WHY YOU MIGHT ASK

Heh.

A long long time ago, before my 17-year holiday from chess and my eventual less-than-compelling return to the fray, I swore a mighty oath - as one does - to only participate in 'open' or so-called 'master' events. My previous habit was, whenever my rating allowed it, to play in under-2000 or under-1900 'intermediate' events, with the intention of winning them. Which I did, a few times, but more often finished on 4.5/6, joint 3rd place, and a cheque for £6.33.

I'm going to reconsider this stance. The Irish Championships begin next week, and I'm not playing - but I qualify for the supporting tournament, a 2-day 5-rounder. I can play 5 rounds and win against 1800s, can't I? Or, at least, find out if I'm still good enough to string together a few wins.

In my recent events, I've tended to run into an IM or GM sooner or later, and lose. As well as occasional Fingerfehlers and cast-iron blunders against much lower-rated players, caused by exhaustion, idiocy, stress (there should be a PGN tick-box for each of these ... and if you check 'idiocy' enough times you qualify for a LIFE-idiot title which ... but no, I sense these idle thoughts are going somewhere dangerous, so I'll diverge ...)

Ook, I'll ttry to ffind Fforde ssometime. ;)

And you'd enjoy Terry Pratchett's Discworld books. The Librarian of the Unseen University (of Magic)'s Library likes to say 'Oook', mostly. :)

<So, ah, we like Authority, do we?>

We, Cats, mostly like Authority when Tag, We're It. As it should be. I suppose a few exceptions may be allowed. ;p

Also, u has a little email. :)

< A small PS re Mr Goldsby. I think the key question was the one put to him by <Ohio> in the CG forum some weeks ago: why did *he think* that so many people had a problem with him or his manner? No answer, of course, or none that allowed that the question had any legitimacy. Your modest critique fell into the same black hole: he can only understand such questions as personal attacks.

OK, I'll stop. I'd begun to tweezer and dissect him again, and that's not fair. I have other places to write. I could use this experience in a Gothic Horror story, maybe, or some kind of sci-fi story about impossibly intractable aliens ("Earthlings! We are NOT aliens! Use that word again and we will nuke your miserable planet to smithereens! AND report you to the Galactic Council, from which we get daily messages OF SUPPORT! So SHUT IT, Earth creatures!").

Hmmmm.
>

I was actually reminded, dimly, of something somebody wrote about Bobby Fischer. Not that there's any comparison between their playing ability -- but in their self-centred isolation from ordinary human discourse, there are parallels.

This writer, I think, said that Fischer was like a psychopath. He never lied or dissembled -- he always believed completely in what he said, no matter how bizarre or offensive to others.

I've wondered if Mr Goldsby might be similar. There are weird tensions peculiar to American chess-players -- brainy people doing something brainy that makes no money. On rare occasions it becomes bloated, damaged, engorged. There's probably a good medical word for this.

And maybe one of our resident Fischer experts will recall the psychopath reference.

As long as I don't ever have to get into an argument about whether or not I called AJ a psychopath...

Ah, time for a song. Mr Dylan calls. Tom Thumb? Nah. We'll call it

"Just Like a Life Master Blues"

Heheh, perfect accent there. :D

le jeu d’échecs
האמנם?
האמנם ?

Gödel, no, <Annie> ... why does a question mark (?) insist on jumping to the wrong end of a piece of Hebrew-alphabet text? It's on the left in Word, at the end of the word, but posted here it jumps to the far right...

A regular little Bibi, innit.

Hmmm.

21…Nxe4?

OK, back to tunnel-boring...

... and I don't want any more treacherous ADVICE (from YOU) for a month (AT LEAST).

*one minute later*

And (ANOTHER) thing - I NEVER ASKED (for it). (In the first place).

*one minute later*

Did you HEAR me, TRAITOR?

-----

OK, basta, fin, enuf. The 'problem' has residual entertainment value but is essentially intractable. Here's why.

Nobody really listened to AJ when he explained how his informatic data-shell is constructed. Most people have these, to avoid being swept away by howling blizzards of unfiltered data, but AJ's is unusually bulletproof. His huge ignore list, as is well known, protects him from criticism - it also often has unintentionally humorous side-effects, as when he makes a valid comment on a game, in blissful ignorance of the fact that the same point has been made before.

But - and this is crucial - he also talks about getting emails from friends and supporters and pupils, which draw his attention to egregious cases of AJ-bashing. These messages, naturally, are already highly selective and strongly biased in his favour. I see no reason to doubt their existence or think they are puppetlike fantasies, as some do -- every eco-system contains creepy-crawlies.

But this is the subjact's virtual world, a place of extreme sycophancy and of mockery which he sometimes construes as, gasp, anti-Americanism.

Which is why mediation won't work. He's not able to see it as being neutral.

In the music world alone, we have Wilson Pickett, McKinley Morganfield (aka Muddy Waters), and, um, Jefferson Airplane.

And there are many Washingtons, Madisons, Monroes and Grants. Shakespeare even named a princess after Ronald Reagan.

But has anyone ever named a child 'Taft'? Or 'Bush'?

And there's this: http://www.babynamewizard.com/archi...

There are Bushes. I end my nominal research here, and return to chess.

Hey, I wonder where all the little Botvinniks and Laskers have gone ...?

<But this is the subjact's virtual world, a place of extreme sycophancy and of mockery which he sometimes construes as, gasp, anti-Americanism.>

Incredibly, and right on time, I have just been accused of being some awful sort of Euro-cad.

<I would bet a dollar to a doughnut you are one of those ____ Europeans that hate all Americans.>

I don't know whether to take it as a compliment or an insult. Please advise.

'Subjact', btw, was a typo the first time I used it, but now -- well, alea jacta est, I suppose.

<mworld> Hmmm. Mr Dylan tells us that 'our hearts must have the courage for the changing of the guard'.

I never understood what he meant, but it's a good song.

The subjact's current round of attackees seem to be sensible, sane, rational folk like <hms> and <morf>.

I'm sticking to *snide and partial pacifism* because I don't want to be a warring party but the spectacle retains its car-crash fascination.

The book has a character named Der Springer, who sees himself as a Knight leaping around the chessboard of ... *Europe*. Gotcha. Pynchon may be an *echt Amerikanisch* writer, but if he sets books in Yurp he's just another flag-hating master-baiting crypto-furriner...

I just had the most horrible thought. Imagine, just imagine, if Mr Goldsby were sufficiently articulate to express the full benthic depth of his paranoia (even Goya couldn't draw ya) ...?

Horrible? Maybe wonderful. There'd be a fine novel in there, although John Kennedy Toole covered some of the ground in A Confederacy of Dunces.

Thanks for the new word, 'benthic'.

<Annie> has been urging me to play 1.e4 in tournament games. Ain't gonna happen. Here are some reasons.

I last played it in a serious game around 1978, apart from a few odd transpositions into the e4 zone, such as 1.Nf3 f5 2.e4 e5. So I simply don't know anything like the level of theoretical knowledge that I like to have of an opening. I don't mean memorized lines: I keep that to a minimum, except for some sharp French variations. I mean understanding where pieces are best developed, what kind of plan/deployment tends to succeed, what sort of pawn structure to aim for, and so on.

In several 1.e4 openings - notably the open games after 1...e5 - my background understanding is minimal.

I've played a lot of quick practice games with Fritz, using every possible opening, and hobbling the machine to various degrees so it doesn't always eat me alive.

If the engine is set to play *very* weakly - maybe 1200-ish, with blunders - then 1.e4 is a very effective way to win. I can mate it in 12 moves instead of the 20 it takes after 1.g3.

But when the engine is only ramped down to 2000 or so -- no blunders, but occasional exploitable errors -- then I find that 1.g3/1.Nf3 etc work best. After 1.e4 I tend to reach level positions where too many pawns have been exchanged, or sharp tactical positions where I risk doing something silly. I like ultra-complex positions, but they come in different packages. And the 1.e4 ones don't suit me.

Finally, if I ever did use 1.e4, I'd probably just wimp out and transpose into a King's Indian Attack. Which I can reach anyway with 1.g3.

I mentioned Aquinas because, if I remember rightly, he's the favorite philosopher of the main character (an eccentric from the American South) in 'A Confederacy of Dunces'.

But he's not really relevant: too bookish to be anything like AJ.

Then again, I never learned to surf - so it's just the he said, she said-truth of a proverbial chorus.