Re: Unusual King's Gambit

But not about talking chess in a chess newsgroup, and not of the King's
gambit. Instead two w.nkers do their usual thing, which is to jerk each
other off   :))

Its more like visiting a home for the looney you don't want in your own home
any more, [hello grandma!] and witnessing the distrait ramblings of the dear
old fogeys, who argue with each other and the Emperor of Morocco, often
gamboling Texas and the entire Louissiana Purchase on the turn of a card.

If people do not understand a term, then based on their ignorance, plus
recent application to some resource of their choice, they then declare it
null - whereas, they ignore both origin and contemporary use - and they do
this /despite/ understanding the intent of the writer, sine their pedantry
is of the self-indulgent kind as witnessed by any rentier-reviewer.

Should we commit such people, perforce, or even by force? Should they be
allowed to vote, drive cars, write on the internet?

Hey! Loosen up and welcome to America! Where many people are bitter, but
bitterness is best buried! Lest people are encouraged to understand each
other's condition directly from each other, which is at least honest.

Otherwise you just get people who whine all the time, mostly about others.
pfft!

Cordially, Phil Obama

I don't think that the verbal construct "Innes is right" has
any actual meaning.  It's like talking about dry wetness.

Anomalous in the sense that there's no name for that kind of situation
in which Innes is right and the OED is wrong? ;-)

Dave.

Innes:  Anomalous means 'without a name'.

Dowd:  No it doesn't.  [cites dictionary definition]

And now, something typical from our Phil:

[Besides getting the meaning wrong,, Innes is also incorrect in this
-- natural philosophy is just ONE of the word's applications.]

Caught flat-footed defining a word incorrectly, Innes does his usual
dance of ignorance, confusing etymology with free-association:  "well,
err, uh, if you have something 'uneven of quality, irregular', then we
don't know what to call it, and therefore anomalous MEANS 'without a
name'.  

In some alternate universe, the usage may have EVOLVED to mean
"without a name", but it didn't do that in ours.  Unless, of course,
the OED is wrong and Innes is correct, and that would indeed be
anomalous.

On Apr 16, 8:06 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:

No it doesn't.  From Merriam's:

Etymology:
   Late Latin anomalus, from Greek anômalos, literally, uneven, from
a- + homalos even, from homos same -- more at same
Date:
   1655

** Come on Dr. D! What is 'to nominate', to 'denominate'? Surely the root~
is Greek, which means 'same', and then adoption into its Latinate form uses
that a~ prefix, which indicates it is /not/ same, irregular, deviant, not of
a general rule.

**And its //use// in English is, and always has been in natural philosophy,
to describe new and un-named species of things, which are not-same to what
we already named! Would you like to argue that point? Try it on a botanist
or two, eg. Let us know what they say.

**How odd that an MD should find the term confusing! You see below where
your own markings exist, and where you successfully recorded 'of uncertain
nature or classification'? I suggest to you that this is a clue.

**While your jests on other languages are here to amuse the herd, let you
all guffaw together therefore, while I will permit myself this private
smile.

**Meanwhile, I note that your choice in a chess thread is to answer the
first part of the question you cite above, "Anomalous means 'without a
name'. I don't know if 5. ... c6 even has an E number." rather than attempt
anything on the second, which is perhaps just as well!

** Phil Innes

1: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or
expected : irregular, unusual 2 a: of uncertain nature or
classification b: marked by incongruity or contradiction : paradoxical

Or perhaps anomalous is Andean? Or some form of Plattdeutsch??

No it doesn't.  From Merriam's:

Etymology:
   Late Latin anomalus, from Greek anōmalos, literally, uneven, from
a- + homalos even, from homos same -- more at same
Date:
   1655

1: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or
expected : irregular, unusual 2 a: of uncertain nature or
classification b: marked by incongruity or contradiction : paradoxical

Or perhaps anomalous is Andean? Or some form of Plattdeutsch??

Actually, his handle says 2750 - but his cc is 2465. This are not
Sanny-ratings.

Anomalous means 'without a name'. I don't know if 5. ... c6 even has an E
number.

Obviously, there is no other reason to block the QN than to sacrifice its
development in favor of the QB, so he can also get in Ba6 after the pawn
advances, looking at the K on f1.

You had to see all this several moves ago - which is what I am indicating
above! The point is that the White QN goes to e2. The game is poised on one
tempo, and if black allows Bxf4 then g6 allows the White King to move to g2.
If not, h4 is in the picture, with Kieseritzsky features.

Not in chess, nor in Andean. He is not a player, he is a curator-type who
can't read.

A player would engage another player in trying to understand the moves, not
worship what is in the book! But Kingston is not naive, and posted the games
anyway. Soon he will accuse me of something or other to do with 'what I
wrote'. Perhaps he will state that it is both his right and his intention to
mess up chess threads, because like many others, he doesn't understand
playing the game, and resents those who do?

It seems so stupid to worship the book and not attempt to understand the
merits of the position - indeed, why it is so rare.

I don't cheat. I don't use computers, and I don't use books. Others might,
but what's the fun in that?

And pretty soon chess morons will invade and kill another thread since they
are stumped, Schtumped! at evaluating chess moves after 10 plies. The
diversions they energetically perform is usually in inverse proportion to
their 'knowledge' of what is going on in the game.

Phil Innes

 In all my twenty-six years of reading rgc, that is
the first time Dr. IMnes managed to spell the word
correctly.  I have long grown accustomed to the
phrase "Correspon dance", which I assumed was
some Irish jig in which the men wear kilts and
bounce up and down off their heels.

 Patzer sees a check, patzer plays a check.

 For the record, is that Elo, "ELO", FIDE, USCF,
or perhaps Andean?  Wait; I know-- it's a Chess-
World online rating.

 I rarely see the King's Gambit anymore.  Maybe
the young people these days are scared to play a
line where neither side can handle the tactics.

 Certainly not.  A lot of weak players will just
"develop normally" as White has done, while
now and then, somebody on the Black side
will try ...c6, as Black has done.

 What really matters is not if those exact
moves have been tried before, but what is the
idea behind the moves?  Does Black plan to
toss up ...b5 and then ...b4, to weaken his own
Queen-side pawns?  Is White going to get his
King off of f1 anytime soon?  Where is the
Black KN going, if anywhere?  How about the
White KR?

 Sorry, but TK cannot read plain English.  You
may have better luck if you write the instructions
in Polish; he will then contact you ("Babble fish",
right?) for the translation.

 If you're only looking to move five, you could
try a free online openings database-- I have
forgotten the name of the site.  It usually does
well for several moves, then tries to get you to
purchase a membership, if you want to look
deeper in the moves-tree.

 Tactics, my boy:  after Ne4?? Black can reply
...d5!, forking two pieces.  Looks like you need
to practice a bit.  Just log on to GetClub, and
pretty soon you'll learn how all these traps and
zaps work.  (Of course, I knew you intended to
retreat the Bishop to b3 and only then play Ne4
-- just as I knew that whales are in fact just over-
grown dolphins.)

 The King's Gambit is not for the faint of heart!
I tried it, shredded my Cunningham Gambit
book, and then fainted when I saw I was busted
right in the authors' main line!  Naw-- it's back to
my trusty Queen's Gambit opening from now on.

 -- help bot

After talking around the subject here a few weeks ago, I thought I'd play a
few KG's at correspondence, so booked up on Kieseritzky and Fischer Defence,
so naturally I got this:-

1.  e4 e5
2.  f4 exf4
3.  Nf3 Be7
4.  Bc4

Ah! I know Be2 is the Cunningham, but that was originally a gambit line
combined with a subsequent g3, and I don't think its very good, so played
this thing which I don't know the name thereof.

4... Bh4 +

The question being, is that a good move, because now black's King N has
troubling developing itself.

5.  Kf1 c6

The guy I am playing is 2465, and I think that is an innovation - anyone see
it before? I was expecting d6.

6.  Nc3 Be7

We have played a few more moves - but finding something new at 5 is always
interesting and worth a look, is it anomalous? [if you found it, please
don't show subsequent moves, although I have almost certainly deviated from
any book already

A choice for White in this position is where to move the d pawn - d4 allows
the K Kt to sit defended on e5, but d3 allows the Q N to reside on e4.

Phil Innes