< <perfidious> wrote: <jls> If you're able, post on <AJ>'s page and ask him the number-I've no doubt he knows! >

:)

I had one interaction with <AJ> on the Puzzle of the Day, tense but amicably resolved. I might make onto my first Ignore List yet, however, because I obviously have a low tolerance for willful ignorance and intellectual laziness.

<Check It Out: I thought it was clue-tee-ay>

At my first table, there were eight other players, plus an empty seat for the first few minutes. Then along came this rather large presence to fill that vacant chair whom I recognized instantly-after all, I had several books he had co-authored with Tom McEvoy.

Near the end of the first level, our table was broken, but things did not get any easier by a long shot.

Next stop in this event was a table where I had the pleasure of the company of Hon Le, David Pham and John Juanda-that bunch of fellows can all play a little, and I took great care, especially as all three were to my left.

Stuck around there through somewhere in the third level, with nothing special to tell except a pot I played with Pham.

David open-limped from third position and all others passed to me in the big blind with QT. The flop came QTx and I check-raised Pham's bet; after long thought, he mucked.

After that table broke, on to another with, for a change, no familiar faces. Managed to acquire a nice stack there when a player four-bet shoved 77 over my aces with ~50 BB and received no help.

Nothing else of note took place there and we were eventually broken up and it was on to a table with the reigning world champion, Robert Varkonyi.

Robert was fairly short-chipped and got broke with a medium suited ace from late position, after one of the blinds shoved over him with a weaker ace and outdrew him.

As for me, cards were tough to come by and I played few pots, just drifting along a while.

Some time after the dinner break, we got down to four tables (the final three cashed). After another quiet period, affairs started to become interesting.

But a quick scan of his wiki bio tells me he went to MIT, so he can't be all bad.

This is why I propose to continue hammering <!!> on his <logic faults> until he either stops using fallacies or finds he can't and cracks.

<Expendable Asset: <He is a US Life Master and hopes to become a GM.> Is this supposed to be a subtle insult to A J Goldsby, who was born in 1958?>

I just read your post on the World Cup page. And it really puzzled me, while it was probably the reason you put me on ignore... When did I accuse you of being anti-Semitic?

Actually there was only one occasion in my life I accused of being anti-Semitic someone not considering himself openly anti-Semitic. And that someone was not you (it happened on the internet though; on one German forum). So I wonder what you mean.

And how is my statement regarding Pono "claptrap"? Pono indeed was eliminated by the winner in all World Cups:

2005: Lost in the final (which automatically means eliminated by the winner)

2007: Lost in the quarterfinal to the winner Kamsky

2009: Lost in the final

2011: Lost in the semifinal to the winner Svidler.

Please clear it up (the anti-Semitism issue) on my chessforum.

Regards,

Regarding the <Rubinstein> issue:

A short analogy: Imagine you were an absolute beginner and wanted to learn chess. Now you find a chessplayer willing to teach you. In your first lesson, you learn the basic rules of chess (how to move the pieces, etc.). The next day, you are eager to find out more but he delivers you the same lesson again. At least you know the rules very well and hope for maybe a training game or some basic mating patterns, though the third lesson is again identical to the first two. And the fourth time it's not different. Wouldn't you be bored by now to hear the same things over and over again with no progress in sight?

That is kind of the situation on the Rubinstein page. With <chessgames.com> we have the excellent opportunity to share new information and insight on almost all notable players. Now, <AJ> comes along and, as usually, ignoring everyone else, posts a link to his "biography". This is at best a collection of out-dated nonsense. And now I'm referring to my analogy above - should we really repeat all the same basic refutations of these claims whenever another clueless guy comes along (who is even too lazy to have a look at the page he was posting his link to, to notice the wealth of information)? Or should we proceed with adding new knowledge and insights to the player page in question? I may have even attempted to go into detail, if he had asked for it. Sadly, but not surprisingly, he refused to do so.

Now, two months after that "exchange", after posting Abrahams' description of the kind and calm Akiva, this is again brought up. Now, knowing how <AJ> reacts even towards the most friendly cristicism and the ensuing discussions, I would rather avoid engaging with him on any other page than his two pages (though you'll have a hard time getting a useful discussion going there as for him, everyone who doesn't worship him is a troll "running amuck"). I know that there are some pages here, where useful discussion of a chessplayer is not longer possible. I just hope that the Rubinstein page is spared this fate.