Or maybe because the Saxons systematically obliterated rather than conquered the natives, their works and their language. Is it true that very few of the original settlements survived the invasion as they were destroyed right down to the foundations?

<<Annie K.: wouldn't it make more sense to look to the British history, not as the <invaded>, but as the <invader>?!>>

I thought that more young people played bridge in Europe. At least all of the good young players in the world come from outside the US. Our best players are now in their 60s and 70s.

Squeeze (borrowed from bridge) and the literal 'movebound' were two of the saner suggestions. There were also some screwy ones (dreadmill, movicide, goose-gang...). Edward Winter wrote an essay on all this, which ... hold on a sec ... is at http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

It includes extensive research on Nimzo's propaganda blitz to have his win against Saemisch named 'the immortal Zugzwang game'.

I'm surprised, btw, to hear of anyone actually 'correcting' Zwischenzug. While both 'intermezzo' and the banal 'in-between move' have some currency, Zwischenzug is most widely used *internationally* - another important aspect of chess terminology.

30-odd years ago, I used to play bridge socially with some international bridge players - who also, damn their eyes, were better than me at chess. I didn't read bridge books -- and yet they told me (only a *little* condescendingly) that I was better at bridge than chess.

Not what I wanted to hear at the time. Maybe I should've listened, though: it combines chess-like strategy, poker-like deception, and subtle forms of communication.

I also knew quite a few (male, teenage) chessplayers who switched to bridge in their 20s. Because it was more sociable, more of a mixed-gender scene, and *girls* liked it.

This usually overrides, and rightly so, the "bridge is easier and thus less fun" angle. I do not understand the distinction anyway, and the relevancy from a social angle escapes me. Probably because it isn't there. Dunno... thinking out loud here.

But a secure relationship on the side does change the angles once again.

I never really joined and then stayed with a chess club because of the inadequate social interaction, as it appeared to me at the time. Age/development had a lot to do with it as well I suppose. And whether you already have a girlfriend, as I said. But even then... You know, the chess (or bridge) club as potentially being an integral <part> of social interaction, development, and intellectual challenge, the latter which in turn can be of a very 'social' nature-- and mostly is...

I've had a quick look through Simon Schama's "A History of Britain", volume 1. I can't find a reference to Saxon settlements being wholly destroyed by invaders. Doesn't mean that it didn't happen, just that I can't find it.

Indeed, Schama makes the same point for both the Roman invaders and the Norman conquest - that for the average peasant it was just a case of swapping one lord for another. Both the Romans and the Normans needed the indigineous settlements in place so that they had someone to serve them.

Invading armies do upgrade the settlements they find - the Romans started a building programme to add defensive walls and forts and to bring in luxuries like baths and villas. The Normans started building castles, churches and mansions made out of stone (which have lasted better than Saxon buildings made of out wood, straw and dung).

Anyhow, I'd best tell the *other* bridge joke now, and get it over with.

This is from Viv Stanshall's version, shorn of the stuff about grotesque tumescent thingies ...

Lady Portly is trying to round up four people for a 'hand' of bridge.

Lady Portly: "Sir Henry ... would you care to be the fourth man?"

Sir Henry: "Madam, I wouldn't even have liked to have been the *first* man."

Right, that's over with. And I almost got through it without crossing the room and leaning close in dragon-nostrilled distaste.

"Oh dear, Cynthia! I do apologise. If I had known you were a virgin I wouldn't have done that."

"Rupert! If I had known you thought that way, I would have taken my tights off first."

Valentino? Named afer a *saint*, innit? So naturally *they* have it in Ireland.

I abstain, generally. But you have considerable saintly potential yourself ... care to join <Saint Deffi the Wise> in the Pantheon? You could be Patron Saint of Russian Grandmasters until we find something more suited to your unique talents.

I've been secretly reading the discussion on Bridge in here- I played for three years in my Middle School Bridge n' Geek club.

Here is a quote about Bridge and Chess, and how Bridge players think the games are similar:

<‘It was rather amusing lately after a pleasant game of bridge to hear the players going in for an animated discussion as to the respective merits of bridge and chess. Their endeavours to establish some sort of analogy between games so dissimilar struck me as about as illogical as the ancient attempt to discover what difference existed between “a herring and a half, and a scuttle of coals”.>

This metaphor-stimulating conventionally coded stuff is weird.

I imagine somehow that most of you would instinctively shy away from such a banal definition. And meanwhile I'd be deluged with pimply teens who thought they were, like, really different.

<Dom> I had this conversation with a friend some years back:

Me: Oh no, here's another one of those "People always tell me I'm mature for my age" silly teens...

She: Aw, come on, there really are a few youngsters here who are considerably more mature than some people twice their age.