< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 394 OF 486 ·
|Jun-29-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <vonKrolock> The August 1873 issue was the first of the 1873/1874 volume, if that makes a difference. I found it through Google Books at the URL given, but that service is not available in all countries.|
|Jun-29-12|| ||WannaBe: A. Hill of the Diamondbacks have hit for the cycle, again!!|
|Jun-29-12|| ||Alien Math: <vonKrolock: <Alien Math> Sure , provided the <<"service is available in your country">> ... (not always)> Sorrow to hear, what country has not the service? Perhaps a bypass of data link available|
|Jun-30-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <Alien Math> Google Books has digital versions of a large number of 19th century chess books and magazines, but due to differences in copyright laws these are not available in every country. I would have no idea how to get around that, or if it's possible.|
|Jun-30-12|| ||WannaBe: I suggest, moving to Detroit.|
|Jun-30-12|| ||vonKrolock: Copyright of an 140 years old ancient image !? - Maybe a right over it's very digitalization, right ?! - But nothing against making a new copy of the material, or... !?|
|Jun-30-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <von Korlock> From an Wikipedia article about Google Books:|
<"The Google Books database continues to grow. For users outside the United States, though, Google must be sure that the work in question is indeed out of copyright under local laws. According to a member of the Google Books Support Team, "Since whether a book is in the public domain can often be a tricky legal question, we err on the side of caution and display at most a few snippets until we have determined that the book has entered the public domain." Users outside the United States can however access a large number of public domain books scanned by Google using copies stored on the Internet Archive.">
I'm not aware of all the legal details, just that I've had several other kibitzers outside the United States tell me they are unable to access Google Books. You're from Brazil, right? I looked at a few articles online which indicate that Brazil has very restrictive copyright laws, but wouldn't presume to take it any further than that.
As for the Internet Archive, it can be found at http://www.archive.org/ , and they have a copy available at http://archive.org/details/chessjou... . For some reason, Babson's picture does not not appear when I tried reading the book online, but did when I downloaded the PDF. Maybe you will have better luck accessing it at that site.
|Jun-30-12|| ||vonKrolock: Yes, my son got the online view, but the pdf link is not working. I let an address in my profile , Maybe a 'charitable soul' arrive to be interested|
|Jun-30-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <vonKrolock> I've just send an e-mail with the PDF attached. We'll see if it works.|
|Jun-30-12|| ||vonKrolock: ok, I'm flying over territory controlled by Batista - when I get on the airport controlled by the rebels, I'll try - Viva Villa!|
|Jul-01-12|| ||vonKrolock: krologram for You :)|
|Jul-01-12|| ||keypusher: Hopefully this link works...
|Jul-01-12|| ||Phony Benoni: Full credit to the runner on second base. Even when they don't have a lot of talent, players on the Twins always know how to play the game.|
|Jul-01-12|| ||Jim Bartle: Amazing. In the extremely tight and frustrating 1966 pennant race, Tito Fuentes took third in the ninth with the Giants trailing LA by one, and with the coach and half the stadium yelling at him that there was nobody covering home, he stayed put and never scored. |
That's the story of the 65 and 66 Giants. Just not quite as good as LA.
|Jul-01-12|| ||WannaBe: <Jim Bartle> That's the problem, they were (probably) all screaming in English.|
|Jul-01-12|| ||Jim Bartle: I think it was that Tito hadn't made it as far as third for a long time and didn't know where to go next.|
He did become a decent hitter a few years later.
|Jul-01-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <WannaBe> pointed out Aaron Hill's "bicycle" a couple of days ago. Here is Elias' take on it:|
<"Aaron Hill hit for the cycle for the second time this season in the Diamondbacks' win in Milwaukee Friday night. Hill also hit for the cycle on June 18 against Seattle. Hill is only the fourth player in major-league history to hit for the cycle twice in the same season and only the second to do it twice in a calendar month. Cincinnati's John Reilly had two in September of 1883, St. Louis' Tip O'Neill had two in 1887 and Brooklyn's Babe Herman had two in 1931.
Prior to this month only three teams in major league history had two cycles in one calendar month: Cincinnati in September 1883 (both by John Reilly), Pittsburgh in June 1925 (Kiki Cuyler and Max Carey) and the Philadelphia A's in August 1933 (three, Mickey Cochrane, Pinky Higgins and Jimmie Foxx).">
Retrosheet has a page devoted to cycles at http://www.retrosheet.org/cycles.htm. Bengie Molina's is perhaps the most unexpected: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/...
|Jul-02-12|| ||WannaBe: The Other OJ Simpson: http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/fa...|
|Jul-02-12|| ||WannaBe: Time must be bad in D.C. when you only average 77K in a stadium that holds a bit over 91K!|
|Jul-03-12|| ||playground player: I had a horrible nightmare last night. I was back in college, and I had one week to write a thesis subjecting that year's World Cup Soccer to a detail systems analysis. The whole Political Science Dept. was pressuring me to get it done, and my father and my thesis proctor hid my car somewhere and said I wouldn't get it back until I handed in the thesis.|
Aaaaghhh! All I know about soccer is, it's a bunch of guys running back and forth in the sun and hardly ever scoring. I know you can do a systems analysis of the World Cup--but not from scratch, in one cotton-pickin' week!
I want my car!
|Jul-03-12|| ||sneaky pete: <playground player> You don't know anything about soccer indeed. It's a bunch of guys running back and forth in the rain and falling down (to provoke a penalty kick) when they have a chance of scoring. Does that help you with your thesis?|
|Jul-03-12|| ||Phony Benoni: Sounds like the only difference between soccer and basketball is the condition of the pitch and the amount of scoring.|
Soccer, I think, suffers more than any other sport from the U.S. fan's narrow focus on the ball. To fully appreciate it, you have to be able to see the entire field, to watch the entire team maneuver for position.
Every sport has this, of course, but soccer also suffers as a televised sport because the action is so continuous. There is simply no time for detailed analysis to take place, especially when so much is needed for the US viewer.
I much prefer watching baseball and football because there is time for replays focusing on the different aspects of the play. Football, with his numerous isolation shots, does this better than baseball, where you often see nothing more than various angles of the ball.
|Jul-03-12|| ||Jim Bartle: That's very true. Seeing a game in person it's fairly easy (or should be, if the teams are organized) to see the plans of attack and defense. It's much harder to see on TV.|
I'd also say baseball is extremely different on TV from watching at the stadium. In particular, when you're at the park, you can see how hard fielding is, even on relatively routine plays.
|Jul-03-12|| ||Dionysius1: Hi <Phony Benoni>. I'd give my eye teeth to mate someone with K N+B in a tournament game!
Like you though, I did pull off a smothered mate in funny circumstances. I was playing in the Irish Schoolboy Championships in Dublin in 1973 (the height of my chess career), and I had just been shown the technique half an hour before by one of the other players. I was still admiring the beauty of it in my head when the opportunity arose on the board.
A very complete feelingof satisfaction and appropriateness, and one which confirms my belief that life is actually about episodes of complete joy in which one is totally lost in the wonder of the moment. Hoh hum!|
|Jul-03-12|| ||Phony Benoni: <Dionysius1> That's a wonderful feeling, but I have experienced the flip side of it.|
At the 1976 US Open in Fairfax, Virginia, I stayed at a hotel about a mile from the playing site and ate most of my meals at a little diner across the street. One day a waitress mentioned that another chess player had left a book behind, and asked if I'd like to have it. When I saw the book was <Winning Chess Traps> by Irving Chernev, it was "Finders-Keepers" time.
I spent a pleasant afternoon browsing through the book, eventually reaching Trap #260 which I later learned was called "The Monticelli Trap":
<1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 Bxd2+ 5.Qxd2 b6 6.g3 Bb7 7.Bg2 0-0 8.Nc3 Ne4 9.Qc2 Nxc3 10.Ng5!>
click for larger view
And White wins material. Never having played 1.d4, I was unfamiliar with this chestnut and totally impressed. So impressed, in fact, that I resolved to actually play 1.d4 in my game that night against a player rated 300 points above me.
And he fell for it! At least I thought so...
<1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Bb4+ 4.Bd2 Bxd2+ 5.Qxd2 b6 6.Nc3 Bb7 7.g3 0-0 8.Bg2 d6 9.0-0 Ne4 10.Qc2 Nxc3 11.Ng5>
click for larger view
I sat back, giving praise to Irving Chernev and 1.d4 in general. My opponent replied 11...Nxe2+, winning a piece for Black after either 12.Qxe2 Bxg2 13.Kxg2 Qxg5, or 12.Kh1 Bxg2+ 13.Kxg2 Qxg5.
Stunned, I resigned and hustled back to the hotel to figure out what had happened. I grabbed the book, and it opened to Trap #265.
Which was the one I had just fallen into.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 394 OF 486 ·