I used to play 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.g3, but had trouble with Black lines such as 3...Bb4 and 3...c6. (An example of the trouble is G McCarthy vs M Kennefick, 1977, though it turned out fine in the end.)

I switched to 3.Nf3 and the English Four Knights. But, a couple of years ago, a friend showed me the value of 2.g3 - a move popularized by Tony Kosten's books.

An Accelerated Dragon with an extra tempo can't be bad.

BTW, I suspect that some people who play the From aren't really expecting a King's Gambit. So 1.f4 e5 2.e4 is worth considering -- more so if you happen to know that your opponent doesn't normally answer 1.e4 with ...e5.

I didn't even know what a tendril *was*.

I suppose the chaps insisted that words had to pass a cleanliness test before being absorbed into the Queen's English.

"Look here, my man, we already *have* swear words. They're very old and they cover all the contingencies -- there's the F-word, which means fornication, and can also be used to tell a chap to go away. Then the C-word, for a lady's naughty bits, and the S-word for, well, poo. What more could anyone want? Look, if you really think we need a sort of blanket term for the unspeakable, then the Polynesian 'tabu' will do nicely. We'll change the spelling, of course - decent English words don't end with a 'u'.

How about 'taboo'? At least we don't stick a silent 'x' on the end, like the Dem' Frogs with their Sioux and Choux, eh?"

Why are there almost no Celtic words in English? Despite the fact that Celtic languages were spoken all over the islands before the Saxon invasion?

(OK, to which almost nobody sees a point ...)
>

The 'joke' - to use a word it understands - is that its 'style' is instantly recognizable, because nobody in the history of CG has ever written so badly.

So what does a Latin inscription in St Paul's cathedral in London have to do with chess?

The Guardian's film critic, Peter Bradshaw (a 'non-chesser'), gives a positive review to the new Fischer documentary, comparing Fischer to a creative artist. The difference, he says, is that chess players leave nothing behind for posterity.

I understand that many people just don't like others at the site, and feel the need to criticize or attack.

But please keep some proportion. Yes <dom> continues to insult you, but remember your part in this.

You can't accuse a member with unproven allegations of criminal offences on the administrator's page. That's what you did to <dom>, and nobody deserves that eh?

It's not on.

Please just drop it with <dom>.

In this last post he just meant that Bobby's legacy is all around us, his games that we chess folk love and admire.

But I think you already knew that eh?

As for <dom's> other posts, don't read them or put <dom> on ignore.

It's time to drop this once and for all, and you need a thicker skin. I need a thicker skin too. We all need a thick skin to get a long with each other, or even just tolerate each other, at an internet chat room.

Nobody likes to read insults about themselves, but given what you did a month ago- I really believe that it's you who has to stop first and forever here. Even if <dom> keeps complaining about you forever.

He has reason to complain about you forever. I don't, but he does.

Please stop publicly responding to <dom> ok?

And I'd prefer if you said "false, lying accusations" rather than "unproven allegations". Not that I'm touchy or anything.

click for larger view

Black has a huge plus score: 71% in CG, 72% in Chessbase from a much larger sample.

I have many namesakes out there. Yet, if I google myself, I get pointed to sociologists in New York and filmmakers in Ireland - not me, but google's best guess at the sort of thing that might interest me. I still haven't found the alleged perv that Mark 'mistook' for me. Google knows that such things don't rate among my priorities.

But when Mark Finan googled my name, he found a sex criminal. Google is clearly up to speed on Mark's surfing habits. And he didn't see that this said more about him than about me.

I didn't call him the Wakefield Wanker for nothing.

I love seeing worms turn, and lapdogs bite the hand that formerly fed.

Last time I was in prison - oops, eh - I was there to interview the governor and watch a play being put on for inmates. Enlightened penal policy, and all that (though the place smelled of dank male effusions, like one of Lemmingfun's socks).

The irony is that the story never appeared. The editor vetoed it, as it might look like the Sunday Times was soft on crime -- prison is for punishment, not poncy plays. And Rupert wouldn't like that.

Cool! Now that's what I call fast delivery. :)

I don't mind letting Quicksilver ahead in the line - so you won't be in a hurry while you read Crescent. ;)

<Dom> sweet, remember the <Unarmed Person> motto? Admittedly a somewhat ill-fitting term for such a belligerent one, but it still applies. Besides, you're just giving <Jess> more work. It won't last here anyway - if it's not fighting with one member, it's fighting with another member, or ten. Does not play well with others, etc. ;p And the admins have just about had enough already, that is clear enough. Just let cybernature take its course, eh?

Sounds a bit like a low-budget schlock horror version of The Fugitive, dunnit? Of course you're much too young to remember the original TV version, but I seem to recall a movie remake.

<... it was the unarmed one-armed hydrocephalic idiot all along, doctor!>

BTW, remember your words to Shiv: how premium types tend to 'search kib' for their usernames, to find posts concerning them? Well, I don't.

Keeps me out of trouble, I suspect.

If I pursued *everyone* taking my name in vain I'd either be horrendously busy, or disappointed that no-one was talking about me.

So I stick to those who spew in Frogspawn, or the select handful of other places that I visit regularly.

*Le Buinneach air*

The Nimzo-Indian has some innaresting lines where Black scores very well. And there are some nice transpositional tricks too.

And ...

<Shams> -- < I said "foreword" earlier but I may have meant "introduction". Is there a difference? Typically both are written by the author, whereas a "preface" is written by a third party, right?>

I once wrote about half of a totally cryptic novel, provisionally called 'Afterwords'. Then I gave up.

I think the late Jacques Derrida - believe me, I am crystal clear in comparison with Jack the Reader - once wrote a lengthy 'foreword' about the paradoxical way in which such texts present themselves as coming before the main work, while almost invariably being written afterwards.

He may have concluded that the 'foreword' was the 'true text' and what followed was essentially parasitic.

As the Scritti Politti song goes:

<I'm in love with Jacques Derrida/ Read a page and I know I need to/
Take apart my baby's heart...>

Bloody deconstructionists.

- Harold Evans in The Times, after the beastly plods busted Mick Jagger.

"If it ain't broke, use a bigger wheel."