Thanks, I've made my point and I've now better things to do - organising chess events, for example - than continue exchanges with someone who appears to have nothing better to do with his or her time than be consistently offensive. Have a nice day, Justin.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:07 pmRoger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:04 pmHere, you're just an obsessive barking up the wrong tree.Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Roger Lancaster.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:47 amFinally, if you don't mind my saying so, I'm not sure that branding others' comments as "absolute nonsense" contributes to constructive exchanges.
Under Statement?
-
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Re: Under Statement?
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Under Statement?
Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:04 pmHere, you're just an obsessive barking up the wrong tree.
Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:47 amsomeone who appears to have nothing better to do with his or her time than be consistently offensive.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 1915
- Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm
Re: Under Statement?
Before signing off, I'll just answer Justin's selective quotes from the Guardian by pointing out that I said, much earlier in this thread, that "whether inclusion of the word 'brother-in-law' would have been better journalistic practice is another matter - personally, I am inclined to agree that it would" but, in this case, there's no "glaring conflict of interest".
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Under Statement?
Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:21 pmin this case, there's no "glaring conflict of interest".
Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:47 amThe point here is that there's here no conflict of interest
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Under Statement?
Show me the ones you think I left out, then.Roger Lancaster wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:21 pmBefore signing off, I'll just answer Justin's selective quotes from the Guardian
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 3496
- Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
- Location: Under Cover
Re: Under Statement?
This is the kind of argument in an empty house that I am normally credited with.
Justin do you really think that:
"I am indebted to leading chess historian Richard Eales..."
Should have been written as:
"I am indebted to my brother in law, a leading chess historian, Richard Eales..."
If so then I am handing my pedantic crown to you. I am not worthy.
I never knew of the family connection, not that I think it should have been mentioned.
I just find it amusing that all the 'apparent' historical errors RDK makes regarding chess history,
See Edward Winter's columns:
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/relief.html and https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/cuttings.html
That Ray's brother-in-law is a leading chess historian.
(maybe Ray did originally mention the family connection and Richard asked him not to.)
Justin do you really think that:
"I am indebted to leading chess historian Richard Eales..."
Should have been written as:
"I am indebted to my brother in law, a leading chess historian, Richard Eales..."
If so then I am handing my pedantic crown to you. I am not worthy.
I never knew of the family connection, not that I think it should have been mentioned.
I just find it amusing that all the 'apparent' historical errors RDK makes regarding chess history,
See Edward Winter's columns:
https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/relief.html and https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/cuttings.html
That Ray's brother-in-law is a leading chess historian.
(maybe Ray did originally mention the family connection and Richard asked him not to.)
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Under Statement?
No, it's the usual nothing-to-see-here that you usually doGeoff Chandler wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:17 pmThis is the kind of argument in an empty house that I am normally credited with.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 8472
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm
Re: Under Statement?
Please don't do that, I've just wasted fifteen minutes re-reading them.Geoff Chandler wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:17 pmhttps://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/relief.html and https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/cuttings.html
The greatest of all RDK's achievements may have been to make Campomanes look like an entirely honest and upright person.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a QR code stamped on a human face — forever.
-
- Posts: 10364
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
- Location: Somewhere you're not
Re: Under Statement?
That is not the worst point ever made
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."
lostontime.blogspot.com
-
- Posts: 5248
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Re: Under Statement?
Though of course he did not support the revolution personally.James Pratt wrote: ↑Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:27 pmI thought you might like this from a recent article about Philidor by Ray Keene who calls the Frenchman:
"The theorist who anticipated the French Revolution by asserting that the humble pawns are the soul of chess ..'
But see for yourself, the reference to the lady-in-waiting is worth the price of admission alone:
https://www.thearticle.com/transgender-chess
James
(and indeed spent his later years in England precisely because he was deemed an "enemy of the people")
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)
-
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:26 pm
Re: Under Statement?
Apparently, Philidor was on a list of émigrés. Only a few weeks ago, I spent an hour or so on Google Books flogging through Liste générale par ordre alphabétique des émigrés de toute la République, published in 1793 in umpteen volumes. I gave up without finding him. Possibly, the 1793 edition was too early, or perhaps I didn't look in the right places. I would also like to check whether Verdoni was ever on such a list. Any suggestions?
-
- Posts: 4828
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
- Location: Bideford
Re: Under Statement?
If 1793 were too early, your timescale would be very tight, because Philidor died in 1795.
(You might want to check for "Danican" as well; it may be he was using that as his surname.)
(You might want to check for "Danican" as well; it may be he was using that as his surname.)
-
- Posts: 1838
- Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am
Re: Under Statement?
RDK bringing transgender up is topical with the census. Well done Ray.
-
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:26 pm
Re: Under Statement?
Thank you, Jack. Yes, it's tight, but I recall there was a 1794 edition, which wasn't available to view. One can also envisage that the 1793 edition didn't yet reflect some recent entries earlier in that year.
And yes, I did remember to check for "Danican"!
And yes, I did remember to check for "Danican"!
-
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm
Re: Under Statement?
Geoff is, of course, always pleasant in his posts and is is unfair to suggest that he produces nothing. The James Aitken thread is an important step forward.JustinHorton wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:40 pmNo, it's the usual nothing-to-see-here that you usually doGeoff Chandler wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:17 pmThis is the kind of argument in an empty house that I am normally credited with.