<"You're just clever enough to be stupider than if you weren't clever at all.">

Interesting question. My first response was to think it was meta-something or perhaps some variety of irony. There may be a technical rhetorical term -- a subsection, maybe, of *hysteron proton*, which is a kind of inversion ... but no, none of these really pins it down.

There's a story about a linguistics lecturer who tells his class that many languages use a double negative to mean a positive, but there are no known cases where it works the other way -- a double positive meaning negative.

A bored-sounding voice from the back of the class pipes up: "Yeah, yeah."

I'm not sure why I think this story is relevant, but I think it's amusing.

There's a distinction in lit-crit between a 'strong misreading' and a 'weak misreading'. Maybe I have a habit of writing in a way that intentionally allows for a possible misreading. Whether weak or strong, I can't say.

A *Passive-Aggressive Misreading* - or PAM - might be a useful addition to the lexicon.

I might even work it into my theory of the "Implied Bimbo", which was discussed on these pages many moons ago. The Implied Bimbo is conjured up when the writer makes a silent pact with the reader -- saying, in effect, "*You*, the smart reader, will understand my irony, get my joke - but the process only works because this other, hypothetical stupid reader - the Implied Bimbo - does not get it ..."

Funny, I can't quite come up with a better scenario for my strong misreading than the one that presented itself with Running Hand and our discursive ways. You are more skilled than I in this area...maybe you can construct another instance of the phenomenon?

Implied Bimbonics =] My misreading of this would be me visualizing you instructing the bimbo in bimbonics, so of course 101.

This position, transpo fans, can also be reached via 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.Nc3 Qd8 5.e4 e5. Both sequences have been played at master level, as can be seen in Opening Explorer. A minor glitch in the CG system, however, means that the 'find similar games' feature does *not* take you from one line to the other, even though they're identical.

This is the position:

click for larger view

One continuation then might be
6.Nf3 exd4 7.Nxd4 Bc5 8.Be3 Ng4

click for larger view

In 1933, Alekhine played 9.Bc4 here, and won in 18 moves: Alekhine vs Mooyman/Citroen, 1933.

In 2001, in the Politiken Cup, a certain Sandra de Blecourt reached the same position (via the other move order) and found a different 9th move. She won in 16 moves: S De Blecourt vs M Izaura Nielsen, 2001.

I suggest trying to find that 9th move for White before looking it up. It's not actually winning -- it may not even be significantly stronger than Alekhine's move -- but it's a real shocker, and a hell of a lot harder to meet over the board.

Again, White to play:

click for larger view

Note that I always had the better endgame and Black's backward c-pawn to focus my attention on.

Maybe I did not play the Fritz moves ... but overall, I was pleased with my play.

So some 7 years ago I basically doubled my averages to about 3.00 in the first few sessions, after that I might have gone near five, and then with practise indeed the sky is the limit, as basically the Libre game becomes too easy. Three cushion I play the same average as you mention from the afficianado in your club, .80 - sometimes 1.00

But certainly as I elaborately explained, there were several clicks, coming together in the same short time-frame, and I could repeat them, resulting in my much higher averages, doubled compared to my teens, <without> regular practise. No fluke, that was my whole pointe in the long story.

<Dom> Steve Davis and many of the pre-80s snooker masters were excellent at Billiards, and certainly there is a relationship as to skill in one, and the other, but I grant you that there is nothing of a guarantee, as there are so many of the world's best in either sport, who can't play even averagely in the other.

The mental picture can be hard to master if you've played one discipline for 30 years, and then move to the other.

Pre-requisite for excellence both is essentially the same: sound cue-action, and cueball control.

But of course, Michael Schumacher might never win a Paris-Dakar, but he does know how to handle Ein Automobil. Und sicherlich auch ein LASTKRAFTWAGEN!

My querying e5 was for completely positional reasons.

Another question: I was curious as to why you played Ne2 in the opening -- I'd have played Nf3, I think, mainly to increase control of e5. I know both Knight moves have been played before, though, so there's nothing actually wrong with either of them.

As you say, Black very helpfully played ...Bg4, which gave you the tempo for f3 and e4. But it's hard to see the f-pawn moving under normal circumstances -- Black's Re8 controlling the e-file means you can't really leave a backwards pawn on e3. Also, the other Knight moves from e2 -- like Ng3 and Nf4, don't look too promising without help from Black.

http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2...

and had noted the opening as interesting but flawed for Black in correspondence, and was filed as my "line against".

Alekhine was on a money making Far East tour and his game was one of 8 in a simultaneous in the "Dutch East Indies" (Indonesia)

My database also comes up with J Drucker v Barta - Czech Ch. 1934 1-0 after 9. Ne6 Qxd1+ 10.Rxd1 Bxe6 11.Bxc5 Nd7 12. Ba3 ... Barta played the better 12... 0-0-0 with an unpleasant but not losing fight against the 2 Bishops.

Finally, 8.. Ng4? (8... Bb6 keeps 9...Ng4 in the air, or even 8..0-0 )

www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles217.pdf

Except the actual semites, of course. They had to wait for Fischer to manage the feat of being both at once.

I also read an excellent book about L. Ron, called "Bare-faced Messiah" (the title alludes to the English phrase 'bare-faced liar', and to the fact that Ron told many stories about his exploits which were simply not true). I later met the author, who told me that scientologists had given him a hard time for many years for revealing their secrets.

Hmmm, I don't know. I don't think Running Hand emerges from his cave -- or tepee, wigwam, cathedral or mountain top -- very often. I can try to invoke his aura, if not his actual presence.

Captain Beefheart quote (my 2nd today): "I knew you were under duress, I knew you were under your dress..."

Refresher notes for base 11 compute = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undeci...

Another question: I was curious as to why you played Ne2 in the opening -- I'd have played Nf3, I think, mainly to increase control of e5. I know both Knight moves have been played before, though, so there's nothing actually wrong with either of them.>>

I have been studying a lot with Dr. John Perciballi the last few years at our local chess club. He has shown me quite a few ideas - both from books and from DVD's on this line. In one game that I played in a team competition, I played Nge2, f3 and 0-0-0, and I won a really sharp game vs a 2300+ player. (G/30, I don't have all the moves ... I generally stop recording whem my opponent does, which the USCF allows by rule, I believe.) Nge2 and f3 also does MANY useful things, by the way. [ (Black's main source of counter play - in the main line - is to anchor a Knight on e4, this is taken away from him. White also has the nice central break ... e3-e4. I think Nge2 was first worked into a system by Botvinnik, IF I remember correctly.) And - even after Nge2 - in one G/15 min vs a 2100 player - I "ran out of ideas" so I went BACK to the MINORITY ATTACK idea ... and still won a pretty long game. (80+ moves by the clock's built-in counter.]

In the following line:

1.d4 d5; 2.c4 e6; 3.Nc3 Nf6; 4.cxd5 exd5; 5.Bg5 c6; 6.Qc2 Be7; 7.e3 0-0; 8.Bd3 Nbd7; ... ... ...

... (now) putting the WN of f3 is probably (definitely!) the main line here. [Searching my "Big '08" database - which I have stripped of all annotations, which makes for a faster seach; I also (monthly) add all the games from TWIC ... yields about 7800 games in this line.]

The earliest game that I find in my DB is:

Pillsbury,Harry Nelson - Showalter,Jackson Whipps [D36] USA-ch m New York (5), 1898

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Nf3 0-0 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Bd3 c6 9.Qc2 Re8 10.0-0 Nf8 11.Ne5 Ng4 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Nxg4 Bxg4 14.Rae1 Qf6 15.a4 Re7 16.b4 Rae8 17.b5 Qg5 18.f4 Qf6 19.Qd2 Bf5 20.a5 Qg6 21.Bxf5 Qxf5 22.a6 cxb5 23.Nxb5 Qd7 24.axb7 a6 25.Nc3 Qxb7 26.Rb1 Qc6 27.Rfc1 Qd6 28.Nd1 Ng6 29.g3 h5 30.Qe2 h4 31.Qh5 hxg3 32.hxg3 Nf8 33.Rc5 Rd8 34.Rbc1 g6 35.Qf3 Ne6 36.Rc8 Kg7 37.Rxd8 Nxd8 38.Rc5 Ne6 39.Qxd5 Qb6 40.Rc1 Qb4 41.Nf2 Qd2 42.Qe5+ f6 43.Qxf6+ Kxf6 44.Ne4+ Kf5 45.Nxd2 g5 46.d5 gxf4 47.gxf4 Nxf4 48.exf4 Kxf4 49.Rc5 Rd7 50.Nc4 Ke4 51.d6 Kd4 52.Rc7 Rd8 53.d7 Kd5 54.Rc8 1-0

And one of the most recent, (played by a 2700+ player!) is:

Radjabov,T (2744) - Adly,A (2631) [D43]
8th World Teams Ningbo CHN (9), 26.07.2011

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c6 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.cxd5 exd5 7.e3 Be7 8.Qc2 0-0 9.Bd3 Re8 10.0-0 Nf8 11.Rae1 Be6 12.a3 N6d7 13.Bxe7 Qxe7 14.h3 Qd6 15.Na4 f6 16.Nh4 Re7 17.b4 a5 18.Nc5 axb4 19.axb4 b6 20.Nxe6 Rxe6 21.b5 c5 22.Nf5 Qc7 23.e4 Rae8 24.Rd1 dxe4 25.Bc4 Qf4 26.Ne3 f5 27.Qa2 g6 28.Bxe6+ Nxe6 29.Nd5 Qb8 30.dxc5 Ndxc5 31.Nf6+ Kg7 32.Nxe8+ Qxe8 33.Qa7+ Kh6 34.Qxb6 Qe7 35.Qd6 Qg5 36.h4 Qf6 37.Rd5 Nd3 38.Rxd3 1-0

***** ***** ***** ***** *****

In the line with 9.Nge2, one of my favorite games is: Kasparov vs D Barua, 2000, a brilliant game ... which I submitted many times before it was finally carried on this website.

And here is another VERY nice game.

[Event "Frydek Mistek op"]
[Site "Frydek Mistek"]
[Date "1994.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Zagorskis, Darius"]
[Black "Michenka, Jozef"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D36"]
[WhiteElo "2485"]
[BlackElo "2365"]
[PlyCount "61"]
[EventDate "1994.??.??"]
[EventType "swiss"]
[EventRounds "9"]
[EventCountry "CZE"]
[Source "ChessBase"]
[SourceDate "1996.11.15"]

Here is perhaps my first ever recorded useage of this line:

A J Goldsby vs J Jurjevich, 2007.

Add to this, the following game:

A.J. Goldsby I (2221) - Nat Riley (2019) [D35]
LA State Championships / New Orleans (R#5), 04,09,2011.

1.c4 e6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Bg5 Be7 6.e3 c6 7.Bd3 Ne4 8.Bxe7 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Qxe7 10.Qc2 h6 11.Nf3 0-0 12.0-0 Nd7 13.c4 dxc4 14.Bxc4 Nb6 15.Bd3 Nd5 16.a3 Bd7 17.Ne5 Rfc8 18.Nxd7 Qxd7 19.Bf5 Qd6 20.Bxc8 Rxc8 21.Rfc1 Qe6 22.Re1 Re8 23.Qb3 Re7 24.Rec1 h5 25.Qc4 Qg6 26.h3 Re4 27.Rab1 Qd6 28.Rxb7 Qxa3 29.Qxc6 Nxe3 30.Rb8+ Kh7 31.Qxe4+ 1-0

(Black's 17th move was a blunder - so I did not submit this game here ... to the Chess Games website.)

After 49 comes 4A, followed by 50. So I can have a 50th birthday celebration in a couple of years. I didn't bother marking the occasion last time.

49 is a square in base 10, but not in base 11. Is it a square in some other base? Which is equal to saying, when is (4n + 9) square? Which is equivalent to (4n + 8 + 1), or (4k + 1).

When a number of the form 4k+1 is prime, it's always the sum of two squares.

Anyway, 81 (in denary) is the next suitable square. And 81 in base 10 is 49 in base 18.

No base less than 10 can work, because they don't use the digit 9. So the first few bases in which 49 is square are 10, 18, 28, 40 ...

I detect a pattern.

I'd like to include Odd Man Out, though it was made in 1947. And the original version of The Wicker Man. And The League of Gentlemen, a 1960 crime thriller which seems right on the cusp between the 1950s and 60s, or my image of them.

Performance - another cusp film - belongs near the top of any list of great anythings. And I had a lot to say to Nic Roeg when I met him: such as telling him that I had literally become a film critic because of him. The editor who offered me my first job in that area casually said "And if Nic Roeg comes to town, you can interview him..." -- and the possibility excited me so much I almost didn't mind whether they paid me or not, or that most of my time would be spent sitting through turgid crap from the brain-dead side of Hollywood.

It was 25 years later and in another town when I finally interviewed Roeg, but the story amused him.

The 50s and 60s were a bit early for me, filmwise, and I've never been very thorough about chasing up classics on DVD. I don't even watch many films anymore. I'd rather visit an art gallery.

But I totally agree with the blogger's intro about great *fragments* of film, and flawed masterpieces. I've never really understood the people (including some critics) who insist that if something isn't brilliant, it must be rubbish. I can think of many films that are nearly great, despite cheap special effects or wooden acting.

Two examples of badly-done car crashes, for example. In The Fourth Man, a Dutch film by Paul Verhoeven, the plasticness of the special effects dummy in a car crash is so obvious it hurts. And in Reefer and the Model, a 1980s Irish thriller directed by Joe Comerford, they couldn't afford to stage any kind of crash -- they just cut directly from the getaway car speeding down a country lane to a shot of the car upside down in a field. Where it had been carefully placed so that it could be used again later.

Some would condemn such blatant cheapness. I really like both films, and think they're *more* creative because the filmmakers had to solve problems without money. Certainly Verhoeven's later big-budget Hollywood career is less intense than his early Dutch work.

There are many terrible low-budget films out there too, of course. It's not a guarantee of creativity, but it can point people in the right direction. A few directors -- Cronenberg, Peter Weir, Neil Jordan -- are able to move back and forth between big and small budgets without letting it affect their vision. Which is admirable, I think.

It's like what the top poker players say: money is a device for keeping score, and if you start thinking about what it could buy in the real world, you're already lost. Maybe movie budgets are similar.