|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-21-04 | | Kenkaku: Note: Above merely out of exasperation, not malice. Yes TF, I know you're joking around =P |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | TrueFiendish: I have a good chunk of Englishness in me, actually, and perhaps that's the part that so many find exasperating...
:-) |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Benjamin Lau: <It seems that despite our arimistice Benjamin Lau wins in the opinion of the people. > ??? Kenkaku, I don't see what you mean by this sudden reference to me. |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Kenkaku: <Benjamin Lau> TrueFiendish is obviously having a little fun at my expense by putting one of your "threats" from our previous discussion into action. You threatened to post on all the Pillsbury games I commented on with similar remarks, remember? |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Kenkaku, I do remember, and as I recall, it was a joke that you comprehended. True Fiendish is not really putting into effect one of my "threats." I joked that after each one of your posts, I would say something along the lines of "Kenkaku is biased for choosing this game, he is trying to bring Pillsbury to the forefront." True Fiendish's comments have nothing to do with that, remember, or do I need to refresh your mind by finding the link? ;) |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Kenkaku: <Benjamin Lau> I know you were joking. See my reaction to True Fiendish above for proof. Why do you think I put threat in quotations? |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | TrueFiendish: Maybe I should step in and confess I've inadvertantly thrown a spanner in the works. Any reference to BL by me was coincidental. And I wasn't having fun at Kenkaku's expense, per se, any more than at my own. This is a cool site. |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Benjamin Lau: Well duh! Of course I knew that you knew that I was joking (wow, score one for awkwardness.) My main body of the post was actually directed at your comment that True Fiendish is somehow siding with me, it didn't seem like it to me at first, and it doesn't seem like it now either. It looks just like a sort of lighthearted comment and not really an execution of my "threat." Feel free to read all about my "threat" again on the link, TF hasn't really carried it out (not that I am encouraging him to do it now.) ;) Btw, I don't suppose you could show me how you can infer that people apparently sided with me on this issue even when apparently only one has even commented on the issue, and even he doesn't seem to be directly related to it. |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Benjamin Lau: TF, Kenkaku made the reference to me, you didn't, which is why I don't understand what this is all about. What a waste of time this all is. ;) |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | TrueFiendish: Many a keystroke in vain... |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Kenkaku: <Benjamin Lau> In inferring that TrueFiendish was poking fun at me based on our previous discussion (a logical inference, it was quite similar to what you had spoken of), I was making the exasperated comment (because it apparently wasn't being left alone) that you apparently had sympathizers among other posters who wouldn't leave it alone. I was neither attacking you nor TrueFiendish in this (<TrueFiendish>: I didn't mean you were having fun at my expense in more than a harmless manner). However, I'm getting the feeling that we're not going to be able to just cease and desist now that this has been brought up again... |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Benjamin Lau: It doesn't seem very logical to me actually. I don't see how come you think I have "sympathizers" on this issue since the issue was agreed to be a complete misunderstanding, one in fact that apparently had no point. If what you claimed later on the link was true, then we never had actually disagreed, so how can any one of us "win in the opinion of the people?" Are you implying that we did in fact disagree on something? In fact, none of the above conversation between you and TF, and you and me, makes any sense whatsoever. I don't get the joke about the 5. d4 novelty either, someone please explain that to me. |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Kenkaku: <Benjamin Lau>
<I don't get the joke about the 5. d4 novelty either, someone please explain that to me.> I was saying that Blackburne could not have had an influence on the game because 5. d5 was a theoretical novelty.<I don't see how come you think I have "sympathizers" on this issue since the issue was agreed to be a complete misunderstanding> We may have come to that conclusion, but does that mean that others couldn't bring it up again? I was half-joking when I made the comment, out of exasperation that it apparently couldn't be left alone. <It doesn't seem very logical to me actually.> My inference was logical in that it was an odd comment for someone to make off the top of their head, and it clearly shows influence from our earlier discussion. Part of the problem there was you though I assumed it solely all Pillsbury's influence on that game; now, TrueFiendish makes a joking reference back to that by saying maybe this game was solely Blackburne influenced. He also did not deny my inference in subsequent posts. Apologies for answering in reverse order. |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Benjamin Lau: <Part of the problem there was you though [sic] I assumed it solely all Pillsbury's influence on that game> I think that was an assumption on your part. It was clear from my second post on that page that I never thought you had meant that it was "solely all Pillsbury's influence on [Kasparov's] game." Kenkaku: "This game shows quite a bit of Pillsbury influence..."
Me: "It <also> shows quite a bit of Rubinstein's influence as ughaibu points out earlier." In fact, as you can see, I agree with you on a personal level and did not understand why you made a big fuss later. |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Benjamin Lau: <TrueFiendish makes a joking reference back to that by saying maybe this game was solely Blackburne influenced.> Not at all, TF suggests that the idea (whatever exactly that may be) is Blackburne's. That does not logically prevent any claim of influence from other players. |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | TrueFiendish: Aw, you guys!! I particularly liked BL's "[sic]". LOL! This is all getting rather subtle, though we appear to be hashing it out quite nicely. |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Benjamin Lau: I was under the impression that Kenkaku meant "thought," but I'm not too sure, because even with "thought" instead of "though," the sentence doesn't make complete sense. Meh. |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | TrueFiendish: Or should I say, you fellows appear to be. I would point out that when Kenkaku wrote "Pillsbury brilliantly takes advantage of this" I wrongly assumed he (K) may not have been aware that the much maligned Blackburne was part of the game also. Indeed, presumably due to space restrictions, the game is named "Pillsbury vs Schiffers/Steinitz" and one can only see Blackburne's name on the scoresheet itself. Perhaps this is the root of the problem. |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Kenkaku: <Benjamin Lau> <Kenkaku: "This game shows quite a bit of Pillsbury influence..." Me: "It also shows quite a bit of Rubinstein's influence as ughaibu points out earlier."> That was before we started arguing/misunderstanding/whatever. Once we got into it, you seemed to infer that that was what I thought. I don't even remember what game it was on though, so I can't quote (yes BL, I left myself wide open with that one, slam the link down on me). This is all just another misunderstanding in any case. Sidenote: Should've proofread that sentence, eh? But it was a long post, and I'm tired. I make far fewer typos/grammatical errors than most on here. Perhaps I should start thoroughly inundating my posts with them, so that no one has a place to focus their sniping. |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Benjamin Lau: TF, so *that* was what you were hinting at all along! Lol! Kenkaku, maybe it was just paranoia then? ;) It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the previous argument at all. See? Lol. Btw, I meant no offense when I wrote [sic]. I was trying to make the most meaning out of your sentence because it seems to be missing about three words or so (at least in the way I would have written it.) ;P A good day to all! |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | Kenkaku: <I wrongly assumed he (K) may not have been aware that the much maligned Blackburne was part of the game also.> Actually, you rightly assumed (I think this is what you meant to say). I did NOT notice that he was Pillsbury's partner in this game (I rarely check the names on the scoresheet, and 1 vs. 2 games are not that uncommon). So, there you have it, that's the root cause of this whole misunderstanding. Neither of us were apparently catching on to the other's subtleties! However, I must say that a Pillsbury/Blackburne combination is an impressive team (two of my favorites). |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | TrueFiendish: So this is what chessheads do to put themselves off to sleep? I'm a bit groggy myself...I wonder if the boss will notice...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
| Apr-21-04 | | TrueFiendish: Kenkaku: Aha! I knew we'd figure it out! Well done to us. |
|
| Apr-22-07 | | Atking: Just one question. Is there a possible 7. ...Nxd4 ? I doubt of it. To say 8.NxNd4 Qb6 9.Qg4 Kf8 (9. ...Ne7 10.e6!?) What says the theory about that move ? |
|
| May-03-10 | | carpetshark: In Suetin's book on the Spanish game I found the following line:7. ...Nxd4 8. NxNd4 Qb6 9. e6 Bxd4 10.exd+ Bxd7 11. Bxd7+ Kxd7 12.Be3 c5 13.Nd2 Nf6 14.0-0 (Vassiljev-Kusnetsov, Vologda, 1962)mentioning that also after 8. ...Qb6 9.Qg4 Kf8 10.Be3! white has the upper hand. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 21.Rxe4