On Mar 14, 1:08=A0pm, samsloan <samhsl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> This discussion has been going on for 9 years. It started in 1999.
> However, discussion about these particular games has been going on
> ever since the day they were played in 1948. You will find this
> controversy mentioned in issues of Chess Review back then.
>
> I have always assumed that since you keep invoking the name of John
> Nunn, that there was an article by Nunn published somewhere disputing
> the analysis by Grandmaster Evans.
I "keep invoking" Nunn?? I mentioned Nunn only once in my article.
He's much more of a bugaboo to you and Parr, Sam.
And why would you make an ASSUMPTION about what Nunn said, when you
supposedly have read my article on the K-B case, where Nunn was
quoted? You actually have never read it, have you Sam?
> Now, I find out that you cite Nunn for just a generalized statement
> that even grandmasters sometimes make terrible blunders. This is
> something everybody already knew.
>
> Back when they were played, I studied the games of the Anand-Kasparov
> Match and I can assure you than in none of those games was an
> elementary rook and two pawns against rook and one pawn position ever
> reached. Thus, it is not possible that Anand ever blundered in such an
> elementary position.
>
> A few months ago, the World Chess Champion blundered into a mate in
> one. That was a bad blunder, but the position was complex and unusual.
> Will you claim that it was a worse blunder because it caused the game
> to end quicker? What does it mean when Nunn says that other
> grandmasters have made "worse blunders"? What makes one blunder worse
> than another?
You're completely missing the point, Sam (No suprise there, since
you miss pretty much everything). I don't give a rat's rectum about
who analyzed what. You asked for Nunn's comments, saying YOU HAD NEVER
READ THEM BEFORE, and I gave them to you. I'm not interested in what
you think of Nunn's comments.
I'm asking you to explain how you can claim to have read my article,
WHEN IT INCLUDED THE NUUN QUOTE YOU NOW SAY YOU NEVER READ. You either
have the memory of an amnesiac, or you've been lying all these years.
Considering that you wrote this:
"Taylor Kingston wrote here that, based on his own analysis of the
games, the games were legitimate and not thrown." (13 March 2008, 7:25
AM Eastern daylight time)
it's quite obvious that at best you have completely misunderstood my
articles, and at worst you have NEVER READ THEM. You are wrong on
every particular in that statement.
1. I never wrote what you claim I wrote, here or anywhere else.
2. My writings on the K-B case have appeared mainly in Chess Life
and at www.chesscafe.com, not on this forum.
3. I actually reached conclusions quite the opposite of what you
attribute to me.
4. Those conclusions were not based on analysis of any games.
This is at best horrendous carelessness, at worst utter mendacity,
complete fabrication, or to put it more simply, making stuff up,
LYING. How do you explain and justify this, Sam?
Oh, and how about our bet on whether I've ever beaten a master? Got
your $10K ready yet? Or would you like to bet more?
|
