|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jan-12-05 | | Hinchliffe: <Honza Cervenka> Lovely historic research combined with interesting game analysis. Already 2005 is proving to be a good year. |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | greystar69: <Out of interest:(a) Does most of the non-USA world use "#" for anything? and (b) why is it (apparently?) referred to as the "pound sign"> In the UK we call "#" the hash cymbol - I've never heard it called the pound sign before, since in the UK the pound is our currency and is denoted by the cymbol "£". We don't really use the hash cymbol, but the Americans seem to use it where we would use the abbreviation "No.". Other than in chess notation and for spotting numbers written by the Yanks I have only seen it used in some computing languages such as assembly. Unless of course you blow the cymbol up really big, then it becomes a "noughts-and-crosses" game (that's tic-tac-toe to our chums over The Pond). I think I have heard some people refer to a hash as "a little noughts and crosses sign" more than once in the past. As for double check, I have in some notations actually seen it written as "dbl.ch." or similar, but I prefer ++. |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | Cowwithgun: If the game was actually in 1893, maybe that would explain why Mackenzie played so poorly. |
|
Jan-12-05
 | | cu8sfan: In German we call the # "Gatter" (=gate) or "Gartenhag" (garden fence). It's a sign for checkmate along with the ‡ as <Honza Cervenka> said earlier. We use ++ for double check.
The fact that the # can be found on every phone nowadays can be attributed to American imperialism (-: I remember touch pad phones that had only ten buttons, there was no # and no * either. |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | Nickisimo: I thought about 10...Bxf2+, but I chose on 10...Nxf1+, forcing the king to the e2 square, since 11. Kxf1 gets met by Qf2#.
So 10...Nxf1+ Ke2 11. Qf2+ Kd3(forced) 12. Bf5+ Ne4(forced) and then 13. Bxe4+ Kxe4 with an eventual mate, although the one given up above is faster. |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | notsodeepthought: <greystar69> The "#" sign in a US keyboard is on the same key as the number 3. Is the pound sign in a UK keyboard found on the same key? If so, that might explain (well, sort of), why the "#" came to be known as the "pound sign" - it simply replaced it on the keyboard. If, instead, the pound sign in the UK is on a different key, scratch this theory... |
|
Jan-12-05
| | cu8sfan: <notsodeepthought> Now that's a deep thought! It's true, I just set my keyboard to "English (UK)" and when you press Shift-3 you get £. |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | weary willy: <cu8sfan: <notsodeepthought> Now that's a deep thought! It's true, I just set my keyboard to "English (UK)" and when you press Shift-3 you get £.> Yes - a UK keyboard has the £ sign as shift-3 - we have the hash / pound / gate / mate sign on a key, together with the tilde (~)... usually on the right-hand side, past the brackets and often under a back-space key. I think mjk's wikipedia reference is fascinating.
<Cowwithgun: If the game was actually in 1893, maybe that would explain why Mackenzie played so poorly.> Respect! |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | newold: <Nickisimo> It seems that on 10. ... Nxf1+ white has simply 11. Nxh4. The point on 10. ...Bf2+ is to provoque a double check on the next move. |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | notsodeepthought: <cu8sfan> <Now that's a deep thought!> Hey, let's not go that far... |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | MindlessOne: Another easy puzzle, simply enticing white to a double check. I liked this game quite abit. What if white played, 10.Kd2 10.Ke2 or 10.Kf2. It would seem to me the white is just busted due to the inevitable loss of his bishop, but are there any forced checkmates or continuations in which white can hold on? |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | MindlessOne: excuse my previous comment of Ke2, sorry, blacks knight is in the way |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | JohnBoy: <Honza> - It is interesting that the table of symbols at your Informant link does not include on for "check". <Nickisimo> - 10...Nf1+ loses to 11.Nh4. Ouch. <Mindless> - If 10.Kd2 or Kf2, the d4 knight goes with check. Bad idea. |
|
Jan-12-05
 | | Honza Cervenka: <JohnBoy> <Informant link does not include on for "check".> There is no sign for check because Chess Informant (if I remember well) doesn't denote checks at all. It also has no symbol for taking and sign "X" means there a comment "weak point". |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | JohnBoy: <Honza> - My comment was just an observation. I suppose that the point is that there does not seem to be a universal convention. Thus the argument about +, ++, and # is an attempt to establish a local convention rather than a request to adhere to accepted practice. |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | be3292: In my neighborhood, the # sign means "how many angels can you get on the head of a knight?". |
|
Jan-12-05
 | | Sneaky: +++ is used for the extremely rare "triple check." ;-) |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | kevin86: Since chess is an international game,it is no surprise that several symbols come up with the same meaning.I was brought up with the terms:ch for check,mate for checkmate,ep for en passant. An old Chernov quote for a similar game."Don't touch that pawn,the knight is pinned!" I thought that + was for check-and ++ for double check. There doesn't seem to be any sign for en passant anymore. |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | eainca: Don't you just love to see this type of mate!!!
The # has been used by Informants to specify mate since.........? |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | pkjohn146: My brain thinks its Sunday. Bad brain. bad. bad. |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | jedlen: not to ruin the fanciful speculation, but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number...
And for those less curious folks, the payoff is:
"The US usage derives from an old-fashioned commercial practice of using a # suffix to tag pound weights on bills of lading. The character is usually called "hash" outside the US." |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | Stonewaller2: Fun fact to know and tell: in Denmark the @ sign is known as "the little monkey's testicle." |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | masterwojtek: In Poland it just means "monkey", I wonder how it started to be called this way... |
|
| Jan-12-05 | | donhart: Rather than being immortalized as the perpetrator of White's final position, I would rather never have been born at all. |
|
| Nov-05-13 | | thomastonk: White was definitely not George Henry Mackenzie. In British newspapers I found the game once as "Mackenzie vs Hollins" in December 1893. I don't have the BCM of 1894 and 1895. The BCM, 1901, p.482 states that it has been played "in the final round of the championship tourney, at the St.George's Club, in November 1893" (the Birmingham club is meant, not the one from London). "The Maitland Daily Mercury" (NSW - Hollins had moved to NZ) published it on March 11, 1902 as "played in 1893 in the championship tourney of the St. George's Club, Birmingham". His opponent is named again A.J.Mackenzie. In team competitions of 1893, Hollins took the first board of the Birmingham St.George's Club, and A.J.Mackenzie the second. But, this club had also at least three other Mackenzies: J.A. sen., R. and E.! A.J.Mackenzie could be Arthur John Mackenzie, in particular, since this man led a chess column in Birmingham (kibitzed there by <GrahamClayton>). Enough for a correction slip? Well, I would prefer to see a publication of the game dated in 1893-94 with initials at least. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
sac: 7...Nxd4
icon.