|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-12-20 | | Granny O Doul: Capablanca once defended a slightly inaccurate move of his on the grounds that it induced an earlier resignation than the most accurate move (some sort of sacrifice) would likely have, and was therefore the quickest way to win. |
|
Jul-12-20
 | | Sally Simpson: ***
Hi FSR,
Yes it is deep.
The 'Oxford' in the pun could have something to where ir was played. Oxford. and may be a loose reference to '"The Pearl of Zandvoort". Euwe vs Alekhine, 1935 That game was played in 1935 and in the same year Frank Parr was playing in the British Boys Championship in London. F Parr vs J Dean, 1935 and London, as we all know, is the home of the 'Pearly' Kings and Queens. Then we discover that the 'Jim Dean' Frank Parr played has on his bio: Years covered: 1935 to 2011 and J.Dean is actually given a birth date of 1978. Jim H Dean This pun is a disguised correction slip for the Jim Dean page. Very deep indeed. *** |
|
Jul-12-20
 | | OhioChessFan: A pearl of a game from a tournament in Oxford, pearl/earl...a little strained, but okay. |
|
| Jul-12-20 | | Brenin: Sorry to be pedantic about an otherwise excellent pun, but doesn't the theory allege that Shakespeare (or more precisely the author of the plays attributed to him) was really the Earl of Oxford, rather than vice versa? |
|
| Jul-12-20 | | Predrag3141: <Brenin> I believe Shakespeare did not write the plays, it was another man with the same name. I admire Hartston's restraint, building up the pressure with 20 Ne5 instead of just taking the g-pawn. |
|
| Jul-12-20 | | morfishine: <Sally Simpson> Your rambling and somewhat torturous explanation of this pun has more stretch than Ocean City Salt Water Taffy But it is entertaining, which is all that matters :) |
|
Jul-12-20
| | Sally Simpson: Hi Morf,
This is about the only pun I've ever found relevant to the actual game, we do have a Jimmy Dean born in 1978 playing chess in 1935 so I figure it is a masked correction slip. They (them that run things) started leaving corrections slips for each other in code a few years ago. Most are in the puns. *** |
|
| Jul-12-20 | | jith1207: <Sally Simpson>: True. Try taking the last letter of each player in mention. E - Euwe
A - Alekhine (first letter taken as we already got E) N - Hairston
D - Pearl of Oxford (as Parr is shaken already, this is where the pun helps, even though not as intended) Jumble up, D E A N
It all points to Dean. Jim H Dean |
|
| Jul-12-20 | | morfishine: <Sally Simson> & <jith207> I'm sure that with enough imagination, we can fit James Dean in here somehow |
|
Jul-12-20
| | Sally Simpson: ***
Well spotted Jith, their efforts to hide the D.O.B. errors in the puns have been outed. Good game. White stifling counter play and building up an overwhelming position at the same time. Very easy to drift into a poor passive position in this opening if you start experimenting. 7..Qxc5 not allowing 8.e5 is theory. *** |
|
Jul-12-20
 | | MissScarlett: Winter's <Chess Notes> used to have a regular correspondent, <W D Rubinstein>, who's written on the authorship question. <Rubinstein also researches topics discussed by amateur historians but ignored by academics. His Shadow Pasts (2007) examines such topics as the assassination of President Kennedy, Jack the Ripper, and the Shakespeare authorship question. He also explored the topic of who wrote Shakespeare’s works in a book he co-authored with Brenda James, The Truth Will Out (2005), which hypothesizes that Sir Henry Neville (c.1562-1615), an Elizabethan Member of Parliament and Ambassador to France, was the real author of Shakespeare’s works.> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willi... I read his 2012 <Who Wrote Shakespeare's Plays>. |
|
Jul-12-20
 | | Williebob: That pun is a GM-class combination! |
|
Jul-12-20
| | OhioChessFan: Snort |
|
| Jul-12-20 | | Transfinite Cardinal: What horrible play by black in 25 moves white has 2 bishops, a pawn on f6, a knight, a rook and a queen attacking his king not to mention a Rook on the queens file which can't be contested. Terrible opening by Black. |
|
| Jul-12-20 | | Predrag3141: <Transfinite Cardinal> Your handle brings me back to a summer spent studying set theory. |
|
| Jul-12-20 | | Brenin: <Transfinite Cardinal>, <Predrag3141>: Playing chess is all about implementing the Axiom of Choice. Parr made some bad choices in this game, but he was no patzer: he won Hastings 1939/40, and his game <Parr vs Wheatcroft, 1938> is a classic of sustained imaginative attack. |
|
Jul-12-20
 | | An Englishman: Good Afternoon: In 1967, the Robatsch was still considered unsound, but that changed quickly a few years later thanks to a book by Keene and Botterill on the renamed Modern Defense. A game like this didn’t hurt, either: N Caro vs Keene, 1974 |
|
| Jul-12-20 | | Predrag3141: <Brenin> F Parr vs G Wheatcroft, 1938 reminds me of Korchnoi swarming his pieces in an attack where the opponent's pieces are right there to defend but somehow can't. The game is analyzed by Stockfish, which does not correct either side for the last 6 moves. |
|
Jul-12-20
| | Sally Simpson: ***
Hi Englishman, Good evening. The Robatch/Pirc/Modern was building up a good reputation in the mid/early 60's. Botvinnik used it successfully (probably to to get away from mainline openings as he had all but retired.) Suttles championed it and here... 
click for larger view...played 7...Qxc5 a year earlier than the thread game A Schoene vs Suttles, 1966 The Keene/Botterill books on the Pirc and Modern (you had to get both as both openings sometimes transposed into each other and each book would refer to the other book to continue a line.) They came out in 1973 but by then the Pirc had been given a seal of approval after appearing in the Fischer - Spassky match. Spassky vs Fischer, 1972 again we see 7....Qxc5. Frank Parr's contribution is a lesson as to why 7...dxc5 is positionally found wanting and Hartston showed why. ---
The Shakespeare Conspiracy by Martin Keatman is one the best open-minded books I've read about Shakespeare. Half way though and the author produces evidence and convinces you the Stratford Shakespeare did not write the plays. Then in the 2nd half of the book his tone changes and he picks the first half of his findings to pieces plausibly proving otherwise. *** |
|
| Jul-12-20 | | jith1207: So, did Shakespeare write some or all his plays or they're wrongly attributed to him and the real artist never got created? Or is this all stupid exercise in vain, romanticizing the unknown of medieval times? Or are we going to call those who question the legitimacy of the legend of Shakespeare an idiot just like how we loosely term the modern conspiracy theorists, until for example USA decides to publicize the previously secret information of how UFO exists in their air space that they couldn't account for or explain by known scientific methods that those who questioned aren't idiots after all? |
|
| Jul-12-20 | | optimal play: <are we going to call those who question the legitimacy of the legend of Shakespeare an idiot> Yes.
Shakespeare wrote all the plays attributed to him. |
|
Jul-13-20
| | OhioChessFan: <are we going to call those who question the legitimacy of the legend of Shakespeare an idiot> Yes. |
|
| Jul-13-20 | | jith1207: I wonder why there's even any discussion on who wrote the plays? If that's so concrete information, it shouldn't be even a conversation. It's confusing for the uninitiated. |
|
Jul-14-20
| | Sally Simpson: ***
Hi Jith,
<" I wonder why there's even any discussion on who wrote the plays?"> If we did not discuss Shakespeare and his plays we would have to talk about chess. ‘We know what we are, but know not what we may be.' (Hamlet, Act 4 scene 5) *** |
|
| Jul-14-20 | | jith1207: That's appropriate, <Sally Simpson>. We rather not discuss chess, lest we bore ourselves into hating each other as Kenneth Rogoff would find out as his lifetime achievement, even though that was not for what he dedicated his life. |
|
 |
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 2 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
