van de

van den

van der

- and those are listed as abov e, in that order, alphabetically. low case 'v' - low case 'd'

Yep I can't disagree with you in spirit- but in the case of chess history there is so little information available that there's no alternative to doing that ridiculous amount of extra work.

So there are only two sources of information from primary source on <Vladimirs Petrovs>- Andris Fride's book, and a personal memoir from Petrovs' wife <Galina Petrov>.

So over the last year (yes, one year) I have been compiling corrections of mistakes in Fride's book. I write them right in the book in ink.

The jinx part is that I had considered emailing the corrections to <Dale Brandreth>, who edited the Fride book.

However, I have not done so, because there will never be a second run of the book (with corrections fixed) because nobody (including chess players and fans) cares enough about Vladmirs Petrovs' life story to justify it financially.

That's the sad, sad truth.

I only ever research chess history, so I have to deal with this on a daily basis.

User: NIK

User: who

User: ees

User: achieve

User: ees

User: zare

<L> Not sure if this is the right word, but I kinda liked it, in that even within the Dutch borders and language sphere, a few names consisting of two prepositions and (often) a location/place/city name have been <coalesced>, merged and become one.

The example that entered my mind is the name of a goldmedal winning ice-skater, Jochem <Uytdehaage>, where the spelling of Uyt is in fact Old Dutch (today it is <uit>).

I didn't know the information in your post so I appreciate you telling me.

User: JODY

User: never

User: aaa

User: terrible

User: day

User: Ets

User: aaa

User: beautiful

User: JODY

User: ARIAS

User: good

User: you

User: Can

User: bee

User: THE

User: jury

Looks like I picked a good decade to stop paying any attention whatsoever to "current events."

NOBODY CAN BE THE JURY FOREMAN BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS ABOUT HER AND ALREADY THINKS SHE IS GUILTY.

On a more pleasant topic, working on the principle that "if it's free I'll download it," I just watched the entire <Ali-Foreman> fight in Zaire.

I had previously seen the excellent documentary on this fight "Once we Were Kings" or something like that.

I discovered that the documentary put a spin on the fight that just wasn't true.

The documentary made it seem like Ali hung on the ropes and took tremendous punishment from Foreman, who then became too tired to win.

In fact, having just seen every minute of that fight, I can report-

1. Ali won virtually every round, including the early rounds.

2. Ali took NO punishment. Only one of Foreman's punches hit him solidly in the head and Ali did not seem to mind much. In addition, Foreman's wild swings failed to find their target; few or none of them found their mark on Ali's body either.

3. Ali hardly broke a sweat, he was in total command from the first to the last minute. If anything, he made it look easy.

hehe it is a funny word eh?

Good luck with refurbishing <Niels>. Be sure that <Lars> signs off on the new fabric design before they put it on.

Glad All Over - Dave Clark Five
http://youtu.be/D-hL7ryCy3Y

First, belated thanks for your last <niok nack>, only now is the true cleverness sinking in.

I may not have gotten it even if I'd known about this court case.

QUESTION: might I be the only person who hasn't heard of the case? I find it a little mysterious that I seem to be the only one, and that made your knock knock joke particularly interesting- because I *would* in fact have been an acceptable choice as Jury George Foreman.

Will the mystery of the blue ever end? Let's hope not.

On your answer to my previous QUESTION, thank you.

What a sad, sad world this is.

I will say this- it was a more interesting way to get news than to watch the JODY ARIAS case that's apparently on every other channel.

Anyways long story short, as you know our religious and political opinions are quite different, you and I.

However, on logic and sense I applaud your vigor. That was a totally unfair attack you suffered about "not being sensitive enough" about someone's Grandmother.

Time and time again I've come across this.

If person A brings up the dead Grandma or any other sad story AS A SUPPORT FOR THEIR POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS VIEWS then THEY MUST ALLOW CRITICISM OF THOSE VIEWS.

Playing the "dead Grandma" card doesn't give you a special invincibility cloak so nobody is allowed to oppose your views.

There's a word for that kind of arguing- authoritarian.

To be fair to the original poster on that, it wasn't him who started attacking you. I think he's more clever than that. It was others who jumped on you for the "phantom transgression" in manners.

If there's one thing you have it's manners. I've read tons of your posts over the years and you have as good manners as anyone else around here, and better than most I'd say.

Pardon my general nuttiness but I've been reading all about Mohammed Ali since I watched that fight last night.

I've been trying to find the first <Ali-Liston> fight on a torrent, no luck.

The "phantom punch" is on youtube but I'd want to see the whole fight before I passed judgment on it.

Here it is in SLOW MOW:

"Cassius Clay v. Sonny Liston"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oezr...

At least I hope it is- it's 40 minutes long.