Do you believe in God

[John Saunders]

don't know, but i'm just, glad you're understanding the topic of the thread, as well as apostrophising,

Well, it is surely better to apostrophise than to apostatise (or indeed patronise).

[Richard James]

I don't think, anyone else, but you cares, John,

I care, so your thought is incorrect.

[Nick Thomas]

Yes, the slug in my garden may accord me the status of God. From it's perspective, I have existed from beyond it's comprehension of the beginning of it's universe and I will go on (hopefully) beyond it's comprehension of the end of it's universe. I hold it's life and death in my hands. If a being existed that had a similar relationship to me as I had to my slug, would I be wrong to call him, her or it God?

Five misplaced apostrophes in one sentence (and six in all). Is this a record? There should be a forum rule - three 'its and you're out.

(or indeed patronise)

I, completely agree

[Nick Thomas]

I don't think, anyone else, but you cares, John,

I care, so your thought is incorrect.

Well I knew I was onto a loser when I said that. I do find it strange though that people care about these things. It somehow brings to mind an irritated parent telling their child not to stutter.

[John Saunders]

I don't think, anyone else, but you cares, John,

I care, so your thought is incorrect.

Well I knew I was onto a loser when I said that. I do find it strange though that people care about these things. It somehow brings to mind an irritated parent telling their child not to stutter.

Calm down, dear - I used to get all worked up about religion and philosophy when I was as young as you. And just because I tend not to put a smiley face at the end of my utterances doesn't mean I'm not taking the mickey.

[Alex Holowczak]

I do find it strange though that people care about these things.

While drafting the rules for something, the most contentious issue some of their creators had was whether the rules should say "not less than forty moves" or "not fewer than forty moves". While agreeing with the principle of the rule, we couldn't agree on whether it should be less (the forty moves was one entity), or fewer (each move was a separate entity).

To be fair to John, he's a magazine editor. If he made those mistakes, he'd be hanged. I can only imagine what emotions he goes through when reading David Pardoe's posts...

[Nick Thomas]

Calm down, dear - I used to get all worked up about religion and philosophy when I was as young as you. And just because I tend not to put a smiley face at the end of my utterances doesn't mean I'm not taking the mickey

Wow John you seem to have got completely the wrong end of the stick and to have wound yourself up, I'm certainly nor worked up about religion and philosophy and am probably not as young as you have assumed, i'm not even wound up by your repeated patronising tone as I guess it's not personal, chill out babe, i'm just joking,

[John Saunders]

Nick, I promise you that all of my utterances in this thread have had a smiley at the end of them. You can see them if you really, really believe...

[John Saunders]

To be fair to John, he's a magazine editor. If he made those mistakes, he'd be hanged.

Bloody hell, I hope Malcolm Pein is not reading this or he'll get ideas.

I can only imagine what emotions he goes through when reading David Pardoe's posts...

I'd better not tell you the emotions, but here are the emoticons...

[Nick Thomas]

Nick, I promise you that all of my utterances in this thread have had a smiley at the end of them. You can see them if you really, really believe...

Well bless you old man, your trespasses are forgiven,

[Kevin Thurlow]

"While drafting the rules for something, the most contentious issue some of their creators had was whether the rules should say "not less than forty moves" or "not fewer than forty moves". While agreeing with the principle of the rule, we couldn't agree on whether it should be less (the forty moves was one entity), or fewer (each move was a separate entity). "

It's "not fewer". Sometimes you can get round it by slight rephrasing. I was delighted to see an "8 items or fewer" queue in Waitrose! To get back on topic, I sometimes invoke God's name when I see the standard (and I use the word loosely) of literacy of some posts. But there are more important things to get excited about, er, I mean about which to get excited.

[Alex Holowczak]

It's "not fewer". Sometimes you can get round it by slight rephrasing. I was delighted to see an "8 items or fewer" queue in Waitrose!

Fair enough. I was agnostic (note, desperate attempt to get back on topic) towards this issue, so I'm prepared to accept your point as evidence.

[Simon Spivack]

The slips of a previous post didn't interfere with clarity, and some forumites certainly don't care for correct form. However, there's little harm in remembering some simple rules.

Here is my first entry for this guide for the perplexed.

"Its" or "it's"?

If one can substitute "it is" or "it has", use the apostrophe, i.e. "it's"; otherwise try "its".

There's no need to learn what "genitive" or "possessive" means.

While we're about it:

"Affect" or "effect".

If one can substitute some version of "make a difference to", it's "affect", if one can substitute some version of "pretending to have", it's "affect"; otherwise try "effect".

I await the coming assaults from Messrs Truran, Sedgwick, Saunders and James with some trepidation. They will point out that there is another meaning of "affect": I say that is when it is a noun and is best left to psychologists. "Affect" is usually employed as a verb and I do not wish to overcomplicate by giving the meaning of "noun" or "verb".

Carl allows advertising, I can't say how he reacts to blackmail: I promise not to laugh at any titled player who turns out for Middlesex.

[Simon Spivack]

I have read that there is a disproprtionate number of Jewish people amongst top chessplayers. Has that been statistically proven, and if so, any offers on the reasons? Culture? Genetics? I have heard it suggested that the Jewish method of studying the Torah (meticulous analysis, examining every word) is very "chess-like". Any takers for that theory?

It's an interesting theory, and one which would be worth studying. Another plausible theory is that chess has developed during eras where anti-Semitism has been common, which might make it harder for Jewish people to make it in other fields - and thus encourage them to try to make their name in chess.

Like Jack, I assume Robert is not referring to just the present. For instance the top players in the Russia of today, according to fide.com, can be found at: http://ratings.fide.com/advaction.phtml ... &line=desc . Ignoring the retired Kasparov, amongst the top ten I can only think of one who is at least partly Jewish.

In the fifties and sixties there were many more elite Soviet players who were at least partly Jewish, for example (this is off the top of my head, don't rely on this list): Botvinnik, Tal, Smyslov, Lilienthal, Taimanov, Geller, Averbakh, Polugaevsky and Bronstein. This clearly was disproportionate. Article 123 of the Stalin Constitution of 1936 guaranteed equality of rights, regardless of race or nationality. Given that Stalin himself was an anti-Semite, this meant as much as huge chunks of the rest of the Constitution: zilch. There was discrimination, however, this also applied to Tatars, Chechens, people with a dark skin and so on. I'd put this prominence of Jewish chess players down to a combination of cultural factors (although it is possible to overplay this, for instance, I doubt many were secretly religious!) and discrimination.

Other countries also practised discrimination. University places were restricted. Googling "Jews' bench" should throw up some hits, as should "numerus clausus".

I am uncomfortable with answers based on genetics. The best known instance of conversion to Judaism was that of Khazaria, the Khazars were a Turkic people. How thorough this conversion was (did it spread much down from the elite in a lasting manner?) is not immediately obvious. There were conversions to Judaism amongst the tribes of the Arabian peninsular. In north Africa some of the fierce Berber tribes converted. A religion antipathetic to Rome (Edom was a pejorative name for the Eternal City and its empire) suited these tribesmen, who were determined to remain free from the Empire. North Africa was ripe for the picking when St. Augustine of Hippo proselytised on behalf of a rapidly growing religion: Christianity.

[John Saunders]

While we're about it:

"Affect" or "effect".

If one can substitute some version of "make a difference to", it's "affect", if one can substitute some version of "pretending to have", it's "affect"; otherwise try "effect".

I await the coming assaults from Messrs Truran, Sedgwick, Saunders and James with some trepidation. They will point out that there is another meaning of "affect": I say that is when it is a noun and is best left to psychologists. "Affect" is usually a employed as a verb and I do not wish to overcomplicate by giving the meaning of "noun" or "verb".

Carl allows advertising, I can't say how he reacts to blackmail: I promise not to laugh at any titled player who turns out for Middlesex.

Nothing to worry about from my direction, Simon. That looks admirably explained to me. And very useful: I was once put on the spot when I picked somebody up for using 'affect' when it should have been 'effect' (this was long before I became a chess magazine editor) and asked what the difference was. I couldn't do so to my satisfaction (or that of the other party).

A suggestion for the next instalment: please tell the story of the three villainous Ouldof brothers who occasionally show their ugly faces here - initials C, W and SH.