Phony Benoni Member since Feb-10-06 · Last seen Jun-11-22 Greetings, O Seeker After Knowledge! You have arrived in Dearborn, Michigan (whether you like it or not), and are reading words of wisdom from a player rated 2938--plus or minus 1000 points. However, I've retired from serious play--not that I ever took playing chess all that seriously. You only have to look at my games to see that. These days I pursue the simple pleasures of finding games that are bizarre or just plain funny. I'd rather enjoy a game than analyze it. For the record, my name is David Moody. This probably means nothing to you unless you're a longtime player from Michigan, though it's possible that if you attended any US Opens from 1975-1999 we might have crossed paths. Lucky you. If you know me at all, you'll realize that most of my remarks are meant to be humorous. I do this deliberately, so that if my analysis stinks to High Heaven I can always say that I was just joking. As you can undoubtedly tell from my sparkling wit, I'm a librarian in my spare time. Even worse, I'm a cataloger, which means I keep log books for cattle. Also, I'm not one of those extroverts who sit at the Reference Desk and help you with research. Instead, I spend all day staring at a computer screen updating and maintaining information in the library's catalog. The general public thinks Reference Librarians are dull. Reference Librarians think Catalogers are dull. My greatest achievement in chess, other than tricking you into reading this, was probably mating with king, bishop and knight against king in a tournament game. I have to admit that this happened after an adjournment, and that I booked up like crazy before resuming. By the way, the fact I have had adjourned games shows you I've been around too long. My funniest moment occurred when I finally got a chance to pull off a smothered mate in actual play. You know, 1.Nf7+ Kg8 2.Nh6+ Kh8 3.Qg8+ Rxg8 4.Nf7#. When I played the climactic queen check my opponent looked at the board in shocked disbelief and said, "But that's not mate! I can take the queen!" Finally, I must confess that I once played a positional move, back around 1982. I'll try not to let that happen again.

Phony Benoni has kibitzed 18634 times to chessgames   [more...]

Jun-11-22 M Blau vs Keres, 1959    Phony Benoni: Not a good recommendation for the DERLD. Out of 59 moves, White makes only three in Black's half of the board. And two of those conist of 3.Bb5 and 6.Bxc6.      Jun-11-22 chessgames.com chessforum    Phony Benoni: Er, it's back. Karpov vs Timman, 1988      Jun-10-22 Orlo Milo Rolo   Phony Benoni: Marco!      Jun-10-22 Lilienthal vs Bondarevsky, 1947   Phony Benoni: Another one for you King Hunters. Black's monarch travels fron g8 to b8, then takes the Great Circle Route back to h3 before calling it a day.      Jun-10-22 GrahamClayton chessforum    Phony Benoni: <GrahamClayton> I've posted a question for you at L T Magee vs J Holland, 1948      Jun-10-22 L T Magee vs E L Holland, 1948    Phony Benoni: <GrahamClayton> The source you cite, <Chess Review, May 1948, p. 24>, gives Black's name as <E Holland> "Chess Life" (June 5, 1948, p. 1) has a table of results giving <E L Holland>. That form also appears in USCF rating supplements for a player fro ...      Jun-09-22 Biographer Bistro    Phony Benoni: SkinnVer Here Among the Fold?      Jun-09-22 Flohr vs Bondarevsky, 1947    Phony Benoni: Black's bishop makes me think of Godzilla emerging from the depths of the ocean to wreak havoc. However, in the end it's his Two Little Friends who steal the show. Well, maybe not so litt.      Jun-06-22 W Ritson-Morry vs G T Crown, 1947   Phony Benoni: it was the last round. Rison-Morry was mired in last place. These things happen.      Jun-06-22 W Adams vs M Kagan, 1947   Phony Benoni: Some more informztion. The game was published in <Chess Review>, March 1948, p. 23. Black's name is given as "M Kagan", and the location as "Massachusetts". There is no other game data, but I think we can now safely assume Black is <Milton Kagan>. Earlier in the ...

indicates a reply to the comment.

Living in the Past

< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 97 OF 914 ·  Later Kibitzing> Sep-20-09    Jim Bartle: Commentator: "The offensive line is getting a little ... well, maybe thin is not the word." One time when Ralph Sampson was in college he screwed up badly and cost his team. One of his teammates said, "Ralph must be feeling about six-foot-seven now." Sep-20-09    A.G. Argent: Jim, I thought I better leave it alone in the cafe and bring it here where it might be a bit safer to jump on; the hate-fest for Jerry Jones, that is. Few things or few people are more oily and/or more reprehensible than he is. Dude gives me the creeps. And, yes, Travis, beating the Champs, well done. Sep-21-09    Travis Bickle: Thanks Phony & A.G. ; P Sep-21-09    Phony Benoni: Ever wonder how the Twins stay in contention year after year with a small town team? It's probably divine intervention by the team president. Don't know his name? Read on: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/... Sep-21-09    A.G. Argent: Czar, I gotta think it also has a lot to do with them having one of the best managers in baseball in Ron Gardenhire. Year after year, he fields very competitive teams and gets SO little credit. Sep-21-09    Phony Benoni: Just like Tom Kelly before him. Sep-22-09    WannaBe: So the guy's last name is Peter, what's the big deal?? I bet he got a lot of junior high jokes still! Sep-22-09    keypusher: Wrong sport again, but I am *sobbing* about the Dolphins-Colts game. Sep-22-09    Jim Bartle: Watching Miami-Indianapolis last night, the announcers brought out an old argument that I'm not sure about: that when one side has the ball most of the time, it wears out the defense (and not the offense). The Dolphins had the ball much more than the Colts last night, and they kept saying, "this is wearing out the Colts' defense." But they never say the Miami offense is getting tired. I just don't understand why the defense supposedly gets tired while the offense doesn't. Sep-22-09    whiskeyrebel: Jim Bartle, it reminds me of the chess concept of the initiative. It's harder to defend for a sustained period of time and easier to go wrong. I believe GM Rowson wrote a chapter about the initiative in one of his books. I'm on my way to bed and will research this tomorrow if no one else has by then. Sep-22-09    keypusher: <JimBartle> The idea is that the defense has to attack and disrupt the offense in order to succeed, and that takes a lot of energy. I think the one place it's really true is that a pass rush tends to diminish in force if the defense has been on the field all game. One of Bill Walsh's aphorisms was "the key to football is a late-game pass rush." The bigger problem with time of possession is no matter how long you hold the ball, at some point you score or fumble or punt, and then the other offense gets it. If you can't stop them, it doesn't matter how big your TOP advantage is. I knew the Dolphins were in trouble when they got the ball with 10 1/2 minutes left and the score 20-20. It's almost impossible to hold the ball for 10 1/2 minutes. Sure enough, the Dolphins had about a six minute drive, kicked a field goal, then Manning and the Colts scored a touchdown in less than a minute. Sep-22-09    Jim Bartle: Yes, I remember that as one of Walsh's precepts. On the 49ers he always tried to have two full sets of good defensive linemen, and alternated them through the game so that they wouldn't be tired at the end. Still, I think the whole idea of the defense tiring while the offense doesn't is a bit overblown. It's one of those ideas that becomes common knowledge, and people repeat it without thinking it through. Now the idea of holding the ball for long drives in order to keep it away from the Peyton Manning passing attack--that is easy to understand. But it's not the same argument. Sep-22-09    Travis Bickle: <Jim Bartle> I think that the offensive lineman for the most part are bigger than the defensive lineman and other defenders who have to make contact with them. That mass starts to wear on defenders after a lot of contact happens for long periods of TOP. Plus the offensive players know where their going where as the defenders have to anticipate and catch up with the key offensive players and also that big offensive line. P.S. How bout them Saints? They scored I think 92 points in the 1st two games, the most since an AFL team scored more years ago! Sep-22-09    Jim Bartle: You've got a point there, Travis. I would think you have to take into consideration how beaten up the quarterback, the running backs, and sometimes the wide receivers get when playing for long periods of time without rest. Sep-22-09    Phony Benoni: I've wondered about that too, and can remember Howard Cosell's delight every time a team with a huge lead in TOP lost. But I think there may be some truth in it. When you see players at the end of a game standing with their hands on their hips, obviously "gassed", they're usually defensive players. I can appreciate <whiskeyrebel>'s comparison to having the initiative in chess. Also, when one team holds the ball, it means their offensive line is generally winning the battles and imposing their will. Such psychological pressure must build up as well. By the way, <JB> how do you like those new fuel-efficient 49ers? Sep-22-09    Jim Bartle: Speaking of time of possession, you certainly can't blame a team for scoring TD's too fast, such as Indianapolis scoring on the first play last night. 49ers have two pretty solid wins already. Looks like they may have a good defense, and an offense that doesn't make big mistakes. Plus a good runner in Gore. I'm not making playoff reservations quite yet. Sep-23-09    Jim Bartle: Anybody catch the Detroit Tigers as "The Righteous Franchise" on the cover of this week's Sports Illustrated? http://www.sicovers.com/product.asp... Sep-23-09    Phony Benoni: Can't miss that article around here; it's been a top news story in papers and TV. Now, we just have to pray that nice guys don't finish second. Sep-23-09    Jim Bartle: Nice story, though, assuming it's basically true. Sep-24-09    A.G. Argent: O Czar of All Horsehide Facts, if the play-offs started tomorrow, which division winner gets the wild-card team, (Rockies and BoSox, obviously)? And why, oh why are the play-offs starting later this year? I believe the World Series don't start untill October 27th or 28th! So it'll go well into November. Seems to me that last year they got the WS in before Nov.1, correct? Sep-24-09    Jim Bartle: Boston will play the Angels. Not sure about the NL. Sep-24-09    Phony Benoni: Wild card gets team with the best record, unless that team is in the same division; then wild card plays second best. Since Yankees and Red Sox are in the same division, Red Sox move to the Angels. Right now in the NL, in order by record it's Dodgers, St. Louis, Philly, and Colorado as the wild card. Colorado can't play the Dodgers, and would move down to second-best St. Louis. But the races at the top are still not decided. Sep-24-09    Phony Benoni: <A.G. Argent> As for your other question, it does appear that the 2008 regular season started and ended a full week earlier than 2009, but I don't know why. Maybe they figured it would be an Angels - Dodgers World Series this year, and the November weather wouldn't be an issue. Sep-25-09    WannaBe: It is because of the World Baseball Classics... Sep-25-09    Phony Benoni: <WannaBe> That could be it. Leave it to Our Foreign Correspondent to make the right turn at Albuquerque! Jump to page #   (enter # from 1 to 914) search thread:    < Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 97 OF 914 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines: No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members. Nothing in violation of United States law. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members. No trolling. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers. Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times. See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator. NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific user only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors. All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

You are not logged in to chessgames.com. If you need an account, register now; it's quick, anonymous, and free! If you already have an account, click here to sign-in.