What kind of meat did Alekhine choke on? Beef, chicken, fish?
Post by jkh001
Post by p***@cs.com
The AP reported that he choked to death on a piece of meat on March
24, 1946, in Estoril, Portugal
The AP reported that he choked to death on a piece of meat on March24, 1946, in Estoril, Portugal
then?
Who would have ever guessed that the AP was around way backthen?
go back for a High School Equivalency Certificate, Greg.
The AP was founded in 1846 to cover the Mexican War. Time for you togo back for a High School Equivalency Certificate, Greg.
Evans’ sentence construction. Folks whose heads are not filled with
pudding will recall how Larry Parr has often bragged about the ‘pithy
prose’ of his idol, Larry Evans. And yet LP himself is quoting LE as
writing carelessly — allowing two very different interpretations an
easy equality right out of the opening. I am hardly surprised that
you couldn’t figure this one out on your own, Puddin’ head.
Look here Puddin’ head, the obvious point was the *ambiguity* ofEvans’ sentence construction. Folks whose heads are not filled withpudding will recall how Larry Parr has often bragged about the ‘pithyprose’ of his idol, Larry Evans. And yet LP himself is quoting LE aswriting carelessly — allowing two very different interpretations aneasy equality right out of the opening. I am hardly surprised thatyou couldn’t figure this one out on your own, Puddin’ head.
dumbass. Unfortunately for you, Greg, a) what you wrote had no
relevance to that ambiguity, and b) you’ve demonstrated your ignorance
of common facts so often that you can hardly complain when you write
an inanity intending humor and it’s taken seriously.
Yes, it’s possible to construe the sentence ambiguously. If you”re adumbass. Unfortunately for you, Greg, a) what you wrote had norelevance to that ambiguity, and b) you’ve demonstrated your ignoranceof common facts so often that you can hardly complain when you writean inanity intending humor and it’s taken seriously.
guys who thinks he is a million laughs. And since he doesn’t
understand that, and is so impaired, he thinks the same joke 1,000
times over (Ray/Phil, etc.) is even better. Somehow, whenever I read
posts by Greg, that line from “Rain Man” by Hoffmann comes to mind,
“Gotta watch Wapner. Gotta watch Wapner.” etc. That same sort of
driven repetition, the ability to focus on only one thing at a time.
Post by jkh001
Most of this is just a boring slice of your boring life. The only
actual chess is your claim that White should win from diagram 1. Since
you provide no analysis, your whining in a later post that no one
discusses chess here sounds a bit hollow.
Most of this is just a boring slice of your boring life. The onlyactual chess is your claim that White should win from diagram 1. Sinceyou provide no analysis, your whining in a later post that no onediscusses chess here sounds a bit hollow.
it all terribly wrong at first in the the thread I created on the
game, whereupon in his usual style, he then picks up on some
ambiguities in my statements, and then proceeds into his little tin
hat drivel about how Soltis copied something, for all we know Fine
copied his analysis since all authors do is copy each other and so
on.
Most people probably won’t even read his post as they know the source.
It;s too bad because he makes a good point or two along with the 80%
drivel he seems to have to insert in each post.
I actually suffered reading though it, and thank him for pointing out
the actual missteps I made in the presentation of the analysis. That
can only help me in my thinking about chess and in writing about it.
You just have to not pay much attention to the insults he starts
spouting then as it just gets nonsensical at that point, his emotions
have obviously taken over by then.
When I was writing textbooks, the publishers liked to use these “peer
reviewers” not just for the prospectus but the individual chapters.
And of course one of them always seemed to be a crank like Greg –
never seemed to understand the intent, and went off on mindless
tirades about things without relation to the topic at hand. But the
publisher always wanted you to pay heed to each reviewer and try to
incorporate some of their suggestions. So you had to look for comments
where a point might be relevant, and focus on that. I suppose that is
why I can find the wheat for the chaff in his posts. I always
theorized that these people were cranks because they only made it to a
certain point in their profession, but probably thought they should be
the ones writing the books, etc. but for whatever reason, didn’t or
couldn’t.
But whenever you put yourself on display, whether publishing books or
posting on the net, you open yourself to a certain scrutiny. And you
must accept Adenauer’s statement that, indeed, “A thick skin is a gift
from God.”
It seems we must give Larry Parr credit for identifying Greg’s “I
could have been a Contendah” malaise early, as little as I would ever
want to give Parr credit for anything, one must face facts.
But the scarier thought is that means I can speak Greg as well as Phil
now. 🙂
Post by jkh001
BTW, since you haven’t been a master in over a year, shouldn’t you
change your handle to something more appropriate, like “Pferd”?
BTW, since you haven’t been a master in over a year, shouldn’t youchange your handle to something more appropriate, like “Pferd”?
master’s certificate and was above 2300 for a good time. To call him a
master with an expert’s rating is quite accurate and I don’t see the
shame in it (but am obviously quite biased there based on personal
circumstance). Perhaps things in his life have kept him from regaining
the title’s rating, or maybe he is past his peak, or maybe there is
some form of rating deflation. Who knows? But there is no shame in any
of that.
But I think based on the braying he does, “Der Esel” might be better:
Loading Image…
SBD
I just have always thought that Greg was one of those humor-impairedguys who thinks he is a million laughs. And since he doesn’tunderstand that, and is so impaired, he thinks the same joke 1,000times over (Ray/Phil, etc.) is even better. Somehow, whenever I readposts by Greg, that line from “Rain Man” by Hoffmann comes to mind,”Gotta watch Wapner. Gotta watch Wapner.” etc. That same sort ofdriven repetition, the ability to focus on only one thing at a time.Actually his claim is Black to win, although he himself seems to getit all terribly wrong at first in the the thread I created on thegame, whereupon in his usual style, he then picks up on someambiguities in my statements, and then proceeds into his little tinhat drivel about how Soltis copied something, for all we know Finecopied his analysis since all authors do is copy each other and soon.Most people probably won’t even read his post as they know the source.It;s too bad because he makes a good point or two along with the 80%drivel he seems to have to insert in each post.I actually suffered reading though it, and thank him for pointing outthe actual missteps I made in the presentation of the analysis. Thatcan only help me in my thinking about chess and in writing about it.You just have to not pay much attention to the insults he startsspouting then as it just gets nonsensical at that point, his emotionshave obviously taken over by then.When I was writing textbooks, the publishers liked to use these “peerreviewers” not just for the prospectus but the individual chapters.And of course one of them always seemed to be a crank like Greg -never seemed to understand the intent, and went off on mindlesstirades about things without relation to the topic at hand. But thepublisher always wanted you to pay heed to each reviewer and try toincorporate some of their suggestions. So you had to look for commentswhere a point might be relevant, and focus on that. I suppose that iswhy I can find the wheat for the chaff in his posts. I alwaystheorized that these people were cranks because they only made it to acertain point in their profession, but probably thought they should bethe ones writing the books, etc. but for whatever reason, didn’t orcouldn’t.But whenever you put yourself on display, whether publishing books orposting on the net, you open yourself to a certain scrutiny. And youmust accept Adenauer’s statement that, indeed, “A thick skin is a giftfrom God.”It seems we must give Larry Parr credit for identifying Greg’s “Icould have been a Contendah” malaise early, as little as I would everwant to give Parr credit for anything, one must face facts.But the scarier thought is that means I can speak Greg as well as Philnow. :)I think those kinds of comments are uncalled for, he does have hismaster’s certificate and was above 2300 for a good time. To call him amaster with an expert’s rating is quite accurate and I don’t see theshame in it (but am obviously quite biased there based on personalcircumstance). Perhaps things in his life have kept him from regainingthe title’s rating, or maybe he is past his peak, or maybe there issome form of rating deflation. Who knows? But there is no shame in anyof that.But I think based on the braying he does, “Der Esel” might be better:SBD
