ranged from forgettable
> small pamphlets to respectable full-length treatises."
I haven't read his book on the Ruy Lopez, but
I have read some review which pointed to it as
an example of one of AS's better quality works.
I believed that account because it seemed to
be objective. My own experience has been that
AS is a very lazy and shallow author, who
routinely "ducks" the best lines for the opponent,
and who fills pages with "white space" as if hell-
bent on killing trees in vain.
> > In reality, even lazy writers like AS can, at times,
> > produce good stuff. And if it turns out that this
> > entire line was in AS's book from 1992, as the
> > Yaz recounted, you'll have to eat your words.
>
> No words to eat. I don't discount the possibility that Fischer did
> use a Soltis recommendation. It's certainly far more plausible than,
> say, the bribe offer to Petrosian. I'd just like to see some
> verification of it.
Okay: have you tried actually reading what
Yasser Seirawan wrote on the match? That
would be a good place to start looking since
I do not talk to these famous GMs in person
or over the phone, like nearly-IMnes.
If you expect me to quote from memory a
book* I read fifteen or so years back, you may
be overestimating me just a tad. Better to
just look at the book; check the facts for
yourself.
(* or the magazine Inside Chess)
> > I think it is obvious that BF's success with this
> > line is a BIG reason why an American writer
> > like AS would decide to write a book about it.
>
> No one is dispuiting that Soltis wrote a book about the Exchange
> Ruy; the question is: did Fischer actually read it and employ one of
> its recommendations against Spassky?
Yasser Seirawan believed he did, and was
objective enough to point this out in response
to the loonies who were crediting BF in their
game annotations, for finding it all OTB. He
seemed to know what he was talking about,
although corrupted in the end by silly notions
that Gary Kasparov should be worried-- very
worried-- about retaining his title. LOL!
I cannot easily differentiate between what
I read in Inside Chess versus No Regrets;
at my age, it is hard enough just
remembering to zip up my pants.
> > I never said I had my chess
> > books on shelves; in fact, I no doubt have
> > mentioned somewhere that the vast majority
> > of them are stored away, in boxes or more
> > recently, in plastic totes.
>
> Ah, I see -- you haven't paid your storage bill, and they've been
> auctioned off! Was it a Jewish conspiracy?
Well, let me see... if they were to somehow
manage to get top-dollar for my aging books,
it still would not merit the attention of the
World-Wide Jewish Conspiracy League of Evil
Villains, IMO. They tend to go for the good
stuff-- like Bobby Fischer's private collection.
> I've got a Hamilton
Oh, gawd-- is this one of those tricky tests
to see if I can remember which coin has a
picture of Mr. Hamilton on it? Er... not the
penny-- that's Mr. Lincoln. (I hope this guy
is not being grossly unfair, and picking a
large-denomination bill I've never even seen... .)
> says that's as far as Greg goes in getting this
> verified. Any takers? And an Andy (Jackson
Jackson... Jackson-- he was in a song:
In 1814 we took a little trip,
along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans,
and met the bloody British in a town by New Orleans.
[refrain]
Believe it or not, I do know and have occasionally
seen the bill on which Andrew Jackson (not Andy
Soltis) appears. It's the same one that used to
buy two decent chess books in my day, but now
won't get you anything more than a Eric Schiller
data-dump and maybe a score-pad.
> not Soltis) that says he
> never finds that elusive Petrosian book that supposedly claims PT was
> offered a bribe to take a dive to RJF.
Make lots of money, while you can! At the
rate he's going, "fearless-leader" Taylor Kingston
will have to come out of retirement soon, and
back to work to make ends meet.
The funny part is that TP's book is so easy
to find, because he wrote so *few* (in English,
anyway). But even if the side-shifting nay-
sayers had the book, they would likely go
into DEEP-denial mode, accusing the man
of paranoia, anti-Americanism, or my
favorite, anti-semitism; I like that one best
because BF vehemently denied being a Jew,
but his accomplishment landed him in the
books as one nonetheless; even his well-
known involvement with the WWCG seemed
to made no difference.
Wanna bet on the deep-denial knee-jerk
response? Wanna bet on who jumps into
the river in Egypt when things start to heat
up a bit? LOL!
-- help bot
ttk...@gmail.com
On Feb 2, 5:26 pm, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Okay: have you tried actually reading what
> Yasser Seirawan wrote on the match?
Yep, read "No Regrets" about 3-4 years ago. Don't remember anything
about Soltis in it, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
> That
> would be a good place to start looking since
> I do not talk to these famous GMs in person
> or over the phone, like nearly-IMnes.
I know Yasser; we've exchanged many e-mails and have met once. A
very nice guy. I could e-mail him any time, but in this case I'm not
trying to prove anything he said -- you are.
> If you expect me to quote from memory a
> book* I read fifteen or so years back, you may
> be overestimating me just a tad. Better to
> just look at the book; check the facts for
> yourself.
>
> (* or the magazine Inside Chess)
Does your mother still do your laundry and pick up your room for
you? Maybe you can get her to look it up for you. Don't ask me.
> Jackson... Jackson-- he was in a song:
>
> In 1814 we took a little trip,
> along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
> We took a little bacon and we took a little beans,
> and met the bloody British in a town by New Orleans.
Incorrect: It's "And we caught the bloody British in the town of New
Orleans."
> [refrain]
Well, we fired our guns and the British kep' a comin'
Wasn't nigh as many as they was a while ago
Fired once more and they begin to runnin'
Down the Mississippi to the the Gulf of Mexico
Good ol' Johnny Horton. My favorite verse has always been this one:
Well we fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down
So we grabbed an alligator and we fired another round
We stuffed his head with cannonballs and powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.
> The funny part is that TP's book is so easy
> to find, because he wrote so *few* (in English,
> anyway).
For a book that's so easy to find, you seem to have great difficulty
even telling us its title, let alone citing any validation of your
bribery claim.
Mike Murray
<nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>at my age, it is hard enough just
>remembering to zip up my pants.
It's time to worry when you forget to zip 'em down.
ttk...@gmail.com
Amazing what you can find on YouTube. Here's Johnny Horton and "The
Battle of New Orleans" from 1958:
help bot
> > Okay: have you tried actually reading what
> > Yasser Seirawan wrote on the match?
>
> Yep, read "No Regrets" about 3-4 years ago. Don't remember anything
> about Soltis in it, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Well, my memories on this subject date back
quite a bit further than that, so perhaps it was
in Inside Chess then (from 1992). Of course,
there is another possibility-- and I don't mean
that my memory is far superior to yours; what
if you went into de-Nile when you read that BF
had been handed the winning moves on a silver
platter? What if you didn't /want/ to register
that thought, and just blocked it out?
> > That
> > would be a good place to start looking since
> > I do not talk to these famous GMs in person
> > or over the phone, like nearly-IMnes.
>
> I know Yasser; we've exchanged many e-mails and have met once. A
> very nice guy. I could e-mail him any time, but in this case I'm not
> trying to prove anything he said -- you are.
Wrong. I have no desire to "prove" this to
be a fact, for I know it is whether the lunatic
fringers like it or not. That's probably why I
keep deferring the inevitable, hoping and
preying (spelling *is* correct) that Taylor
Kingston and his chums will somehow
manage to make a manly denial-- you know,
one where there is no handy escape-hatch
at their yellow backs.
You see, it is not enough to merely educate
the ignorant; they need to be put in their lowly
places, and this can best be done by coaxing
the fools out on a fragile limb, and only THEN
breaking out the ax; it also helps if the water
is icy cold!
> Does your mother still do your laundry and pick up your room for
> you?
My room? You mean to say that some bots
have their very own rooms? That's not fair!
> Incorrect: It's "And we caught the bloody British in the town of New
> Orleans."
Sorry about that; my 8-track tape player was
broken and after thirty+ years, the memory
fades (as Larry Evans famously put it).
> For a book that's so easy to find, you seem to have great difficulty
> even telling us its title, let alone citing any validation of your
> bribery claim.
My poor, ignorant friend: the claim is Tigran
Petrosian's, not mine. You would of course
know that, if you knew anything much about
chess. Still, you have excellent taste in
music; the alligators might take some offense
and of course it is not politically correct with
the animal-rights people, aka "tree-huggers",
but then, that's their problem. Back in my
day, 'gators were so numerous one could
cross the mighty Mississippi by leaping from
one to the other.
Don't deny the legacy of Tigran Petrosian,
just to protect delusions regarding Bobby
Fischer, the myth. The key is to separate
the two-- man from myth.
-- help bot
help bot
> > For a book that's so easy to find, you seem to have great difficulty
> > even telling us its title, let alone citing any validation of your
> > bribery claim.
>
> My poor, ignorant friend: the claim is Tigran
> Petrosian's, not mine. You would of course
> know that, if you knew anything much about
> chess. Still, you have excellent taste in
> music; the alligators might take some offense
> and of course it is not politically correct with
> the animal-rights people, aka "tree-huggers",
> but then, that's their problem. Back in my
> day, 'gators were so numerous one could
> cross the mighty Mississippi by leaping from
> one to the other.
>
> Don't deny the legacy of Tigran Petrosian,
> just to protect delusions regarding Bobby
> Fischer, the myth. The key is to separate
> the two-- man from myth.
It looks like most of the lunatic-fringers have
cut and run-- including fearless leader, TK. LOL!
Here it is again, in simple English this time:
Petrosian^s Legacy
Remember: there are crocks in de-Nile, and
maybe even hippos. Yes, I think Humphrey
Bogart and Catharine Hepburn experienced
that firsthand. Those critters may be the
reason bull sharks are not more fond of the
river. Just avoid denial and you^ll be alright;
take it like a man-- or, as the movie trailer
said when they made yet another remake of
The Naked Gun: "just accept it".
-- help bot
help bot
> <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >at my age, it is hard enough just
> >remembering to zip up my pants.
>
> It's time to worry when you forget to zip 'em down.
Hmm.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, here it is: I dredged through my closet
and found that I *do* have the correct edition
to verify Yasser Seirawan's claim that Andy
Soltis covered this whole line in the 1992
edition of his book on the Exchange Ruy
Lopez, which it was claimed, was sent to
BF gratis, before the match.
Now, I would like to point out that right on
the cover of this book, in big, bold letters are
these words: "Fischer's Weapon". Kind of
hard to overlook, when preparing for a multi-
million dollar match, huh?
Chapter four covers virtually the entire game,
with BF's 15. e5! and 17. Ne4! all noted as
having been played before. Even the winning
Knight sac' on c5 was mentioned, repeatedly.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A very quick computer analysis pinpoints
Black's move 17 as a serious error, but this
may not hold up after a deeper look.
The computer prefers White all the way,
but the numbers are relatively small at first,
as with many other lines. Also, after a
brief look, the computer seems to like
8. Ne2 -- a move Andy Soltis strongly
disliked. I will give this line a deeper look,
and report my findings.
-- help bot
P.S.: the dufus may not want to pay off
his bets yet; somebody needs to rummage
through Inside Chess from 1992, to show
that it was indeed YS who related the story,
and not someone else. As far as I can
remember, nobody else seemed to have
any objectivity whatsoever regarding BF,
so even if, say, Larry Parr had known, he'd
likely have covered it up.
The "final answer" is in regarding just how
worried GK needed to be regarding his
world championship title: as expected, not
at all.
ttk...@gmail.com
>
> Okay, here it is: I dredged through my closet
> and found that I *do* have the correct edition
> to verify Yasser Seirawan's claim that Andy
> Soltis covered this whole line in the 1992
> edition of his book on the Exchange Ruy
> Lopez, which it was claimed, was sent to
> BF gratis, before the match.
>
> Now, I would like to point out that right on
> the cover of this book, in big, bold letters are
> these words: "Fischer's Weapon". Kind of
> hard to overlook, when preparing for a multi-
> million dollar match, huh?
>
> Chapter four covers virtually the entire game,
> with BF's 15. e5! and 17. Ne4! all noted as
> having been played before. Even the winning
> Knight sac' on c5 was mentioned, repeatedly.
This sounds a bit different from your original claim, Greg. Back on
February 2nd you wrote "The story was that someone (was it Ken Smith,
perhaps?) had sent BF a bunch of chess books, among them being the one
by GM Andy Soltis on the exchange Ruy Lopez; if I recall correctly, it
was GM Yasser Seirawan who pointed out that this entire line was given
by GM Soltis as winning for White in that very book."
This makes it sound like Fischer got his winning line from Soltis,
but now it sounds like you are saying Soltis mentions the 1992 Fischer-
Spassky game, in which Fischer could not have read the Soltis book
before the match.
Which came first? Could you clarify the chronology here?
> P.S.: the dufus may not want to pay off
> his bets yet; somebody needs to rummage
> through Inside Chess from 1992, to show
> that it was indeed YS who related the story,
> and not someone else.
The first bet (for $10.00) was as follows:
>> Here are my best guesses at where I most likely read about this:
>> 1. No Regrets, by Yasser Seirawan
>> 2. Inside Chess, in 1992
> I've got a Hamilton says that's as far as Greg goes in getting this verified.
Checking the Soltis book has no bearing on the matter. To satisfy
the terms of the bet, you would have to cite "No Regrets" and/or
Inside Chess.
>> It looks like most of the lunatic-fringers have
>> cut and run-- including fearless leader, TK. LOL!
No, Greg, I've been here pretty much every day. I have a new ID
because I opened a gmail address, but I'm still TK.
>> Here it is again, in simple English this time:
>> Petrosian^s Legacy
Again, that does not satisfy the terms of the bet. To quote myself:
"And an Andy (Jackson, not Soltis) that says he never finds that
elusive Petrosian book that supposedly claims PT was offered a bribe
to take a dive to RJF."
Merely to give a title does not establish what the book actually
says. You will have to cite the relevant passage(s) that validate
your claim, giving page number(s).
help bot
> > Chapter four covers virtually the entire game,
> > with BF's 15. e5! and 17. Ne4! all noted as
> > having been played before. Even the winning
> > Knight sac' on c5 was mentioned, repeatedly.
> This makes it sound like Fischer got his winning line from Soltis,
> but now it sounds like you are saying Soltis mentions the 1992 Fischer-
> Spassky game, in which Fischer could not have read the Soltis book
> before the match.
> Which came first? Could you clarify the chronology here?
Typically, the naysayers are confused, if not
completely submerged in de-Nile.
It is clear that this book was sent to BF before
his 1992 match with BS, and despite strained
attempts at denial, nearly every move was given
as already played before; I can cite specific
games, if the naysayers can stomach the facts.
Now, I don't want to sound too hard on BS for
not having studied these games; after all, some
of the players in question were relatively weak,
and I would imagine that BS would have likely
preferred to study the games of the world's top
players instead. But it is clear BS was playing
lines which had already been "busted", which
does not impress. This is particularly crucial
in assessing desperate attempts at denial of
the man's then-current rating; obviously, even
a former world champ is not going to have
stellar results if he falls into known traps like
this one. The real problem was perhaps a
tendency to draw peacefully with other 2500
players-- I don't know the details of his fall
from greatness; what I do know is that,
quite unsurprisingly, the pundits went into
total denial of GM Spassky's *actual* rating,
making up a replacement they liked better
by which to do their fake math.
All this "fake math" stuff appeared in the
pages of Chess Lies, or perhaps in Yasser
Seirawan's own publication, Inside Chess
(or both).
> Checking the Soltis book has no bearing on the matter. To satisfy
> the terms of the bet, you would have to cite "No Regrets" and/or
> Inside Chess.
I had no reason to hang onto my issues of
Inside Chess after reading them; for all I know,
I may have given them away. To me, the 1992
match was a joke; by then, Gary Kasparov was
quite obviously superior to a washed-up BF.
Still, it is not impossible that I could have
them stashed away somewhere, or that this all
appeared in YS's book, No Regrets. The fact
remains that the naysayers keep getting
themselves in a tizzy, every time I mention
something they can't handle; instead of reading
up for themselves, they attack me for not citing
from memory exact quotations and page
numbers-- which STILL would leave them deep in
denial! I say the problem here is not that I fall
short of Louis Blair in quoting; it is that others
seem to not know jack about chess.
> Merely to give a title does not establish what the book actually
> says.
De Nile: it ain't just a river in Africa!
The book says what it says, and you're
just going to have to grow up and face
reality, my boy. It is hardly surprising that
so many are ignorant of the facts regarding
Bobby Fischer; after all, they have been
pummeled by Cold War propaganda and
little else, for decades; taken in, I would
say.
------------------------------------------------------------
I ran the game covered in the top post of
this thread overnight, for a good, deep look.
Unfortunately, my anti-virus program asked
to re-boot and I clicked OK-- whoosh! Gone
in sixty seconds. All I know is that Black's
17th move scored as a blunder, and the
program did not like BF's 17th move as well
as a move I spotted easily. We'll run it
again, but perhaps not so deep this time.
-- help bot
ttk...@gmail.com
>
> It is clear that this book was sent to BF before
> his 1992 match with BS,
Thanks for the clarification.
> I had no reason to hang onto my issues of
> Inside Chess after reading them; for all I know,
> I may have given them away.
I guess my $10 is safe.
> The book says what it says,
It undoubtedly does, tautologies being what they are. But here we
are not told what it actually says, we get what Greg claims it says.
In the absence of authoritative citations, with actual quotes and page
numbers that others can check, skepticism is the natural response.
help bot
> I guess my $10 is safe.
Ah, so then, it is the ten dollar bill which
has a picture of Andy Soltis on it! (With
their silly white whigs, those guys all look
alike to me.)
Good thing you only found one "sucker",
what with all that at stake; wouldn't want
you to risk your lunch money, kid.
> > The book says what it says,
>
> It undoubtedly does, tautologies being what they are. But here we
> are not told what it actually says, we get what Greg claims it says.
> In the absence of authoritative citations, with actual quotes and page
> numbers that others can check, skepticism is the natural response.
I see. So the "demand" for the book's title
was merely huffing and puffing; there was
never any desire to check this out, to see
if what I wrote was actually true. Obviously,
if I quoted and gave page numbers, it would
still be just little old me, saying that it said
this or that, and the yellow-fellows could
simply pretend I made it all up, being in
denial as they clearly are.
In any case, one of de Nile sailors has
ceased his denials regarding Andy Soltis,
apparently afraid someone else "out there"
might have this book and knock him into
the water (with the crocs, remember?).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Here's something interesting regarding
the moves from the game linked to in the
top post of this thread:
Where "theory" gave e5! and later Ne4!
(which was exactly what BF played), my
computer seems to prefer the move:
17. axb6 cxb6
...and now, the programs do not agree on
the best follow-up, nor even upon the size of
White's advantage. What they do agree on
is that White's threat of B-f8 trumps what BF
did in the game (and Andy Soltis' analysis).
What I found surprising, was that the graph
produced when the entire game is looked
over and drawn up (something I like to do
with my own games, for perspective) has
White slightly better all the way through, BUT
just before the game-losing blunder by BS,
BF apparently /tossed away/ most of his
advantage-- according to the computer.
The move 17. Ne4, with its ever-present
exclamation mark, may well have been an
error which lets Black back into the game.
In any case, the score simply LEAPS into
dead-lost territory after Black's horrible
reply (...Kc6, abandoning the a-pawn).
Maybe others have better chess programs
than I do, and they can graph this game
and report their finding here; it sure looks
like a one-move blunder on my screen.
-- hep blot
The Historian
> On Feb 4, 2:31 am, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > For a book that's so easy to find, you seem to have great difficulty
> > > even telling us its title, let alone citing any validation of your
> > > bribery claim.
>
> > My poor, ignorant friend: the claim is Tigran
> > Petrosian's, not mine. You would of course
> > know that, if you knew anything much about
> > chess. Still, you have excellent taste in
> > music; the alligators might take some offense
> > and of course it is not politically correct with
> > the animal-rights people, aka "tree-huggers",
> > but then, that's their problem. Back in my
> > day, 'gators were so numerous one could
> > cross the mighty Mississippi by leaping from
> > one to the other.
>
> > Don't deny the legacy of Tigran Petrosian,
> > just to protect delusions regarding Bobby
> > Fischer, the myth. The key is to separate
> > the two-- man from myth.
>
> It looks like most of the lunatic-fringers have
> cut and run-- including fearless leader, TK. LOL!
>
> Here it is again, in simple English this time:
>
> Petrosian^s Legacy
I had this book ages ago, but it's no longer in my library. I sold it
off when I decided I'd never make master. (That was before I
discovered you could establish a reputation as a strong player by
claiming on newsgroups to be rated 2450.) I don't recall any
discussion of a Fischer 'bribe' in the book, but I may be mistaken.
Then again, this may be another fiasco like the mixup between Jacob
Elson and Julius Elson that a mindless troll debated me over a couple
of years ago. The troll thought a commercial database was a more
reliable source for a 19th century gamescore than contemporary
newspapers. No wonder he confused Jacob with his weaker brother
Julius.
> Remember: there are crocks in de-Nile, and
> maybe even hippos. Yes, I think Humphrey
> Bogart and Catharine (sic) Hepburn experienced
help bot
> > > Don't deny the legacy of Tigran Petrosian,
> > > just to protect delusions regarding Bobby
> > > Fischer, the myth. The key is to separate
> > > the two-- man from myth.
> > Petrosian^s Legacy
>
> I had this book ages ago, but it's no longer in my library. I sold it
> off when I decided I'd never make master. (That was before I
> discovered you could establish a reputation as a strong player by
> claiming on newsgroups to be rated 2450.) I don't recall any
> discussion of a Fischer 'bribe' in the book, but I may be mistaken.
And why would you be expected to recall that
from memory? (The reason I recall it from my
memory is that the subject of BF's allegedly
perfect behavior at the board comes up here
so often. It just so happens that I have noted
several debunker incidents which don't fit the
Fischer-myths, and this is one of them.)
If you look at the results of AK vs. VK
matches, they are always dismissed by the
Cold War propagandists and their many
victims as "that didn't count!", because of
the funky goings-on before, during, or even
afterward. Yet this same type of weirdness
was present in the 1972 match, and the
cycle leading into it. Nobody would expect
a typical person to recall something like that
from memory-- even if you insisted upon
having read every word of the entire book.
> Then again, this may be another fiasco like the mixup between Jacob
> Elson and Julius Elson that a mindless troll debated me over a couple
> of years ago. The troll thought a commercial database was a more
> reliable source for a 19th century gamescore than contemporary
> newspapers. No wonder he confused Jacob with his weaker brother
> Julius.
The problem with such databases is that you
can't know the precise source of the game
scores; they could have been from newspapers,
chess books, or even other databases.
All I know is that the local "newspaper", in
other words, what used to be called the
Hoosier Chess Journal but is now probably
called simply the ISCA magazine, almost
never gets the scores of my games right.
Some games were annotated in a very
deceptive manner, others truncated such as
to mislead readers, and only one that I am
aware of was correct, complete, and well-
annotated! Now, I ask you: why should it
be assumed that things were any different
in the 19th century?
Even in cases where one of the original
score sheets was used, it remains a fact
that sometimes, the score sheets of the
two players don't match one another! All
I can say is this: ignore the score sheet
of my idiotic opponent, and go by mine!!
-- help bot
ttk...@gmail.com
>
> > > For a book that's so easy to find, you seem to have great difficulty
> > > even telling us its title, let alone citing any validation of your
> > > bribery claim.
>
> > My poor, ignorant friend: the claim is Tigran
> > Petrosian's, not mine.
>
>
> Petrosian^s Legacy
I came across "Petrosian's Legacy" in a used-book store a few days
ago, and bought it. I have examined it closely, in particular the last
chapter, which deals with his 1971 Candidates Match against Fischer.
Not even a hint of any bribery allegation, not even a vague reference,
let alone any actual claim of an attempt to bribe Petrosian, is
mentioned. Petrosian's only complaint is about the match venue -- he
preferred that the match be held in Yugoslavia or Greece, instead of
Buenos Aires.
But nothing about bribery. Looks like our Greg's hyper-active
imagination and defective memory have misled him again.
David Kane
<ttk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:879f5757-b6d8-44e0...@l16g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> I came across "Petrosian's Legacy" in a used-book store a few days
>ago, and bought it. I have examined it closely, in particular the last
>chapter, which deals with his 1971 Candidates Match against Fischer.
>Not even a hint of any bribery allegation, not even a vague reference,
>let alone any actual claim of an attempt to bribe Petrosian, is
>mentioned. Petrosian's only complaint is about the match venue -- he
>preferred that the match be held in Yugoslavia or Greece, instead of
>Buenos Aires.
> But nothing about bribery. Looks like our Greg's hyper-active
>imagination and defective memory have misled him again.
Thanks for being such a reliable source of information.
One can only wonder what fantastic nonsense help bot will spew
forth this time. What's funny about this particular story of his is that
he is not only wrong on the generalities, he is equally flat out wrong
on each of the details. Even Sam Sloan's wild fabrications often
get *something* right.
help bot
> I came across "Petrosian's Legacy" in a used-book store a few days
> ago, and bought it. I have examined it closely, in particular the last
> chapter, which deals with his 1971 Candidates Match against Fischer.
> Not even a hint of any bribery allegation, not even a vague reference,
> let alone any actual claim of an attempt to bribe Petrosian, is
> mentioned. Petrosian's only complaint is about the match venue -- he
> preferred that the match be held in Yugoslavia or Greece, instead of
> Buenos Aires.
> But nothing about bribery. Looks like our Greg's hyper-active
> imagination and defective memory have misled him again.
Any luck "enlightening yourself" regarding your
deep denial of Andy Soltis' Ruy Lopez book
containing the moves played by BF against BS?
I see that even though the precise chapter and
moves were discussed here, the result has been
a cut-and-run on that issue-- "surprise".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the other issue, I can re-read that book
if you are unable to locate the text yourself, but
it's not going to help out with your denial issues.
I also have a book discussing this by B. Cafferty,
who quotes many top players of the period,
among them T. Petrosian. I suppose if it turns
out that the quote was in there, you will remain
in the state of DeNile, crocs and all. What I
really want is a manly denial from the naysayers,
not Blairian quote games; if ye be man enough
to deny that TP ever said this, I be man enough
to do the research in your stead; but if ye be
not man enough, I feel nothing but pity for ye.
Either way, your ignorance of chess history
tells a very revealing tale. How could anyone
/not know/ about this, after all the hoopla
surrounding that particular w.c. cycle, I gasp?
How can the nutters "forget" that USCF cheif
Ed Edmondson practically dragged BF to
Iceland in 1992? How can they insist that BF
"singlehandedly" did this or did that, when it
is well-known that he had tons of help? One
such small help was the shipment of books
we have been discussing (one of which was
the one by Andy Soltis)-- which sent some
folks running in denial. Another item on the
list was a British financier who stepped in at
the last moment and put up his own money
to help drag BF to the chess board.
------------------------------------------------------------------
On page 101 of Petrosian's Legacy, there
appears a diagrammed position from the
game TP vs. Bannik, Riga 1958, which is
then discussed in some depth. I was
curious to see if this was hype or tripe, and
punched it into a strong chess engine for a
long think; sure enough, it agreed 100%
with TP's choice of move! This same idea,
more or less, reappeared in a famous game
betwixt BF and TP years later, with BF
emerging victorious after doubling his Rooks
on the seventh rank.
-- help bot
help bot
> One can only wonder what fantastic nonsense help bot will spew
> forth this time. What's funny about this particular story of his is that
> he is not only wrong on the generalities, he is equally flat out wrong
> on each of the details. Even Sam Sloan's wild fabrications often
> get *something* right.
Please send me everything ever written by TP,
along with $50K, and I will be glad to show you
/precisely where/ this information appeared.
Alternatively, you can swin in deNile-- with the
crocs and the hippos. Feel secure in knowing
that most people are every bit as ignorant as
you two fools, so your idiocy will be known only
to a select few; I bet that gives you a warm,
fuzzy feeling, doesn't it? :>D
-- help bot
David Kane
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:98c3b9e0-d22c-4bfb...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 12, 3:14 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> One can only wonder what fantastic nonsense help bot will spew
>> forth this time. What's funny about this particular story of his is that
>> he is not only wrong on the generalities, he is equally flat out wrong
>> on each of the details. Even Sam Sloan's wild fabrications often
>> get *something* right.
>
> Please send me everything ever written by TP,
> along with $50K, and I will be glad to show you
> /precisely where/ this information appeared.
>
If you want to convince me, supply the quote for free.
Given your inability to comprehend simple USENET
threads, your confusion over some alleged printed
matter is not surprising.
What astounds is your unabashed pride in your
ignorance.
help bot
> >> Even Sam Sloan's wild fabrications often
> >> get *something* right.
The names of his "enemies", I expect. But
I am ready for his Damiano's garbage: bring it
on!
> > Please send me everything ever written by TP,
> > along with $50K, and I will be glad to show you
> > /precisely where/ this information appeared.
> If you want to convince me, supply the quote for free.
That's not very good pay for this sort of
work. Tell me, are you on welfare and
food stamps? Why do you expect others
to work for you, gratis?
At my local chess club, they talk about
a fellow who has the gall to charge $35
per hour for chess lessons-- and he's not
very good, really.
> What astounds is your unabashed pride in your
> ignorance.
LOL! Who is the real ignoramus here,
fella? It is *you* and fearless leader TK
who obviously know nothing about what
TP has written. I may not be able to
recall offhand the precise location where
I read his comments, but that is nothing
in comparison to your kind of ignorance.
As for your imagined desire, perhaps
you can recall this recent exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I know Yasser; we've exchanged many e-mails and have met once. A
> very nice guy. I could e-mail him any time, but in this case I'm not
> trying to prove anything he said -- you are.
Wrong. I have no desire to "prove" this to
be a fact, for I know it is whether the lunatic
fringers like it or not. That's probably why I
keep deferring the inevitable, hoping and
preying (spelling *is* correct) that Taylor
Kingston and his chums will somehow
manage to make a manly denial-- you know,
one where there is no handy escape-hatch
at their yellow backs.
You see, it is not enough to merely educate
the ignorant; they need to be put in their lowly
places, and this can best be done by coaxing
the fools out on a fragile limb, and only THEN
breaking out the ax; it also helps if the water
is icy cold!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, I have already set the record
straight on this matter of my imagined
desire to convince imbeciles of the known
facts. My only true "desire" is to be the
one to cut the limb.
-- help bot
David Kane
> On Feb 12, 9:15 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> >> Even Sam Sloan's wild fabrications often
>> >> get *something* right.
>
> The names of his "enemies", I expect. But
> I am ready for his Damiano's garbage: bring it
> on!
>
The point is that, on this point, you are wrong from start
to finish. Sloan's ramblings are almost always wrong
on the big points, but every now and then he gets
a detail correct.
>
>> > Please send me everything ever written by TP,
>> > along with $50K, and I will be glad to show you
>> > /precisely where/ this information appeared.
>
>> If you want to convince me, supply the quote for free.
>
> That's not very good pay for this sort of
> work. Tell me, are you on welfare and
> food stamps? Why do you expect others
> to work for you, gratis?
Not gratis. In return, I'll offer, a constructive
assessment of some of your mental defects, instruct
you in logic, etc.
> At my local chess club, they talk about
> a fellow who has the gall to charge $35
> per hour for chess lessons-- and he's not
> very good, really.
>
>
>> What astounds is your unabashed pride in your
>> ignorance.
>
> LOL! Who is the real ignoramus here,
> fella? It is *you* and fearless leader TK
> who obviously know nothing about what
> TP has written. I may not be able to
> recall offhand the precise location where
> I read his comments, but that is nothing
> in comparison to your kind of ignorance.
No one constrained you to relying what
you "recall offhand". But even then, demonstrating
that your offhand recollections are grossly
inaccurate is hardly something to brag about.
help bot
> The point is that, on this point, you are wrong from start
> to finish.
Where is your proof? All I've seen is pictures
of de Nile... crocks eating wildebeasts... empty
claims that TP must not have written something
because you don't happen to like it-- that sort
of thing. Obviously, you have no proof because
it doesn't exist-- nor could it.
> Sloan's ramblings are almost always wrong
> on the big points, but every now and then he gets
> a detail correct.
Well, he is correct that his horrible play
is classified as the Damiano's Defense--
I'll give him that.
> > That's not very good pay for this sort of
> > work. Tell me, are you on welfare and
> > food stamps? Why do you expect others
> > to work for you, gratis?
>
> Not gratis. In return, I'll offer, a constructive
> assessment of some of your mental defects, instruct
> you in logic, etc.
No, I want you to work for free, like I do.
TK was generous enough to offer up some
"serious dough" to anyone who was willing to
take his "bet", but as usual, his effort got no
takers.
Look, kid: you're already a step above the
mindless Evans ratpackers by teaming up
with your new pal, TK; but you are way out
of your league here. When it comes to
logic and reason, even your fearless leader
falls short of the mark, time and again.
Take his letters to Chess Lies magazine,
for instance; the poor sap actually sent in an
endorsement of Larry Evans' claptrap, only
to later change his tune and swing the
opposite way! This sort of thing is good if
you're, say, dancing the Tango, but not
when you are trying to think things through
using logic and reason.
Even after years of further research and
mulling things over in his mind, TK's efforts
fell short of the mark; he basically knuckled
under when it turned out that "most" of the
pundits sided with Larry Evans and his rats.
Even after his best efforts at objectivity and
reason, TK's analysis fell into the mire of
bias and opinion; it's a sad thing to watch.
Maybe, one day you will learn a thing or
two about what has been written on the
subject of the BF-TP match; until then,
you would do best to remain silent and
merely *thought* a fool... . LOL
-- help bot
David Kane
I respect Taylor Kingston for going to the
trouble of going through Petrosian's book
to verify that you are a liar. Personally, I don't
think you have enough credibility to warrant
any effort whatsoever. I initially discounted
the story because of the source (you) and so far am
completely vindicated in my belief that your
uncorrobated "evidence" should be ignored.
From reading him over the years, I do
suspect that TK is better versed in chess
history than I am (even though I am nowhere
near so ignorant as you), so it was reasonable
to request his opinion. However, I do not
agree with everything TK writes, a fact
you could verify if you were not lazy and
unintelligent. I will say that when it comes to
supplying facts to back of his assertions
in this newsgroup, no others come close.
Sorry, you're still busted.
help bot
> I respect Taylor Kingston for going to the
> trouble of going through Petrosian's book
> to verify that you are a liar.
Are you aware that Mr. Kingston "went through"
a book containing a one-move Rook hang, only
to miss it? Are you aware that Mr. Kingston
has, shall I say, personal issues with me, on
account of my pointing out a few of his gaffes
in the past?
Look, kid, in order to "verify that I am a liar",
Mr. Kingston would need to show that Tigran
Petrosian never wrote anything about being
offered the bribe, anywhere; even if it turns out
that I was mistaken as to the exact source,
he's still wrong. You do realize that the source
issue is merely of interest to ad hominists, for
one purpose only: to attack me in retaliation
for my criticisms in the past? The issue is
whether or not TP wrote that he was offered a
bribe to throw his match to BF; this fact was
denied, time and again, in a womanly sort of
way. We also "discussed" other things TP
wrote, but in keeping with his low-scheming
ways, TK often changes the threads on a whim
to destroy any easy reconstruction.
It is a fact that you sissies have attempted to
deny the fact that BF was sent books by his
supporter -- who may have been Ken Smith --
before the 1992 match with Boris Spassky, and
upon being shown precisely where these moves
were published, you cut-and-run or else go mum.
> Personally, I don't
> think you have enough credibility to warrant
> any effort whatsoever. I initially discounted
> the story because of the source (you) and so far am
> completely vindicated in my belief that your
> uncorrobated "evidence" should be ignored.
Well, ignorance thrives upon itself, ever
multiplying. And when you get two ignorants
together, well, there is no limit to what they
can do! LOL
> From reading him over the years, I do
> suspect that TK is better versed in chess
> history than I am (even though I am nowhere
> near so ignorant as you), so it was reasonable
> to request his opinion
This is not a matter of opinion, kid; it is a
question of facts, and ignorance of the facts.
Opinion is what you settle for when there is
no way to discern the facts; here, the way is
simple and obvious: read books! It so happens
that TP wrote very little that has been published
in English, so it's quite simple, really.
> However, I do not
> agree with everything TK writes, a fact
> you could verify if you were not lazy and
> unintelligent. I will say that when it comes to
> supplying facts to back of his assertions
> in this newsgroup, no others come close.
Try this experiment: go and read TK's
famous articles on the alleged throwing of
games to GM Botvinnik; you may notice
that in his /very best/ attempt, TK does some
significant research, starts off well by trying
to be objective, and so forth. But in the end,
he crashes and burns; he tosses logic and
reason out in favor of adopting the accepted
view, being politically correct, as it were.
That, my boy, was TK at his /very best/.
Never mind his normal quality of writing,
such as his offhand stuff here, which consists
largely in "demanding" sources so he can
verify that his ignorance is real. TK's only
real strength is in his preference for Edward
Winter's stuff over the claptrap of the Evans
ratpack (if I may include Ray Keene). The
fact remains that if one day The Historian
were to get hit by a bus, we would turn to
TK as a suitable replacement; give him the
Phil Innes contract; that about sums him up.
-- help bot
David Kane
> On Feb 13, 3:07 am, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I respect Taylor Kingston for going to the
>> trouble of going through Petrosian's book
>> to verify that you are a liar.
>
> Are you aware that Mr. Kingston "went through"
> a book containing a one-move Rook hang, only
> to miss it? Are you aware that Mr. Kingston
> has, shall I say, personal issues with me, on
> account of my pointing out a few of his gaffes
> in the past?
>
> Look, kid, in order to "verify that I am a liar",
> Mr. Kingston would need to show that Tigran
> Petrosian never wrote anything about being
> offered the bribe, anywhere; even if it turns out
> that I was mistaken as to the exact source,
> he's still wrong. You do realize that the source
> issue is merely of interest to ad hominists, for
> one purpose only: to attack me in retaliation
> for my criticisms in the past? The issue is
> whether or not TP wrote that he was offered a
> bribe to throw his match to BF;
And let's review the score on this issue.
You offered one (vague) source which has
been proven false. You've offered no other
source. Your attempt to make a virtue of
"being mistaken as to the exact source"
might fly if one year you actually provide
a correct source, but, until then, it is just
you celebrating your stupidity/dishonesty
or whatever.
ttk...@gmail.com
> On Feb 12, 9:12 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I came across "Petrosian's Legacy" in a used-book store a few days
> > ago, and bought it. I have examined it closely, in particular the last
> > chapter, which deals with his 1971 Candidates Match against Fischer.
> > Not even a hint of any bribery allegation, not even a vague reference,
> > let alone any actual claim of an attempt to bribe Petrosian, is
> > mentioned. Petrosian's only complaint is about the match venue -- he
> > preferred that the match be held in Yugoslavia or Greece, instead of
> > Buenos Aires.
> > But nothing about bribery. Looks like our Greg's hyper-active
> > imagination and defective memory have misled him again.
>
> appears a diagrammed position from the
> game TP vs. Bannik, Riga 1958, which is
> then discussed in some depth.
>
Interesting. Some time ago Greg said the reason he could not locate
the quote proving his bribery claim was that his books were in storage
somewhere, and he could not get at them. Yet here he is able to tell
us -- quite correctly! -- that page 101 of "Petrosian's Legacy"
discusses a position from Petrosian-Bannik, Riga 1958. Looks like our
Greg either is developing some rudimentary research skills, or (or
more likely) he was having us on all along.
If he can find something as specific as the Bannik game, why then
can't he find the quote about bribery, which he claimed was in
"Petrosian's Legacy"? Simple -- ain't no such quote in the book!
ttk...@gmail.com
> On Feb 12, 9:12 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I came across "Petrosian's Legacy" in a used-book store a few days
> > ago, and bought it. I have examined it closely, in particular the last
> > chapter, which deals with his 1971 Candidates Match against Fischer.
> > Not even a hint of any bribery allegation, not even a vague reference,
> > let alone any actual claim of an attempt to bribe Petrosian, is
> > mentioned. Petrosian's only complaint is about the match venue -- he
> > preferred that the match be held in Yugoslavia or Greece, instead of
> > Buenos Aires.
> > But nothing about bribery. Looks like our Greg's hyper-active
> > imagination and defective memory have misled him again.
>
> appears a diagrammed position from the
> game TP vs. Bannik, Riga 1958, which is
> then discussed in some depth.
>
Interesting. Some time ago Greg said the reason he could not locate
the quote proving his bribery claim was that his books were in storage
somewhere, and he could not get at them. Yet here he is able to tell
us -- quite correctly! -- that page 101 of "Petrosian's Legacy"
discusses a position from Petrosian-Bannik, Riga 1958. Looks like our
Greg either is developing some rudimentary research skills, or (more
parrt...@cs.com
PRIDE IN IGNORANCE
<What astounds is your unabashed pride in your
ignorance.> -- David Kane to Greg Kennedy
First, a point of disagreement with David Kane.
Greg Kennedy takes no pride in his ignorance. He has
bared his ego wounds here on several occasions when
confronted with yet another area of the human comedy
of which he proved ignorant.
Greg (help bot) bleeds pretty openly on these forums.
The odd thing about Greg Kennedy's constant attacks
on Bobby Fischer is that he goes well beyond what his
Soviet opponents often had to say.
For the record, there was an awe toward Fischer
among the top Soviet GMs. In a secret memo, Tal even
suggested taking seriously and studying Fischer's
offhand, simul and five-minute games.
In 1970 and 1971 -- in two matches -- Bobby
Fischer dismantled Petrosian by a combined score of 9
1/2 -- 3 1/2. This was still the period of Petrosian's
near invicibility. The second of the three matches
with Bobby was, after all, the candidate's final. No
one ever remotely handled Petrosian in his GM
adulthood -- even near the end in his decline -- as
Bobby handled Petrosian near the latter's peak.
Spassky simply told private meetings that Bobby
would beat them all.
Greg hates this adulation of Bobby, especially
among Bobby's OPPONENTS, many of whom had
no love at all for the Brooklynite.
I hold no brief for the likes of David Kane and
Taylor Kingston, but I would not for a moment imagine,
for example, that they would be unaware that Steinitz
was an American citizen when he became world champion
-- an ignorance that Greg just demonstrated here.
I also imagine that both Kane and Kingston would have
been aware that Poland was part of the Russian empire
at the time of World War I.
Alas, Greg is not proud of his ignorance. He is
fairly openly humiliated by it.
Yours, Larry Parr
ttk...@gmail.com
> who quotes many top players of the period,
> among them T. Petrosian. I suppose if it turns
> out that the quote was in there, you will remain
> in the state of DeNile, crocs and all.
Cafferty and I correspond frequently, so I was able to check this
with him this morning. Here is the exchange, with only the e-mail
addresses edited out:
From: taylor....@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Bernard Cafferty
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Subject: Bribe offer to Petrosian?
Bernard, have you ever heard or read of a claim by Petrosian, that
he was offered a bribe in connection with his 1971 Candidates Match
with Fischer? I've checked Petrosian's Legacy, by TP himself, and find
no such claim there. The only remotely similar thing I know of is
Matulovic lying down for Taimanov so MT could qualify for the
Candidates round.
It all sounds ridiculous to me, but a guy I know is adamant that TP
said or wrote this. Ring any bell with you?
Best regards, Taylor
From:BERNARD CAFFERTY
To:<taylor....@xxxxxxxx.xxxt>
Subject:Re: Bribe offer to Petrosian?
Date:Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Taylor,
No, have not heard of this anywhere and I followed the match
carefully. Your informant should be challenged on a firm source,
otherwise it is that vague thing "oral tradition" and rather
implausible into the bargain. Bernard
*** end e-mails ***
For those not familiar with Cafferty's work, he is a highly
respected chess historian, with special expertise on Soviet chess. If
any Western historian were to know of any bribery attempt in the
Fischer-Petrosian match, it would be he.
>
> Either way, your ignorance of chess history
> tells a very revealing tale. How could anyone
> /not know/ about this, after all the hoopla
> surrounding that particular w.c. cycle, I gasp?
> How can the nutters "forget" that USCF cheif
> Ed Edmondson practically dragged BF to
> Iceland in 1992?
Interesting. We, the ignorant, were under the impression that (1)
Fischer did not set foot in Iceland in 1992, and (2) Edmondson died in
1982. Our Greg once again puts us to shame with his towering erudtion.
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:f22cec2a-faed-4d13...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> PRIDE IN IGNORANCE
> I hold no brief for the likes of David Kane and
> Taylor Kingston, but I would not for a moment imagine,
> for example, that they would be unaware that Steinitz
> was an American citizen when he became world champion
> -- an ignorance that Greg just demonstrated here.
> I also imagine that both Kane and Kingston would have
> been aware that Poland was part of the Russian empire
> at the time of World War I.
Politically yes, cultural... I think it was Milan Kundera who wrote an angry
letter to the New York Times [though maybe the New Yorker] a few years ago
which staed emphatically that poland had always been part of the Western
cultural tradition, and why, he asked, is its culture so often thought to be
Russian?
> Alas, Greg is not proud of his ignorance. He is
> fairly openly humiliated by it.
Its not true ignorance, but possibly a tad arrogant admixed, though
corrupting, a good bull-shit detector [maybe the best here]. Essentially,
from a chess player's point of view, I don't like to see anyone ostracised
or reduced, merely because they suffer an obvious distortion - as if, you
know, they play the Dunst 'to win', and seek to prove it mathematically, or
as we have seen here recently, by applying some unwonted measure, which
distinguishes not chess from cheese.
I have no particular reason to make any generous comment about Kennedy, but
then again, no reason not to be quite objective about his core skill, and
necessarily so, just like when playing chess - never underestimate opponent!
--
While that is an admittedly generous gloss on an issue - what a pity that we
all left Mr. Winter off the hook so easily for a similar crime!
Because it is not written, said Winter, it should be expunged - whereas, in
order to make his own point he merely needed to add two words relative to
Kasparov's sentence; 'possible apochrphal', or even 'likely aprocryphal -
rather than his absolutist 'expunged!'
While that form of 'history' is actually inane - as truly stupid as those
who wanted to exise Troy from the record, or make it merely 'a story' as if
it too were apochryphal, until that German bloke dug it up! -- far more
recent instances of what /is/ in print, and massively so, authoritatively
so, is also utter bunkum!
Probably the most hyped over and distorted piece of modern-era history is
Gettysburg - as that interesting historian Thomas A. Desjardin informs us -
which is well known to /real/ historians. But when Ted Turner made his film
of Gettysburg in 1995 and broadcast it to 40 million people, all the
claptrap bunkum was retained.
BUNKUM HILL - not!
What /we/ can all do in chess, I propose, is not to refight Gettysburg
[though that would be fun!] but definitely not become absolute and singular
with our own chess history - the distortion of which seem to occur for the
same reasons as that after the civil war - to glamorise one aspect or
party - and I use that word gamorise in a technical sense, which is to
inflate a part out of proportion to other parts.
We need proper researches, intelligent doubts, and never to think we have it
all in the bag, which is nigh-on impossible. Instead, one excellent use of
these newsgroups is to speak one's own perspective on things with others,
but in the sense that there /can/ be several perspectives, that there
/must/' be several, rather than just The Right One, which enforced upon each
other, is merely another name for fascism.
Phil Innes
> Yours, Larry Parr
J.D. Walker
I think Mr. Bot has what it takes to join the rgcp kook team headed by P
Innes. I suggest a slight modification of his nom-de-plume to "Kook
Bot." :)
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
David Richerby
> On Feb 12, 8:27=A0pm, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Either way, your ignorance of chess history tells a very revealing
>> tale. How could anyone /not know/ about this, after all the hoopla
>> surrounding that particular w.c. cycle, I gasp? How can the
>> nutters "forget" that USCF cheif Ed Edmondson practically dragged
>> BF to Iceland in 1992?
>
> Interesting. We, the ignorant, were under the impression that (1)
> Fischer did not set foot in Iceland in 1992, and (2) Edmondson died
> in 1982. Our Greg once again puts us to shame with his towering
> erudtion.
To be fair, I don't think the brain-fart that turned `1972' into
`1992' is any more significant than the one that turned `chief' into
`cheif'. Much of what `help bot' writes is utter bilge but that just
looks like a typo to me.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Beefy Bulb (TM): it's like a light
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ bulb that's made from a cow!
Chess One
"J.D. Walker" <j.d.w...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:FJWdnWllCMP_ui7a...@comcast.com...
> ttk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I think Mr. Bot has what it takes to join the rgcp kook team headed by P
> Innes. I suggest a slight modification of his nom-de-plume to "Kook Bot."
> :)
> --
Thank you for your irreverend and off topical contribution to this topic - I
note that they become increasingly like those of the FSS and of Brennan -
[im]pure malice, seeking always to make differences among people, to reduce
others* and never making any substantive contribution to chess.
Now why don't you go away or find out what cordially means - or even chess?
Otherwise you are in great danger of cementing your appearance as none
other, by virtue of your behavior.
Phil Innes
*the psychological basis of these behaviors is //always// poor self-esteem -
and the mechanism by which it operates is to reduce others to lower than
one's own already low and distressing level, and thus to survive awhile
longer, cowardly compensating for a life unexamined.
J.D. Walker
Have a nice day! :)
--
ttk...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <ttk5...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 8:27=A0pm, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Either way, your ignorance of chess history tells a very revealing
> >> tale. How could anyone /not know/ about this, after all the hoopla
> >> surrounding that particular w.c. cycle, I gasp? How can the
> >> nutters "forget" that USCF cheif Ed Edmondson practically dragged
> >> BF to Iceland in 1992?
>
> > Interesting. We, the ignorant, were under the impression that (1)
> > Fischer did not set foot in Iceland in 1992, and (2) Edmondson died
> > in 1982. Our Greg once again puts us to shame with his towering
> > erudtion.
>
> To be fair, I don't think the brain-fart that turned `1972' into
> `1992' is any more significant than the one that turned `chief' into
> `cheif'. Much of what `help bot' writes is utter bilge but that just
> looks like a typo to me.
Yes, I'm sure it was a typo, Dave, but it's still representative of
help-bot's general sloppiness. Also, in view of the insulting
arrogance he displays, it is always pleasurable to point out his
mistakes.
Chess One
And I say how you are, to which you demonstrate nothing other than the most
common receipt, reinforcing what you are.
Now, stop your trivialising shit. Otherwise you condemn yourself. Did you
not understand this? What, for Christ's sake are you reverend of? Hate?
Consider that. And since your state is evident from what you write, for all
to see, protest not that it is as you behave. After 10 years here on usenet,
there are two principal kinds of wankers;
a) those who return and state they regret that things have gone to hell -
albeit, they make no contribution themselves, as if to confirm that all it
takes is for good people to do nothing, and
b) those like you, who are simply mocking cowards, who comment upon some
scene as if they were not human beings at all, and want to create and
stimulate as much hate and resentment as they can.
You will recognise which sort of wanker is your own state. ;)
Phil Innes
J.D. Walker
Ah, it is P Innes again.
Don't add to much methane to the atmosphere with your frothing and
fuming sir. Try to relax.
Have a nice day.
jkh...@aim.com
If you people are quite finished running around in circles and
shouting insults at each other: The "bribe" claim comes from an
article by Petrosian, "The candidates' matches as I saw them," which
appeared in Vasiliev's "Tigran Petrosian: His Life and Games." On page
226, Petrosian wrote, "Just before the match began, something happened
that annoyed me very much. An extremely disreputable individual
approached me and said insolently, 'Mr. Petrosian,. we are all waiting
for the Spassky-Fischer match. So wouldn't it be better if you
accepted a nice round sum and went home?'"
Of course, this doesn't prove that the story is true (commies lie a
lot), nor is there any indication that Fischer himself was involved
(highly unlikely), but it's not apocryphal. Wouldn't it have been
better to look this up first (it took me about 30 seconds) instead of
starting another spitting match?
Chess One
>
> Don't add to much methane to the atmosphere with your frothing and fuming
> sir. Try to relax.
>
> Have a nice day.
Lets review what you /do/ again, Reverend Wanker:
the psychological basis of these behaviors is //always// poor
self-esteem - and the mechanism by which it operates is to reduce others
to lower than one's own already low and distressing level, and thus to
survive awhile longer, cowardly compensating for a life unexamined.
I think people get it ;)
Except yourself. You are nothing new here, to a long term view. Please
return on chess subjects or take your fascist shit elsewhere. If you want to
be indistinguishable from a Brennan or an FSS, by all means continue to
protest with your anal references.
Ker-ist! These dorks don't just have dick envy, they gotta talk other
people's bottoms too!
PI
help bot
> > Are you aware that Mr. Kingston "went through"
> > a book containing a one-move Rook hang, only
> > to miss it? Are you aware that Mr. Kingston
> > has, shall I say, personal issues with me, on
> > account of my pointing out a few of his gaffes
> > in the past?
> And let's review the score on this issue.
> You offered one (vague) source which has
> been proven false.
My "source", my boy, is my memory. You
can't prove that false, unless you show that
say, I got Tigran Petrosian mixed up with
some other candidate, like say, GM Larsen.
> You've offered no other source.
Once again, your ignorance is showing;
I also mentioned a book by Bernard Cafferty,
informing the ignoranti here that it contains
many comments by the candidates in the
1972 world championship cycle-- including
TP himself. This comment can be found
right in this very thread-- if one is clever
enough to actually /look/. LOL
Kid, you have a lot to learn about the
history of chess, and the best way to
alleviate your ignorance would be to stop
your whining, and start reading.
-- help bot
help bot
> If he can find something as specific as the Bannik game, why then
> can't he find the quote about bribery, which he claimed was in
> "Petrosian's Legacy"? Simple -- ain't no such quote in the book!
It appears that TK is struggling to verbalize
a manly denial of some sort; struggling with
the English language, with his "need" to
attack me, and with his not-so-manly wish
to stay on dry ground, not crawl out on a
limb which could break (or get sawed in two).
Certainly, this is progress-- for him. But
the fact remains that the real issue is not
which particular source contained the info.
stored in my memory; the real issue is one
of denial; some ignorant fools are in denial
regarding what Tigran Petrosian wrote--
whether it appears in this book or that one.
When I get time, I will look through both
books I have at hand, the one by TP and
the one by BC. If I find the exact location,
I will post it here-- not that this will do much
in the way of treating the root cause of the
dread disease; it might alleviate a few of
the symptoms, perhaps.
What I find amusing is that the other
imbecile is willing -- no, EAGER -- to
accept a cursory look by TK as some sort
of "proof" that TP did not write about being
offered a bribe. As we all know, in a book
review of some fame, TK failed to uncover
a "proof" of the author's lie regarding his
having very carefully scrutinized every
game in his book; naturally, such prior
failures do not even register when emotion
takes control; dictates one's thoughts.
I see all this huffing and puffing as the
undeniable side-effect of a Bobby Fischer
idolization complex; it simply cannot be
that any /reliable/ source has reported on
being offered a bribe to throw a match to
BF! No, no, no, no, no! That could taint
the whole religion; the entire BF-as-chess-
god is called into question by such things,
by former world champ Tigran Petrosian's
criticisms regarding the drawing of lots
being somehow rigged, and so forth. Just
curl up into a fetal position, and deny it all!
Yes, then it will all go away, and you won't
need to deal with it rationally... .
-- help bot
help bot
> Bernard, have you ever heard or read of a claim by Petrosian, that
> he was offered a bribe in connection with his 1971 Candidates Match
> with Fischer?
This is a very rational question. But what follows
amounts to what? an obvious attempt to "lead the
witness", as they say in the courtrooms (and reject
strongly as tainting the answer).
> I've checked Petrosian's Legacy, by TP himself, and find
> no such claim there.
The psychological need to interject this red
herring is telling:
> The only remotely similar thing I know of is
> Matulovic lying down for Taimanov so MT could qualify for the
> Candidates round.
Perhaps I should make myself /perfectly clear/,
as my old pal, Tricky Dick, used to say: that
incident has nothing whatever to do with the
issue at hand. There is zero chance that I
could have confounded that incident with the
idea of TP being offered a bribe to throw his
match to BF in 1971. So you see, it is always
inserted by TK for his own (devious?) purposes.
> It all sounds ridiculous to me, but a guy I know is adamant that TP
> said or wrote this. Ring any bell with you?
This is known as "leading the witness".
Now, my question is this: why would TK
feel compelled to do that? Can we get an
honest answer to that question, do you
suppose? Anybody?
--------------------------------------------------------------
At any rate, I feel elevated in knowing that
even a famous historian such as BC seems
to know less than I do on this issue; but
then, if he is one of the multitude who are
members in good standing of the worship
Bobby Fischer religion, I don't deserve all
that much credit. You see, even when
such people read annoying claims like TP's,
they automatically reject them; you've
probably seen a TV commercial which
says "set it, and forget it"; this is similar,
except the operational phrase is "reject it,
and forget it". LOL
-- help bot
help bot
> Interesting. We, the ignorant
(I cannot deny that TK is well-qualified to
speak for his kind... .)
> were under the impression that (1)
> Fischer did not set foot in Iceland in 1992
Look, vast inferior: 1992 was obviously a
typo for 1492-- the year Napolean discovered
America. Um, wait-- something is not quite
right.
I know which match was which; the one in
1972 was the real deal, while the one in 1992
was the fake one in Yugo-Montenegro-land.
The key difference is that in 1972, BF and
BS were /really good/ chess players.
-- help bot
J.D. Walker
Have a nice day.
--
Cordially,
help bot
wrote:
> To be fair, I don't think the brain-fart that turned `1972' into
> `1992' is any more significant than the one that turned `chief' into
> `cheif'. Much of what `help bot' writes is utter bilge but that just
> looks like a typo to me.
Nonsense. We vast-superiors do not make
such mistakes-- not even typos! I say it was
Napolean, but the year may have been 1776,
or maybe 1927-- the same year in which
Cassablaca defeated General Sherman at Bull
Run.
-- hep blot
help bot
> Ah, P Innes, the head kookpot. Whatever you say sir.
Careful; if we recognize nearly-IMnes as
"head kookpot", Neil Brennen may demand
greater compensation for harrying him. It's
already cost me half my old chess trophies,
and my most outdated "Trends in the..."
series booklets. My question is: who will
pay if/when NB demands more? I do have
some Eric Schiller books from the 1980s,
but after that, it's going to take real money.
-- The Crackpot Annoyer Society
J.D. Walker
Thanks for the tip Mr. Bot. I haven't paid much attention to what
Kapitan Kookpot is saying. I'd toss him a bone, but that is not favored
by rabid dogs.
It is odd that he has this fixation with me, when so many other posters
have been pointing to various defects of his "journalism" and he has
completely ignored them. I guess I am special. :)
Be kind to your furry friends, and have a great day!
help bot
> Ah, it is P Innes again.
>
> Don't add to much methane to the atmosphere with your frothing and
> fuming sir. Try to relax.
We could discuss the /real cause/ of global
warming (the cows, of course) 'till doomsday.
Giving up meat -- especially methane-emitting
animals like cattle -- is the obvious answer. But
this is a chess newsgroup, so we really should
restrict our discussion to, say, the eating of
plastic vs. wooden pieces, vinyl boards, and so
forth. Getting one blow-hard to cease emission
of gases is not going to have much impact on
global warming, but it could improve the air
quality here in rgc a bit.
Try to understand: it is nearly-IMnes' job to
follow LP around, responding to his postings
with affectionate kisses and hugs; that's what
he gets paid for. A "man" has to make a living,
doesn't he? But why can't he just sue people,
like Sam Sloan does? Or write crazy books
about prostitutes and slave children? I guess
it's a lack of creativity, or ambition.
-- hep blot
help bot
> If you people are quite finished running around in circles and
> shouting insults at each other: The "bribe" claim comes from an
> article by Petrosian, "The candidates' matches as I saw them," which
> appeared in Vasiliev's "Tigran Petrosian: His Life and Games."
As far as I know, I have never read that particular
book, so this may /also/ have appeared elsewhere.
Then again, I may have read the text only from
such a book, disregarding the games and analysis.
> On page
> 226, Petrosian wrote, "Just before the match began, something happened
> that annoyed me very much. An extremely disreputable individual
> approached me and said insolently, 'Mr. Petrosian,. we are all waiting
> for the Spassky-Fischer match. So wouldn't it be better if you
> accepted a nice round sum and went home?'"
>
> Of course, this doesn't prove that the story is true (commies lie a
> lot)
Well, it hardly suffices as an excuse for losing
the match afterward, so of what use would it be
to just invent such a story?
Mr. Petrosian takes pride in his having told
people /before/ BF won the title that BF was a
very strong player; that the matches with BS
were not going to be easy.
> nor is there any indication that Fischer himself was involved
> (highly unlikely)
Until /after/ the match with BS, BF had no
serious money with which to offer up bribes.
Besides, he seemed convinced that he was
the best player in the world from as early as
1962(??), so this would amount to throwing
money down the toilet.
> but it's not apocryphal. Wouldn't it have been
> better to look this up first (it took me about 30
> seconds) instead of starting another spitting
> match?
As everyone here seems to already know,
nobody could easily find this on the 'net. Tell
us, what was the "secret password" which
found the text so quickly? My own efforts
consistently netted a slew of false hits on
a different "Petrosian", who apparently was
a politician and therefore the term "bribe" was
unsurprisingly sprinkled around his name like
grains of salt around an ocean. Adding on
the term "chess" had no significant impact,
except to bring a few dead ends to the top
of the list.
As far as re-reading the two books I have
handy-- that takes time. Mr. Cafferty quotes
extensively throughout his book, and the one
by TP himself is disorganized, and lacks an
index
In any case, I wanted as many imbeciles
as possible to crawl way, way out on their
limb, before breaking out a saw. LOL
-- help bot
help bot
> Thanks for the tip Mr. Bot. I haven't paid much attention to what
> Kapitan Kookpot is saying. I'd toss him a bone, but that is not favored
> by rabid dogs.
>
> It is odd that he has this fixation with me, when so many other posters
> have been pointing to various defects of his "journalism" and he has
> completely ignored them. I guess I am special. :)
Rather than single out nearly-IMnes, I would
say that all these self-proclaimed "journalists"
have their own agendas, and should not be
taken seriously as "objective reporters".
Look at IMnes' arch-enemy, Taylor Kingston,
for instance; he resides somewhere in a high
tower, bellows down to the peons his official
pronouncements, and all the while he cannot
seem to handle facts he doesn't happen to
have a hankering for.
To me, the solution is obvious: recognize
that the term "journalist", as it is commonly
used here, indicates somebody with a strong
agenda who wants others to believe he is so
darned objective that his opinions are facts.
In sum, you can't trust those guys! They
are pretenders, or poseurs, as our employee
Neil Brennen puts it. Much like Arnold
Swarzennegger in his younger days, they
are great at posturing and posing, and this
may impress the opposite sex, but it's a bit
over the top here in rgc.
-- help bot
jkh...@aim.com
help bot wrote:
>
> As everyone here seems to already know,
> nobody could easily find this on the 'net. Tell
> us, what was the "secret password" which
> found the text so quickly? My own efforts
> consistently netted a slew of false hits on
> a different "Petrosian", who apparently was
> a politician and therefore the term "bribe" was
> unsurprisingly sprinkled around his name like
> grains of salt around an ocean. Adding on
> the term "chess" had no significant impact,
> except to bring a few dead ends to the top
> of the list.
Normal human intelligence. I read the book around 1979 and remembered
it. To get the exact quote, I walked across the room and picked up the
book. Tough, huh?
help bot
Um, yeah-- real tough, considering you
claimed to find the exact text in what--
30 seconds, was it?
Normally, finding text somewhere in a
*book* takes a bit longer than that, while
say, a Google search might not.
BTW, your comments also seemed to
strongly imply that *anybody* should
have been able to locate this information
quickly, so it is asinine to combine that
sort of comment with a relatively rare
book, which few are likely to possess.
In any case, you spoiled everything by
sawing the limb before I could even get
to Wal-mart and buy a limb-cutter; dang
you!
[Note the sudden silence of the ignoranti,
who no doubt are drying themselves off in
front of a warm fire... .]
-- help bot
jkh...@aim.com
help bot wrote:
> On Feb 13, 11:55 pm, jkh...@aim.com wrote:
>
> > > As everyone here seems to already know,
> > > nobody could easily find this on the 'net. Tell
> > > us, what was the "secret password" which
> > > found the text so quickly? My own efforts
> > > consistently netted a slew of false hits on
> > > a different "Petrosian", who apparently was
> > > a politician and therefore the term "bribe" was
> > > unsurprisingly sprinkled around his name like
> > > grains of salt around an ocean. Adding on
> > > the term "chess" had no significant impact,
> > > except to bring a few dead ends to the top
> > > of the list.
> >
> > Normal human intelligence. I read the book around 1979 and remembered
> > it. To get the exact quote, I walked across the room and picked up the
> > book. Tough, huh?
>
> Um, yeah-- real tough, considering you
> claimed to find the exact text in what--
> 30 seconds, was it?
>
> Normally, finding text somewhere in a
> *book* takes a bit longer than that, while
> say, a Google search might not.
Since the chapters are in chronological order, and the only chapter in
which it would make any sense was the one about the 1972 Candidates
matches, yeah, 30 seconds is about what it took. It probably took
longer than that to retype.
> BTW, your comments also seemed to
> strongly imply that *anybody* should
> have been able to locate this information
> quickly, so it is asinine to combine that
> sort of comment with a relatively rare
> book, which few are likely to possess.
Anybody who who is not sufficiently well read to be familiar with the
book (which is not "rare," though used copies are fairly expensive
these days) has no business shooting his mouth off and pretending to
be knowledgeable about the subject. If the dunce cap fits, wear it.
Your problem seems to be that you think access to a computer and modem
can replace a functioning brain. It can't.
ttk...@gmail.com
> shouting insults at each other: The "bribe" claim comes from an
> article by Petrosian, "The candidates' matches as I saw them," which
> appeared in Vasiliev's "Tigran Petrosian: His Life and Games." On page
> 226, Petrosian wrote, "Just before the match began, something happened
> that annoyed me very much. An extremely disreputable individual
> approached me and said insolently, 'Mr. Petrosian,. we are all waiting
> for the Spassky-Fischer match. So wouldn't it be better if you
> accepted a nice round sum and went home?'"
>
> Of course, this doesn't prove that the story is true (commies lie a
> lot), nor is there any indication that Fischer himself was involved
> (highly unlikely), but it's not apocryphal.
Neither does it constitute any evidence of a bribe, or even a claim
that a bribe was offered. All this sounds like is someone who strongly
dislikes Petrosian, someone who would much rather see an exciting
Fischer-Spassky match than a third dull Petrosian-Spassky match,
telling Petrosian how he feels. Unless the book goes on to say money
was in fact offered, the way I'd interpret "accept a nice round sum
and go home" is along the lines of "make a token effort, get it over
with quickly, and be happy with your share of the purse."
The mention of "a nice round sum" strikes me as simply an insult,
rather than an actual bribe attempt. As "Petrosian's Legacy" makes
clear, TP was not motivated primarily by money. Even though Argentina
offered the biggest purse, he didn't want to play there, saying "For
me, the weather and playing conditions are the most important, rather
than money." (page 114)
Also, having read a good many chess books by Russian authors, I know
how bad the translations can be. One has to wonder if "accepting a
nice round sum" is at all close to what was actually said (if the
incident ever occurred at all).
Considering all the effort the Soviets were putting into stopping
Fischer, both at the board and behind the scenes, it seems to me that
if a bribe actually had been offered, they would have trumpeted the
fact to the skies, making sure everyone knew how evil the capitalists
were to engage in this sordid cheating, and how noble and honorable
Petrosian had been to refuse it. The ruckus they made over the U-2 spy
plane case or the Bay of Pigs would have been nothing by
comparison.
parrt...@cs.com
<[Note the sudden silence of the ignoranti,
who no doubt are drying themselves off in
front of a warm fire... .] > -- Greg Kennedy
Greg Kennedy has declared a "sudden silence" on
the part of those asking him to offer a source for the
allegation that someone attempted to bribe Petrosian
before the 1971 candidates' final.
I failed to notice said silence which usually requires
-- even around here -- a day or two to be discerned.
Not a word written about Greg's sublime, if
slime, innocence of both historical fact and method,
as demonstrated here on many occasions, need be
unwritten. No one ever denied the possibility that
Petrosian or a Soviet stand-in might have penned
something resembling what appeared in the Vasiliev
volume. Frankly, the so-called bribe offer is hard to
nail down 100 percent in the text as quoted here.
Indeed, the incident may not have been a bribe offer
at all as related in the brief quotation. It could
have been a nasty crack that Petrosian should take his
prize money, play a few simuls in Buenos Aire, and go
home because the chess world did not want to see
Spassky-Petrosian III.
Bobby's candidates' match opponents were all
beautifully prepared for him. Taimanov and Petrosian
proved that the formidable Soviet grandmasteriat could
churn out notable opening ideas and TNs, but Bobby
coped with them at a unique level of strength.
Fischer-Petrosian (game seven) reached a position that
Petrosian and his team judged as rock solid for Black.
Bobby then proceeded to overturn this verdict with
profound positional understanding, including
exchanging a strong knight for a penned-in bishop --
an idea that was judged as weak by the GMs analyzing
the game at the time. It later proved to be a
profound inspiration.
Bobby's play had Spassky privately predicting
that he would beat them all. Tal called Bobby the
greatest chess genius to have descended from the
chessic sky.
These were two of Bobby's greatest opponents
offering their views.
Greg hates Fischer's achievements because they
were the product of an individual overcoming a vast
state system. Too, Greg imagines that had he been
raised in Brooklyn rather than germinating in Indiana,
he coulda been a contendah.
That's bot blot stuff.
Yours, Larry Parr
help bot
> Anybody who who is not sufficiently well read to be familiar with the
> book (which is not "rare," though used copies are fairly expensive
> these days) has no business shooting his mouth off and pretending to
> be knowledgeable about the subject. If the dunce cap fits, wear it.
>
> Your problem seems to be that you think access to a computer and modem
> can replace a functioning brain. It can't.
Look, dufus: you are being a dolt here; nobody
expects the masses to own a copy of the book
you mentioned, or to acquire one.
However, I am not convinced that I read that
particular book, and because of that I am still
hoping to find the same text in one of the
books which are commonly found at local
tournaments or bookstores. One such book
is titled Petrosian's Legacy, and because it
was written by TP himself, it certainly makes
sense to look there for his writings on the
1971 match. By the same token, I have a
book by Bernard Cafferty -- too old to expect
it to be widely owned -- on the candidates
matches of 1971; again, this is a logical
place to look, because as I pointed out
before, he quotes from the players, including
TP.
It could turn out that I read "your" book, as I
have read quite a few over the years, but odds
are the same text appeared elsewhere /in
addition/ to your source. Note that TK had to
go and buy a copy of Petrosian's Legacy; it's
obvious that not everyone has a thousand or
more chess books at hand. And the fact that
TK was unable -- or unwilling -- to locate the
text in PL is hardly convincing evidence that
it is not in there; the poor chump was highly
motivated to *not* find the text in question,
as was obvious to all but the ignoramus,
David Kane. It would not surprise me if I go
and find the comment in the very section
which Taylor Kingston singled out as one he
scrutinized carefully.
-- help bot
help bot
> Neither does it constitute any evidence of a bribe, or even a claim
> that a bribe was offered. All this sounds like is someone who strongly
> dislikes Petrosian, someone who would much rather see an exciting
> Fischer-Spassky match than a third dull Petrosian-Spassky match,
From a westerner's point of view, another
contest of skill between two Russians might
seem boring in that whoever wins, it will be
a Russian.
But in my opinion, it is misleading to
characterize the matches between these
two players as "boring", as TK has above.
I liked these matches, in spite of what is
generally thought regarding T. Petrosian's
playing style-- especially his tendency to
draw a lot. (But then, I /sort of/ liked the
K/K marathons, on account of the quality
of play, the level of understanding of the
two contestants.)
> telling Petrosian how he feels. Unless the book goes on to say money
> was in fact offered, the way I'd interpret "accept a nice round sum
> and go home" is along the lines of "make a token effort, get it over
> with quickly, and be happy with your share of the purse."
What did I predict regarding denial? LOL
> The mention of "a nice round sum" strikes me as simply an insult,
> rather than an actual bribe attempt. As "Petrosian's Legacy" makes
> clear, TP was not motivated primarily by money.
Tell that to the disreputable character--
maybe he hadn't read the book.
> Even though Argentina
> offered the biggest purse, he didn't want to play there, saying "For
> me, the weather and playing conditions are the most important, rather
> than money."
Tigran had just been beaten by BF in a
mini-match. As BF himself pointed out,
the Russians had a record of disappointing
results in the western hemisphere, so the
commentary regarding money was a bit of
a side-show; they both wanted to play
where they each believed they had the
best chances of /winning/.
> Also, having read a good many chess books by Russian authors, I know
> how bad the translations can be. One has to wonder if "accepting a
> nice round sum" is at all close to what was actually said (if the
> incident ever occurred at all).
Denial, my boy; you're in it up to your
neck! The truth is, the book Petrosian's
Legacy contains myriad statements by
TP which denizens of de Nile will not be
able to stomach; some Pepto-Bismol is
the answer-- not denial.
> Considering all the effort the Soviets were putting into stopping
> Fischer, both at the board and behind the scenes, it seems to me that
> if a bribe actually had been offered, they would have trumpeted the
> fact to the skies, making sure everyone knew how evil the capitalists
> were to engage in this sordid cheating, and how noble and honorable
> Petrosian had been to refuse it.
In fact TP did not state that he refused it.
This, along with his other comments about
the last several games not being proper
chess games, leaves me wondering why
TP did not name the "disreputable fellow",
and why the games were "not proper". I
may yet carefully replay these games,
searching for more clues.
Years later, Gary Kasparov brought up
the subject of throwing his match to DB,
even going so far as to toss out a specific
figure; curious, no? Combine such
oddities with his Caro-Kann game-toss,
and you get an idea of what's what "at
the top", as they say. My guess is that
GK did, but TP did not, throw a match.
-- help bot
The Historian
I can't agree with you, and I'd never use those words to describe
either Taylor Kingston or John Hillery.
The Historian
P Innes likes to dig a hole and hide out until people forget about his
nonsense, and then serve it up again hoping for a different response.
The Historian
> On Feb 13, 1:52 pm, "J.D. Walker" <j.d.wal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Ah, P Innes, the head kookpot. Whatever you say sir.
>
> Careful; if we recognize nearly-IMnes as
> "head kookpot", Neil Brennen may demand
> greater compensation for harrying him.
I do not "harry" P Innes. I merely correct his mistakes, lies, and
spin.
help bot
wrote:
> > In sum, you can't trust those guys! They
> > are pretenders, or poseurs, as our employee
> > Neil Brennen puts it.
>
> I can't agree with you, and I'd never use those words to describe
> either Taylor Kingston or John Hillery.
Just a day or two ago, these self-proclaimed
journalist pretenders dragged in their "expert
witness", a famed historian, to testify that no,
Tigran Petrosian could not possibly have ever
said that he was offered a bribe to throw his
match to Bobby Fischer. Almost immediately,
a third party jumped in from out of nowhere
(hey, maybe he is me?) to correct them; he
insists that everybody and his brother ought
to know about the book he talks about, if
they know anything at all.
My friends, that is not "journalism"; it's utter
incompetence. As I understand the term, it
indicates an ability to uncover the facts, to do
research, and most of all, to remain objective.
In sum, the term represents the precise
opposite of what poseurs like TK do here, in
rgc. Regrettably, the master of leading
witnesses to their own embarrassing demise
succeeded marvelously in dragging his man
down into the mire; those who refuse to learn
from history (in this case, TK's history), are
destined to repeat it.
Look at the evidence: imbecile David Kane
and poseur Taylor Kingston both denied the
facts; rejected them outright. (Even now, TK
is hard at work "reinterpreting" these facts
such that he can remain in de Nile, with the
crocs and hippos.) Facts, it may well be
said, are getting in their way-- causing an
annoyance; they must be punished, then
discarded, in favor of opinions and biases.
Call that what you like; I call it what it
obviously is: quackery! LOL
-- help bot
help bot
wrote:
> > It is odd that he has this fixation with me, when so many other posters
> > have been pointing to various defects of his "journalism" and he has
> > completely ignored them. I guess I am special. :)
>
> P Innes likes to dig a hole and hide out until people forget about his
> nonsense, and then serve it up again hoping for a different response.
After years of hard work, I believe nearly-
IMnes has /begun/ to accept that even if he
had honestly believed he was once a 2450
strength IM, he is now a mere vestige of his
(imaginary) former self. It's progress... .
Unfortunately, he has taken to playing
chess ONLY by remote, so the delusion
may never die (having Rybka is sweet, no?).
All the lies in the world regarding Taylor
Kingston's 2300+ remark cannot hold a
candle to the FACT that LP always offers up
Sam Sloan -- not Phil IMness -- when push
comes to shove, when a grudge match is
on the table. I believe LP must rank Mr.
Sloan second only to GM Evans himself,
as far as their clan goes. Mr. Sloan is so
darn good that he is relied upon in spite of
glaring weaknesses-- such as his like of
busted opening lines, for instance.
Oh, and as for that remark about PI being
an important kookpot-- please disregard; if
he really were an important one, we would be
paying you a lot more... naturally; it goes
without saying.
-- help bot
The Historian
> Oh, and as for that remark about PI being
> an important kookpot-- please disregard;
I don't regard P Innes as merely a kookpot, although he's certainly
one. A better comparison is to Ellsworth Toohey in Rand's The
Fountainhead. "The man who is nothing, and knows it."
parrt...@cs.com
The rash of attacks on Phil Innes merit a response.
Unlike the attack dogs who have chewed on Larry Evans, including
Edward Winter in an essay that actually had a higher incidence of
error than that demonstrated by him against GM Evans, I have never
accorded their work the same sort of unfair
bashing.
I have never denied, for example, the value of Winter as an
antiquarian. He has his place, and it is not such a bad one at that.
I have never written otherwise. (If you are of a mind, you can
consult Herbert Butterfield's "Man on His Past" to learn
the distinction between antiquarianism and work in history.)
Too, on a number of occasions, I have praised Taylor Kingston for his
book reviews, which I said surpassed about 90 percent of the work in
this field.
For all of his limitations, I still think that judgment about him in
accurate.
As for Neil Brennen, he did a lot of work on a recent book for which,
in my
judgment, he got shortchanged by the author. Namely, anything good
about the book appears to be the Historian's (of the Pennsylvania
State Chess Federation, untenured) work; the many crude sentences,
several dozen outright howlers, appear appear to be instances that he
did not have an opportunity to correct before
publication.
So then, when I say that Phil Innes knows more about literature and
history than the above two gents combined and multiplied a few times,
I don't think I am moved by personal animus against those attacking
Mr. Innes. If you wish to have a deep conversation with Phil, then
try to keep up with him.
Let's start, shall we, with Tommy Nelson's death on the Western Front
in 1917. A Greg Kennedy might imagine the Western Front of that year
to be newly settled territory, say, in Wyoming. But we are talking
about France and the Great War.
Who was Tommy Nelson? What was important about his death? Why, in
the name of heaven, was he there in the first place? How does his
death resonate in history and politics? Is there a linkup with the
lessons drawn by Vera Brittain in her Testament of Youth? Was John
Buchan overly facile in how he treated Nelson's death? Given Buchan's
Nelson's History of the War and defense of Haig, could he really draw
the conclusions that Lord Lansdowne, for one, outlined in a famous
letter to the Daily Telegraph, I think it was, as early as 1916?
If you wish to have a serious discussion, you probably will get a
popcult version of same from Brennen-Kingston; if you want something
better, you can try to engage Phil Innes.
What really enrages me about Phil is that his Latin is quite likely
superior to mine, even though my mother translated the comedies of
Publius Terentius Afer.
J.D. Walker
Dear Mr. Parr,
I submit that, in itself, a great education is a privilege, not a
virtue. It is what one does with such an education that may result in
virtue. On this basis, much of what /ChessOne/ or P Innes exhibits is a
very poor example of education in action. We should expect more from him.
If one also considers P Innes' cyclic /Jekyll-and-Hyde/ behavior of
indulging in wild and bizarre attacks against everyone in sight, and
then hibernating in a deep dark hole until he comes out to attack again,
we see the basis for his membership in the rgcp "kookpot" group. In
fact, the waste of his gifts of talent and education IMHO elevates him
to the status of "top kook" in rgcp. I hope that he will one day win a
virtual trophy for his antics.
The fact that, as a journalist, he ignores and hides from his critics is
one more strike against him and suggests intellectual dishonesty.
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
>
>
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:c20b43f3-d85f-4166...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> PHIL INNES AND HIS ATTACK DOGS
>
> The rash of attacks on Phil Innes merit a response.
>
> Unlike the attack dogs who have chewed on Larry Evans, including
> Edward Winter in an essay that actually had a higher incidence of
> error than that demonstrated by him against GM Evans, I have never
> accorded their work the same sort of unfair
> bashing.
Though that is a slight conflation of things; dictis facta suppetant! Which
is to to criticise Mr. Parr here for allowing words too much their wicked
way ~ and to contrast that with a contextuality [pace, the Reverend fella]
to let deeds correspond with words.
Which is to say that it is unfair, in my assessment of truth, for Mr. Parr
to be unfair; sola juvat virtus ;)
It is merely generous of him to other people, a largesse not issuing from
weakness, no malesuada fames after Vergel, not a weakness leading to crime.
> I have never denied, for example, the value of Winter as an
> antiquarian. He has his place, and it is not such a bad one at that.
> I have never written otherwise. (If you are of a mind, you can
> consult Herbert Butterfield's "Man on His Past" to learn
> the distinction between antiquarianism and work in history.)
Ay - and matter and mutual dissension on newsgroups [chess ones being
nothing out of the ordinary] are the same. What is rested with 'authority'
seems often a mere substitution of belief for investigation and direct
knowledge of things - yet so much that is written, merely because it makes
claim upon experience or witness, does not accord with one's own intimations
or sense of perception - as if all too hypothetical psychologies were
recorded, which in ordinary language, simply does not ring true.
Mr. Winter's principal fault seems of this nature - a lack of natural
temerity to speak of what is beyond his own wit or witness, so that he
denies even that realm of experience which others have and he lacks, but
which seem to be so often the very crux, the fons et origo, of people's
behavior.
As an antiquarian this perhaps sufficient, especially if the subject is not
the Life, but the residue of it, as if to speak of dried-out mummies.
Historians will try to find something else altogether to make exdplanation,
and indeed, many 'historians' these days are de-facto anthropologists,
recording what goes /between/ people, and peoples.
> Too, on a number of occasions, I have praised Taylor Kingston for his
> book reviews, which I said surpassed about 90 percent of the work in
> this field.
I noted the same in my interview with him. 'Another level' introduced to
American chess book reviewing.
> For all of his limitations, I still think that judgment about him in
> accurate.
>
> As for Neil Brennen, he did a lot of work on a recent book for which,
> in my
> judgment, he got shortchanged by the author. Namely, anything good
> about the book appears to be the Historian's (of the Pennsylvania
> State Chess Federation, untenured) work; the many crude sentences,
> several dozen outright howlers, appear appear to be instances that he
> did not have an opportunity to correct before
> publication.
His scrutiny needs better employment if it is not to be sour!, and indeed, I
agree again, even suggesting that the famous wharehouse of boxes; the
unindexed USCF Archive should receive his attention for pay. It was an
honest recommendation, and I would [have!] repeated it.
> So then, when I say that Phil Innes knows more about literature and
> history than the above two gents combined and multiplied a few times,
> I don't think I am moved by personal animus against those attacking
> Mr. Innes. If you wish to have a deep conversation with Phil, then
> try to keep up with him.
How grand! Its true, I do have some 50 or so regular correspondents in
chess, and only 3 write here. As to depth of things, sometimes it is simply
a matter of picking up the gems that others say, then discard in the dirt!
What is generally of an impoverished nature here is not that people suspect
not enough of what it put before them in the shop-window of chess-culture,
and feel justified in their sense of something amiss.
It is a poverty of understanding how to go about distinguishing what is
right from what seems suspect, without destroying the thing investigated
upon, by some reductio-ad-absurdam. A preference to waste rather than to
truly discriminate, which is almost always a social activity, rather than
lionized and proclamated cause.
> Let's start, shall we, with Tommy Nelson's death on the Western Front
> in 1917. A Greg Kennedy might imagine the Western Front of that year
> to be newly settled territory, say, in Wyoming. But we are talking
> about France and the Great War.
>
> Who was Tommy Nelson? What was important about his death? Why, in
> the name of heaven, was he there in the first place? How does his
> death resonate in history and politics? Is there a linkup with the
> lessons drawn by Vera Brittain in her Testament of Youth? Was John
> Buchan overly facile in how he treated Nelson's death? Given Buchan's
> Nelson's History of the War and defense of Haig, could he really draw
> the conclusions that Lord Lansdowne, for one, outlined in a famous
> letter to the Daily Telegraph, I think it was, as early as 1916?
Too remote a topic for Americans? Instead they might like the Thomas
Desjardin 'The Honored Dead', as an investigative study of 'how we know what
we know', and which follows the veritable industry after Gettysburg ~ and
how history in now fashioned after our own beliefs and indeed weaknesses,
rather than something more impartial and dissinterested.
> If you wish to have a serious discussion, you probably will get a
> popcult version of same from Brennen-Kingston; if you want something
> better, you can try to engage Phil Innes.
> What really enrages me about Phil is that his Latin is quite likely
> superior to mine, even though my mother translated the comedies of
> Publius Terentius Afer.
What a Roman you make of me! That, Mr. Parr, was simple a necessary
accomodation and mask to speak in the language of the enemy, that is, of the
dominant. I think most Celts would prefer the following sort of appreciation
[from Livy, 33.33.5-7; tr. E. T. Sage.]
There was one poeple in the world which would fight for
others' liberties at its own cost, to its peril, and with
its own toil... ready to cross the sea that there might be no
unjust empire anywhere and that everywhere justice, right,
and law might prevail
And them folk were the Greeks, at least the Greeks 200-50 BC.
The Historian
> <parrthe...@cs.com> wrote in message
http://www.greektexts.com/library/Aesop/Aesop's_Fables/eng/print/13.html
The Vain Jackdaw
JUPITER DETERMINED, it is said, to create a sovereign over the
birds, and made proclamation that on a certain day they should
all present themselves before him, when he would himself choose
the most beautiful among them to be king. The Jackdaw, knowing
his own ugliness, searched through the woods and fields, and
collected the feathers which had fallen from the wings of his
companions, and stuck them in all parts of his body, hoping
thereby to make himself the most beautiful of all. When the
appointed day arrived, and the birds had assembled before
Jupiter, the Jackdaw also made his appearance in his many
feathered finery. But when Jupiter proposed to make him king
because of the beauty of his plumage, the birds indignantly
protested, and each plucked from him his own feathers, leaving
the Jackdaw nothing but a Jackdaw.
parrt...@cs.com
Dear John,
You twigged. My comments on Phil Innes were indeed
directed toward your attacks that I regard as unwarranted.
After the name-calling, I think you are obliged
to approach Phil, not the other way around. If you do
so, you are going to find a formidably informed person
who has a considerable mind. A trained intelligence.
I mentioned Tommy Nelson of publishing fame
because Phil is the one person on this forum whom I
can drop into conversation in mid-sentence on such a
subject and who can finish the sentence for me. I am
asking you to explore this mind, not to fall into the
bad habits of Neil Brennen or the dishonest ones of
Taylor Kingston, who will not answer the same kind of
questions about his employing false identities on this
forum that Neil Brennen addressed to Paul Truong.
Most of Neil Brennan's nasty and vicious
questions are also, alas, fair ones. So, too, the
questions that I addressed so often to Mr. Kingston.
I don't recollect the precise turning point in
my relationship with Phil. Possibly it was when he
proved curious rather than resentful about an exchange
I was having regarding the importance of Bogdanov and
Gorky in developing a killer idea -- Bogostroitel'stvo
or God-building -- that Stalin later translated into
the concept of the New Soviet Man. This idea worked
its way through Stalinist professors at the Sorbonne
into the minds of such men as Pol Pot and Ieng Sary,
who used it to justify killing any sick peasant who
could not meet Khmer Rouge production quotas. The
reasoning was that if men become AS gods after the
revolution -- since Marx taught that the relations of
the means of production were the only foundation,
whereas human nature was superstructure -- then
those who do not act like gods and become ill are
also objective counter-revolutionaries fit for liquidation.
Intellect and learning have a hierarchy. I
differentiate between Brennen-Kingston and, say, Greg
Kennedy, our Caliban from Indiana. I am simply saying
that if you choose to explore the Innes mind, you will find
it a few levels above that of B-K.
If nothing else, do so to benefit yourself.
Intellectual self-interest is no crime.
Yours, Larry Parr
J.D. Walker
I am going to desist out of respect for you -- not P Innes. I simply do
not like, or respect the man. You have acknowledged abuse from one
direction but not the other. Just the same, this whole area of
discourse is a playground for you, and not for me. Have fun with it. I
am spending more and more time on ICC and enjoying it a great deal. :)
Would you care to explain your use of the term twigged? It didn't make
it into my vocabulary. :)
--
Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.
David Kane
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6111d82b-55a3-4469...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Look at the evidence: imbecile David Kane
> and poseur Taylor Kingston both denied the
> facts; rejected them outright. (Even now, TK
> is hard at work "reinterpreting" these facts
> such that he can remain in de Nile, with the
> crocs and hippos.) Facts, it may well be
> said, are getting in their way-- causing an
> annoyance; they must be punished, then
> discarded, in favor of opinions and biases.
>
> Call that what you like; I call it what it
> obviously is: quackery! LOL
>
We begin to see why help bot didn't offer
up the citation himself. It shows that
his inability to comprehend written matter
on USENET, on display on a daily basis,
is matched by his inability to comprehend
material he "reads" in books.
But maybe he is not completely hopeless.
Perhaps if you speak VERY slowly to
him, something sinks in.
Chess One
"J.D. Walker" <j.d.w...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:K7KdnVfbWIA9kyva...@comcast.com...
> Dear Mr. Parr,
>
> I am going to desist out of respect for you -- not P Innes. I simply do
> not like, or respect the man.
You see, Larry, these terms, directly vague, are synonyms for this sort-of
person's animus. His only reason to exist in public is an agitprop function,
with only a few asides as if actually interested in chess, and he is not
very good at it! Basically he likes the asshole sort of references to others
as if a Brennan or a Laugherty or a 'cudda bin a c player' - or is it just
dick envy? They are allmuch excited on these references.
I hope you understand to whom you are writing - not that there is anything
necessarily wrong with such a trio - after all, closet homo's have had a
tough time! And there are merely the normal distortional means when one
cannot make direct statements, but instead some 30 each punning on other
guy's dicks. Nothing personal here, it is altogether normal these days,
normal and unmistakable!
> You have acknowledged abuse from one direction but not the other. Just
> the same, this whole area of discourse is a playground for you, and not
> for me.
The [non-Christian] reverend [whatever the hell that is???? ROFL]
has made it his playground to accuse other people, and then talk about their
dicks, and their arseholes with Brennan and Laugherty and other jerks; yet
to read this, butter wouldn't melt in his mouth.
This is to whom you correspond, Mr. Parr.
> Have fun with it. I am spending more and more time on ICC and enjoying
> it a great deal. :)
You see - the first thing I suggested to Larry Parr [in 3 latin words] was
that what is said is not how one is.
How one behaves is a better guide to any spin on what one says one is.
In short, in you prefer playing chess, fuck off and do it! And quit fuckiing
off other people and talkinig about their arseholes and dicks and stuff, as
if that was your interest. :)))
When challenged independently on these general points of public affairs - i
see that one is busy with ICC :)
> Would you care to explain your use of the term twigged? It didn't make it
> into my vocabulary. :)
Don't be cute, reverend, you already failed the main chance. Don't you know
which game you are about? I think most peole here sort of get whre you and
your friends are at.
You are sort of sucky people who have huge resentments, but those are your
business not ours. Most of us have just small resentments which we can sort
of acknowledge and deal with in interaction with each other.
Have an ICC day.
Phil Innes
J.D. Walker
Mr. P Innes,
As I stated earlier, my use of the abbreviation P Innes is short for
Poor Innes, and it still is today. You may wish to use your behemoth
intellect to research the archives and you will find my statement.
Your fixations on sexual and excremental paraphernalia is your own
problem. I do not think Larry is blind to your manipulations. But, he
will act as his own counsel.
Larry, I made my offer to desist in good faith and you see how Mr. P
Innes responds. Is this what you would call a great intellect in action?
--
Chess One
> Mr. P Innes,
>
> As I stated earlier, my use of the abbreviation P Innes is short for Poor
> Innes, and it still is today.
How absurd a statement! Making as if to be respectable the revernend graces
his dick and asshole refererces, about other people. Is Walker a wanker?
> You may wish to use your behemoth intellect to research the archives and
> you will find my statement.
>
> Your fixations on sexual and excremental paraphernalia is your own
> problem.
There are Walker and Co's continuted references. Noticing them makes it my
problem. Heuch!
> I do not think Larry is blind to your manipulations. But, he will act as
> his own counsel.
>
> Larry, I made my offer to desist in good faith and you see how Mr. P Innes
> responds. Is this what you would call a great intellect in action?
You are sir, a shite. Now if you actually desist real engagement of any
issues as are offered you, fuck off to ICC. If you do not, then cease
protesting here, since you are so evidently a liar, between what you protest
and what you do!
You fuck-over people - this is very clear. I don't care for reputations
overmuch, and least of all my own, but you have played this game against
people where there is some public significance, and that is politking, and
all should care.
What the hell do you mean by appending 'Reverend' to your name, and then
saying you are no Christian? What sort of Reverend can that be except some
fakist?
A Mail-Order reverend, of what faith? How come so shy? While always signing
yourself as reverend like that is a term used by non-Christians?
What the hell are these vehement, cynical and nasty speculations ofpeople
about [even after 6 months of them!] reverend?
What a fucking crock you are, reverend, from clew to earring.
J.D. Walker
You are outdoing yourself, P Innes. It is sad to see.
--
Mike Murray
>PHIL INNES AND HIS ATTACK DOGS
> So then, when I say that Phil Innes knows more about literature and
>history than the above two gents [Brennen & Kingston] combined and
>multiplied a few times,
I believe my first exchange with Innes occurred a few years ago when
he mentioned Henry Miller and I made a little joke, something like,
"Didn't he write a medical text on the topic of cancer?". Despite
whatever knowledge of literature he may have, he not only didn't get
it, but made a number of erroneous claims which got him justly cuffed
about by some other posters.
>I don't think I am moved by personal animus against those attacking
>Mr. Innes. If you wish to have a deep conversation with Phil, then
>try to keep up with him.
> If you wish to have a serious discussion, you probably will get a
>popcult version of same from Brennen-Kingston; if you want something
>better, you can try to engage Phil Innes.
>What really enrages me about Phil is that his Latin is quite likely
>superior to mine, even though my mother translated the comedies of
>Publius Terentius Afer.
It's one thing to have had a classical education. It's quite another
to deploy its fruits with calm, reasoned judgment. What I too often
detect from Phil is what an old professor of mine once called mere
"erudition exhibitionism". I'm sure there are areas where his
knowledge runs deep -- unfortunately, it's hard to tell when he's in
one of these sweet spots or when he's bluffing.
His use of tantrum and bombast for argument is legend, but would be
tolerable, perhaps even amusing, if well done.
However, Phil's posts often reflect a fundamental lack respect for
the reader: disconnected sentence fragments, misspelled words, weird
formatting, inappropriate use of colloquialisms and slang, sentences
that fail to make sense even after serious attempts at parsing. Too
many of his posts reflect not even a cursory review before he hits
"Send". He rarely admits error (witness the infamous "Andean"
exchanges, or his claim of 2450 strength). His "textual analysis" of
the FSS posts was simply amazing for its shallowness.
Eventually, one tires of attempting rational discussion with such a
person, and decides ridicule is appropriate. Unfortunately, this
sometimes does go over the top.
Mike Murray
<j.d.w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>You are outdoing yourself, P Innes. It is sad to see.
If all his posts were like this one, I'd have to retract my judgment
of erudition exhibitionism.
parrt...@cs.com
<Would you care to explain your use of the term twigged?
It didn't make it into my vocabulary.> -- Rev. John Walker
Dear John,
These are trying, if beautiful times in Tinytown.
We are not always so viciously, indeed rabidly,
ill-composed, though nearly always.
Like old Lear sunk in madness, Greg Kennedy is
still wandering around this stage with e-twigs in his
hair, shaking his fist in resentment and evident envy
at his intellectual betters, Neil Brennan and Taylor
Kingston. Meanwhile, these two are trying to make
sport of their better, Phil Innes, who replies
righteously rather than sportively.
Twigs in hair? You asked for a definition of
"to twig." Think of following a trail beginning with
a twig at the end of a branch. You move along the
branch with the intention of eventually reaching the
tree trunk or the heart of the matter. "To twig,"
then, is to understand or, more precisely, to figure
out. The usage is chiefly British.
I am stuck, do you twig, 'twixt you and Phil and
shall not try to make peace again. You're bright and
will eventually trace the intellectual topography here.
A brief return to yesteryear.
Who was your debate coach at Bothell? I seem
to recollect you had a debate partner to whom you
introduced me. Very, very vaguely, I recall an
encounter at the SPC cafeteria in which I exhibited
typical Bellevue arrogance, explaining to your partner
with mock didacticism that green pants did not go with
a blue blazer or, perhaps, that he ought to remove the
string tie he was wearing and use it to hang his
unworthy self -- so pitiful was his person and so
minuscule were his chances to prevail against us
mighty products of Elmon Ousley and Patricia Rabin.
This latter had, as you may recollect, an
ambition to become the top debate and forensics coach
in the United States, which she eventually did for a
couple of years. A Johns Hopkins MA in Latin, she
never tired of explaining to me that I was not so much
clay as mental mud before being shaped and then molded
and finally honed by her perfect pedagogical pinkies
or, if you will, tingling tutorial tentacles.
"Parr," she used to say without any polite
preambles, "I have made you what you are."
And what I was depended on whether I brought
home a trophy and NFL sweepstakes points from a
given debating tournament. If there were hardware
placed on her desk the Monday morning following a
tournament (she only let you sleep with a trophy for
one night) then you were pronounced just bright enough
to merit her TLW or tender loving whipping. And how
one basked before one's peers if upon your cockroach-like
self, she deigned to cast a few rays from the celestial
effulgence that was she!
If you failed to finish among the top three winning a
trophy, you were at best ignored. But if you dared to
smile at the wrong moment as she bawled out some
luckless failure, you heard, "Parr, wipe that sly
smile off your kisser. Got that? You are nothing
without me, kid. Remember that."
Not only did I remember it. I believed it.
Alas., she was right.
Yours, Larry Parr
J.D. Walker
> YESTERYEAR
>
> <Would you care to explain your use of the term twigged?
> It didn't make it into my vocabulary.> -- Rev. John Walker
>
> Dear John,
>
> These are trying, if beautiful times in Tinytown.
> We are not always so viciously, indeed rabidly,
> ill-composed, though nearly always.
>
> Like old Lear sunk in madness, Greg Kennedy is
> still wandering around this stage with e-twigs in his
> hair, shaking his fist in resentment and evident envy
> at his intellectual betters, Neil Brennan and Taylor
> Kingston. Meanwhile, these two are trying to make
> sport of their better, Phil Innes, who replies
> righteously rather than sportively.
I understand this to be the configuration of personalities as you see them.
> Twigs in hair? You asked for a definition of
> "to twig." Think of following a trail beginning with
> a twig at the end of a branch. You move along the
> branch with the intention of eventually reaching the
> tree trunk or the heart of the matter. "To twig,"
> then, is to understand or, more precisely, to figure
> out. The usage is chiefly British.
Understood.
> I am stuck, do you twig, 'twixt you and Phil and
> shall not try to make peace again. You're bright and
> will eventually trace the intellectual topography here.
I appreciate your position. I will not force the issue.
> A brief return to yesteryear.
>
> Who was your debate coach at Bothell? I seem
> to recollect you had a debate partner to whom you
> introduced me. Very, very vaguely, I recall an
> encounter at the SPC cafeteria in which I exhibited
> typical Bellevue arrogance, explaining to your partner
> with mock didacticism that green pants did not go with
> a blue blazer or, perhaps, that he ought to remove the
> string tie he was wearing and use it to hang his
> unworthy self -- so pitiful was his person and so
> minuscule were his chances to prevail against us
> mighty products of Elmon Ousley and Patricia Rabin.
I do not remember the debate coach's name. My partner? That would be
Tom Gaisford. Alas, the poor fellow has passed on.
You may recall a team of two upperclassmen from my school who won some
prizes. Ted Walgamott, and John Pannatoni. A very interesting pair.
Ted during his senior year was student body president. I believe he was
suspended near the end of the year for a little enterprise he had going
during some campus festivities. It had something to do with buying
tickets to play putt-putt golf with the eventual winner to be rewarded
with a keg of beer. Our school was more on the lax side of things. :)
> This latter had, as you may recollect, an
> ambition to become the top debate and forensics coach
> in the United States, which she eventually did for a
> couple of years. A Johns Hopkins MA in Latin, she
> never tired of explaining to me that I was not so much
> clay as mental mud before being shaped and then molded
> and finally honed by her perfect pedagogical pinkies
> or, if you will, tingling tutorial tentacles.
>
> "Parr," she used to say without any polite
> preambles, "I have made you what you are."
Heh, it sounds like intellectual boot camp.
> And what I was depended on whether I brought
> home a trophy and NFL sweepstakes points from a
> given debating tournament. If there were hardware
> placed on her desk the Monday morning following a
> tournament (she only let you sleep with a trophy for
> one night) then you were pronounced just bright enough
> to merit her TLW or tender loving whipping. And how
> one basked before one's peers if upon your cockroach-like
> self, she deigned to cast a few rays from the celestial
> effulgence that was she!
>
> If you failed to finish among the top three winning a
> trophy, you were at best ignored. But if you dared to
> smile at the wrong moment as she bawled out some
> luckless failure, you heard, "Parr, wipe that sly
> smile off your kisser. Got that? You are nothing
> without me, kid. Remember that."
>
> Not only did I remember it. I believed it.
> Alas., she was right.
Although I never reached the dizzying heights that you did, I enjoyed
debate. I think I threw up before every match. It was more intense
than tournament chess. :)
help bot
wrote:
> I do not "harry" P Innes. I merely correct his mistakes, lies, and
> spin.
We cannot *afford* to pay you for a lifetime of
hard work! Please stick to merely harrying
nearly-IMnes, as per our original contract. If
you wish to go beyond the agreement, there
will be no extra pay-- sorry.
As we discovered in the case of Ray Keene
and his critic Edward Winter, no one can be
expected to keep up with the volume of lies,
mistakes, gaffes, and spin of certain, um,
exceptional individuals. Scientists are still
working on the design of robots which can
one day -- it is hoped -- keep up with them.
-- help bot
mudshark
> And what I was depended on whether I brought
> home a trophy and NFL sweepstakes points from a
> given debating tournament. If there were hardware
> placed on her desk the Monday morning following a
> tournament (she only let you sleep with a trophy for
> one night) then you were pronounced just bright enough
> to merit her TLW or tender loving whipping. And how
> one basked before one's peers if upon your cockroach-like
> self, she deigned to cast a few rays from the celestial
> effulgence that was she!
Celestial shit more like it. She sounds like a right fuck-up & a root
cause of your chronic over-eloquence. Bleeding twerps!..
help bot
wrote:
> The Vain Jackdaw
>
> JUPITER DETERMINED, it is said, to create a sovereign over the
> birds, and made proclamation that on a certain day they should
> all present themselves before him, when he would himself choose
> the most beautiful among them to be king. The Jackdaw, knowing
> his own ugliness, searched through the woods and fields, and
> collected the feathers which had fallen from the wings of his
> companions, and stuck them in all parts of his body, hoping
> thereby to make himself the most beautiful of all. When the
> appointed day arrived, and the birds had assembled before
> Jupiter, the Jackdaw also made his appearance in his many
> feathered finery. But when Jupiter proposed to make him king
> because of the beauty of his plumage, the birds indignantly
> protested, and each plucked from him his own feathers, leaving
> the Jackdaw nothing but a Jackdaw.
For these kooks, I like the story of The Emperor's
New Clothes. How much of their "kookery" is vanity,
and how much simply an indulgence in deception,
which even a child can see through?
-- help bot
help bot
> We begin to see why help bot didn't offer
> up the citation himself.
Changing the subject, eh?
The claim was that TP wrote no such thing,
that it never happened on account of you nitwits
don't like me. Now it seems to be a case of
"this guy was quicker than I was" (and you still
don't like me).
Face it, kid: you fools were wrong about the
Andy Soltis book, and you were wrong about
the Tigram Petrosian comment. The only
thing which can be said in your favor is that
you have been /consistent/. LOL!
-- help bot
Chess One
knowingly puts them forward - and they are his twists on things not mine.
This is, after all a chess newsgroup, and if you don't forward erudite
material on chess, then is the result to wind up like Brennan? That is, to
only trash people and not talk chess more than 1 in any 100 times?
Fucking hell! What a nerve you have to complain about people who actually
try to write about chess!
The attack dogs just want to write about my dick or my arse. You make your
own choice. And I don't mean what you say you will do, but if you can bother
to write about chess at all, or just obsess full-time about others with all
those people over there in the wanking gallery.
Phil Innes
"Mike Murray" <mikem...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:ej8cr396v9nsr0fou...@4ax.com...
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:09769f4d-623c-4dd7...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> YESTERYEAR
>
> <Would you care to explain your use of the term twigged?
> It didn't make it into my vocabulary.> -- Rev. John Walker
>
> Dear John,
>
> These are trying, if beautiful times in Tinytown.
> We are not always so viciously, indeed rabidly,
> ill-composed, though nearly always.
>
> Like old Lear sunk in madness, Greg Kennedy is
> still wandering around this stage with e-twigs in his
> hair, shaking his fist in resentment and evident envy
> at his intellectual betters, Neil Brennan and Taylor
> Kingston. Meanwhile, these two are trying to make
> sport of their better, Phil Innes, who replies
> righteously rather than sportively.
>
> Twigs in hair? You asked for a definition of
> "to twig." Think of following a trail beginning with
> a twig at the end of a branch. You move along the
> branch with the intention of eventually reaching the
> tree trunk or the heart of the matter. "To twig,"
> then, is to understand or, more precisely, to figure
> out. The usage is chiefly British.
Since I must be right rather than amused, directly to the pedantry! :-
TWIG is precisely British, rather than English, and a very old word in
serveral languages.
Halliwell recently gives it [1846] (1) to understand a person's motives or
meaning, then offers the dialect form, "I twigged what he'd be arter."
Somewhat earlier there is mention of TWIGGER; a wencher. See Dido p. 50, and
Tusser applies it to sheep! [Tusser circa 1590].
Regressing 1,000 years the noun is A. Sax., as TWIG or TWÁ, and
interestingly I see on my shelf The Royal Game, since the A. Sax origin is
first Germanic, as ZWEIG.
Now, the interesting thing is, the original sense of the word Larry Parr
uses above is seemingly not this one of Germanic origin, though it is become
conflated with a yet earlier word of very different provenace.
There is TWIG; the transitive verb from Irish Gael [q-Celtic as TUIG]; to
perceive, discern, take notice of ~ and in intransitive form meaning; to
see, to apprehend or understand.
--
A mere similarity is the C17th, 'to wig', which means to fool aroung with,
to make a fool of - and whether this is an adaptation of the cuckold's
horns, or more in the line of 'singing the beard of the King of Spain', I
don't know.
Phil Innes
ttk...@gmail.com
> On Feb 15, 5:39 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > We begin to see why help bot didn't offer
> > up the citation himself.
>
> Changing the subject, eh?
>
> The claim was that TP wrote no such thing,
> that it never happened on account of you nitwits
> don't like me.
No, Greg. The claims Mr. Kane and I made were as follows:
(1) That your claim, that a bribe was offered to Petrosian to throw
his 1971 Candidates Match to Fischer, was highly implausible.
(2) That therefore it should not be believed without adequate
evidence.
(3) That therefore it was incumbent on you to produce such evidence,
if you wanted us to believe you.
Whereupon you huffed and puffed for a while, but produced no
evidence.
Then you claimed the evidence lay in the book "Petrosian's Legacy,"
but were unable to cite any actual quote. I acquired this book,
examined it carefully, and found nothing about bribery. Strike one.
Whereupon you speculated that the evidence lay in a book edited by
Bernard Cafferty. I contacted Cafferty, who assured me he knew of no
such thing. Strike two.
Finally, another poster cited the Vasiliev book, which you had never
heard of. However, the quote he gave was no evidence of bribery, nor
even a claim by Petrosian that a bribe had been offered. It was merely
someone of pro-Fischer and/or anti-Petrosian sentiments offering
Petrosian an insult. Strike three.
> and you still
> don't like me.
Of course we don't like you. You are an ignorant, arrogant,
insulting windbag. Your lone virtue is that occasionally you speak
disparagingly of other posters' nonsense here. However, since you
speak disparagingly of pretty much everyone, this seems to be merely a
case of a stopped clock being right twice a day.
David Kane
<ttk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ff1003b-6def-45e0...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Strike three.
And let's not forget that his earlier at bat was equally
noteworthy. In claiming that Fischer's rating was inflated
because of his performance in US championships, he demonstrated
a thorough ignorance of Fischer's playing career, and then
went down swinging by advertising his complete inability to
understand how ratings work.
Sanny
> Face it, kid: you fools were wrong about the
> Andy Soltis book, and you were wrong about
> the Tigram Petrosian comment. The only
> thing which can be said in your favor is that
> you have been /consistent/. LOL!
>
> -- help bot
At last Help Bot won the Battle and game ends here.
Taylor Kingston is very behind Help Bot, Let him take the air. He is a
also a good chess player and we must accept the facts.
He has beaten GetClub and has got the highest scores. Any one else [A
few Exceptions] is not able to match his scores.
Help Bot writes 1000 things and if 3-4 things get wrong then that is
OK. Everyone get his toungue slip sometimes. and to err is Human and
to forgive is devine.
r.g.c.m is no play ground or Contest of Knowledge it is just to
discuss chess. If you feel the other person is wrong just give your
view points. One should not go on personnal Attacks.
Discussions should be logic based not Envy Based.
Bye
Sanny
Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html
ttk...@gmail.com
Ah, Sanny, Sanny. As David Warner said to one of his flunkies in the
film Time Bandits, "Oh Benson, you are so blisfully free of the
ravages of intelligence."
parrt...@cs.com
And don't forget Greg Kennedy's asinine claim that when Fischer took
the pawn on h2 against Spassky in their first 1972 match game, that
the position was not a dead draw -- as both Fischer and Spassky later
proclaimed.
Chess One
> Dear Mr. Parr,
>
> I am going to desist out of respect for you -- not P Innes. I simply do
> not like, or respect the man.
What I failed to appreciate about this Walker fellow, if we can dispense a
moment with Yale badinage - where next, skull &... :))
Is any point to which he brings his pre-supposed and vaunted intellect. I am
encouraged that Larry Parr engages him, with some affection it seems, since
Larry Parr is pre-emininetly the best writer on these newsgroups, has been a
dozen years since.
And in this respect any recommendation via correspondance is pertinent.
While the reverend, shall we admit his reverence to something or other [?
but what ?] is happy making dick and asshole jokes about other blokes [let's
not pretend otherwise, or indeed that Yale is such] I rather feel that he
hides his lamp under a Brennan.
Now - some group of people here have led a charge against Pual Truong, using
such language and devices which would put the false Sloan almost to shame ~
but least said is that they themselves equate with the ordure of the
'perpetrator'. From such a stance they then demand their own terms for a
prosecution - a kangaroo court in public.
If this matter - this demonstrated pattern of behaviors - is simply a
projection of what the group is unable to own in themselves, or,
alternatively, a conscious villification of someone to which, even if true,
they are the same [!] ...
Are you still there reader? Its complicated init [?] when the likely perps
do the prosecution!
And thus it was in MacCarthy days, psychologically.
Maybe this was also true of Yale days? But let us not be overly polite or
Jesuitical in our response - since the plain fact and plain language is that
there are those out to there intent to fuck someone, and they themselves may
have some little part in the issue?
That is why, at bottom, opening up the can of worms at USCF is such a
terrifying thing for them to admit to and encourage.
Fainter hearts have said braver - but so much is said here that it is
necessary to redirect the reader to how people are.
If the the weird-reverend doesn't like me, he should get of over it, no? I
don't ask that he likes me - and waht are such personal things for him to do
with me anyway? I do ask why he runs away from anything that comes to a
point.
Maybe that ain't old-school tie. But on the rugger fields of England it
would be directly sorted.
And maybe that's enough on mouthing off and being a champion of the
universe, and such shit. It really doesn;t convince anyone of anything
except a certain precociousness, right?
If the Reverend has actually something to converse about, he might not cut
the akward responses from others, as he does, and posture his great arse in
public instead, since there are those who may think he just the usual big
rentier-tosser, and has wasted his education.
Phil Innes
help bot
> (1) That your claim, that a bribe was offered to Petrosian to throw
> his 1971 Candidates Match to Fischer, was highly implausible.
The de Nile wallowers seem to have lost their
way-- once again. "Surprise."
My original comment referred to *Tigran Petrosian's*
claim; the fact that *he* wrote about being offered a
bribe. In addition, *he* has written about the lights
going out each time Bobby Fischer got into trouble
on the board, etc. All these things are known
facts; known because he wrote them, and because
they have been translated into English and published.
Face it: folks who have not read what TP has
written on the subject would do better to put down
their shovels; to stop digging.
> (2) That therefore it should not be believed without adequate
> evidence.
This is where the discussion may turn to who
are the ignoramuses, and who are in de Nile.
In my opinion, imbeciles like David Kane
simply cannot help bot get the facts wrong;
it's /in their very nature/. But there is always
a chance -- however small -- that others may
climb out of their state of denial. All that is
required is, perhaps, a replacement "hero";
let's say Gat Kamsky, for instance. Once
the emotional void has been filled, the myth
of BF can be re-examined, /rationally/.
> (3) That therefore it was incumbent on you to produce such evidence,
> if you wanted us to believe you.
I think this statement gives a big fat clue as to
the very heart of the problem with Mr. Kingston
and his ilk; I have repeatedly stated that I have
no desire whatever to convince the ignoranti of
the known facts; that my only desire was to be
the one to saw the limb they have crawled out
onto. Obviously, I was deprived of that pleasure
by someone who says he found the text in
question in just 30 seconds (though I don't
believe him).
Now, what sort of fellow would go right on
pretending that my goal was to convince the
hoards of imbeciles of the known facts? A
perfectly dishonest scumbag, that's what sort.
The truth is, I don't believe that dishonest
imbeciles are capable of fixing their mental
issues; of escaping their denial. So maybe
my attitude is unkind; bent toward ridicule
and mockery of their pathetic state; what
can I say? Should one cast pearls before
swine, expecting appreciation? I see the
pigs, and fear for my shiny pearls getting
swallowed up! For you poor fellows, there is
always dried corn. Sue-y!
-- help bot
help bot
> Discussions should be logic based not Envy Based.
Oh, these poor fellows don't "envy" my chess
knowledge; they are simply in a state of DENIAL
regarding Bobby Fischer and all things related
to him.
Even though Tigran Petrosian took great pride
in pointing out that he somehow knew that the
threat BF posed was real, his commentaries
regarding the freaky 6-0 scores, his own loss
to BF and so forth, are too painful for those who
worship the myth of BF to handle. As a famous
actor put it, they "can't handle the truth!"
These dregs continue to chant that BF won
the championship "on his own", with no help
from anyone, etc. They are in denial when it
comes to names like Ed Edmondson-- a man
who made it his mission to help Bobby Fischer
win the title. They are in denial regarding any
and all things which contradict the story which
constitutes the BF myth.
Tigran Petrosian has pointed out that in his
opinion, without EE, there would be no BF
victory. That in his opinion, BF studied chess
more than the entire Soviet Olympic chess team
combined! But these opinions must be denied,
for you see, they don't "fit" the myth; the self-
deception. The myth desires that BF was all
natural-born genius, not study and work. It
wants, no, needs, to focus only on the 6-0
victories and what happened afterward, except
when crafting conspiracies which unjustly kept
BF from being world champ from as early as
about 1962.
Perhaps worst of all, the dregs who are in the
state of denial require that even the positions in
BF's games be "interpreted" favorably-- to fit the
myth! Indeed, for many, the infamous blunder
Bxh2 was not really an error, not an oversight,
but rather, an attempt to win in spite of a dull
opponent who was killing chess with his dull
opening play (trading Queens? Blasphemy!).
I feel sorry for them, really I do; but I also
cannot help bot despise their idiocy; their
propensity for self-deception.
No, these dregs do not envy my knowledge;
they more likely fear it. It represents danger
to their "comfortable" opinions and biases.
-- help bot
David Kane
> On Feb 16, 11:49 am, ttk5...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> (1) That your claim, that a bribe was offered to Petrosian to throw
>> his 1971 Candidates Match to Fischer, was highly implausible.
>
> The de Nile wallowers seem to have lost their
> way-- once again. "Surprise."
>
> My original comment referred to *Tigran Petrosian's*
> claim; the fact that *he* wrote about being offered a
> bribe.
Of course, he *hasn't* written about being offered a bribe.
In addition, *he* has written about the lights
> going out each time Bobby Fischer got into trouble
> on the board, etc. All these things are known
> facts; known because he wrote them, and because
> they have been translated into English and published.
>
> Face it: folks who have not read what TP has
> written on the subject would do better to put down
> their shovels; to stop digging.
>
>
>> (2) That therefore it should not be believed without adequate
>> evidence.
>
> This is where the discussion may turn to who
> are the ignoramuses, and who are in de Nile.
>
> In my opinion, imbeciles like David Kane
> simply cannot help bot get the facts wrong;
> it's /in their very nature/. But there is always
> a chance -- however small -- that others may
> climb out of their state of denial. All that is
> required is, perhaps, a replacement "hero";
> let's say Gat Kamsky, for instance. Once
> the emotional void has been filled, the myth
> of BF can be re-examined, /rationally/.
Just what "facts" have I got wrong?
Your problem is that you mistake your
delusions for facts.
By the way, I have never, in any way,
considered Fischer a hero.
help bot
> Just what "facts" have I got wrong?
My boy, from what I've seen, you have a
decided tendency to get the majority of the
facts wrong-- or else, to simply deny them.
You were wrong about Andy Soltis' RL
book containing the very line Bobby Fischer
essayed against Boris Spassky in 1992;
your hasty denial was most revealing.
You were wrong in relying upon Taylor
Kingston's purported "knowledge" regarding
what Tigran Petrosian has or has not written.
You were wrong in your guesses as to my
alleged desire to school the imbeciles here
as to the facts, when all I really desired was
to be the one to saw the limb-- but only after
as many fools as possible had crawled out
upon it! (And you continued being wrong on
this issue even after being schooled on it.)
As far as I am aware, there is nothing in
which the imbecile David Kane has been
fortunate enough to get the facts right.
If there were an award for consistency in
being wrong, David Kane would deserve to
win it.
If Being Wrong were a political party, then
David Kane would be its front runner
candidate.
If wrongness were an art form, David Kane
would be on the same plane as Leonardo
de Vinci.
If wrongheadedness had no name, we
might offer up something containing the
words /David/ and /Kane/, so that its
meaning could be grasped intuitively by
those familiar with his work.
If there is anything in which the fool
David Kane has been right, I would be
happy to know what it is. Somebody?
Anybody?!! There must be something... .
-- help bot
David Kane
> On Feb 16, 11:13 pm, "David Kane" <davidek...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Just what "facts" have I got wrong?
>
>
> My boy, from what I've seen, you have a
> decided tendency to get the majority of the
> facts wrong-- or else, to simply deny them.
>
> You were wrong about Andy Soltis' RL
> book containing the very line Bobby Fischer
> essayed against Boris Spassky in 1992;
> your hasty denial was most revealing.
I have never commented on that. Strike one.
> You were wrong in relying upon Taylor
> Kingston's purported "knowledge" regarding
> what Tigran Petrosian has or has not written.
Actually, TK's assessment (and mine) has been
completely vindicated. Neither you, nor
anyone, has supplied a single shred of evidence
in support of your bribe theory. Strike 2.
Do continue. It's fun pitching a perfect game.