Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing User Profile Chessforum

Richard Taylor
Member since Feb-14-05 · Last seen Dec-13-17
Here are some of my games on Chess games .com -

Richard Taylor

Please discount my games in the recent NZ Champs I was AWOL !!!!!!!!!!


I live in New Zealand. I was born in the 1940s. So I am now 68.

I have have a Blog - no Chess there as yet but some may find it interesting - it is called "Eyelight"

Here is an interesting political/ poetical / historical/N.Z - Blog - but it also has history about NZ and many other matters it is run by a good friend of mine


But I have quite wide interests. (In fact I had about 50 or more jobs in my life!) I have only been to Fiji in 1973 and New York in 1993. Both fascinating places in different ways. But most of my life I have lived here in Auckland.

I like all styles of play - sometimes in OTB I enjoy the complexities of double-edged tactical stuff - but also enjoy the 'Karpovian' manouevres in slower games - always learning.

As to a favourite players: all the greats are there - Alekhine, Rubinstein, Keres, Capa, Lasker...Fischer of course, Tal, Botvinnik, Smyslov and many others. I have a penchant for Smyslov's and Karpov's games. Fischer and Tal are all important and I have used ideas of both, obviously not at a high level but in average club games.I see some similarities between Fischer and Karpov whose play I like. Kasparov's huge obsession with theory is too much for me, but of course many of his games are very great. There are many good chess players.

I learned with Reinfeld's books and Capa's 'Chess Fundamentals'. I discovered chess while reading 'Through the Looking Glass' by Lewis Carrol. I was about 9 or 10. I then asked my father.."What is chess..." and he didn't really know so we went to libraries to get books and learnt the game and we both became addicts...but not my brother who was actually really naturally talented at chess and mathematics etc. (Not me. I am a "slogger" and learn slowly). He played soccer instead! He is the sane one of the two boys in my family!

I am not a very highly rated player - I have played in two NZ Correspondence Championships and an International Teams Tournament for NZ about 1986.

Chess is a struggle (but when playing try to feel for your opponent -he/she is also struggling) - it is rarely clear who is winning (we know the obvious positions) - most positions it is best to examine "strengths and weaknesses" - improve the position of pieces and so on. Be confidant but VERY wary while playing. Chess is infinite!

Below is a good link to Australian and New Zealand live events. Link:

>> Click here to see Richard Taylor's game collections. Full Member

   Richard Taylor has kibitzed 12704 times to chessgames   [more...]
   Dec-13-17 D Freeman vs Laufer, 1993
Richard Taylor: <lost in space: Ach, heer doch uff! De Läufer iss wech!> Mein Gott, I vill playen youren zilly gammen... I was aware that Laufer was B. I have seen players from Europe using Ls and other symbols for B and so on. The knight is S for Springer I think. My name Taylor in ...
   Dec-13-17 R J Dive vs P W Stuart, 1987
Richard Taylor: <perfidious: <Richard>, sometimes the old bugger is furtive indeed. (laughs)> Ho! Ho! There's a lot of furtivity about this season...
   Dec-13-17 Duras vs Nimzowitsch, 1910
Richard Taylor: It's a good combination, but from this position: [DIAGRAM] Nimzovich should have played 15. Qe3 Qxe3 16. fxe3 Ne6 when in this position [DIAGRAM] Black has an advantage due to the two sets of doubled pawns. Not maybe winning but surely better. Duras mis-played the opening ...
   Dec-12-17 R Taylor vs R J Dive, 1982
Richard Taylor: It looks as though Black had a small advantage and where he looked bad a one stage was possibly better according to the machine here. However it was a complex position with pieces all over the place. Near the end I was winning. I think I was pretty optimistic in those days!
   Dec-11-17 Carlsen vs Adams, 2017 (replies)
Richard Taylor: Carlsen's oppening is o.k. (1. f4 is good) but when he dives in with 12. Qxc6? and he probably should have lost. Black is looking good at least. No winning opening middle game and endgame. Carlsen isn't that good.
   Dec-11-17 Karpov vs Kramnik, 1996 (replies)
Richard Taylor: 8...e5 seems to be premature. The doubled pawns probably don't mean a loss but if there is one other weakness this is very hard for Black to play. Karpov's technique here is great.
   Dec-07-17 Kibitzer's Café (replies)
Richard Taylor: <Dr Winston OBoogie: <Richard Taylor: Has Trump been trumped - yet?> My prediction is next July at the latest. Let's see those geniuses on the Rogoff page's reactions when he's basically carted off to the nuthouse or thrown in jail for being, well.. Dumb. <The ...
   Dec-07-17 Karjakin vs Caruana, 2017 (replies)
Richard Taylor: Good game by Black. Strong finish. The Bastrikov is not always easy to play. I don't know about the Qf3 line.
   Dec-04-17 G Mititelu vs Tal, 1958 (replies)
Richard Taylor: 25. Qd5 keeps the advantage. I used Komodo and's Stockfish. I know it is a bit tired or almost pedantic quoting lines from computers. But it is interesting also to see that in positions that look superficially lost, or lost indeed, there are resources for the defending ...
   Nov-28-17 London Chess Classic (2017) (replies)
Richard Taylor: Nobody knows who will win a tournament and I wouldn't eliminate Nepo. Adams has been around a long time and probably is not in the running or a 'favourite'. But who knows... Of course it is reasonable to expect Carlsen to win and maybe So or Aronian or Caruana etc to come ...
(replies) indicates a reply to the comment.

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 125 OF 125 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Premium Chessgames Member

<Dr. Power> I doubt you'll ever get a "full" response on anything from me, though it may not be from lack of trying. I suspect my posting style is more akin to <Richard's> than <yours>.

Your posts are like bullets- focused and convincing.

My posts are more like <Richard's>- rambling, chatty and easily distracted by sudden memories of times gone by.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Wayne Power: <Jessica> Not "Dr." Power, I'm afraid. I do have an MSc in Physics but that took several years and a PhD would have taken many more, so I got a job in what amounted to Applied Physics.

In that job, I worked with many scientists, engineers and technicians from a wide variety of disciplines and so acquired a much richer spread and depth of knowledge than I would have had by going down that much more specialized track of a Ph.D.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <WaynePower> I'll get back to Derrida. I don't take Derrida as a main reference point but he had some subtle insights. But I'll get back to what you are saying. Remember that he started, I think I am right, writing about a mathematical or logic paper or Husserl's. Husserl introduced phenomenology (again I think he did) and influenced Heidegger who upset Celan and others as he was a Nazi during the war (but like Ezra Pound the case against him is complex, and Heidegger influenced Sartre and others including Derrida but Derrida was Jewish so of course he had no time for Nazism etc). But these things are all quite complex. Back to this soon.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <jessicafischerqueen:
<Richard> You've brought back yet more memories of my uni days. I had a good friend, kindred spirit when I was at Queen's University- we used to drink five or six bottles of semi-decent red wine and he would read <Pound> and <John Ashbery> to me, as well as some of his own work. He didn't actually "read" from a book- instead he insisted on proceeding from memory alone, although I didn't know any of the work well enough to notice any mistakes, even if I'd been sober. He did have a prodigious memory for verse, it must be said. Probably still does.

It was startling to see you speak about <Pound> and <Ashbery> in the same breath, since I hadn't thought of my friend Andrew in years. The last I heard from him he had gotten a job as an English professor at <La Universite de Montreal>.

Of that worthy crowd my favorite was <<TS Eliot> and these lines in particular from <Prufrock>

<I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each.

I do not think that they will sing to me.>>

Re Eliot I had most of The Waste Land from memory in 1968. (Of course I know NZ and other poetry and literature). But I discovered Ashbery about 1988 when I was 40. I became obsessed with his work. He is hard to remember except maybe such as Daffy Duck in Hollywood and parts of his huge Self Portrait...

I also like Berryman, Marrianne Moore, WCWs, Stevens, Frank O'Hara, Schuyler...once in NY I took part in a reading of Kenneth Koch's 'The Sun Tries to Go Down' it was done by Justin Davis in a little Pagoda thing in a park on the East side....not sure where...also Olson and Creeley are interesting (I met Creeley here once he used to visit here quite a bit) and Bishop, Lorine Niedecker, Zukofsky and many others.

It is great those people who can remember so much poetry. I have made a point of learning some lately esp. some of the Romantic poets. Keat's 'Ode To Autumn' was always a favourite.

There is a large canvass. That is quite moving seeing Churchill as I admired him as a boy, my parents are both English. I remember him doing his painting. Sure he was a conservative but he was much more human than many in politics and was the man for the war. A great wit also...

Which reminds me I also like Pope, Swift, Rabellais etc

But back to Ashbery and Pound, of course they are very different kettles of fish for sure! Sad that he (Ashbery) has now departed this coil but he had a long term in office...

Pound had tragic flaws and yet his project didn't lack all merit. His concentration on 'usura' and, well, most of us know the rest, was flawed.

Ashbery had no theory other than wanting to write poetry that no one could ever decipher!! A great project...

Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: < jessicafischerqueen:
<Dr. Power> I doubt you'll ever get a "full" response on anything from me, though it may not be from lack of trying. I suspect my posting style is more akin to <Richard's> than <yours>.

Your posts are like bullets- focused and convincing.

My posts are more like <Richard's>- rambling, chatty and easily distracted by sudden memories of times gone by.>

'Is it perfume from a dress / That makes me so digress?' (The way Eliot used rhyme in his new poetry, coming via Laforgue's irony or satire, and referring to Dante's Hell etc).

There is an art in rambling or to it...but Jack Ross (q.v.) a friend and academic has called me 'The Great Divagator'...

My own description? On the blurb of my first chap book it says: 'Richard Taylor's mind has been compared to an enormous ice cream.'

Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <Wayne Power: <Jessica> Not "Dr." Power, I'm afraid. I do have an MSc in Physics but that took several years and a PhD would have taken many more, so I got a job in what amounted to Applied Physics. In that job, I worked with many scientists, engineers and technicians from a wide variety of disciplines and so acquired a much richer spread and depth of knowledge than I would have had by going down that much more specialized track of a Ph.D.>

For us you have become Dr. Power. Professor Travis naturally calls me Professor or Doctor...I take these compliments as, indeed, had I studied for 200 or perhaps 2000 years I could well have become either so if all time is simultaneous as in 'Burnt Norton' then indeed I have several PhDs....

But I know re Lindsay's horse racing predictions relies on knowing something about the horses of course! Ronald Hugh Morrieson (Jennifer he was a NZ novelist about two of whose books were made into movies, and the books and movies are very good); has something in one book about gambling on horse racing, somehow (in the good old days before even TV I think) by telephoning information on a race while it is going or something.

I am more a Jack of all trades and never graced the halls of Academe and in fact was mostly either a labourer or a Lineman...I did rise to the great height of being what was called 'Engineering Technician' as I had a Certificate in Telecoms and Electronics etc. But I wasn't long in that area when the 1984 Labour Government put the scythe through everything under the aegis of Lange and Douglas....Lange raved on about smelling an Oxford debator's 'Plutonium on your breath...' while Douglas and company ripped the country apart...following in the footsteps of Reagan and Thatcher...

Thatcher studied chemistry Wayne: there you are, see what science does for you! Mind you her supervisor was left wing and researched x-ray crystallographic techniques I think...

We have to ask some serious questions about science and its role in the light of events. Worried about Derrida? Einstein was a relativist. I mean that literally. But he still cared about things...He was a poet of the Cosmos: a high priest of the Eternal Mystery.

I have spoken.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: < jessicafischerqueen: <"Austin" Wayne Powers> I am just about half asleep and have to work in a few hours so I'll have to do justice to the good <Dr. Taylor> and yourself tomorrow.

For now I'll just say I'm astonished to hear that <Richard Taylor> has the <United States> to serve as his personal gadfly, but I have to confess that it makes sense. <Richard> likes to do his painting on a large canvas.

"Some chicken..." (waits for laugh)

"Some neck!" (gets bigger laugh) ....>

I looked at those and at first I thought the laughs had been put on by someone 'taking the piss' as (we?) say, but realised it was laughter...It is a British or English way...

I remember as a teenager talking to my father about Tennyson's 'Charge of the Light Brigade' (the result of all that and the sad fate of some of the soldiers actually saddened Kipling who perhaps justifiably attacked Tennyson for that jinoistic poem...

But, great raging poem as it is, I asked my father why they had glorified what was a complete mistake, a misreading of an order it seemed...he said, referring also to Scott (who not only failed to find the South Pole but killed himself and everyone else in contrast to Amundsen how made sure no one died and took numerous sightings of his position to ensure he had really reached the South Pole), that 'The English glorify their'! But it is moving, and it surprised me it was, to see Churchill after the war making those devastatingly witty comments. (I doubt anyone anywhere was actually ever that confidant but that is the face one needs to put on against a real threat...

But of course the little man with the funny mustache was up against the US and others also...

Premium Chessgames Member
  Wayne Power: Hello Richard and Jessica. You've raised an impossibly large number of issues here but I'd like to take a more critical look at Churchill.

He never visited Australia or New Zealand and that was surely because of Gallipoli. It was Churchill's jingoistic idea that a purely naval action would be sufficient to break through the Dardanelles and whose huge guns could then force the surrender of Istanbul and so Turkey.

When that failed - primarily because of British arrogance, incompetence and racism towards the Turks, Churchill and the War Cabinet then committed the ANZACS - and French and British troops to a landing on Gallipoli.

We all know the rest. Those Turkish soldiers who did manage to talk to the Anzacs posed the key question: "Why have you come from the other side of the earth to fight people you've barely heard of in a place you've never heard of?".

Why indeed? Churchill and his ilk never regarded the Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India and the other "colonies" as much more than cannon fodder - in both World Wars.

What really grates is that the same people who commanded Britain's own working class and her colonial subjects to their deaths in both wars, still maintain control of how we grieve for our many dead ancestors.

That's on top of the fact that (in WW1) Britain didn't need to commit a land army to the defense of Belgium - it could have simply blockaded German ports.

Belgium is surely a very lucky country. In WW1, millions came and died there defending it against the Germans. Between the wars, Belgium was free to resume the exploitation of the Congo that it had already started before WW1.

Then, lo and behold, the sons of the slain WW1 soldiers turned up again and liberated Belgium once again. That same country promptly resumed its exploitation of the Congo and that continues indirectly today.

But, even if the profits are not what they were, lucky old Belgium now finds itself in a plum, central position in the EU.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Jonathan Sarfati: Einstein's special and general theories of relativity actually postulated an absolute speed of light. He actually preferred the term "invariance theory".
Premium Chessgames Member

<Dr. Power> I have to agree with Richard that you're well deserving of the title, despite not acquiring it through regular channels.

Your critique of <Winston Churchill> is more than fair dinkum in my view. To be fair though, I'd point out that Churchill himself would likely have agreed with your critique. He was so horrified by the fruit of his "cunning plan" that he requested, and received, a commission in the trenches after the Gallipoli disaster. It was precisely at this time that he resumed his childhood hobby of painting, which remained habitual until his death. For a long time his only subject matter was bleak landscapes of the blasted battlefields.

Premium Chessgames Member

<Dr. Safarti> I confess that I was puzzled until I actually found the antecedent for your post. A lot of dense and worthy material has recently been offered by our affable host <Dr. Taylor>.

You are responding to the notion that Einstein was a relativist amirite.

I'd like to add to your obeservation by remarking that the relativism espoused by <Dr. Derrida> is different in kind to that espoused by <Dr. Einstein>. Derrida's is a form of framework relativism of speech/writing in which he proposes that there is no absolute "presence of meaning" in any spoken/written proposition, due to inability of speech/language to fix absolutely any referent to the thing/concept referred to. This is "framework" relativism because it suffers from its own critique- by Derrida's own theory, his own speech/writing is doomed to the same fate. It cannot be relied on as a truth claim any more than any other truth claim. So why should we privilege his truth claim over those which he criticizes?

<Einstein's> relativism refers only to the world of physics. It makes truth claims about how physical observations are experienced differently by people depending on their location in space/time, and depending on their velocity- still, constant motion, or acceleration/deceleration. Both special and general relativity accrue from the marriage of thought experiment to maths, and then finally to observation and experiment.

The "relativism" of <Dr. Derrida> bears no relation to that of <Dr. Einstein>.

At any rate by coincidence I just now finished watching the BBC documentary produced in honor of 100 years since Einstein published his theory of general relativity. I neither know nor understand science or maths, so I'm only paraphrasing from what I just saw on TV.

According to the documentary it was <Dr. James Clerk Maxwell> (not to be confused with <Dr. James Tiberius Kirk>) who first proposed that the speed of light was absolute (constant).

Premium Chessgames Member

<Dr. Power> I think <Dr. Joseph Conrad> would agree with your critique of Belgium, particularly the colonial era in what was then termed "The Congo."

"Heart of Darkness" derives of course from his first hand experience in that benighted region.

When asked in an interview if the colonial Congo had "really been as bad as depicted in his novel," he simply answered- "It was worse."

Premium Chessgames Member

I'd also like to point out that even though <Dr. Suess> isn't really a doctor, more than 100 percent of people polled said they would rather get their medical advice from <Dr. Suess> than from a "real doctor."

Finally, I will mail burritos to the first person who can identify the speaker:

"Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a sanitary napkin!"

Premium Chessgames Member
  Wayne Power: You Did! - on Feb 12 2007 on this forum!
"<jessicafischerqueen: <Dom> great idea!! Now, (as a Star Trek fan) I can honestly say "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a sanitary napkin!"

Suggestion: Will you perhaps name your new Institute the

<University of Wallaballoo?>>

1) I don't really want to understand the full context.

2) Please donate the Burritos to the nearest hungry-looking person.

Premium Chessgames Member

<Dr. Power>

<1) I don't really want to understand the full context.>

You better believe you don't.

<2) Please donate the Burritos to the nearest hungry-looking person.>

Will do. I will mail them to my noted Hispanicked friend <Teem>. He's currently posing as an Angled Saxon in Puyallup, Washington State, but he's not fooling anyone.

Here is some rare home video of <Teem> enjoying a Sunday afternoon drive with his family:

Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <FischerQueen> Is right re Congo and indeed another writer is the author of 'Terra Nullius' and 'Exterminate All The Brutes!', that is Sven Lindqvist who would support <Dr. Wayne> and 'the other side' and there is poor old Roger Casement (Google same if not cognisant with)... But <Wayne> has a point also, the Dardanelles fiasco was, well a fiasco, and as was mooted by <JFQ> I think, Churchill knew it also...

The ANZACS nonsense which I am sick of hearing about here is in my view an exuse for warmongers...Churchill I think was more complex. His idea was dubious...he was indeed a product of another age (by the way as I warm up Wayne, when you say Belgium you mean the King not the people and you mean the Imperialists of that nation...indeed I suspect a general critique of war and Imperialism and indeed it was a terrible war...

Actually, while I like for example the novel by Achebe ('Things Fall Apart') and respect his views, he throws out too much with his rejection of Conrad. I read him a lot as a teenager and re-read him lately. His 'The Secret Agent' I have read twice and 'The Heart of Darkness' several times. Conrad knew of the depredations of the Belgiums (I think he met Casement (I have to think of Tennyson to recall his name each time)...('magic casements'...etc).

But Churchill was thrown out by the British people...then they got worse as time went by [I mean they got more right wing PMs etc]. I think fundamentally, at certain levels, Churchill was a good old codger: but he was a descendant of Marlborough who Swift criticized...

Still that is another story. My grandfather, while he was English, I think fought for the NZ Army...not the Middle East somewhere. But I never observe ANZAC day. I don't want to descend into this fest of falsification and dubious nationalist jingoism.

[Suffice to say I liked parts of Churchill!]

Our main wars here, our significant history, were or contain the NZ Wars from the mid 60s or so to the late 70s...finishing with Te Kooti (more or less). And there is a lot of other stuff before that and after. But why we were in South Africa, or in Belgium or France is a mystery...of course we had "ties". The whole thing included a struggle that was the culmination of colonialism and Imperialism, the scramble for Africa and so on. It continued in the Second World War which was a more desperate war and while a continuation was qualitatively different...

Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <jessicafischerqueen><Jonathan Safarti> I knew that that the objection would arise but, first of all the 'absolute speed of light'. It was established that light indeed didn't vary [but I will put all this by the way inside a limited or closed system as I am pointing not towards a truth problem but a knowledge problem, and for that I need neither Derrida nor Einstein BUT the relativity applies to the entire world as indeed his conclusions require that everything is dependent on the observer, in a similar way the postmodernists [and of them they are no more relativists in the "bad sense" than A J Ayer the boring old logical positivist is: nor can he escape the relativism I point to, no one can, nothing can.] but in any case the problem of knowledge (epistemology) predates Derrida, Barthes, Deleuze and the rest. Also the problem of language comes via or as early at least as Hobbes who saw the problematic nature of some of Aristotle's proposals.

Derrida's focus was on opening up texts and not in attacking such as Aristotle or Plato or the 'truth' of writers, he showed the problematic nature of language and the way we deal with ideas and certainties...One example is or could be the idea of a pure white race, and when he talks of the Pharmakon (which comes via the Greek for I think a medical problem and our word Pharmacy comes from it) Deutscher, who writes on Derrida, points out that the example of someone being completely free of drugs is illusory, as is the idea that speech ismore immediate than language and so on. So he developed a good set of critical weapons.

The problems with such philosophers as the so-called postmodernists includes the difficulty of the language used, their jargon (of course all branches of human learning involve degrees of jargon, but it can be a trap) and also indeed as <jfq> says, it can 'turn on itself'. But this thing always happens.

There is always what are called antinomies. The old one of course being that if I say I cannot establish any absolute truth, then what I say must be a lie and it starts to cirulate (like Russell's Paradox...but there a millions of these circular impediments.

Better for me is J D Barrow and his books. Barrow is a scientist who writes for the 'ordinary person' and one example is his 'Impossiblity: the Science of Limits and the Limits of Science'. It is obviously not an attack on science, (Barrow doesn't push himself...ooops!)...say that again...Barrow is not telling us to believe in anything as such (like the High Priest of Atheism Abdul el Richard Dawkins who states at the start of one of his -- admittedly, as with I think all his books -- brilliantly written and within their limits [knowledge limits], very true, books); he says that he has 'solved the mystery of existence' or something like that!!

He has solved nothing at all like that...but he is nevertheless a very significant player in the debate.

But Barrow is good and shows the possibilities of science and the limits. For me, by the way, not knowing , is something I like. Being in a state of doubt as with Keat's 'Negative Capability'

More anon. I am reading an interesting book of essays by Tom McCarthy I picked up as it looked interesting. But I also started reading a novel by Flaubert (who was NOT a realist as he is touted to be...I am reading The Temptation of St. Anthony but if anyone wants amazing read anything by Flaubert but esp his 'Three Stories' or 'Bouvard and Pecuchet'...but McCarthy is also interested in such as Kathy Acker and (all the postmodernists) Ruscha (his essay on that artist leads to such as Perec, another fascinating writer who based his main book 'Life, A User's Guide' on the knight's tour as a structuring device....); also I have a book of work by Ruscha so it made it very I looked after my youngest grandson who refused to comment on this whole issue when I ran it all past him, clever as he is,...

...he concentrated on 'Paw Patrol'...he, even at the age of three, (he knows the alphabet), is dissmisive of this old codger who rants on a screen to people, who, as we all know, who understand or don't, these things, may not be there...

Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <Jonathan Safarti> Yes the invariant speed of light seems to imply an absolute being used. That brought me up. That is a worry. We have it seems an absolute.

Is it something like the Indeterminacy theorem and the laws evolved in Quantum Mechanics to determine the electron shells etc? That involves that if one thing is fixed (say the position of an electron) that then the inertia of that thing cant be determined?

That someone is a relatavist in no way proves or determines that someone doesn't care. In say Derrida's case, for example, being Jewish, he would not have sided with fascism (despite his detractors associating him with...I forget the philosopher accused of being a fascist, or even Heidegger); any more than say Huxley and others who supported Darwin and Darwin himself, or Wallace, were monsters. Of course, there were those who seized on Darwinianism etc to justify (say the attempted extermination or approval of same or the hope that the indigenes would die out that was 'in the wind' from many quarters as the 19th Century "progressed" and morphed into the...well right up to now: that 'moral' or that uncaring stance comes from something other than some structured belief as such.

We could have a group of postmodernists, Christians, Marxists etc etc and given they had learned compassion etc we would not have a terrible outcome. And the opposite is true. But this is not to throw out the 'enlightenment' entirely: the problem though is not some philosophy that asks deep questions, as there is always a discussion. Or there should be.

Wittgenstein Hume and others realised the problem of language also but opted for a pragmatic approach. (Hobbes went for a state that involved, ironically, an idea almost consonant with Rousseau's Social Contract.

Ishiguro, the Nobel winner for literature, spoke it being good, and a strange thing (or something) 'in this uncertain world'

Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: The absolute speed of light worries me!It may either prove or disprove the presence or reality of some kind of all powerful deity, God called he is by some....

Now <Dr Wayne> somewhere invoked the good Dr. Johnson...and his dictionary. Indeed, he was the man, who hearing of Berkley's theories questioning the nature or reality, being with Boswell, gave a stone a ferocious kick with his boot expounding: 'I refute it thus!'

Beautiful! But not good enough Sam! Still one warms to the Doctor...

Here by the way is a plea of Boswell who was no slouch as writer himself:

I also read 'The Surgeon of Crawthorne' by Simon Winchester which reads like a thriller about the compiling of The First Oxford Dictinary by James Murray. The surgeon was Dr W C Minor who had been involved in the US Civil War, this somehow caused him to go pretty near mad, he killed a man, then from his cell (he had books etc) he (and others) sent in quotes involving words and these were used. The dictionary was huge, and took I think more than 20 years to get together and publish (volume by volume). I think the Webster's already existed, but I am not sure.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Travis Bickle: Dr Taylor, what do you think of the Kings Indian Attack? Capablanca & even Fischer played it..
Premium Chessgames Member
  offramp: I feel like a quick game of chess. Can you come to London? Failing that I could be in Auckland in a few hours.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <Travis Bickle> Comrade Bickle, I was thinking of you as I just re-watched 'Dr Srangelove' which I saw more or less when it came out. Still as good!

The KI Attack is a good back up opening. Nothing to wrong with it and there are clear plans a la Nimzovich involved.

I only tried the KI Attack once I think OTB and I drew that game. Actually I got into some difficulties. I know Fisher played it as I have his first book (introduced by Golombek with a picture of his as a teenager on the cover. In the US Champs of 1958 I think it was he played the KI Attack. Although he mostly went for the Open Systems.

The idea of it is good. It is a good one to play in some ways as the plan is fairly easy. Get the e pawn to e5, possibly a B to f4 a pawn to h4 and to bring the Ns via h2 etc. Against a good player the plan is fairly easy to counter but I suppose that applies to all such.

A similar idea is the 1 e4 e6 2 Qe2 which I read about in 'The Soviet School of Chess'. It is Tchigorin's idea. I tried it once against a very strong young player, and in fact acheived virtually a forced win but misplayed it and lost. But it is also a good suprise weapon if they expect me to play the open systems which I usually do. In fact I was influenced partly by Fischer in my opening choices.

I wondered if someone had a great repertoire for these relat. unusual openings (including various gambits would do well in tournaments) would do well.

Capablanca, in essence had a similar, almost classical style to Fischer and Karpov. The reason Fischer went in for say the Poisoned Pawn is that, in principle, it doesn't really violate opening or even classical principles, as the pawn taken on b2 weakens White's structure, so the pawn and that compensate. Of course I think Capablanca would have avoided the complex positions arising (but he was capable of finding his way in them for sure, he was just efficient).

Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: <offramp: I feel like a quick game of chess. Can you come to London? Failing that I could be in Auckland in a few hours.>

! I would but just now I have no passport. I should pop over some time for a quick game. My parents were from England, my father from London. But I have never been to that "...precious stone set in the silver sea..." (I have always loved that speech by Richard II (no relation)...

Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: Re chess games just the last few days a lot of fatigue, don't ask me the details but all seems well now, touch wood!

I know they say "knock on wood" in the US but my English grandmother used to say the former. It is still something I have to do if I say something that requires such a backup...

Premium Chessgames Member
  Richard Taylor: Just called into the office to tidy my desk. Will be back. I'm reading, inter alia, 'Libra' by DeLillo, about Lee Harvey Oswald and the Kennedy assination. Absorbing but not as comic-satiric as 'White Noise' or 'Americana'. 'Ratner's Star' is quite different, influenced by Alice in Wonderland etc and is a bit Kafkaesque, and is about maths and decoding supposed signals from aliens etc, is very another category. I want to get to his next book 'End Zone' and so on.

Also reading a book of and about David Foster Wallace's PhD thesis that supposedly rebutted Richard Taylor's thesis that (basically that there is no free will, he uses logical systems rather than causation as such). But the book I have talks about his literary works also. He got two PhDs in one year! One on philosophy as above and the other on literature.

His interest in Philosophy (perhaps particularly Wittgenstein but other philosophers as his father was an academic Philosopher) and Lit is seen in his afterword to 'Wittgenstein's Mistress' by David Markson...a book I recommend esp. if one can get that afterword by Wallace.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 125)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 125 OF 125 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific user and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.

You are not logged in to
If you need an account, register now;
it's quick, anonymous, and free!
If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.

View another user profile:

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2017, Chessgames Services LLC