< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·
|Aug-08-17|| ||Nonnus: Seasoned like a turkey before it enters the oven?|
|Aug-09-17|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi Epistle
"...in remembrance of Mary Queen of Scots who was beheaded by the British forebears of... "
It was the English who beheaded Mary. Britain did not officially exist until 1707. Mary was beheaded in 1587.
Do I now qualify for a nit-pickers dog biscuit?
I'm sure all the Scotch Whisky puns have been used up by now.
It does appear Wes missed a way to capture on d6.How about 'Scotch Mist' although that one too has probably been taken.
|Aug-10-17|| ||epistle: I did not say Great Britain beheaded Mary. I said the British forebears did it.|
If the people there are British now, their forebears can be called British also. Oranges could not have come from apples no matter how many generations had passed.
America was named after the Genoese mariner Amerigo Vespucci who had travelled to what is now known as South America around 1500 and called it nuevo mundo (new world). Yet people there who had lived and died long before Amerigo was even born, going as far back as 3000 B.C. are called now the "First Americans," "Native Americans", etc.
I've heard no one complain that they can't be called Americans at all because the place became America only sometime after Amerigo visited it sometime 1500. Lol.
Stick with chess and leave history to me.
|Aug-10-17|| ||epistle: Moreover, <Wesley Queen of Scotch> is not a play upon the drink, but upon Mary's people the Scots. <No one> but yours truly had ever come up with this brilliant and novel pun.|
|Aug-10-17|| ||donjova: <epistle>, "British" (which, judging by your analogy with America, you use as "inhabitants of the island of Great Britain") are broader term then "English" or "Scottish". In the sense of the word as you use it, it is true that British beheaded Mary (it is also true that some humans beheaded her), but it is imprecise. In case of Mary, it is very important to know that English British, not Scottish British, were the ones who beheaded her.|
Therefore, stick with So bashing (you don't seem too interested in chess) and leave history, logic and names to other people.
|Aug-10-17|| ||epistle: And who said the Scottish British beheaded her? It was upon the order of Queen Elizabeth,although she later said she signed it without really meaning to order Mary's execution. Besides,at that time, Scotland was entirely independent from England although the European monarchies intermarried and were often close relatives as was Elizabeth and Mary.|
|Aug-10-17|| ||donjova: <Besides,at that time, Scotland was entirely independent from England>|
This is true. Having this in mind, do you understand why saying "British beheaded Mary", although not strictly wrong, isn't good enough? :)
|Aug-10-17|| ||keypusher: <<devere >|
<john barleycorn> described Carlsen's play as Lasker-like, and that seems accurate. Lasker was famous for sometimes playing inferior openings and then punishing an opponent who tried for too much too soon. >
Lasker played bog-standard openings, some of which Tarrasch (who had some very eccentric notions about openings, viz. his annotations to their 1908 match games) happened not to like. This whole Lasker-psychology nonsense needs to die once and for all.
|Aug-10-17|| ||perfidious: Years ago, I made a post in which I averred that Lasker was Carlsen's stylistic antecedent, though not for the reasons noted by <davoid>:|
<Carlsen reminds me, more than any other past great, of Lasker.
For a first-class master, Carlsen's openings are nothing special, but he handles middlegames with a fine understanding and the ending with a special virtuosity. Combine this with the tenacity of a bulldog in all phases and a superb practical player, and the result is someone well nigh impossible to defeat.>
Biel Chess Festival (2012)
|Aug-11-17|| ||epistle: saying "British beheaded Mary", although not strictly wrong, isn't good enough>|
Good enough for what? You think I was writing a historical treatise?
It is enough that you admit I wasn't wrong.
|Aug-11-17|| ||Domdaniel: <epistle> You're also wrong in some other ways. Queen Elizabeth I, who was ultimately responsible for Mary's execution, had no children, hence no descendants - and thus was nobody's 'forebear'.
Also, you mention MF as one such 'British' descendant. From his name, it is likely that his ancestors ('forebears' in your antique lexicon) were actually Irish.
And try to understand that 'Scotch' now denotes a drink or a chess opening: it is not now appropriate to use it to describe people from Scotland.|
|Aug-11-17|| ||epistle: How could I have been wrong when I never said that it was actually Queen Elizabeth who decapitated Mary Stuart? The designated British (English for you) executioners did the beheading. When Mary knelt down on the cushion in front of the block, she recited the Latin Psalm <In te Domino confido, non confundar in aeternum>, then laid her head upon the block, stretched out her arms and legs and cried: <In manus tuas, Domine, confide spiritum meum> 3 or 4 times as the main executioner raised the axe while his assistant executioner put his hand on her body to steady it for the blow. But the first blow missed the neck and cut into the back of Mary's head. So there had to be a 2nd blow which finally severed the head reminiscent of the 1-2 blows delivered by MVL and Carlsen in that order. These two guys were the British (English for you) forebears of Mark Finan who did the execution upon the orders of the childless Elizabeth. |
Scots, Scottish, Scotch what's the difference. They're all people from Scotland.
|Aug-11-17|| ||donjova: I have to admit my mistake: I was wrong for thinking that discussion with a person whose posts have that infamous tolengoyish vibe can be fruitful in any way.|
|Aug-11-17|| ||Sally Simpson: Hi epistle,
The British did not execute Mary. The English did. It's like saying Columbus discovered New York. Britain did not then officially exist.
"Scots, Scottish, Scotch what's the difference. They're all people from Scotland."
Scotch is a drink not a people.
|Aug-11-17|| ||Domdaniel: <epistle> Now you've done it - you've annoyed the Scots. And may your Laird have mercy on your miserable soul.|
I suspect that your knowledge of these islands is minimal.
"An epistle is a letter
But a thistle is much better."
|Aug-11-17|| ||Domdaniel: <donjova> True, too true ... the relentlessness of the obsession is ultimately overwhelming. One can *try* to have a little fun at the expense of the delusional -- but they will never really understand, will they? And it gets tiring.|
|Aug-11-17|| ||epistle: Then rest!|
|Aug-30-17|| ||Mats G: Dear epistle, Please stick to chess and leave evolution by natural selection to those who master it. Oranges do not descnd from apples, but speciation does happen and has indeed happened frequently during history. The ancestors of oranges belonged to another species (could have been apples, but were in fact not) and developed into oranges in remarkably few generations. Artificial selection by fruit farmers speeded up to process. Your metaphor or analogy or whatever you would like to call it is extremely ill chosen.|
|Aug-31-17|| ||epistle: Sire, if you may be so kind to allow yourself to be corrected, what I actually wrote was:|
<Oranges could not have come from apples no matter how many generations had passed.>
the controlling word being <generations>.
<Generation> is necessarily tied up with people, and this you may see for yourself in your dictionary. <Speciation> however takes a longer period of time, certainly not measured by the passing of generations, as it is an evolutionary process. So while it is within the realm of possibility that millions of years ago the oranges now were originally apples, that does not at all refute, or even just contradict, my statement that oranges could not have come from apples within the span of <generations>. And I also have not heard of farmers blitzing apples into oranges by artificial selection which, in any case, would really be a pointless effort since we already have apples as apples and oranges as oranges.
I therefore still maintain that Wesley is the Queen of Scotch.
|Aug-31-17|| ||Howard: And then it was Janowski who once referred to his play as being like Mary, Queen of Scots---"beautiful, but unfortunate".|
|Aug-31-17|| ||keypusher: < keypusher: <<devere >
<john barleycorn> described Carlsen's play as Lasker-like, and that seems accurate. Lasker was famous for sometimes playing inferior openings and then punishing an opponent who tried for too much too soon. >|
Lasker played bog-standard openings, some of which Tarrasch (who had some very eccentric notions about openings, viz. his annotations to their 1908 match games) happened not to like. This whole Lasker-psychology nonsense needs to die once and for all.>
Amplifying this with an example: One of Lasker's pet lines that Tarrasch thought inferior was the Steinitz Defense to the Ruy Lopez (a line Capablanca also favored, in case it needs an endorsement from an impeccably "sound" player). But Lasker almost invariably committed to it only after White had castled kingside. That way he didn't have to worry about dealing with sharp lines arising after 0-0-0. In other words, his approach was the reverse of <[playing] inferior openings and then punishing an opponent who tried for too much too soon>.
If you were to pick an single adjective to describe Lasker from the chess journalism of the 1890s (which is when he was really active), it would probably be "correct." Maybe "sound." Solid openings, powerful middlegames, determined, resourceful defense, incredible endgame technique, strong will. That was Lasker's formula, and people in the 1890s knew it. It was only when he was semi-retired and Reti was writing his potboilers in the 1920s that the psychology nonsense took hold.
|Sep-09-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: As I believe I commented during the game, So should have played 30. Qb8 Qxh3 31. Bg2 Qc3 32. Nd7 Qe1+ 33. Kh2 and black is completely lost. |
What am I missing?
|Sep-09-17|| ||ChessHigherCat: Here's the only defense I can find and it leaves the black queen permanently out of play:|
30. Qb8 g6 31. Nd7 Qg7 32. g5 Be6 33. Nf6+ Kh8 34. h4
|Sep-09-17|| ||keypusher: <Premium Chessgames MemberSep-09-17 ChessHigherCat: As I believe I commented during the game, So should have played 30. Qb8 Qxh3 31. Bg2 Qc3 32. Nd7 Qe1+ 33. Kh2 and black is completely lost.
What am I missing?>
33....Qe7 looks pretty good.
|Sep-10-17|| ||Mendrys: While we're on the topic of oranges and speciation as it relates to Malaniuk variation of the Scotch game I'd like to point out the esteemed opinion of no less than Dr. W A Pintwiddle who said that 19. Bf4? and the subsequent infiltration of White's second rank by Black's heavy pieces is likely what doomed So in this game.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 10 OF 10 ·