Under Statement?

Discuss anything you like about chess related matters in this forum.
Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Under Statement?

Post by Roger Lancaster » Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:14 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:07 pm
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:04 pm
Here, you're just an obsessive barking up the wrong tree.
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:47 am
Finally, if you don't mind my saying so, I'm not sure that branding others' comments as "absolute nonsense" contributes to constructive exchanges.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Roger Lancaster.
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.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Under Statement?

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:19 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:04 pm
Here, you're just an obsessive barking up the wrong tree.
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:47 am
someone 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

Roger Lancaster
Posts: 1906
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 2:44 pm

Re: Under Statement?

Post by Roger Lancaster » Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:21 pm

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".

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Under Statement?

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:23 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:21 pm
in this case, there's no "glaring conflict of interest".
Roger Lancaster wrote:
Sun Mar 28, 2021 10:47 am
The 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

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Under Statement?

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:24 pm

Roger Lancaster wrote:
Sun Mar 28, 2021 12:21 pm
Before signing off, I'll just answer Justin's selective quotes from the Guardian
Show me the ones you think I left out, then.
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

Geoff Chandler
Posts: 3484
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:36 pm
Location: Under Cover
Contact:

Re: Under Statement?

Post by Geoff Chandler » Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:17 pm

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.)

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Under Statement?

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:40 pm

Geoff Chandler wrote:
Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:17 pm
This is the kind of argument in an empty house that I am normally credited with.
No, it's the usual nothing-to-see-here that you usually do
"Do you play chess?"
"Yes, but I prefer a game with a better chance of cheating."

lostontime.blogspot.com

NickFaulks
Posts: 8452
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:28 pm

Re: Under Statement?

Post by NickFaulks » Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:03 pm

Please don't do that, I've just wasted fifteen minutes re-reading them.

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.

User avatar
JustinHorton
Posts: 10364
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 10:06 am
Location: Somewhere you're not

Re: Under Statement?

Post by JustinHorton » Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:07 pm

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

User avatar
Matt Mackenzie
Posts: 5191
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
Location: Millom, Cumbria

Re: Under Statement?

Post by Matt Mackenzie » Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:30 pm

James Pratt wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:27 pm
I 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
Though of course he did not support the revolution personally.

(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)

John Townsend
Posts: 827
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: Under Statement?

Post by John Townsend » Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:25 pm

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?

User avatar
IM Jack Rudd
Posts: 4815
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:13 am
Location: Bideford
Contact:

Re: Under Statement?

Post by IM Jack Rudd » Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:35 pm

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.)

Nick Grey
Posts: 1838
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 12:16 am

Re: Under Statement?

Post by Nick Grey » Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:45 pm

RDK bringing transgender up is topical with the census. Well done Ray.

John Townsend
Posts: 827
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: Under Statement?

Post by John Townsend » Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:03 pm

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"!

John Moore
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 6:33 pm

Re: Under Statement?

Post by John Moore » Sun Mar 28, 2021 7:18 pm

JustinHorton wrote:
Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:40 pm
Geoff Chandler wrote:
Sun Mar 28, 2021 2:17 pm
This is the kind of argument in an empty house that I am normally credited with.
No, it's the usual nothing-to-see-here that you usually do
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.

Post Reply