English Chess Forum

Couldn't resist having some fun with a photo of Carol Vorderman and Garry Kasparov I took at the Simpsons shindig last night...

http://johnchess.blogspot.com/2010/09/w ... carol.html

Oh, that's happened already then? It doesn't appear to have been a media success judging by its absence in the online editions of the main papers, though perhaps there will be some coverage tomorrow.

I must admit that it somewhat passed me by. I expected more mainstream news coverage than it actually received. Did I miss anything?

Jonathan Rogers wrote:Oh, that's happened already then? It doesn't appear to have been a media success judging by its absence in the online editions of the main papers, though perhaps there will be some coverage tomorrow.

Maybe the journalists were all too hungover?

Jonathan Rogers wrote:Oh, that's happened already then? It doesn't appear to have been a media success judging by its absence in the online editions of the main papers, though perhaps there will be some coverage tomorrow.

It is mentioned by Malcolm in his chess column in today's Telegraph. The article includes a fairly strong attack upon Ilyumzhinov. Ilyumzhinov may de jure be deprived of power in Kalmykia, but will this be de facto too?

“Пусть черт, только б иной!” (i.e. the antithesis of "Better the devil we know ...") can lead to wishful thinking.

I am guessing that the organisers hoped for a little more publicity than Malcolm's chess column. Karpov, Kasparov, Short, the mystery guests that CJ has mentioned on this forum, Carol Vordermann etc were meant to attract mainstream attention.

Perhaps indeed the journalists have not had time to file their reports yet. But there is an unearthly silence, isn't there? Why no reports or gossip about the event even on this forum? Somehow one wonders whether the only report with photos will appear on chessbase ......

Twic has a game.

Short, Nigel:Vujatovic, Rajko (2690:2222) - Kasparov, Garry:Crumiller, Jon (2812:0)
Staunton Mem Consultation game London ENG (1), 2010.09.08
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Bc5 6.Nb3 Be7 7.Qg4 g6 8.Qe2 d6 9.O-O Nd7 10.a4 b6 11.Na3 Qc7 12.Nc4 Bb7 13.a5 b5 14.Nb6 Nxb6 15.axb6 Qxb6 16.Na5 Bc8 17.Be3 Qc7 18.c4 b4 19.e5 Rb8 20.Bd4 f6 21.exf6 Nxf6 22.c5 O-O 23.cxd6 Bxd6 24.Rfc1 Bxh2+ 25.Kh1 Qf4 26.Rxc8 Qxd4 27.Rc4 Qd6 28.Rd1 Kh8 29.g3 Qd5+ 30.Kxh2 Qxa5 31.Qxe6 Qh5+ 32.Rh4 Qxd1 33.Bxg6 Ng4+ 0-1

I can tell you that we are all recovering. It was a brilliant night, probably spawned a few new and sizeable sponsorship deals and we did a lot of networking. Everyone entered into the spirit of the evening, and if you missed it, you missed a lot of fun - judging from the number of cameras and mobile phones taking footage you might want to check Facebook and YouTube. Darwin Strategic are to be commended for supporting this event, and I am sure they would like as much publicity as possible, but that wasn't the main idea of the event. I am sure we raised a lot of money!

Adam Raoof wrote

I can tell you that we are all recovering. It was a brilliant night, probably spawned a few new and sizeable sponsorship deals and we did a lot of networking. Everyone entered into the spirit of the evening, and if you missed it, you missed a lot of fun - judging from the number of cameras and mobile phones taking footage you might want to check Facebook and YouTube. Darwin Strategic are to be commended for supporting this event, and I am sure they would like as much publicity as possible, but that wasn't the main idea of the event. I am sure we raised a lot of money!

Seconded

Sean Hewitt wrote:

Jonathan Rogers wrote:Oh, that's happened already then? It doesn't appear to have been a media success judging by its absence in the online editions of the main papers, though perhaps there will be some coverage tomorrow.

Maybe the journalists were all too hungover?

Isn't that how newspaper journos work?

BTW, I know it's been said before but I'd like to say it too: I think your signature takes up too much screen estate.

Angus French wrote: BTW, I know it's been said before but I'd like to say it too: I think your signature takes up too much screen estate.

Oh no. Do you? Do you really?

I agree that your signature is too long.
The first three posts on this topic take up one screen - so one can follow the flow of conversation easily.
The fourth post by you is shorter than the others but it takes up a whole screen on its own and the flow is broken.

Could you put the image to the left of the text in the signature?

If you use Firefox then try installing the AdBlock plug-in. It allows you to avoid seeing single images , all the images from a site, images from a subdriectory on a site, images with names which match a patterm etc. It's particularly useful for blocking animated gifs, which drive me mad.

I'm afraid Sean's signature image was blocked weeks ago on my computer!

Jon D'Souza-Eva wrote:I'm afraid Sean's signature image was blocked weeks ago on my computer!

Same here.