One reason I'm so fond of this series is the dialog is so unpredictable.

In one scene, Sam and Max discover that Sybil Pandemik is running a dating service.

Sybil: I'm a matchmaker.

Max: I thought I smelled phosphorus.

Sam: I thought I smelled that joke barreling down the highway, dripping oil and dragging it's muffler.

To fill out an application, Sam metions some of his finer points and Max has a wisecrack for each of them.

Sam: I'm very spiritual.

Here's a bizarre walking meditation that I stumbled on during my roaming days.

1. Inhale forcefully through the nose for 4 steps.

2. Hold for 2 steps.

3. Exhale slowly through the mouth for 8 steps.

4. Hold for 2 steps.

Adjust for lung capacity, body rhythm, etc.

I find this to be energizing. The downside is you miss almost everything that's good about a walk. But eventually the rhythm becomes automatic so you can enjoy the sights while charging your batteries.

This has been a public service announcement.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Guten Tag, Fraulein Jessica!

Hope you're well, just give us a sign, if you have the time...

And where I wrote that Carlsen was 16 in august of 2006...? He was not, he was 15.

I thought it'd come across as a bit silly or fanatical to keep correcting myself, wanted to forget about it, but alas, it kept itching, so there it is.

User: NIK

User: who

User: ees

User: howl

It is most interesting that <Lubo> offered the draw there isn't it? The psychological dimension of chess is the real king.

The venue, the occasion, the opponent, and the position all must be factored in to understand some decisions over the board by humans.

I do appreciate your rigor on the <Carlsen> age by the way.

Chess history inquiry is sorely lacking in such rigor as you well know.

Edward Winter would be very happy with you, I think, in between complaining on his website about people stealing the photos and information from it.

I do understand his point, but I think <Mr. Winter> is a little unclear on what it really means to run a website in this day and age.

However, I really doubt he would ever file a copyright violation claim on anyone.

He seems to favor notifying violators and then appealing to their gentlemanly virtue- and then reporting their response on his own website.

He's old school in a good way.

In my mind, I've thought more than once that the fact I've paid for every one of his books somehow justifies the fact that I have posted so many photos from his site in my videos.

It doesn't, of course, and yet I'll continue to use the photographic material and information from his site.

I certainly won't be presenting such as my own work, but I'll be providing an extensive source list in my next documentary.

"How long has this been going on"

Also, as you acknowledge I try to be factually correct in most of what I write, regardless of how much time/effort it may require, and I demand the same standard from the sources I use for research on a variety of subjects... As soon as the spelling of names goes awry, I raise an eye-brow and as per default I am very skeptical in nature anyway, but once the cat is out of the bag and it has become clear that people simply copy and paste stuff on important subjects without verifying from multiple independent sources, then i am very weary to draw barely the smallest detail and take it as being accurate. A certain level of trust is then affected negatively... It's likely to snowball from there and any credibility is then lost imo, and in this day and age it means you have to do a lot of "your own research" - and whats more - a lot of your own thinking; critical thinking. Now that is becoming a rarity, and I recently engaged in a refreshment course on principles of- and requirements and conditions for- Critical Thinking.

Soon we then meet up with an old foe/friend of ours: the Scientific Method, and the accompanying mindset of the researcher.

<Winter> I think you are conducting yourself perfectly correct re copyright issues and such, especially if you carefully add a section revealing your sources. After all the internet infra-structure in essence is a place where free sharing of goods, services and ideas takes place, often unregulated, and the honor system is what we must accept and adhere too -- if not, stay out of the kitchen if it gets too hot.

Gotta get moving now, literally!

<revealing> - should probably be "crediting" (your sources)

<adhere too> - typoe

ops...

heh

The accumulation of trust/distrust in a source, I immediately recognized your point with regard to my last several years of chess history research.

I've grown to trust <Edward Winter>- he's at the top of the pole.

People like <Koltanowski> are at the bottom. I don't think he's ever published a single fact. I wonder if he does that on purpose as a put on or something.

In between are people like <Larry Evans> and <Hans Kmoch> who have a wealth of personal up close experience with great historical masters, but who are woefully slipshod in their approach to actually separating fact from fiction/

I get so paranoid sometimes, but as you say checking more than one source is the only answer, we can't just stop trying.

I have several books by <Dr. Fiala>, who is simply marvelous, but his work is too often crippled by a lack of proofreading.

He's similar to <Andris Fride> in this respect.

Both provide primary sourced material, very rare and valuable material, and then let their books go to press full of egregious errors, such as spelling mistakes and (much worse) mistakes in dates, cross tables, and even in the actual results of games.

So as one example- <Andris Fride> published Vladimirs Petrovs' extensive annotations to a fantastically interesting loss against <Isaak Boleslavsky>- notes that appear no where else, to my knowledge- and then prints the INCORRECT RESULT. The game score is printed correctly, but not the result.

Good grief.

So what do you do? Throw the book out? Stop trusting any of it?

Here's one example. Is

<Van der Hoeven, David A.>

better than

<Hoeven, David A. van der>

or should it be

<van der Hoeven, David A.>

I think it would read like this:

Hoeven, A. D., van der
Hoeven, A. H., van de

Nope you got to cross check and then find out what you can keep.>

It is a rather nasty dilemma for me personally, I have to be honest, also with the example you give here. I can hardly stand that sort of thing, and certainly not if it isn't an exception...

You can write a letter to the publisher, email the author, and voice your mild frustration, while being thankful and appreciative of all the valuable work that has been done, and published.... But if I go to a lecture on an important subject, and notice that the names of those involved are just spelled phonetically, then yes, this will be too amateurish for me, and I would be tempted to walk out of there not really wishing to waste my time, or would feel forced to spend 4 times as much time verifying if all "the other stuff" is accurate and reasonably spelled (names) ... I may tend to put down a no-no- marker rather quickly, with the risk of missing out on info that has unique value and insight, so a weighing must take place, and at least a second chance ought to be given to that source.

It's a tough call and depending the subject matter I simply - albeit hesitantly - would go with your proportionally aware:

<So what do you do? Throw the book out? Stop trusting any of it?

<<Nope you got to cross check and then find out what you can keep>>.>

Find out what you can keep it is, and taking it to the extreme isn't very economical, but depending the gravity and importance of the subject matter I'd still put down that marker, and expect an author who is that keen on sharing important information and subsequent conclusions with the reader must hire a proof reader or do the work himself, if you want to rightly be trusted as an authority on the matter, and be taken seriously.

Hoeven, van de, G. H.
Hoeven, van der, A. F.